Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Testing and Training Operations in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range, 8146-8200 [2023-02242]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8146
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 230127–0029]
RIN 0648–BL77
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Testing and Training
Operations in the Eglin Gulf Test and
Training Range
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments and information.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the U.S. Department of the Air
Force (USAF) to take marine mammals
incidental to testing and training
military operations proposed to be
conducted in the Eglin Gulf Test and
Training Range (EGTTR) from 2023 to
2030 in the Gulf of Mexico. Pursuant to
the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue regulations and
subsequent Letter of Authorization
(LOA) to the USAF to incidentally take
marine mammals during the specified
activities. NMFS will consider public
comments prior to issuing any final rule
and making final decisions on the
issuance of the requested LOA. Agency
responses to public comments will be
summarized in the notice of the final
decision in the final rule. The USAF’s
activities qualify as military readiness
activities pursuant to the MMPA, as
amended by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(2004 NDAA).
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than March 9, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking
Portal. Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA–
NMFS–2021–0064 in the Search box.
Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete
the required fields, and enter or attach
your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
A copy of the USAF’s application and
other supporting documents and
documents cited herein may be obtained
online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-us-airforce-eglin-gulf-testing-and-training. In
case of problems accessing these
documents, please use the contact listed
here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Regulatory Action
These proposed regulations, issued
under the authority of the MMPA (16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), would provide the
framework for authorizing the take of
marine mammals incidental to the
USAF’s training and testing activities
(which qualify as military readiness
activities) from air-to-surface operations
that involve firing live or inert
munitions, including missiles, bombs,
and gun ammunition, from aircraft at
various types of targets on the water
surface. Live munitions used in the
EGTTR are set to detonate either in the
air a few feet above the water,
instantaneously upon contact with the
water or target, or approximately 5 to 10
feet (ft) (1.5 to 3 meters (m)) below the
water surface. There would also be
training exercises for Navy divers that
require the placement of small explosive
charges by hand to disable live mines.
Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) would
conduct operations in the existing Live
Impact Area (LIA). In addition, the
USAF is also proposing to create and
use a new, separate LIA within the
EGTTR that would be used for live
missions in addition to the existing LIA.
Referred to as the East LIA, it is located
approximately 40 nautical miles (nmi)/
(74 kilometers (km)) southeast of the
existing LIA. (See Figure 1).
NMFS received an application from
the USAF requesting 7-year regulations
and an authorization to incidentally
take individuals of multiple species of
marine mammals (‘‘USAF’s rulemaking/
LOA application’’ or ‘‘USAF’s
application’’). Take is anticipated to
occur by Level A and Level B
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
harassment incidental to the USAF’s
training and testing activities, with no
serious injury or mortality expected or
proposed for authorization.
Background
The MMPA prohibits the take of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA direct the Secretary of
Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) 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 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 and the opportunity to
submit comments.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stocks and will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stocks for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must
prescribe the permissible methods of
taking and other means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in this rule as ‘‘mitigation
measures’’). NMFS also must prescribe
the requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
takings. The MMPA defines ‘‘take’’ to
mean to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal. The Preliminary
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section below discusses
the definition of ‘‘negligible impact.’’
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004
NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) amended
section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to
remove the ‘‘small numbers’’ and
‘‘specified geographical region’’
provisions indicated above and
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
as applied to a ‘‘military readiness
activity.’’ The definition of harassment
for military readiness activities (section
3(18)(B) of the MMPA) is: (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
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
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). In addition, the
2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it
relates to military readiness activities
such that the least practicable adverse
impact analysis shall include
consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
More recently, section 316 of the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019
NDAA) (Pub. L. 115–232), signed on
August 13, 2018, amended the MMPA to
allow incidental take rules for military
readiness activities under section
101(a)(5)(A) to be issued for up to 7
years. Prior to this amendment, all
incidental take rules under section
101(a)(5)(A) were limited to 5 years.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must evaluate our
USAF’s proposed activities and
alternatives with respect to potential
impacts on the human environment.
Accordingly, NMFS plans to adopt the
Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range
Environmental Assessment (2022 REA)
(USAF 2022), provided our independent
evaluation of the document finds that it
includes adequate information
analyzing the effects on the human
environment of issuing regulations and
LOAs under the MMPA. NMFS is a
cooperating agency on the 2022 REA
and has worked with the USAF
developing the document. The draft
2022 REA was made available for public
comment on December 13, 2022 through
January 28, 2023. We will review all
comments submitted in response to the
request for comments on the 2022 REA
and in response to the request for
comments on this proposed rule prior to
concluding our NEPA process or making
a final decision on this proposed rule
for the issuance of regulations under the
MMPA and any subsequent issuance of
a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to the
USAF to incidentally take marine
mammals during the specified activities.
Summary of Request
On January 18, 2022, NMFS received
an application from the USAF for
authorization to take marine mammals
by Level A and Level B harassment
incidental to training and testing
activities (categorized as military
readiness activities) in the EGTTR for a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
period of 7 years. On June 17, 2022
NMFS received an adequate and
complete application for missions that
would include air-to-surface operations
that involve firing live or inert
munitions, including missiles, bombs,
and gun ammunition from aircraft at
targets on the water surface. The types
of targets used vary by mission and
primarily include stationary, remotely
controlled, and towed boats, inflatable
targets, and marker flares. Live
munitions used in the EGTTR are set to
detonate either in the air a few feet
above the water surface (airburst
detonation), instantaneously upon
contact with the water or target (surface
detonation), or approximately 5 to 10
feet (1.5 to 3 m) below the water surface
(subsurface detonation). On July 17,
2022, we published a notice of receipt
(NOR) of application in the Federal
Register (87 FR 42711), requesting
comments and information related to
the USAF’s request. The public
comment period was open for 30 days.
We reviewed and considered all
comments and information received on
the NOR in development of this
proposed rule.
On February 8, 2018, NMFS
promulgated a rulemaking and issued
an LOA for takes of marine mammals
incidental to Eglin AFB’s training and
testing operations in the EGTTR (83 FR
5545). Current EGTTR operations are
authorized under the 2018 EGTTR LOA
which will expire on February 12, 2023.
Under this proposed rulemaking action,
the EGTTR would continue to be used
during the next mission period based on
the maritime training and testing
requirements of the various military
units that use the EGTTR. The next
mission period would span 7 years,
from 2023 to 2030. Most operations
during this period would be a
continuation of the same operations
conducted by the same military units
during the previous mission period.
There would, however, be an increase in
the annual quantities of all general
categories of munitions (bombs,
missiles, and gun ammunition) under
the USAF’s proposed activities, except
for live gun ammunition, which is
proposed to be used less over the next
mission period. The highest net
explosive weight (NEW) of the
munitions under the USAF’s proposed
activities would be 945 pounds (lb) (430
kilograms (kg), which was also the
highest NEW for the previous mission
period. Live missions proposed for the
2023–2030 period would be conducted
in the existing Live Impact Area (LIA)
within the EGTTR. Certain missions
may also be conducted in the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8147
East LIA, which would be a new,
separate area within the EGTTR where
live munitions would be used. The
USAF’s rulemaking/LOA application
reflects the most up-to-date compilation
of training and testing activities deemed
necessary to accomplish military
readiness requirements. EGTTR training
and testing operations are critical for
achieving military readiness and the
overall goals of the National Defense
Strategy. The regulations proposed in
this action, if issued, would be effective
for seven years, beginning from the date
of issuance.
Description of the Proposed Activity
The USAF requests authorization to
take marine mammals incidental to
conducting training and testing
activities. The USAF has determined
that acoustic and explosives stressors
are most likely to result in impacts on
marine mammals that could qualify as
take under the MMPA, and NMFS
concurs with this determination. Eglin
AFB proposes to conduct military
aircraft missions within the EGTTR that
involve the employment of multiple
types of live (explosive) and inert (nonexplosive) munitions (i.e., missiles,
bombs, and gun ammunition) against
various surface targets. Munitions may
be delivered by multiple types of
aircraft including, but not limited to,
fighter jets, bombers, and gunships.
Detailed descriptions of these
activities are described in the Eglin Gulf
Test and Training Range (EGTTR) Range
Environmental Assessment (REA)
(USAF 2022), currently under
preparation as well as the USAF’s
rulemaking/LOA application. (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-us-airforce-eglin-gulf-testing-and-training). A
summary of the proposed activities and
are presented below.
Dates and Duration
The specified activities would occur
at any time during the 7-year period of
validity of the regulations. The
proposed amount of training and testing
activities are described in the Detailed
Description of the Specified Activities
section.
Geographical Region
The Eglin Military Complex
encompasses approximately 724 square
miles (1,825 km2 of land in the Florida
Panhandle and consists of the Eglin
Reservation in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa,
and Walton Counties, and property on
Santa Rosa Island and Cape San Blas.
The EGTTR is the airspace controlled by
Eglin AFB over the Gulf of Mexico,
beginning 3 nautical miles (nmi) (5.56
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8148
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
km) from shore, and the underlying Gulf
of Mexico waters. The EGTTR extends
southward and westward off the coast of
Florida and encompasses approximately
102,000 nmi (349,850 km2). It is
subdivided into blocks of airspace that
consist of Warning Areas W–155, W–
151, W–470, W–168, and W–174 and
Eglin Water Test Areas 1 through 6
(Figure 1). Most of the blocks are further
subdivided into smaller airspace units
for scheduling purposes (for example,
W–151A, B, C, and D). Although Eglin
AFB may use any portion of the EGTTR,
the majority of training and testing
operations proposed for the 2023–2030
mission period would occur in Warning
Area W–151. The nearshore boundary of
W–151 parallels much of the coastline
of the Florida Panhandle and extends
horizontally from 3 nmi (5.56 km)
offshore to approximately 85 to 100 nmi
(158 to185 km) to offshore, depending
on the specific portion of its outer
boundary. W–151 encompasses
approximately 10,247 nmi2 (35146 km2)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
and includes water depths that range
from approximately 5 to 720 m. The
existing LIA, which is the portion of the
EGTTR where the use of live munitions
is currently authorized, lies mostly
within W–151. The existing LIA
encompasses approximately 940 nmi2
(3,224 km2 and includes water depths
that range from approximately 30 to 145
m (Figure 2). This is where live
munitions within the EGTTR are
currently used in the existing LOA (83
FR 5545; February 8, 2018) and where
the Gulf Range Armament Test Vessel
(GRATV) is anchored. The GRATV
remains anchored at a specific location
during a given mission; however, it is
mobile and relocated within the LIA
based on mission needs.
The USAF’s proposed activities
provide for the creation of a new,
separate area within the EGTTR that
would be used for live missions in
addition to the existing LIA. This area,
herein referred to as the East LIA, would
be located approximately 40 NM
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
offshore of Eglin AFB property on Cape
San Blas. Cape San Blas is located on St.
Joseph Peninsula in Gulf County,
Florida, approximately 90 mi (144 km)
southeast of the Eglin Reservation. Eglin
AFB facilities on Cape San Blas
remotely support EGTTR operations via
radar tracking, telemetry, and other
functions. The proposed East LIA would
be circular-shaped and have a radius of
approximately 10 nmi (18.5 km) and a
total area of approximately 314 NM 2.
Water depths range from approximately
35 to 95 m. The general location of the
proposed East LIA is shown in Figure 2.
Establishment of the East LIA would
allow Eglin AFB to maximize the flight
range for large-footprint weapons and
minimize the distance, time, and cost of
deploying support vessels and targets.
Based on these factors, the East LIA
would allow testing of weapon systems
and flight profiles that cannot be
conducted within the constraints of the
existing LIA.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8149
EP07FE23.046</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Detailed Description of the Specified
Activities
This section provides descriptions of
each military user group’s proposed
EGTTR operations, as well as
information regarding munitions
proposed to be used during the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
operations. This information includes
munition type, category, net explosive
weight (NEW), detonation scenario, and
annual quantity proposed to be
expended in the EGTTR. NEW applies
only to live munitions and is the total
mass of the explosive substances in a
given munition, without packaging,
casings, bullets, or other non-explosive
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
components of the munition. Note that
for some munitions the warhead is
removed and replaced with a telemetry
package that tracks the munition’s path
and/or Flight Termination System (FTS)
that ends the flight of the munition in
a controlled manner. These munitions
have been categorized as live munitions
with NEWs that range from 0.30 to 0.70
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
EP07FE23.047</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
8150
8151
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lb (0.13 to 0.31 kg) While certain
munitions with only FTS may be
considered inert due to negligible NEW,
those contained here are considered to
be live with small amounts of NEW. The
detonation scenario applies only to live
munitions which are set to detonate in
one of three ways: (1) in the air a few
feet above the water surface, referred to
as airburst or height of burst (HOB); (2)
instantaneously upon contact with the
water or target on the water surface; or
(3) after a slight delay, up to 10
milliseconds, after impact, which would
correspond to a subsurface detonation at
a water depth of approximately 5 to 10
ft (1.5 to 3 m). Estimated take is only
modeled for scenarios (2) and (3). The
proposed annual expenditures of
munitions are the quantities determined
necessary to meet the mission
requirements of the user groups.
Live missions proposed for the 2023–
2030 period would be conducted in the
existing LIA and potentially in the
proposed East LIA, depending on the
mission type and objectives. Live
missions that involve only airburst or
aerial target detonations would continue
to be conducted in or outside the LIA in
any portion of the EGTTR; such
detonations have no appreciable effect
on marine mammals because there is
negligible transmission of pressure or
acoustic energy across the air–water
interface. Use of inert munitions and
live air-to-surface gunnery operations
would also continue to occur in or
outside the LIA, subject to proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures.
Eglin AFB proposes the following
actions in the EGTTR which would be
conducted in the existing LIA and
potentially in the proposed East LIA,
depending on the mission type and
objectives:
(1) 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group
missions that involve air-to-ground
Weapons System Evaluation Program
(WSEP) known as Combat Hammer
which tests various types of munitions
against small target boats and air-to-air
missile testing known as Combat
Archer;
(2) Continuation of the Air Force
Special Operations Command (AFSOC)
training missions in the EGTTR
primarily involving air-to-surface
gunnery, bomb, and missile exercises
including AC–130 gunnery training,
CV–22 training, and bomb and missile
training;
(3) 96th Operations Group missions
including AC–130 gunnery testing
against floating marker targets on the
water surface, MQ–9 air-to-surface
testing, and 780th Test Squadron
Precision Strike Weapons testing
including air-launched cruise missile
tests, air-to-air missile tests, Longbow
and Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
testing; Spike Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS)
air-to-surface missile testing, Patriot
missile testing, Hypersonic Weapon
Testing, sink at-sea live-fire training
exercises (SINKEX), and testing using
live and inert munitions against targets
on the water surface; and
(4) Naval School Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (NAVSCOLEOD) training
missions that involve students diving
and placing small explosive charges
adjacent to inert mines.
53rd Weapons Evaluation Group
The 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group
(53 WEG) conducts the USAF’s air-toground Weapons System Evaluation
Program (WSEP). The Combat Hammer
program involves testing various types
of live and inert munitions against small
target boats. This testing is conducted to
develop tactics, techniques, and
procedures (TTP) to be used by USAF
aircraft to counter small, maneuvering,
hostile vessels. Combat Hammer
missions proposed in the EGTTR for the
2023–2030 period would involve the
use of several types of aircraft, including
F–15, F–16, F–18, F–22, F–35, and A–
10 fighter aircraft, AC–130 gunships, B–
1, B–2, and B–52 bomber aircraft, and
MQ–1 and MQ–9 drone aircraft. USAF,
Air National Guard, and U.S. Navy units
would support these missions. Live
munitions would be deployed against
static (anchored), remotely controlled,
and towed targets. Static and remotely
controlled targets would consist of
stripped boat hulls with simulated
systems and, in some cases, heat
sources. Various types of live and inert
munitions are used during Combat
Hammer missions in the EGTTR,
including missiles, bombs, and gun
ammunition. Table 1 presents
information on the munitions proposed
for Combat Hammer missions in the
EGTTR during the 2023–2030 period.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR WSEP COMBAT HAMMER MISSIONS IN THE EGTTR
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Type
Live Munitions:
AGR–20 ...............................
AGM–158D JASSM XR ......
AGM–158B JASSM ER .......
AGM–158A JASSM .............
AGM–65D ............................
AGM–65G2 ..........................
AGM–65H2 ..........................
AGM–65K2 ..........................
AGM–65L ............................
AGM–114 N–6D with TM ....
AGM–114 N–4D with TM ....
AGM–114 R2 with TM (R10)
AGM–114 R–9E with TM
(R11).
AGM–114Q with TM ............
CBU–105D ..........................
GBU–53/B (GTV) ................
GBU–39 SDB (GTV) ...........
AGM–88C w/FTS ................
AGM–88B w/FTS ................
AGM–88F w/FTS .................
AGM–88G w/FTS ................
AGM–179 JAGM .................
GBU–69 ...............................
GBU–70 ...............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Net explosive
weight (lb)/(kg)
Category
Rocket
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
9.1 (4.1)
240.26 (108.9)
240.26 (108.9)
240.26 (108.9)
150 (68)
145 (65.7)
150 (68)
145 (65.7)
150 (68)
29.1 (13.2)
29.94 (13.6)
27.41 (12.4)
27.38 (12.4)
Missile ........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
20.16 (9.1)
108.6 (49.5)
0.34(0.1)a
0.39(0.1)a
0.70 (0.31)a
0.70 (0.31)a
0.70(0.31)a
0.70(0.31)a
27.47(12.5)
6.88 (3.1)
6.88 (3.1)
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Destination scenario
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Annual quantity
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
12
4
3
3
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
Surface .......................................
HOB ...........................................
HOB/Surface ..............................
Surface .......................................
Surface .......................................
Surface .......................................
Surface .......................................
Surface .......................................
Surface .......................................
Surface .......................................
Surface .......................................
4
8
8
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8152
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR WSEP COMBAT HAMMER MISSIONS IN THE EGTTR—Continued
Net explosive
weight (lb)/(kg)
Type
Category
AGM–176 ............................
GBU–54 KMU–572C/B ........
GBU–54 KMU–572B/B ........
PGU–43 (105 mm) ..............
Inert Munitions:
ADM–160B MALD ...............
ADM–160C MALD–J ...........
ADM–160C–1 MALD–J .......
ADM–160D MALD–J ...........
GBU–10 ...............................
GBU–12 ...............................
GBU–49 ...............................
GBU–24/B (84) ....................
GBU–24A/B (109) ...............
GBU–31B(v)1 ......................
GBU–31C(v)1 ......................
GBU–31B(v)3 ......................
GBU–31C(v)3 ......................
GBU–32C ............................
GBU–38B ............................
GBU–38C w/BDU–50 (No
TM).
GBU–38C ............................
GBU–54 KMU–572C/B ........
GBU–54 KMU–572B/B ........
GBU–69 ...............................
BDU–56A/B .........................
PGU–27 (20 mm) ................
PGU–15 (30 mm) ................
PGU–25 (25 mm) ................
ALE–50 ................................
Missile ........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Gun Ammunition ........................
8.14 (3.7)
193 (87.5)
193
4.7
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Gun Ammunition ........................
Gun Ammunition ........................
Gun Ammunition ........................
Decoy System ............................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.09 (0.04)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Destination scenario
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Annual quantity
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
4
4
4
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
4
4
4
4
8
32
16
16
2
16
16
2
2
8
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
10
4
4
2
4
16,000
16,000
16,000
6
a Warhead
replaced by FTS/TM. Identified NEW is for the FTS.
ADM = American Decoy Missile; AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; ALE = Ammunition Loading Equipment; BDU = Bomb Dummy Unit; CBU =
Cluster Bomb Unit; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; ER = Extended Range; FTS = Flight Termination System; GBU = Guided
Bomb Unit; GTV = Guided Test Vehicle; HOB = height of burst; JAGM = Joint Air-to-Ground Missile; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; lb = pound(s); MALD = Miniature Air-Launched Decoy; mm = millimeter(s); N/A = not applicable; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = SmallDiameter Bomb, TM = telemetry; WSEP = Weapons System Evaluation Program.
The Combat Archer program involves
live air-to-air missile testing in the
EGTTR. Combat Archer missions also
include firing inert gun ammunition and
releasing flares and chaff from aircraft.
Air-to-air missile testing during these
missions specifically involves firing live
AIM–9 Sidewinder and AIM–120
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air
Missiles (AMRAAMs) at BOM–167
Subscale Aerial Targets and QF–16 FullScale Aerial Targets to evaluate the
effectiveness of missile delivery
techniques. Combat Archer missions
involve the use of several types of
fighter aircraft, including the F–15, F–
16, F–18, F–22, F–35, and A–10. Table
2 presents information on the munitions
proposed to be used during Combat
Archer missions in the EGTTR.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR COMBAT ARCHER MISSIONS IN THE EGTTR
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Type
Category
Live Munitions:
AIM–120D ............................
AIM–120C7 ..........................
AIM–120C5/6 .......................
AIM–120C3 ..........................
AIM–120C3 ..........................
AIM–120B ............................
AIM–9X Blk I .......................
AIM–9X Blk I .......................
AIM–9X Blk II ......................
AIM–9M–9 ...........................
Inert Munitions:
AIM–260A JATM .................
PGU–27 (20 mm) ................
PGU–23 (25 mm) ................
MJU–7A/B Flare ..................
R–188 Chaff ........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Detonation scenario
113.05
113.05
113.05
102.65
117.94
102.65
60.25
67.9
60.25
60.55
HOB ...........................................
HOB ...........................................
HOB ...........................................
HOB ...........................................
HOB/Surface ..............................
HOB ...........................................
HOB ...........................................
HOB/Surface ..............................
HOB ...........................................
HOB ...........................................
Missile ........................................
Gun Ammunition ........................
Gun Ammunition ........................
Flare ...........................................
Chaff ...........................................
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
(51.3)
(51.3)
(51.3)
(46.5)
(63.5)
(46.5)
(27.3)
(30.8)
(27.3)
(27.3)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sfmt 4702
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Annual quantity
24
10
8
14
4
18
7
10
24
90
4
80,000
6,000
1,800
6,000
8153
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR COMBAT ARCHER MISSIONS IN THE EGTTR—Continued
Type
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Category
R–196 (T–1) Chaff ..............
Chaff ...........................................
N/A
Detonation scenario
Annual quantity
N/A .............................................
1,500
AIM = Air Intercept Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; HOB = height of burst; JATM = Joint Advanced Tactical Missile; lb
= pound(s); MJU = Mobile Jettison Unit; mm = millimeter(s); N/A = not applicable; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; WSEP = Weapons System Evaluation Program.
millimeter (mm) High Explosive (HE)
and 105 mm HE rounds. A standard 105
mm HE round has a NEW of 4.7 lb. The
Training Round (TR) variant of the 105
mm HE round, which has a NEW of 0.35
lb, is used by AFSOC for nighttime
missions. This TR was developed to
have less explosive material to
minimize potential impacts to protected
marine species, which could not be
adequately surveyed at night by earlier
aircraft instrumentation. Since the
development of the 105 mm HE TR,
AC–130s have been equipped with low-
Air Force Special Operations Command
Training
The Air Force Special Operations
Command (AFSOC) proposes to
continue conducting training missions
during the 2023–2030 period. These
missions primarily involve air-tosurface gunnery, bomb, and missile
exercises. Gunnery training in the
EGTTR involves firing live rounds from
AC–130 gunships at targets on the water
surface. Gun ammunition used for this
training primarily includes 30-
light electro-optical and infrared sensor
systems that provide excellent night
vision. Targets used for AC–130
gunnery training include Mark (Mk)-25
marine markers and inflatable targets.
During each gunnery training mission,
gun firing can last up to 90 minutes but
typically lasts approximately 30
minutes. Live firing is continuous, with
pauses usually lasting well under 1
minute and rarely up to 5 minutes.
Table 3 presents information on the
rounds proposed for AC–130 gunnery
training by AFSOC.
TABLE 3—PROPOSED ROUNDS FOR AC–130 GUNNERY TRAINING IN THE EGTTR
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Type
Daytime Missions:
105 mm HE (FU) ....................
30 mm HE ..............................
Nighttime Missions:
105 mm HE (TR) ....................
30 mm HE ..............................
Total .................................
Detonation scenario
Number of
missions
Rounds per
mission
Annual
quantity
4.7 (2.1)
0.1 (0.04)
Surface ..........................................
25
30
500
750
12,500
0.35 (0.2
0.1 (0.04)
Surface ..........................................
45
30
500
1,350
22,500
..............................
........................................................
70
........................
37,100
EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; FU = Full Up; HE = High Explosive; mm = millimeter(s); lb = pound(s); TR = Training Round.
The 8th Special Operations Squadron
(8 SOS) under AFSOC conducts training
in the EGTTR using the tiltrotor CV–22
Osprey. This training involves firing .50
caliber rounds from CV–22s at floating
marker targets on the water surface. The
.50 caliber rounds do not contain
explosive material and, therefore, do not
detonate. Flight procedures for CV–22
training are similar to those described
for AC–130 gunnery training, except
that CV–22 aircraft typically operate at
much lower altitudes (100 to 1,000 feet
(30.48 to 304.8 m) (AGL) than AC–130
gunships (6,000 to 20,000 feet (1,828
to6,96 m) AGL). Like AC–130 gunships,
CV–22s are equipped with highly
sophisticated electro-optical and
infrared sensor systems that allow
advanced detection capability during
day and night. Table 4 presents
information on the rounds proposed for
CV–22 training missions.
TABLE 4—PROPOSED ROUNDS FOR CV–22 TRAINING IN THE EGTTR
Net explosive
weight
(lb)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Type
Daytime Missions:
.50 Caliber ..............................
Nighttime Missions:
.50 Caliber ..............................
Total .................................
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Number of
missions
Rounds per
mission
Annual
quantity
N/A
Surface ..........................................
25
600
15,000
N/A
Surface ..........................................
25
600
15,000
..............................
........................................................
........................
50
30,000
In addition to AC–130 gunnery and
CV–22 training, AFSOC also conducts
other air-to-surface training in the
EGTTR using various types of bombs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Detonation scenario
Jkt 259001
and missiles as shown in Table 5. This
training is conducted primarily to
develop TTPs and train strike aircraft to
counter small moving boats. Munitions
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
used for this training primarily include
live AGM–176 Griffin missiles, live
AGM–114 Hellfire missiles, and various
types of live and inert bombs. These
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8154
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
munitions are launched from various
types of aircraft against small target
boats, and they either detonate on
impact with the target or at a
programmed HOB.
TABLE 5—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR AFSOC BOMB AND MISSILE TRAINING IN THE EGTTR
Type
Net explosive weight
(lb)(kg)
Category
Live Munitions:
AGM–176 Griffin ..........
AGM–114R9E/R2
Hellfire.
2.75-inch Rocket (including APKWS).
GBU–12 .......................
Mk-81 (GP 250 lb) .......
GBU–39 (SDB I) ..........
GBU–69 .......................
Inert Munitions:
.50 caliber ....................
GBU–12 .......................
MkK–81 (GP 250 lb) ....
BDU–50 .......................
BDU–33 .......................
Detonation scenario
Annual quantity
Missile ................................
Missile ................................
4.58 (2.1)
20.0 (9.07)
HOB ...................................
HOB ...................................
100
70
Rocket ................................
2.3 (1.0)
Surface ...............................
400
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
198.0 (89.8)/298.0 (135.1)
151.0 (98.4)
37.0 (16.7)
36.0 (16.3)
Surface ...............................
Surface ...............................
HOB ...................................
HOB ...................................
30
30
30
40
Gun Ammunition ................
Bomb ..................................
Bomb ..................................
Bomb ..................................
Bomb ..................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bomb
Bomb
Bomb
Bomb
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
30,000
30
30
30
50
AFSOC = Air Force Special Operations Command; AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; APKWS = Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System; BDU =
Bomb Dummy Unit; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; GP = General Purpose; HOB = height of burst; lb
= pound(s); Mk = Mark; N/A = not applicable; SDB = Small-Diameter Bomb.
96th Operations Group
Three units under the 96th Operations
Group (96 OG) propose to conduct
missions in the EGTTR during the
2023–2030 period: the 417th Flight Test
Squadron (417 FLTS), the 96th
Operational Support Squadron (96
OSS), and the 780th Test Squadron (780
TS).
The 417 FLTS proposes to continue
conducting AC–130 testing in the
EGTTR to evaluate the capabilities of
the Precision Strike Package (PSP),
Stand Off Precision Guided Munitions
(SOPGM), and other systems on AC–
13O aircraft. AC–130 gunnery testing is
generally similar to activities previously
described for AFSOC AC–130 gunnery
training.
Table 6 presents information on the
munitions proposed for AC–130 testing
in the EGTTR during the 2023–2030
mission period.
TABLE 6—PROPOSED ROUNDS FOR AC–130 GUNNERY TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Type
Category
Live Munitions:
AGM–176 Griffin ..................
AGM–114 Hellfire ................
GBU–39 (SDB I) ..................
GBU–39 (LSDB) ..................
105 mm HE (FU) .................
105 mm HE (TR) .................
30 mm HE ...........................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Gun Ammunition ........................
Gun Ammunition ........................
Gun Ammunition ........................
4.58 (2.1)
20.0 (9.1)
37.0 (16.8)
37.0 (16.8)
4.7 (2.1)
0.35 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
Detonation scenario
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
Annual quantity
10
10
6
10
60
60
99
AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; FU = Full Up; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HE = High Explosive; lb
= pound(s); mm = millimeter(s); LSDB = Laser Small-Diameter Bomb; SDB = Small-Diameter Bomb; TR = Training Round.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
The 96 OSS proposes to conduct airto-surface testing in the EGTTR using
assorted live missiles and live and inert
precision-guided bombs to support
testing requirements of the MQ–9
Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
program. The proposed munitions
would be tested for MQ–9 integration
and would include captive carry and
munitions employment tests. During
munition employment tests, the
proposed munitions would be launched
from MQ–9 aircraft at various types of
static and moving targets on the water
surface. Table 7 presents information on
the munitions proposed by the 96 OSS
for MQ–9 testing in the EGTTR.
TABLE 7—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR MQ–9 TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Type
Category
Live Munitions:
AGM–114R Hellfire .............
AIM–9X ................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
20.0 (9.1)
7.9 (3.6)
Sfmt 4702
Detonation scenario
Surface .......................................
HOB ...........................................
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Annual quantity
36
1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
8155
TABLE 7—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR MQ–9 TESTING IN THE EGTTR—Continued
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Type
Category
Detonation scenario
Annual quantity
GBU–39B/B LSDB ..............
Inert Munitions:
GBU–39B/B LSDB ..............
GBU–49 ...............................
GBU–48 ...............................
Bomb ..........................................
37.0 (16.8)
Surface .......................................
2
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A .............................................
N/A .............................................
N/A .............................................
2
10
1
AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; AIM = Air Intercept Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; lb =
pound(s); LSDB = Laser Small-Diameter Bomb.
The 780 TS, the Air Force Life Cycle
Management Center, and the U.S. Navy
jointly conduct Precision Strike
Weapons (PSW) test missions in the
EGTTR. These missions use the AGM–
158 JASSM and GBU–39 SDB precisionguided bomb. The JASSM is an airlaunched cruise missile with a range of
more than 200 nmi (370 km). During test
missions, the JASSM would be
launched from aircraft more than 200
nmi (370 km) from the target location at
altitudes greater than 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
km above ground level (AGL). The
JASSM would cruise at altitudes greater
than 12,000 ft (3,657 m) AGL for most
of the flight profile until its terminal
descent toward the target. The GBU–39
SDB is a precision-guided glide bomb
with a range of more than 50 nmi (92.6
km). This bomb would be launched
from aircraft more than 50 nmi (92.6
km) from the target location at altitudes
greater than 5,000 ft (1,524 m) AGL. The
bomb would travel via a non-powered
glide to the intended target.
Instrumentation in the bomb selfcontrols the bomb’s flight path. Live
JASSMs would detonate at a HOB of
approximately 5 ft (0.30 m); however,
these detonations are assumed to occur
at the surface for the impact analysis.
The SDBs would detonate either at a
HOB of approximately 7 to 14 ft (2.1 to
4.2 m) or upon impact with the target
(surface). For simultaneous SDB
launches, two SDBs would be launched
from the same aircraft at approximately
the same time to strike the same target.
The SDBs would strike the target within
approximately 5 seconds or less of each
other. Such detonations would be
considered a single event, with the
associated NEW being doubled for a
conservative impact analysis.
Two types of targets are typically used
for PSW tests: Container Express
(CONEX) targets and hopper barge
targets. CONEX targets typically consist
of up to five CONEX containers
strapped, braced, and welded together
to form a single structure. A hopper
barge is a common type of barge that
cannot move itself; a typical hopper
barge measures approximately 30 ft (9.1
m) by 12 ft (3.6 m) by 125 ft (38.1 m).
Other SDB tests in the EGTTR during
the 2023–2030 mission period may
include operational testing of the GBU–
53 (SDB II). These tests may involve live
and inert testing of the munition against
target boats.
Table 8 presents information on the
munitions proposed for PSW missions
in the EGTTR during the 2023–2030
period.
TABLE 8—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR PRECISION STRIKE WEAPON MISSIONS
Type
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Category
Live Munitions:
AGM–158 (JASSM) .............
GBU–39 (SDB I) ..................
GBU–39 (SDB I) Simultaneous Launcha.
GBU–53 (SDB II) .................
Inert Munitions:
AGM–158 (JASSM) .............
GBU–39 (SDB I) ..................
GBU–39 (SDB I) Simultaneous Launch.
GBU–53 (SDB II) .................
Detonation scenario
Annual quantity
Missile ........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
240.26 (108.9)
37.0 (16.8)
74.0 (33.35)
Surface .......................................
HOB/Surface ..............................
HOB/Surface ..............................
2
2
2
Bomb ..........................................
22.84 (10.4)
HOB/Surface ..............................
2
Missile ........................................
Bomb ..........................................
Bomb ..........................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A .............................................
N/A .............................................
N/A .............................................
4
4
4
Bomb ..........................................
N/A
N/A .............................................
1
a
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
NEW is doubled for simultaneous launch.
AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HOB = height of burst; JASSM = Joint
Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; lb = pound(s); N/A = not applicable; SDB = Small-Diameter Bomb.
The 780 TS, along with the Air Force
Life Cycle Management Center and U.S.
Navy, propose to jointly conduct air-toair missile testing in the EGTTR. These
missions would involve the use of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
AIM–260A Joint Advanced Tactical
Missile (JATM), AIM–9X Sidewinder,
and AIM–120 AMRAAM missiles; all
missiles used in these tests would be
inert. Table 9 presents information on
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the munitions proposed for air-to-air
missile testing missions in the EGTTR
during the 2023–2030 mission period.
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8156
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Net explosive
weight
(lb)
Type
Category
AIM–260 JATM—Inert ................
AIM–9X—Inert ............................
AIM–120 AMRAAM—Inert ..........
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
Detonation
scenario
Annual quantity
N/A .............................................
N/A .............................................
N/A .............................................
6
10
15
AIM = Air Intercept Missile; AMRAAM = Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; lb =
pound(s); JATM = Joint Advanced Tactical Missile; N/A = not applicable.
The 780 TS proposes to test the ability
of the AGM–114L Longbow missile and
AGM–179A Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
(JAGM) missile to track and impact
moving target boats in the EGTTR as
shown in Table 10. These missiles are
typically launched from an AH–64D
Apache helicopter. The test targets
would be remotely controlled boats,
including the 25-foot High-Speed
Maneuverable Surface Target (HSMST)
(foam filled) and 41-foot (12.5 m) Coast
Guard Utility Boat (metal hull). The
missiles would be launched
approximately 0.9 to 4.3 nmi (1.7 to 7.9
km) from the targets.
TABLE 10—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR LONGBOW AND JAGM MISSILE TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Type
Category
AGM–114L Longbow ..................
AGM–179A JAGM ......................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
35.95 (16.3)
27.47 (11.1)
Detonation
scenario
Annual quantity
HOB ...........................................
HOB ...........................................
6
8
AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; HOB = height of burst; JAGM = Joint Air-to-Ground Missile; lb =
pound(s).
The 780 TS proposes to test the Spike
Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) air-to-surface
tactical missile system against static and
moving target boats in the EGTTR in
support of the U.S. Army’s initiative to
incorporate the Spike NLOS missile
system onto the AH–64E Apache
helicopter. These missiles shown in
Table 11 would be launched from an
AH–64D Apache helicopter and the test
targets would include foam-filled
fiberglass boats approximately 25 ft
(7.62 m) in length that are either
anchored or towed by a remotely
controlled (HSMST).
TABLE 11—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR NLOS SPIKE MISSILE TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Type
Category
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Detonation
scenario
Annual quantity
Spike NLOS ................................
Missile ........................................
34.08 (14.5)
Surface .......................................
3
The 780 TS proposes to conduct
surface-to-air testing of Patriot
Advanced Capability (PAC)–2 and PAC–
3 missiles in the EGTTR. These missiles
are expected to be fired from the A–15
launch site on Santa Rosa Island at
drones in the EGTTR. Detailed
operational data for this testing are not
yet available. Standard inventory
missiles would be used and up to eight
PAC–2 tests and two PAC–3 tests per
year are proposed as shown in Table 12.
TABLE 12—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR PATRIOT MISSILE TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Category
PAC–2 ........................................
PAC–3 ........................................
Missile ........................................
Missile ........................................
a
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Type
a145.0
a145.0
(65.7)
(65.7)
Detonation
scenario
N/A (drone target) ......................
N/A (drone target) ......................
Annual quantity
8
2
Assumed for impact analysis.
Hypersonic weapons are capable of
traveling at least five times the speed of
sound, referred to as Mach 5. While
conventional weapons typically rely on
explosive warheads to inflict damage on
a target, hypersonic weapons typically
rely on kinetic energy from highvelocity impact to inflict damage on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
targets. For the purpose of assessing
impacts, the kinetic energy of a
hypersonic weapon may be correlated to
energy release in units of feet-lb or
trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalency.
The 780 TS supports several
hypersonic weapon programs, including
the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(HACM) and Precision Strike Missile
(PrSM) programs, which are presented
in Table 13.
HACM is a developmental airbreathing hypersonic cruise missile that
uses scramjet technology for propulsion.
This weapon would air-launched. The
780 TS proposes to conduct HACM
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8157
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The PrSM is being developed by the
U.S. Army as a surface-to-surface, longrange, precision-strike guided missile to
be fired from the M270A1 Multiple
Launch Rocket System and the M142
High Mobility Artillery Rocket System.
The 780 TS in coordination with the
U.S. Army proposes to conduct PrSM
testing in the EGTTR. Some PrSM
testing is expected to involve surface
launches of the PrSM from the A–15
launch site on Santa Rosa Island. The
dimensions and orientation of the test
flight corridor within the EGTTR for
PrSM tests are to be determined; the
testing, which would involve air
launches through a north-south corridor
within the EGTTR to a target location on
the water surface. The dimensions and
orientation of the test flight corridor
within the EGTTR for HACM tests are
to be determined; the flight corridor is
preliminarily expected to be 300 to 400
nmi (555 to 740 km) in total length. Live
HACMs would be fired from the
southern portion of the EGTTR into
either the existing LIA or proposed East
LIA. Up to two live HACMs per year are
proposed to be tested in the EGTTR
during the 2023–2030 mission period.
flight corridor is preliminarily expected
to be 162 to 270 nmi (300 to 500 km)
in total length. For tests that involve a
live warhead on the PrSM, the PrSM
would be preset to detonate at a specific
height above the water surface (HOB/
airburst) and could occur in any portion
of the EGTTR. Any surface strikes
proposed with live PrSMs would be
required to be in the existing LIA or
proposed East LIA. Like inert HACM
tests, inert PrSM tests could occur in
any portion of the EGTTR, except
between the 100-m and 400-m isobaths
to prevent impacts to the Rice’s whale.
TABLE 13—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR HYPERSONIC WEAPON TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Type
Live Munitions:
HACM ..................................
PrSM ....................................
Inert Munitions:
PrSM—Inert .........................
a
Net explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Category
Hypersonic Weapon ...................
Hypersonic Weapon ...................
a350
a46
Detonation
scenario
Annual quantity
(158.7)
(158.7)
Surface .......................................
HOB ...........................................
2
2
N/A
N/A .............................................
2
Hypersonic Weapon ...................
Net explosive weight at impact/detonation.
The 780 TS, in coordination with the
Air Force Research Laboratory, proposes
to conduct SINKEX testing in the
EGTTR. SINKEX exercises would
involve the sinking of vessels, typically
200–400 ft (61 –122 m) in length, in the
existing LIA. The types of munitions
that would be used for SINKEX testing
is controlled information and, therefore,
not identified (Table 14).
TABLE 14—PROPOSED SINKEX EXERCISES IN THE EGTTR
Type
Category
Net explosive weight
(lb)
Detonation
scenario
SINKEX ..................................
Vessel Sinking Exercise ......
Not Available ........................
Not Available ........................
The 780 TS plans to lead or support
other types of testing in the EGTTR as
shown in Table 15. These missions
would primarily include testing live and
inert munitions against targets on the
water surface, such as boats and barges.
Some of the tests would involve
munitions with NEWs of up to 945 lb,
Annual quantity
2
which is the highest NEW associated
with the munitions analyzed in this
LOA application.
TABLE 15—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR OTHER 780 TEST SQUADRON TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Category
Net explosive weight
(lb)/(kg)
Detonation
scenario
Target type
Bomb ..........................
945 (428.5) .................
Subsurface .................
TBD ............................
4 to 8
Bomb ..........................
945 (428.5) or less .....
HOB ............................
TBD ............................
2
Bomb ..........................
0.4 (0.2) ......................
HOB/Surface ..............
Small Boat ..................
4
Bomb ..........................
0.4 (0.2) ......................
HOB/Surface ..............
Small Boat ..................
4
Missile ........................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
TBD ............................
7
Booster .......................
Bomb ..........................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
TBD ............................
Water Surface and
Barge.
1
3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Type
Live Munitions:
GBU–10, 24, or
31
(QUICKSINK).
2,000 lb bomb
with JDAM kit.
Inert GBU–39
(LSDB).
with live fuze .......
Inert GBU–53
(SDB II).
with live fuze .......
Inert Munitions:
SiAW AARGM–
ER.
Multipurpose Booster
JDAM ER ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Annual quantity
8158
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 15—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR OTHER 780 TEST SQUADRON TESTING IN THE EGTTR—Continued
Category
Net explosive weight
(lb)/(kg)
Detonation
scenario
Target type
Torpedo ......................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
Water Surface ............
Type
Navy HAAWC ......
Annual quantity
2
AARGM–ER = Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile—Extended Range; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; Guided Bomb Unit;
HOB = height of burst; HAAWC = High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability; JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; lb = pound(s);
LSDB = Laser Small-Diameter Bomb; N/A = not applicable; SDB = Small-Diameter Bomb; SiAW = Stand-in Attack Weapon; TBD = to be
determined.
The 96 OG proposes to continue
expending approximately nine inert
bombs a year in the EGTTR for testing
purposes. The bombs are expected to be
up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) in total weight.
For the impact analysis, the bombs to be
used by the 96 OG in the EGTTR during
the 2023–2030 mission period are
assumed to be Mk–84 2,000 lb (907 kg)
General Purpose (GP) inert bombs
(Table 16).
TABLE 16—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR INERT BOMB TESTING IN THE EGTTR
Type
Category
Net explosive
weight
(lb)
Detonation
scenario
Annual quantity
Mk-84 (GP 2,000 lb) a ............................
Bomb .....................................................
N/A
N/A
9
aAssumed
for impact analysis.
EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; GP = General Purpose; lb = pound(s); Mk = Mark; N/A = not applicable.
Naval School Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (NAVSCOLEOD)
NAVSCOLEOD proposes to conduct
training missions in the EGTTR which
would include Countermeasures (MCM)
exercises to teach NAVSCOLEOD
students techniques for neutralizing
mines underwater (Table 17).
Underwater MCM training exercises are
conducted in nearshore waters and
primarily involve diving and placing
small explosive charges adjacent to inert
mines by hand; the detonation of such
charges disables live mines.
NAVSCOLEOD training is conducted
offshore of Santa Rosa Island and in
other locations and has not yet extended
into the EGTTR. NAVSCOLEOD training
proposed for the 2023–2030 mission
period would extend approximately 5
nmi (9.26 km) offshore of Santa Rosa
Island, in the EGTTR. Up to 8 MCM
training missions would be conducted
annually in the EGTTR during the
2023–2030 period. Each mission would
involve 4 underwater detonations of
charges hand placed adjacent to inert
mines, for a total of 32 annual
detonations. The MCM neutralization
charges consist of C–4 explosives,
detonation cord, non-electric blasting
caps, time fuzes, and fuze igniters; each
charge has a NEW of approximately 20
lb. (9.07 kg). During each mission, with
a maximum of 4 charges, would
detonate with a delay no greater than 20
minutes between shots. After the final
detonation, or a delay greater than 20
minutes, a 30-minute environmental
observation would be conducted.
Additionally, NAVSCOLEOD proposes
to conduct up to 80 floating mine
training missions, which would involve
detonations of charges on the water
surface; these charges would have a
NEW of approximately 5 lb (2.3 kg). All
NAVSCOLEOD missions would occur
only during daylight hours.
TABLE 17—PROPOSED MUNITIONS FOR NAVSCOLEOD TRAINING IN THE EGTTR
Category
Underwater Mine Charge ...........
Floating Mine Charge .................
Charge .......................................
Charge .......................................
a
a20
a5
(9.1)
(2.3)
Detonation scenario
Subsurface .................................
Surface .......................................
Annual quantity
32
80
Estimated
Description of Stressors
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Net Explosive
weight
(lb)/(kg)
Type
The USAF uses the EGTTR for
training purposes and for testing of a
variety of weapon systems described in
this proposed rule. All of the weapons
systems considered likely to cause the
take of marine mammals involve
explosive detonations. Training and
testing with these systems may
introduce acoustic (sound) energy or
shock waves from explosives into the
environment. The following section
describes explosives detonated at or just
below the surface of the water within
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
the EGTTR. Because of the complexity
of analyzing sound propagation in the
ocean environment, the USAF relied on
acoustic models in its environmental
analyses and rulemaking/LOA
application that considered sound
source characteristics and conditions
across the EGTTR.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
surface. When an air-to-surface
munition impacts the water, some of the
kinetic energy displaces water in the
formation of an impact ‘‘crater’’ in the
water, some of the kinetic energy is
transmitted from the impact point as
underwater acoustic energy in a
pressure impulse, and the remaining
kinetic energy is retained by the
munition continuing to move through
the water. Following impact, the
warhead of a live munition detonates at
or slightly below the water surface. The
warhead detonation converts explosive
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8159
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
material into gas, further displacing
water through the rapid creation of a gas
bubble in the water, and creates a much
larger pressure wave than the pressure
wave created by the impact. These
impulse pressure waves radiate from the
impact point at the speed of sound in
water, roughly 1,500 m per second. If
the detonation is sufficiently deep, the
gas bubble goes through a series of
expansions and contractions, with each
cycle being of successively lower
energy. When detonations occur below
but near the water surface, the initial gas
bubble reaches the surface and causes
venting, which also dissipates energy
through the ejection of water and release
of detonation gases into the atmosphere.
When a detonation occurs below the
water surface after the impact crater has
fully or partially closed, water can be
violently ejected upward by the
pressure impulse and through venting of
the gas bubble formed by the
detonation.
With radii of up to 15 m, the gas
bubbles that would be generated by
EGTTR munition detonations would be
larger than the depth of detonation but
much smaller than the water depth, so
all munitions analyzed are considered
to fully vent to the surface without
forming underwater bubble expansion
and contraction cycles. When
detonations occur at the water surface,
a large portion of the energy and gases
that would otherwise form a detonation
bubble are reflected upward from the
water. Likewise, when a shallow
detonation occurs below the water
surface but prior to the impact crater
closing, considerable energy is reflected
upward from the water. As a
conservative assumption, no energy
losses from surface effects are included
in the acoustic model.
The impulsive pressure waves
generated by munition impact and
warhead detonation radiate spherically
and are reflected between the water
surface and the sea bottom. There is
generally some attenuation of the
pressure waves by the sea bottom but
relatively little attenuation of the
pressure waves by the water surface. As
a conservative assumption, the water
surface is assumed to be flat (no waves)
to allow for maximum reflectivity.
Additionally, is it assumed that all
detonations occur in the water and none
of the detonations occur above the water
surface when a munition impacts a
target. This conservative assumption
implies that all munition energy is
imparted to the water rather than the
intended targets. The potential impacts
of exposure to explosive detonations are
discussed in detail in the Potential
Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and their Habitat section.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activities
Table 18 lists all species or stocks for
which take is expected and proposed to
be authorized for this activity, and
summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including
regulatory status under the MMPA and
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
potential biological removal (PBR),
where known. PBR is 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 (as
described in NMFS’ SARs). While no
serious injury or mortality is expected to
occur, PBR and annual serious injury
and mortality from anthropogenic
sources are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species or
stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’ stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All stocks
managed under the MMPA in this
region are assessed in NMFS’ 2021 U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessment (Hayes et al.
2022; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). All values presented in Table
18 are the most recent available at the
time of publication and are available
online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-stock-assessments).
TABLE 18—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHICAL REGION
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
NMFS stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Rice’s whale 4 .....................
Balaenoptera ricei .....................
Gulf of Mexico ...........................
E/D; Y
51 (0.50; 34; 2017–18) ...
0.1
0.5
556
65
166
36
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Common bottlenose dolphin
Tursiops 939runcates truncatus
Atlantic spotted dolphin ......
Stenella frontalis .......................
Northern
GOM
Continental
Shelf.
GOM .........................................
-; N
-; N
63,280 (0.11; 57,917;
2018).
21,506 (0.26; 17,339;
2017–18).
1 ESA status: Endangered/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 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 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is
coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
3 These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality (M) plus serious injury (SI) from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, ship strike). These values are generally considered minimums because, among other reasons, not all fisheries that could interact with a particular stock are
observed and/or observer coverage is very low, and, for some stocks (such as the Atlantic spotted dolphin and continental shelf stock of bottlenose dolphin), no estimate for injury due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has been included. See SARs for further discussion.
4 The 2021 final rule refers to the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni). These whales were subsequently described as a new species, Rice’s
whale (Balaenoptera ricei) (Rosel et al., 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
8160
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
As indicated above, all three species
(with three managed stocks) in Table 18
temporally and spatially co-occur with
the activity to the degree that take is
reasonably likely to occur. These
species are generally categorized into
those species that occur over the
continental shelf, which is typically
considered to extend from shore to the
200-m (656-ft) isobath, and those
species that occur beyond the
continental shelf break in waters deeper
than 200 m. Since water depths range
from approximately 30 to 145 m in the
existing LIA and from approximately 35
to 95 m in the proposed new East LIA,
most of EGTTR activities would occur
in waters over the continental shelf.
Any live munitions would be set to
detonate above the water surface if used
outside the LIA beyond the 200-m
isobath. Airburst detonations are not
considered to affect marine mammals
because there is little transmission of
pressure or sound energy across the airwater interface. For these reasons, only
cetacean species that predominantly
occur landward of the 200-m isobath are
carried forward in the analysis. These
species include common bottlenose
dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, and
Rice’s whale.
(5.5 km) offshore, where water depths
can be 20 m or slightly less. However,
given that most EGTTR operations
would occur in either the existing LIA,
where water depths range from
approximately 30 to 145 m, or in the
proposed East LIA, where water depths
range from approximately 35 to 85 m,
EGTTR operations are expected to have
no appreciable effect on this stock. The
Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental
Shelf Stock inhabits waters that are 20
to 200 m deep and, therefore, is
expected to be the primary bottlenose
dolphin stock that occurs in the existing
LIA. The Northern Gulf of Mexico
Oceanic Stock inhabits waters deeper
than 200 m and, therefore, is not
expected to be exposed to or affected by
EGGTR operations in either LIA.
The bottlenose dolphin reaches a
length ranging from about 6 to 13 ft (1.8
to 3.9 m) and a weight ranging from
about 300 to 1,400 lb (136 to 635 kg).
The diet of bottlenose dolphins consists
primarily of fish, squid, and
crustaceans. They hunt for prey using a
variety of techniques individually and
cooperatively. For example, they may
work as a group to herd and trap fish as
well as use high-frequency
echolocation, to catch prey.
Common Bottlenose Dolphin
The common bottlenose dolphin is
abundant in the northeastern Gulf from
inshore to upper continental slope
waters less than 1,000 m deep (Mullin
and Fulling 2004). It is the most
common cetacean species found in the
coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Genetically distinct coastal and offshore
ecotypes of the bottlenose dolphin occur
in the Gulf of Mexico and in other
locations (Hoelzel et al. 1998). A total of
36 common bottlenose dolphin stocks
have been identified in the northern
Gulf of Mexico including coastal,
continental shelf, and oceanic stocks, as
well as 31 bay, sound, and estuarine
stocks (Waring et al. 2016). Stocks that
may be found near or within the EGTTR
include the Gulf of Mexico Northern
Coastal, Northern Gulf of Mexico
Continental Shelf, and Northern Gulf of
Mexico Oceanic stocks, in addition to
three inshore stocks, which include the
Choctawhatchee Bay, Pensacola/East
Bay, and St. Andrew Bay stocks.
However, the designated inshore stock
areas are landward of the EGTTR
boundary; therefore, individuals from
these stocks are not anticipated to be
exposed to or affected by EGTTR
operations. The Gulf of Mexico
Northern Coastal Stock inhabits waters
from shore to the 20-m (65-ft) isobath
and, therefore, has potential to occur
within the EGTTR, which starts at 3 nmi
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
The Atlantic spotted dolphin occurs
throughout the Atlantic Ocean and the
Gulf of Mexico. There is a single stock
of the Atlantic spotted dolphin in U.S.
Gulf waters, which is the Northern Gulf
of Mexico Stock. Animals occur
primarily from continental shelf waters
of 10–200 m deep to slope waters <500
m deep and were spotted in all seasons
during aerial and vessel surveys of the
northern Gulf of Mexico (i.e., U.S. Gulf
of Mexico; Hansen et al. 1996; Mullin
and Hoggard 2000; Fulling et al. 2003;
Mullin and Fulling 2004; Maze-Foley
and Mullin 2006). Atlantic spotted
dolphins are about 5 to 7.5 ft (1.5 to 2.3
m) long and weigh about 220 to 315 lb
(99.8 to 142.8 kg). Their diet consists
primarily of small fish, invertebrates,
and cephalopods, which they catch
using a variety of techniques including
echolocation. Atlantic spotted dolphins
are social animals and form groups of
up to 200 individuals. Most groups
consist of fewer than 50 individuals,
and in coastal waters groups typically
consist of 5 to 15 individuals (NMFS
2021b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Rice’s Whale
The Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale
was listed as endangered throughout its
entire range on April 15, 2019, under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Based on genetic analyses and new
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
morphological information NOAA
Fisheries recently revised the common
and scientific names to recognize this
new species (Balaenoptera ricei) as
being separate from other Bryde’s whale
populations (86 FR 47022; August 21,
2021). Rosel and Wilcox (2014) first
identified a new, evolutionarily distinct
lineage of whale in the Gulf of Mexico.
Genetic analysis of whales sampled in
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico
revealed that this population is
evolutionarily distinct from all other
whales within the Bryde’s whale
complex and all other known
balaenopterid species (Rosel and Wilcox
2014).
The Rice’s whale is the only yearround resident baleen whale species in
the Gulf of Mexico. Rosel et.al. (2021)
reported that based on a compilation of
sighting and stranding data from 1992 to
2019, the primary habitat of the Rice’s
whale is the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico, particularly the De Soto Canyon
area, at water depths of 150 to 410 m.
Biologically Important Areas (BIAs)
include areas of known importance for
reproduction, feeding, or migration, or
areas where small and resident
populations are known to occur (Van
Parijs, 2015). Unlike ESA critical
habitat, these areas are not formally
designated pursuant to any statute or
law but are a compilation of the best
available science intended to inform
impact and mitigation analyses. In 2015,
a year round small and resident
population BIA for Bryde’s whales (later
designated as Rice’s whales) was
identified from the De Soto Canyon
along the shelf break to the southeast
(LaBrecque et al. 2015). The 23,559 km2
BIA covers waters between 100 and 300
m deep from approximately south of
Pensacola to approximately west of Fort
Myers, FL (LaBrecque et al. 2015). The
deepest location where a Rice’s whale
has been sighted is 408 m (Rosel et al.
2021). Habitat for the Rice’s whale is
currently considered by NMFS to be
primarily within the depth range of 100
to 400 m in this part of the Gulf of
Mexico (NMFS 2016, 2020a), and in
2019 NMFS delineated a Core
Distribution Area (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/
rices-whale-core-distribution-area-mapgis-data) based on visual and tag data
available through 2019. No critical
habitat has yet been designated for the
species, and no recovery plan has yet
been developed.
The Rice’s whale is a medium-sized
baleen whale. To date, the largest
verified Rice’s whale to strand was a
lactating female about 12.65 m long; the
largest male was 11.26 m (Rosel et al.
2021). Little is known about their
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
freshwater discharge. This UME is
closed.
foraging ecology and diet. However,
data from two Rice’s whales suggest
they may mostly forage at or near the
seafloor.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs)
An UME is defined under Section
410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding that
is unexpected; it involves a significant
die-off of any marine mammal
population and demands immediate
response. There are currently no UMEs
with ongoing investigations in the
EGTTR. There was a UME for bottlenose
dolphins that was active beginning in
February 2019 and closing in November
of the same year that included the
northern Gulf of Mexico. Dolphins
developed lesions that were thought to
be caused by exposure to low salinity
water stemming from extreme
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Not all marine mammal
species have equal hearing capabilities
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings,
2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine
mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured
(behavioral or auditory evoked potential
8161
techniques) or estimated hearing ranges
(behavioral response data, anatomical
modeling, etc.). Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine
mammal hearing groups and their
associated hearing ranges are provided
in Table 19.
TABLE 19—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
[NMFS, 2018]
Generalized hearing
range *
Hearing group
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 & 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.
* 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).
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemila¨ et al. 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section includes a summary of
the ways that components of the
specified activity may impact marine
mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section later in this rule includes a
quantitative analysis of the number of
instances of take that could occur from
these activities. The Preliminary
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section considers the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
content of this section, the Estimated
Take of Marine Mammals section, and
the Proposed Mitigation Measures
section to draw conclusions regarding
the likely impacts of these activities on
the reproductive success or survivorship
of individuals and whether those
impacts on individuals are likely to
adversely affect the species through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The USAF has requested
authorization for the take of marine
mammals that may occur incidental to
training and testing activities in the
EGTTR. The USAF analyzed potential
impacts to marine mammals from air-tosurface operations that involve firing
live or inert munitions, including
missiles, bombs, and gun ammunition,
from aircraft at targets on the water
surface in the LOA application as well
as the 2022 REA, for which NMFS
served as a cooperating agency. The
proposed training and testing exercises
have the potential to cause take of
marine mammals by exposing them to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
impulsive noise and pressure waves
generated by explosive detonation at or
near the surface of the water. Exposure
to noise or pressure resulting from these
detonations could result in non-lethal
injury (Level A harassment) or
disturbance (Level B harassment). As
explained in the Estimated Take of
Marine Mammals section, neither
mortality nor non-auditory injury are
anticipated or authorized.
A summary of the potential impacts of
the pressure waves generated by
explosive detonations is included
below. Following, a brief technical
background is provided here on sound,
on the characteristics of certain sound
types, and on metrics used in this
proposal. Last, a brief overview of the
potential effects (e.g., tolerance,
masking, hearing threshold shift,
behavioral disturbance, and stress
responses) to marine mammals
associated with the USAF’s proposed
activities is included.
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
8162
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Impacts from Pressure Waves Caused by
Explosive Detonations
Exposure to the pressure waves
generated by explosive detonations has
the potential to cause injury, serious
injury, or mortality, although those
impacts are not anticipated here. (This
conclusion is based on the size, type,
depth, and duration of the explosives in
combination with the density of marine
mammals, which together predict a low
probability of exposures, as well as the
required mitigation measures, as
described in detail the Estimated Take
of Marine Mammals section.) The
potential acoustic impacts of explosive
detonations (e.g., permanent threshold
shift (PTS), temporary threshold shift
(TTS), and behavioral disturbance) are
described in subsequent sections.
Generally speaking, the pressure from
munition detonations have the potential
to cause mortality, injury, hearing
impairment, or behavioral disturbances
in marine mammals, depending on the
explosive energy released by the
munition and the distance of the animal
from the detonation. The impulsive
noise from these detonations may also
cause hearing impairment or behavioral
disturbances. The most potentially
severe effects would occur close to the
detonation point, including tissue
damage, barotrauma, or even death.
Serious injury or mortality to marine
mammals from explosive detonations, if
they occurred, which is not expected
here, would consist of primary blast
injury, which refers to those injuries
that result from the compression of a
body exposed to a blast wave and which
is usually observed as barotrauma of
gas-containing structures (e.g., lung and
gut) and structural damage to the
auditory system (Richmond et al. 1973).
The near instantaneous high magnitude
pressure change near an explosion can
injure an animal where tissue material
properties significantly differ from the
surrounding environment, such as
around air-filled cavities in the lungs or
gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The gascontaining organs (lungs and GI tract)
are most vulnerable to primary blast
injury. Severe injuries to these organs
are presumed to result in mortality (e.g.,
severe lung damage may introduce air
into the cardiopulmonary vascular
system, resulting in lethal air emboli).
Large pressure changes at tissue-air
interfaces in the lungs and GI tract may
cause tissue rupture, resulting in a range
of injuries depending on degree of
exposure. Recoverable injuries would
include slight lung injury, such as
capillary interstitial bleeding, and
contusions to the GI tract. More severe
injuries, such as tissue lacerations,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
major hemorrhage, organ rupture, or air
in the chest cavity (pneumothorax),
would significantly reduce fitness and
likely cause death in the wild. Rupture
of the lung may also introduce air into
the vascular system, producing air
emboli that can cause a stroke or heart
attack and restrict oxygen delivery to
critical organs. Susceptibility would
increase with depth, until normal lung
collapse (due to increasing hydrostatic
pressure) and increasing ambient
pressures again reduce susceptibility.
Exposures to higher levels of impulse
and pressure levels would generally
result in greater impacts to an
individual animal. However, the effects
of noise on marine mammals are highly
variable, often depending on species
and contextual factors (Richardson et al.
1995). As described in the Estimated
Take of Marine Mammals section, the
more serious impacts (i.e., mortality,
serious injury, and non-auditory injury)
are not anticipated to result from this
action.
The USAF performed a quantitative
analysis to estimate the probability that
marine mammals could be exposed to
the sound and energy from explosions
during USAF activities and the effects of
those exposures (Appendix A in LOA
Application). The effects of underwater
explosions on marine mammals depend
on a variety of factors including animal
size and depth; charge size and depth;
depth of the water column; and distance
between the animal and the charge. In
general, an animal would be less
susceptible to injury near the water
surface because the pressure wave
reflected from the water surface would
interfere with the direct path pressure
wave, reducing positive pressure
exposure. There are a limited number of
explosives that would detonate just
below the water surface as outlined
previously in the section, Description of
Stressors. Most explosives would
detonate at or near the surface of the
water and are unlikely to transfer energy
underwater sufficient to result in nonauditory injury (GI injury or lung injury)
or mortality. For reasons described in
the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, NMFS agrees with USAF’s
analysis that no mortality or serious
injury from tissue damage in the form of
GI injury or lung injury is anticipated to
result from the proposed activities. The
USAF did not request, and NMFS does
not propose, mortality or serious injury
for authorization, and therefore this
proposed rule will not discuss it further.
For additional details on the criteria for
estimating non-auditory physiological
impacts on marine mammals due to
naval underwater explosions, we refer
the reader to the report, Criteria and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III)
(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e).
Sections 6, 7, and 9 of the USAF’s
application include summaries of the
ways that components of the specified
activity may impact marine mammals
and their habitat, including specific
discussion of potential effects to marine
mammals from noise and pressure
waves produced through the use
explosives detonating at or near the
surface. We have reviewed the USAF’s
discussion of potential effects for
accuracy and completeness in its
application and refer to that information
rather than repeating it in full here.
Below we include a summary of the
potential effects to marine mammals.
Description of Sound Sources
This section contains a brief technical
background on sound, on the
characteristics of certain sound types,
and on metrics used in this proposal
inasmuch as the information is relevant
to the specified activity and to a
discussion of the potential effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
found later in this document. For
general information on sound and its
interaction with the marine
environment, please see Au and
Hastings (2008); Richardson et al.
(1995); and Urick (1983).
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 or
cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks or
corresponding points of a sound wave
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency
sounds have shorter wavelengths than
lower frequency sounds, and typically
attenuate (decrease) more rapidly,
except in certain cases in shallower
water. Amplitude is the height of the
sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’
of a sound and is typically described
using the relative unit of the decibel
(dB). A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB
is described as the ratio between a
measured pressure and a reference
pressure (for underwater sound, this is
1 microPascal (mPa)), and is a
logarithmic unit that accounts for large
variations in amplitude. Therefore, a
relatively small change in dB
corresponds to large changes in sound
pressure. The source level (SL)
represents the SPL referenced at a
distance of 1 m from the source
(referenced to 1 mPa), while the received
level is the SPL at the listener’s position
(referenced to 1 mPa).
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Root mean square (rms) is the
quadratic mean sound pressure over the
duration of an impulse. Root mean
square is calculated by squaring all of
the sound amplitudes, averaging the
squares, and then taking the square root
of the average (Urick 1983). Root mean
square accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures
makes all values positive so that they
may be accounted for 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.
Sound exposure level (SEL;
represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents
the total energy in a stated frequency
band over a stated time interval or event
and considers both intensity and
duration of exposure. The per-pulse SEL
is calculated over the time window
containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100
percent of the acoustic energy). SEL is
a cumulative metric; it can be
accumulated over a single pulse, or
calculated over periods containing
multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL
represents the total energy accumulated
by a receiver over a defined time
window or during an event. Peak sound
pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak
sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum
instantaneous sound pressure
measurable in the water at a specified
distance from the source and is
represented in the same units as the rms
sound pressure.
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 a manner similar
to ripples on the surface of a pond and
may be either directed in a beam or
beams or may radiate in all directions
(omnidirectional sources). 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, which is defined as
environmental background sound levels
lacking a single source or point
(Richardson et al. 1995). 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.,
wind and waves, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging,
construction) sound. A number of
sources contribute to ambient sound,
including wind and waves, which are a
main source of naturally occurring
ambient sound 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. Precipitation can
become an important component of total
sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and
possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times. Marine mammals can contribute
significantly to ambient sound levels, as
can some fish and snapping shrimp. The
frequency band for biological
contributions is from approximately 12
Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient
sound related to human activity include
transportation (surface vessels),
dredging and construction, oil and gas
drilling and production, geophysical
surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel
noise typically dominates the total
ambient sound 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.
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources that
comprise ambient sound at any given
location and time depends not only on
the source levels (as determined by
current weather conditions and levels of
biological and human 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 decibels (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. Details of source types are
described in the following text.
Sounds are often considered to fall
into one of two general types: Pulsed
and non-pulsed (defined in the
following). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8163
Southall et al. 2007). Please see Southall
et al. (2007) and NMFS’ Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
Underwater Thresholds for Onset of
Permanent and Temporary Threshold
Shift (Acoustic Technical Guidance)
(NMFS 2018) for an in-depth discussion
of these concepts. The distinction
between these two sound types is not
always obvious, as certain signals share
properties of both pulsed and nonpulsed sounds. A signal near a source
could be categorized as a pulse, but due
to propagation effects as it moves farther
from the source, the signal duration
becomes longer (e.g., Greene and
Richardson 1988).
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns,
explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals
that are brief (typically considered to be
less than one second), broadband, atonal
transients (ANSI 1986, 2005; Harris
1998; NIOSH 1998; ISO 2003) and occur
either as isolated events or repeated in
some succession. Pulsed sounds are all
characterized by 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.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal,
narrowband or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either
continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the
essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid
rise time). Examples of non-pulsed
sounds include those produced by
vessels, aircraft, machinery operations
such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems.
The duration of such sounds, as
received at a distance, can be greatly
extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
Hearing Loss—Threshold Shift
Marine mammals exposed to highintensity sound, or to lower-intensity
sound for prolonged periods, can
experience hearing threshold shift,
which is the loss of hearing sensitivity
at certain frequency ranges after
cessation of sound (Finneran 2015).
Threshold shift 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).
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
8164
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer
cochlear hair cells may cause PTS;
however, other mechanisms are also
involved, such as exceeding the elastic
limits of certain tissues and membranes
in the middle and inner ears and
resultant changes in the chemical
composition of the inner ear fluids
(Southall et al. 2007). PTS is considered
an injury and Level A harassment while
TTS is considered to be Level B
harassment and not considered an
injury.
Hearing loss, or threshold shift (TS),
is typically quantified in terms of the
amount (in decibels) that hearing
thresholds at one or more specified
frequencies are elevated, compared to
their pre-exposure values, at some
specific time after the noise exposure.
The amount of TS measured usually
decreases with increasing recovery
time—the amount of time that has
elapsed since a noise exposure. If the TS
eventually returns to zero (i.e., the
hearing threshold returns to the preexposure value), the threshold shift is
called a TTS. If the TS does not
completely recover (the threshold
remains elevated compared to the preexposure value), the remaining TS is a
PTS.
Hearing loss has only been studied in
a few species of marine mammals,
although hearing studies with terrestrial
mammals are also informative. There
are no direct measurements of hearing
loss in marine mammals due to
exposure to explosive sources. The
sound resulting from an explosive
detonation is considered an impulsive
sound and shares important qualities
(i.e., short duration and fast rise time)
with other impulsive sounds such as
those produced by air guns. General
research findings regarding TTS and
PTS in marine mammals, as well as
findings specific to exposure to other
impulsive sound sources, are discussed
below.
Many studies have examined noiseinduced hearing loss in marine
mammals (see Finneran (2015) and
Southall et al. (2019) for summaries),
however for cetaceans, published data
on the onset of TTS are limited to the
captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga,
harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise, and, for pinnipeds in water,
measurements of TTS are limited to
harbor seals, elephant seals, and
California sea lions. These studies
examine hearing thresholds measured in
marine mammals before and after
exposure to intense sounds. The
difference between the pre-exposure
and post-exposure thresholds can then
be used to determine the amount of
threshold shift at various post-exposure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
times. NMFS has reviewed the available
studies, which are summarized below:
• The method used to test hearing
may affect the resulting amount of
measured TTS, with neurophysiological
measures producing larger amounts of
TTS compared to psychophysical
measures (Finneran et al. 2007;
Finneran 2015).
• The amount of TTS varies with the
hearing test frequency. As the exposure
SPL increases, the frequency at which
the maximum TTS occurs also increases
(Kastelein et al. 2014). For high-level
exposures, the maximum TTS typically
occurs one-half to one octave above the
exposure frequency (Finneran et al.
2007; Mooney et al. 2009a; Nachtigall et
al. 2004; Popov et al. 2011; Popov et al.
2013; Schlundt et al. 2000; Kastelein et
al. 2021b; Kastelein et al. 2022). The
overall spread of TTS from tonal
exposures can therefore extend over a
large frequency range (i.e., narrowband
exposures can produce broadband
(greater than one octave) TTS).
• The amount of TTS increases with
exposure SPL and duration and is
correlated with SEL, especially if the
range of exposure durations is relatively
small (Kastak et al. 2007; Kastelein et al.
2014b; Popov et al. 2014). As the
exposure duration increases, however,
the relationship between TTS and SEL
begins to break down. Specifically,
duration has a more significant effect on
TTS than would be predicted on the
basis of SEL alone (Finneran et al.
2010a; Kastak et al. 2005; Mooney et al.
2009a). This means if two exposures
have the same SEL but different
durations, the exposure with the longer
duration (thus lower SPL) will tend to
produce more TTS than the exposure
with the higher SPL and shorter
duration. In most acoustic impact
assessments, the scenarios of interest
involve shorter duration exposures than
the marine mammal experimental data
from which impact thresholds are
derived; therefore, use of SEL tends to
over-estimate the amount of TTS.
Despite this, SEL continues to be used
in many situations because it is
relatively simple, more accurate than
SPL alone, and lends itself easily to
scenarios involving multiple exposures
with different SPL.
• Gradual increases of TTS may not
be directly observable with increasing
exposure levels before the onset of PTS
(Reichmuth et al. 2019). Similarly, PTS
can occur without measurable
behavioral modifications (Reichmuth et
al. 2019).
• The amount of TTS depends on the
exposure frequency. Sounds at low
frequencies, well below the region of
best sensitivity, are less hazardous than
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
those at higher frequencies, near the
region of best sensitivity (Finneran and
Schlundt, 2013). The onset of TTS—
defined as the exposure level necessary
to produce 6 dB of TTS (i.e., clearly
above the typical variation in threshold
measurements)—also varies with
exposure frequency. At low frequencies,
onset-TTS exposure levels are higher
compared to those in the region of best
sensitivity. For example, for harbor
porpoises exposed to one-sixth octave
noise bands at 16 kHz (Kastelein et al.
2019a), 32 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2019b),
63 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2020a), and 88.4
kHz (Kastelein et al. 2020b), less
susceptibility to TTS was found as
frequency increased, whereas exposure
frequencies below ∼6.5 kHz showed an
increase in TTS susceptibility as
frequency increased and approached the
region of best sensitivity. Kastelein et al.
(2020b) showed a much higher onset of
TTS for a 88.5 kHz exposure as
compared to lower exposure frequencies
(i.e., 16 kHz (Kastelein et al., 2019) 1.5
kHz and 6.5 kHz (Kastelein et al.
2020a)). For the 88.4 kHz test frequency,
a 185 dB re 1 micropascal squared per
second (mPa2 -s) exposure resulted in 3.6
dB of TTS, and a 191 dB re 1 mPa2 -s
exposure produced 5.2 dB of TTS at 100
kHz and 5.4 dB of TTS at 125 kHz.
Together, these new studies
demonstrate that the criteria for highfrequency (HF) cetacean auditory
impacts is likely to be conservative.
• TTS can accumulate across
multiple exposures, but the resulting
TTS will be less than the TTS from a
single, continuous exposure with the
same SEL (Finneran et al. 2010a;
Kastelein et al. 2014b; Kastelein et al.
2015b; Mooney et al. 2009b). This
means that TTS predictions based on
the total, cumulative SEL will
overestimate the amount of TTS from
intermittent exposures such as sonars
and impulsive sources. The importance
of duty cycle in predicting the
likelihood of TTS is demonstrated
further in Kastelein et al. (2021b). The
authors found that reducing the duty
cycle of a sound generally reduced the
potential for TTS in California sea lions,
and that, further, California sea lions are
more susceptible to TTS than previously
believed at the 2 and 4 kHz frequencies
tested.
• The amount of observed TTS tends
to decrease with increasing time
following the exposure; however, the
relationship is not monotonic (i.e.,
increasing exposure does not always
increase TTS). The time required for
complete recovery of hearing depends
on the magnitude of the initial shift; for
relatively small shifts recovery may be
complete in a few minutes, while large
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
shifts (e.g., approximately 40 dB) may
require several days for recovery.
Recovery times are consistent for
similar-magnitude TTS, regardless of
the type of fatiguing sound exposure
(impulsive, continuous noise band, or
sinusoidal wave; (Kastelein et al.
2019c)). Under many circumstances
TTS recovers linearly with the
logarithm of time (Finneran et al.,
2010a, 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt
2013; Kastelein et al. 2012a; Kastelein et
al. 2012b; Kastelein et al. 2014b;
Kastelein et al. 2014c; Popov et al. 2011;
Popov et al. 2013; Popov et al. 2014).
This means that for each doubling of
recovery time, the amount of TTS will
decrease by the same amount (e.g., 6 dB
recovery per doubling of time).
Nachtigall et al. (2018) and Finneran
(2018) describe the measurements of
hearing sensitivity of multiple
odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin,
harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer
whale) when a relatively loud sound
was preceded by a warning sound.
These captive animals were shown to
reduce hearing sensitivity when warned
of an impending intense sound. Based
on these experimental observations of
captive animals, the authors suggest that
wild animals may dampen their hearing
during prolonged exposures or if
conditioned to anticipate intense
sounds. Another study showed that
echolocating animals (including
odontocetes) might have anatomical
specializations that might allow for
conditioned hearing reduction and
filtering of low-frequency ambient
noise, including increased stiffness and
control of middle ear structures and
placement of inner ear structures
(Ketten et al. 2021). Finneran
recommends further investigation of the
mechanisms of hearing sensitivity
reduction in order to understand the
implications for interpretation of
existing TTS data obtained from captive
animals, notably for considering TTS
due to short duration, unpredictable
exposures.
Marine mammal TTS data from
impulsive sources are limited. Two
studies with measured TTS of 6 dB or
more, with Finneran et al. (2002)
reporting behaviorally measured TTSs
of 6 and 7 dB in a beluga exposed to
single impulses from a seismic water
gun, and with Lucke et al. (2009)
reporting Audio-evoked Potential
measured TTS of 7–20 dB in a harbor
porpoise exposed to single impulses
from a seismic air gun. Kastelein et al.
(2017) quantified TTS caused by
exposure to 10–20 consecutive shots
from 2 airguns simultaneously in harbor
porpoises. Statistically significant initial
TTS (1–4 min after sound exposure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
stopped) of ∼4.4 dB occurred. However,
recovery occurred within 12 min postexposure.
Several impulsive noise exposure
studies have also been conducted
without behaviorally measurable TTS.
Specifically, Finneran et al. (2000)
exposed dolphins and belugas to single
impulses from an explosion simulator,
and Finneran et al. (2015) exposed three
dolphins to sequences of 10 impulses
from a seismic air gun (maximum
cumulative SEL = 193–195 dB re 1
mPa2s, peak SPL =196–210 dB re 1 mPa)
without measurable TTS. The proposed
activities include both TTS and a
limited amount of PTS in some marine
mammals.
Behavioral Disturbance
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific.
Many different variables can influence
an animal’s perception of and response
to an acoustic event. An animal’s prior
experience with a sound or sound
source affects whether it is less likely
(habituation) or more likely
(sensitization) to respond to certain
sounds in the future (animals can also
be innately predisposed to respond to
certain sounds in certain ways)
(Southall et al. 2007). Related to the
sound itself, the perceived nearness of
the sound, bearing of the sound
(approaching vs. retreating), the
similarity of a sound to biologically
relevant sounds in the animal’s
environment (i.e., calls of predators,
prey, or conspecifics), and familiarity of
the sound may affect the way an animal
responds to the sound (Southall et
al.2007, DeRuiter et al. 2013).
Individuals (of different age, gender,
reproductive status, etc.) among most
populations will have variable hearing
capabilities, and differing behavioral
sensitivities to sounds that will be
affected by prior conditioning,
experience, and current activities of
those individuals. Often, specific
acoustic features of the sound and
contextual variables (i.e., proximity,
duration, or recurrence of the sound or
the current behavior that the marine
mammal is engaged in or its prior
experience), as well as entirely separate
factors such as the physical presence of
a nearby vessel, may be more relevant
to the animal’s response than the
received level alone.
Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals have shown
pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud underwater
sound sources (Ridgway et al. 1997;
Finneran et al. 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to
loud pulsed sound sources (typically
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8165
seismic guns or acoustic harassment
devices) have been varied but often
consist of avoidance behavior or other
behavioral changes suggesting
discomfort (Morton and Symonds 2002;
Thorson and Reyff 2006; see also
Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al.
2007).
The onset of noise can result in
temporary, short-term changes in an
animal’s typical behavior and/or
avoidance of the affected area. These
behavioral changes may include:
reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or
feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas
where sound sources are located; and/
or flight responses (Richardson et al.
1995).
The biological significance of many of
these behavioral disturbances is difficult
to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However,
the consequences of behavioral
modification could potentially be
biologically significant if the change
affects growth, survival, or
reproduction. 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).
Ellison et al. (2011) outlined an
approach to assessing the effects of
sound on marine mammals that
incorporates contextual-based factors.
The authors recommend considering not
just the received level of sound, but also
the activity the animal is engaged in at
the time the sound is received, the
nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is
this a new sound from the animal’s
perspective), and the distance between
the sound source and the animal. They
submit that this ‘‘exposure context,’’ as
described, greatly influences the type of
behavioral response exhibited by the
animal. Forney et al. (2017) also point
out that an apparent lack of response
(e.g., no displacement or avoidance of a
sound source) may not necessarily mean
there is no cost to the individual or
population, as some resources or
habitats may be of such high value that
animals may choose to stay, even when
experiencing stress or hearing loss.
Forney et al. (2017) recommend
considering both the costs of remaining
in an area of noise exposure such as
TTS, PTS, or masking, which could lead
to an increased risk of predation or
other threats or a decreased capability to
forage, and the costs of displacement,
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
8166
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
including potential increased risk of
vessel strike, increased risks of
predation or competition for resources,
or decreased habitat suitable for
foraging, resting, or socializing. This
sort of contextual information is
challenging to predict with accuracy for
ongoing activities that occur over large
spatial and temporal expanses.
However, distance is one contextual
factor for which data exist to
quantitatively inform a take estimate,
and the method for predicting Level B
harassment in this proposed rule does
consider distance to the source. Other
factors are often considered
qualitatively in the analysis of the likely
consequences of sound exposure, where
supporting information is available.
Exposure of marine mammals to
sound sources can result in, but is not
limited to, no response or any of the
following observable responses:
increased alertness; orientation or
attraction to a sound source; vocal
modifications; cessation of feeding;
cessation of social interaction; alteration
of movement or diving behavior; habitat
abandonment (temporary or permanent);
and, in severe cases, panic, flight,
stampede, or stranding, potentially
resulting in death (Southall et al. 2007).
A review of marine mammal responses
to anthropogenic sound was first
conducted by Richardson (1995). More
recent reviews (Nowacek et al. 2007;
DeRuiter et al. 2012 and 2013; Ellison et
al. 2012; Gomez et al. 2016) address
studies conducted since 1995 and
focused on observations where the
received sound level of the exposed
marine mammal(s) was known or could
be estimated. Gomez et al. (2016)
conducted a review of the literature
considering the contextual information
of exposure in addition to received level
and found that higher received levels
were not always associated with more
severe behavioral responses and vice
versa. Southall et al. (2016) states that
results demonstrate that some
individuals of different species display
clear yet varied responses, some of
which have negative implications, while
others appear to tolerate high levels, and
that responses may not be fully
predictable with simple acoustic
exposure metrics (e.g., received sound
level). Rather, the authors state that
differences among species and
individuals along with contextual
aspects of exposure (e.g., behavioral
state) appear to affect response
probability.
During an activity with a series of
explosions (not concurrent multiple
explosions shown in a burst), an animal
is expected to exhibit a startle reaction
to the sound of the first detonation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
followed by another behavioral response
after multiple detonations. At close
ranges and high sound levels, avoidance
of the area around the explosions is the
assumed behavioral response in most
cases. In certain circumstances,
exposure to loud sounds can interrupt
feeding behaviors and potentially
decrease foraging success, interfere with
communication or migration, or disrupt
important reproductive or young-rearing
behaviors, among other effects.
Many animals perform vital functions,
such as feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour
cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise
exposure (such as disruption of critical
life functions, displacement, or
avoidance of important habitat) are
more likely to be significant for fitness
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). It is
important to note the difference
between behavioral reactions lasting or
recurring over multiple days and
anthropogenic activities lasting or
recurring over multiple days. For
example, just because a given
anthropogenic activity lasts for multiple
days (e.g., a training event) does not
necessarily mean that individual
animals will be either exposed to those
activity-related stressors (i.e.,
explosions) for multiple days or further
exposed at a level would result in
sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses.
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, or
navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995; Erbe
and Farmer 2000; Tyack 2000; Erbe et
al. 2016). Masking occurs when the
receipt of a sound is interfered with by
another coincident sound at similar
frequencies and at similar or higher
intensity, and may occur whether the
sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp,
wind, waves, precipitation) or
anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The
ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends
on the characteristics of both the noise
source and the signal of interest (e.g.,
signal-to-noise ratio, temporal
variability, direction), in relation to each
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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. Masking these
acoustic signals can disturb the behavior
of individual animals, groups of
animals, or entire populations. Masking
can lead to behavioral changes
including vocal changes (e.g., Lombard
effect, increasing amplitude, or
changing frequency), cessation of
foraging, and leaving an area, to both
signalers and receivers, in an attempt to
compensate for noise levels (Erbe et al.
2016). Masking only occurs in the
presence of the masking noise and does
not persist after the cessation of the
noise. Masking may lead to a change in
vocalizations or a change in behavior
(e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an
area). Masking by explosive detonation
sounds would not be expected, given
the short duration, and there are no
direct observations of masking in
marine mammals due to exposure to
sound from explosive detonations.
Physiological Stress
There is growing interest in
monitoring and assessing the impacts of
stress responses to sound in marine
animals. Classic stress responses begin
when an animal’s central nervous
system perceives a potential threat to its
homeostasis. That perception triggers
stress responses regardless of whether a
stimulus actually threatens the animal;
the mere perception of a threat is
sufficient to trigger a stress response
(Moberg 2000; Sapolsky et al. 2005;
Seyle 1950). Once an animal’s central
nervous system perceives a threat, it
mounts a biological response or defense
that consists of a combination of the
four general biological defense
responses: behavioral responses,
autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune
responses.
According to Moberg (2000), in the
case of many stressors, an animal’s first
and sometimes most economical (in
terms of biotic costs) response is
behavioral avoidance of the potential
stressor or avoidance of continued
exposure to a stressor. An animal’s
second line of defense to stressors
involves the sympathetic part of the
autonomic nervous system and the
classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response
which includes the cardiovascular
system, the gastrointestinal system, the
exocrine glands, and the adrenal
medulla to produce changes in heart
rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal
activity that humans commonly
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses
have a relatively short duration and may
or may not have a significant long-term
effect on an animal’s welfare.
An animal’s third line of defense to
stressors involves its neuroendocrine
systems or sympathetic nervous
systems; the system that has received
the most study has been the
hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system
(also known as the HPA axis in
mammals or the hypothalamuspituitary-interrenal axis in fish and
some reptiles). Unlike stress responses
associated with the autonomic nervous
system, virtually all neuro-endocrine
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
(Moberg, 1987; Rivier and Rivest 1991),
altered metabolism (Elasser et al. 2000),
reduced immune competence (Blecha
2000), and behavioral disturbance
(Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). Increases
in the circulation of glucocorticosteroids
(cortisol, corticosterone, and
aldosterone in marine mammals; see
Romano et al. 2004) have been equated
with stress for many years.
Because there are many unknowns
regarding the occurrence of acoustically
induced stress responses in marine
mammals, it is assumed that any
physiological response (e.g., hearing
loss or injury) or significant behavioral
response is also associated with a stress
response.
Munition Strike
Another potential risk to marine
mammals is direct strike by ordnance,
in which the ordnance physically hits
an animal. Based on the dispersed
distribution of marine mammals in the
open ocean, the relatively short amount
of time they spend at the water surface
compared with the time they spend
underwater, and the annual quantities
of munitions proposed to be expended,
it is highly improbable that a marine
mammal would be directly struck by a
munition during EGTTR operations.
This conclusion, which NMFS concurs
with, was reached in the previous 2015
REA (USAF 2015). The Air Force did
not request take of marine mammals by
direct munition strikes, as it is not
anticipated, and it is not analyzed
further.
Marine Mammal Habitat
Impacts on marine mammal habitat
are part of the consideration in making
a finding of negligible impact on the
species and stocks of marine mammals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Habitat includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, rookeries, mating grounds,
feeding areas, and areas of similar
significance. We have preliminarily
determined USAF’s proposed activities
would not result in permanent effects
on the habitats used by the marine
mammals in the EGTTR, including the
availability of prey (i.e. fish and
invertebrates). While it is anticipated
that the proposed activity may result in
marine mammals avoiding certain areas
due to temporary ensonification, any
impact to habitat is temporary and
reversible and was considered in further
detail earlier in this document, as
behavioral modification. The main
impact associated with the proposed
activity will be temporarily elevated
noise levels and the associated direct
effects on marine mammals, previously
discussed in this proposed rule.
Sound may affect marine mammals
through impacts on the abundance,
behavior, or distribution of prey species
(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish,
zooplankton). Marine mammal prey
varies by species, season, and location
and, for some species, is not well
documented. Here, we describe studies
regarding the effects of noise on known
marine mammal prey.
Effects on Fish—Fish utilize the
soundscape and components of sound
in their environment to perform
important functions such as foraging,
predator avoidance, mating, and
spawning (e.g., Zelick et al. 1999; Fay
2009). The most likely effects on fishes
exposed to loud, intermittent, lowfrequency sounds are behavioral
responses (i.e., flight or avoidance).
Short duration, sharp sounds (such as
pile driving or air guns) can cause overt
or subtle changes in fish behavior and
local distribution. The reaction of fish to
acoustic sources depends on the
physiological state of the fish, past
exposures, motivation (e.g., feeding,
spawning, migration), and other
environmental factors. Key impacts to
fishes may include behavioral
responses, hearing damage, barotrauma
(pressure-related injuries), and
mortality.
Fishes, like other vertebrates, have a
variety of different sensory systems to
glean information from ocean around
them (Astrup and Mohl 1993; Astrup
1999; Braun and Grande 2008; Carroll et
al. 2017; Hawkins and Johnstone 1978;
Ladich and Popper 2004; Ladich and
Schulz-Mirbach 2016; Nedwell et al.
2004; Popper et al. 2003; Popper et al.
2005). Depending on their hearing
anatomy and peripheral sensory
structures, which vary among species,
fishes hear sounds using pressure and
particle motion sensitivity capabilities
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8167
and detect the motion of surrounding
water (Fay et al. 2008) (terrestrial
vertebrates generally only detect
pressure). Most marine fishes primarily
detect particle motion using the inner
ear and lateral line system, while some
fishes possess additional morphological
adaptations or specializations that can
enhance their sensitivity to sound
pressure, such as a gas-filled swim
bladder (Braun and Grande 2008;
Popper and Fay 2011).
Hearing capabilities vary considerably
between different fish species with data
only available for just over 100 species
out of the 34,000 marine and freshwater
fish species (Eschmeyer and Fong 2016).
In order to better understand acoustic
impacts on fishes, fish hearing groups
are defined by species that possess a
similar continuum of anatomical
features which result in varying degrees
of hearing sensitivity (Popper and
Hastings 2009a). There are four hearing
groups defined for all fish species
(modified from Popper et al. 2014)
within this analysis and they include:
fishes without a swim bladder (e.g.,
flatfish, sharks, rays, etc.); fishes with a
swim bladder not involved in hearing
(e.g., salmon, cod, pollock, etc.); fishes
with a swim bladder involved in
hearing (e.g., sardines, anchovy, herring,
etc.); and fishes with a swim bladder
involved in hearing and high-frequency
hearing (e.g., shad and menhaden).
Currently, less data are available to
estimate the range of best sensitivity for
fishes without a swim bladder.
In terms of behavioral responses of
fish, Juanes et al. (2017) discuss the
potential for negative impacts from
anthropogenic soundscapes on fish, but
the authors’ focus was on broader based
sounds, such as ship and boat noise
sources. Occasional behavioral reactions
to intermittent explosions occurring at
or near the surface are unlikely to cause
long-term consequences for individual
fish or populations; there are no
detonations of explosives occurring
underwater from the proposed
activities. Fish that experience hearing
loss as a result of exposure to explosions
may have a reduced ability to detect
relevant sounds, such as predators,
prey, or social vocalizations. However,
PTS has not been known to occur in
fishes and any hearing loss in fish may
be as temporary as the timeframe
required to repair or replace the sensory
cells that were damaged or destroyed
(Popper et al. 2005; Popper et al. 2014;
Smith et al. 2006). It is not known if
damage to auditory nerve fibers could
occur, and if so, whether fibers would
recover during this process. It is also
possible for fish to be injured or killed
by an explosion in the immediate
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
8168
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
vicinity of the surface from dropped or
fired ordnance. Physical effects from
pressure waves generated by
detonations at or near the surface could
potentially affect fish within proximity
of training or testing activities. The
shock wave from an explosion occurring
at or near the surface may be lethal to
fish at close range, causing massive
organ and tissue damage and internal
bleeding (Keevin and Hempen, 1997).
At greater distance from the detonation
point, the extent of mortality or injury
depends on a number of factors
including fish size, body shape,
orientation, and species (Keevin and
Hempen, 1997; Wright, 1982). At the
same distance from the source, larger
fish are generally less susceptible to
death or injury, elongated forms that are
round in cross-section are less at risk
than deep-bodied forms, and fish
oriented sideways to the blast suffer the
greatest impact (Edds-Walton and
Finneran 2006; Wiley et al. 1981;
Yelverton et al. 1975). Species with gasfilled organs are more susceptible to
injury and mortality than those without
them (Gaspin, 1975; Gaspin et al. 1976;
Goertner et al. 1994).
Training and testing exercises
involving explosions at or near the
surface are dispersed in space and time;
therefore, repeated exposure of
individual fishes are unlikely. Mortality
and injury effects to fishes from
explosives would be localized around
the area of a given explosion at or above
the water surface, but only if individual
fish and the explosive at the surface
were co-located at the same time. Fishes
deeper in the water column or on the
bottom would not be affected by surface
explosions. Most acoustic effects, if any,
are expected to be short term and
localized. Long-term consequences for
fish populations, including key prey
species within the EGTTR Area, would
not be expected.
Effects on Invertebrates—In addition
to fish, prey sources such as marine
invertebrates could potentially be
impacted by sound stressors as a result
of the proposed activities. However,
most marine invertebrates’ ability to
sense sounds is very limited. In most
cases, marine invertebrates would not
respond to impulsive sounds. Data on
response of invertebrates such as squid,
another marine mammal prey species, to
anthropogenic sound has been
documented (de Soto 2016; Sole et al.
2017). Explosions could kill or injure
nearby marine invertebrates. Vessels
also have the potential to impact marine
invertebrates by disturbing the water
column or sediments, or directly
striking organisms (Bishop 2008). The
propeller wash (water displaced by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
propellers used for propulsion) from
vessel movement and water displaced
from vessel hulls can potentially disturb
marine invertebrates in the water
column and are a likely cause of
zooplankton mortality (Bickel et al.
2011). The localized and short-term
exposure to explosions or vessels at or
near the surface could displace, injure,
or kill zooplankton, invertebrate eggs or
larvae, and macro-invertebrates.
However, mortality or long-term
consequences for a few animals is
unlikely to have measurable effects on
overall populations. As with fish,
cumulatively individual and
population-level impacts from exposure
to explosives at or above the water
surface are not anticipated, and impacts
would be short term and localized, and
would likely be inconsequential to
invertebrate populations, and to the
marine mammals that use them as prey.
Expended Materials—Military
expended materials resulting from
training and testing activities could
potentially result in minor long-term
changes to benthic habitat, however the
impacts of small amounts of expended
materials are unlikely to have
measurable effects on overall
populations. Military expended
materials may be colonized over time by
benthic organisms that prefer hard
substrate and would provide structure
that could attract some species of fish or
invertebrates.
Overall, the combined impacts of
explosions and military expended
materials resulting from the proposed
activities would not be expected to have
measurable effects on populations of
marine mammal prey species. Prey
species exposed to sound might move
away from the sound source or show no
obvious direct effects at all, but a rapid
return to normal recruitment,
distribution, and behavior is
anticipated. Long-term consequences to
fish or marine invertebrate populations
would not be expected as a result of
exposure to sounds or vessels in the
EGTTR.
Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is
the soundscape which encompasses all
of the sound present in a particular
location and time, as a whole, when
considered from the perspective of the
animals experiencing it. Animals
produce sound for, or listen for sounds
produced by, conspecifics
(communication during feeding, mating,
and other social activities), other
animals (finding prey or avoiding
predators), and the physical
environment (finding suitable habitats,
navigating). Together, sounds made by
animals and the geophysical
environment (e.g., produced by
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain,
waves) make up the natural
contributions to the total acoustics of a
place. These acoustic conditions,
termed acoustic habitat, are one
attribute of an animal’s total habitat.
Soundscapes are also defined by, and
acoustic habitat influenced by, the total
contribution of anthropogenic sound.
This may include incidental emissions
from sources, such as vessel traffic or
may be intentionally introduced to the
marine environment for data acquisition
purposes (e.g., as in the use of air gun
arrays) or USAF training and testing
purposes (as in the use of explosives).
Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its
frequency, content, duration, and
loudness, and these characteristics
greatly influence the potential habitatmediated effects to marine mammals,
which may range from local effects for
brief periods of time to chronic effects
over large areas and for long durations.
Depending on the extent of effects to
habitat, animals may alter their
communications signals (thereby
potentially expending additional
energy) or miss acoustic cues (either
conspecific or adventitious). Problems
arising from a failure to detect cues are
more likely to occur when noise stimuli
are chronic and overlap with
biologically relevant cues used for
communication, orientation, and
predator/prey detection (Francis and
Barber, 2013). For more detail on these
concepts see Pijanowski et al. 2011;
Francis and Barber 2013; Lillis et al.
2014. We do not anticipate these
problems arising from at or near surface
explosions during training and testing
activities as they would be either widely
dispersed or concentrated in small areas
for shorter periods of time. Sound
produced from training and testing
activities in the EGTTR would be
temporary and transitory; the affected
area would be expected to immediately
return to the original state when these
activities cease.
Marine Water Quality—Training and
testing activities may introduce water
quality constituents into the water
column. Metals are the dominant
constituent by weight of bombs,
missiles, gun ammunition, and other
munitions, including inert munitions,
used during EGTTR training and testing
operations. Some targets used during
EGTTR missions also contain metals,
including CONEX and hopper barge
targets used for PSW tests and certain
components of remotely controlled
target boats. Metals contained in casing
fragments of detonated munitions, intact
inert munitions, unexploded ordnance,
and other mission-related debris will
corrode from exposure to seawater. The
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
rate of corrosion depends on the metal
type and the extent to which the item
is directly exposed to seawater, which
can be influenced by existing corrosion
on the item, and how much the item
may be encrusted by marine organisms
and/or buried in sediments. Aluminum
and steel, which is composed mostly of
iron, comprise the bulk of the metal that
enters the marine environment from
EGTTR operations. Iron and aluminum
are relatively benign metals in terms of
toxicity. Chromium, lead, and copper,
which make up a relatively small
percentage of the overall metal input
into the marine environment from
EGTTR operations, have higher toxicity
effects. Through its lifetime in the
marine environment, a portion of the
overall metal content would dissolve,
depending on the solubility of the
material. Dissolved metals would
readily undergo mixing and dilution
and would have no appreciable effect on
water quality or marine life within the
water column. Metals in particulate
form would be released into sediments
through the corrosion process. Elevated
levels of undissolved metals in
sediments would be restricted to a
relatively small area around the metalcontaining item and any associated
impacts to water quality would be
negligible.
Munitions used for EGTTR training
and testing operations contain a wide
variety of explosives, including TNT,
RDX, HMX, Composition B, Tritonal,
AFX–757, PBXN, and others. During
live missions in the EGTTR, explosives
can enter the marine environment via
high-order detonations, which occur
when the munition functions as
intended and the vast majority of
explosives are consumed; low-order
detonations, which occur when the
munition partially functions and only a
portion of the explosives are consumed;
and unexploded munitions, which fail
to detonate with no explosives
consumed. During high-order
detonations, a residual amount of the
explosive material, typically less than 1
percent, would be unconsumed and
released into the environment (Walsh et
al. 2011). The majority of live munitions
used during EGTTR operations are
successfully detonated as intended.
During low-order detonations, a residual
amount of explosives associated with
the detonation and the remaining
unconsumed portion of the explosive
fill would enter the marine
environment. If the munition does not
explode, it becomes unexploded
ordnance (UXO). In this case, all the
explosive material would remain within
the munition casing and enter the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
marine environment with explosives
potentially being released due to
corrosion or rupture. Explosives and
explosives by-products released into the
marine environment can be removed via
biodegradation, and expended or
disposed military munitions on the
seafloor do not result in excessive
accumulation of explosives in
sediments or significant degradation of
sediment quality by explosives. Given
that high-order detonations consume the
vast majority of explosive material in
the munition, successful detonations are
considered a negligible source of
explosives released into the marine
environment.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section indicates the number of
takes that NMFS is proposing to
authorize, which is based on the
maximum amount that is reasonably
likely to occur, depending on the type
of take and the methods used to
estimate it, as described in detail below.
NMFS preliminarily agrees that the
methods the USAF has put forth
described herein to estimate take
(including the model, thresholds, and
density estimates), and the resulting
numbers estimated for authorization, are
appropriate and based on the best
available science.
All takes are by harassment. For a
military readiness activity, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as (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). No serious injury
or mortality of marine mammals is
expected to occur.
Proposed authorized takes would
primarily be in the form of Level B
harassment, as use of the explosive
sources may result, either directly or as
result of TTS, in the disruption of
natural behavioral patterns to a point
where they are abandoned or
significantly altered (as defined
specifically at the beginning of this
section, but referred to generally as
behavioral disruption). There is also the
potential for Level A harassment, in the
form of auditory injury to result from
exposure to the sound sources utilized
in training and testing activities. As
described in this Estimated Take of
Marine Mammals section, no non-
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8169
auditory injury is anticipated or
proposed for authorization, nor is any
serious injury or mortality.
Generally speaking, for acoustic
impacts NMFS estimates the amount
and type of harassment by considering:
(1) acoustic thresholds above which
NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals will
be taken by Level B harassment or incur
some degree of temporary or permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day or event; (3)
the density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and (4) the number of days of activities
or events. This analysis of the potential
impacts of the proposed activities on
marine mammals was conducted by
using the spatial density models
developed by NOAA’s Southeast
Fisheries Science Center for the species
in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA 2022). The
density model integrated visual
observations from aerial and shipboard
surveys conducted in the Gulf of Mexico
from 2003 to 2019.
The munitions proposed to be used by
each military unit were grouped into
mission-day categories so the acoustic
impact analysis could be based on the
total number of detonations conducted
during a given mission to account for
the accumulated energy from multiple
detonations over a 24-hour period. A
total of 19 mission-day categories were
developed for the munitions proposed
to be used. Using the dBSea underwater
acoustic model and associated analyses,
the threshold distances associated with
Level A harassment (PTS) and Level B
(TTS and behavioral) harassment zones
were estimated for each mission-day
category for each marine mammal
species. Takes were estimated based on
the area of the harassment zones,
predicted animal density, and annual
number of events for each mission-day
category. To assess the potential impacts
of inert munitions on marine mammals,
the proposed inert munitions were
categorized into four classes based on
their impact energies, and the threshold
distances for each class were modeled
and calculated as described for the
mission-day categories.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS has established acoustic
thresholds that identify the most
appropriate received level of
underwater sound above which marine
mammals exposed to these sound
sources could be reasonably expected to
directly experience a disruption in
behavior patterns to a point where they
are abandoned or significantly altered,
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8170
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
to incur TTS (equated to Level B
harassment), or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Thresholds have also been developed to
identify the pressure levels above which
animals may incur non-auditory injury
from exposure to pressure waves from
explosive detonation. Refer to the
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy
Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis
(Phase III) report (U.S. Department of
the Navy 2017c) for detailed
information on how the criteria and
thresholds were derived.
Hearing Impairment (TTS/PTS), Tissues
Damage, and Mortality
NMFS’ Acoustic Technical Guidance
(NMFS 2018) identifies dual criteria to
assess auditory injury (Level A
harassment) to five different marine
mammal groups (based on hearing
sensitivity) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of
sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
The Acoustic Technical Guidance also
identifies criteria to predict TTS, which
is not considered injury and falls into
the Level B harassment category. The
USAF’s proposed activity only includes
the use of impulsive (explosives)
sources. These thresholds (Table 20)
were developed by compiling and
synthesizing the best available science
and soliciting input multiple times from
both the public and peer reviewers. The
references, analysis, and methodology
used in the development of the
thresholds are described in Acoustic
Technical Guidance, which may be
accessed at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Additionally, based on the best
available science, NMFS uses the
acoustic and pressure thresholds
indicated in Table 20 to predict the
onset of TTS, PTS, tissue damage, and
mortality for explosives (impulsive) and
other impulsive sound sources.
TABLE 20—ONSET OF TTS, PTS, TISSUE DAMAGE, AND MORTALITY THRESHOLDS FOR MARINE MAMMALS FOR
EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER IMPULSIVE SOURCES
Functional hearing group
Species
Onset TTS
Low-frequency cetaceans
Rice’s whale ..................
Mid-frequency cetaceans
Dolphins .........................
168 dB SEL
or 213 dB
170 dB SEL
or 224 dB
(weighted)
Peak SPL.
(weighted)
Peak SPL.
Onset PTS
183 dB SEL
or 219 dB
185 dB SEL
or 230 dB
(weighted)
Peak SPL.
(weighted)
Peak SPL.
Mean onset slight GI
tract injury
237 dB Peak SPL ..........
Mean onset
slight lung
injury
Mean onset
mortality
Equation 1
Equation 2
237 dB Peak SPL..
Notes: Equation 1: 47.5M1⁄3 (1+[DRm/10.1])1⁄6 Pa-sec. Equation 2: 103M1⁄3 (1+[DRm/10.1])1⁄6 Pa-sec. M = mass of the animals in kg; DRm = depth of the receiver
(animal) in meters; SPL = sound pressure level.
Refer to the Criteria and Thresholds
for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive
Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2017c) for
detailed information on how the criteria
and thresholds were derived. Nonauditory injury (i.e., other than PTS)
and mortality are so unlikely as to be
discountable under normal conditions
and are therefore not considered further
in this analysis.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Behavioral Disturbance
Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of Level B
harassment by direct behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle, distance), the environment
(e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict
(Ellison et al. 2011; Southall et al. 2007).
Based on what the available science
indicates and the practical need to use
thresholds based on a factor or factors
that are both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS
uses generalized acoustic thresholds
based primarily on received level (and
distance in some cases) to estimate the
onset of Level B harassment by
behavioral disturbance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Explosives—Explosive thresholds for
Level B harassment by behavioral
disturbance for marine mammals are the
hearing groups’ TTS thresholds minus 5
dB (see Table 21 below for the TTS
thresholds for explosives) for events that
contain multiple impulses from
explosives underwater. See the Criteria
and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic
and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase
III) report (U.S. Department of the Navy
2017c) for detailed information on how
the criteria and thresholds were derived.
NMFS continues to concur that this
approach represents the best available
science for determining behavioral
disturbance of marine mammals from
multiple explosives. While marine
mammals may also respond to single
explosive detonations, these responses
are expected to more typically be in the
form of startle reaction, rather than a
disruption in natural behavioral
patterns to the point where they are
abandoned or significantly altered. On
the rare occasion that a single
detonation might result in a more severe
behavioral response that qualifies as
Level B harassment, it would be
expected to be in response to a
comparatively higher received level.
Accordingly, NMFS considers the
potential for these responses to be
quantitatively accounted for through the
application of the TTS threshold,
which, as noted above, is 5 dB higher
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
than the behavioral harassment
threshold for multiple explosives.
TABLE 21—THRESHOLDS FOR LEVEL B
HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE FOR EXPLOSIVES FOR
MARINE MAMMALS
Medium
Underwater ........
Underwater ........
Functional hearing group
LF
MF
SEL
(weighted)
163
165
Note: Weighted SEL thresholds in dB re 1 μPa2s
underwater. LF = low-frequency, MF = mid-frequency, HF = high-frequency.
USAF’s Acoustic Effects Model
The USAF’s Acoustic Effects Model
calculates sound energy propagation
from explosives during UASF activities
in the EGTTR. The net explosive weight
(NEW) of a munition at impact can be
directly correlated with the energy in
the impulsive pressure wave generated
by the warhead detonation. The NEWs
of munitions addressed as part of this
proposed rule range from 0.1 lb (0.04 kg)
for small projectiles to 945 lb (428.5kg)
for the largest bombs. The explosive
materials used in these munitions also
vary considerably with different
formulations used to produce different
intended effects. The primary
detonation metrics directly considered
and used for modeling analysis are the
peak impulse pressure and duration of
the impulse. An integration of the
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
pressure of an impulse over the duration
(time) of an impulse provides a measure
of the energy in an impulse. Some of the
NEWs of certain types of munitions,
such as missiles, are associated with the
propellant used for the flight of the
munition. This propellant NEW is
unrelated to the NEW of the warhead,
which is the primary source of
explosive energy in most munitions.
The propellant of a missile fuels the
flight phase and is mostly consumed
prior to impact. Missile propellant
typically has a lower flame speed than
warhead explosives and is relatively
insensitive to detonation from impacts
but burns readily. A warhead detonation
provides a high-pressure, high-velocity
flame front that may cause burning
propellant to detonate; therefore, this
analysis assumes that the unconsumed
residual propellant that remains at
impact contributes to the detonationinduced pressure impulse in the water.
The impact analysis assumes that 20
percent of the propellant remains
unconsumed in missiles at impact; this
assumption is based on input from user
groups and is considered a reasonable
estimate for the purpose of analysis. The
NEW associated with this unconsumed
propellant is added to the NEW of the
warhead to derive the total energy
released by the detonation. Absent a
warhead detonation, it is assumed that
continued burning or deflagration of
unconsumed residual propellant does
not contribute to the pressure impulse
in the water; this applies to inert
missiles that lack a warhead but contain
propellant for flight.
In addition to the energy associated
with the detonation, energy is also
released by the physical impact of the
munition with the water. This kinetic
energy has been calculated and
incorporated into the estimations of
munitions energy for both live and inert
munitions in this proposed rule. The
kinetic energy of the munition at impact
is calculated as one half of the munition
mass times the square of the munition
velocity. The initial impact event
contributing to the pressure impulse in
water is assumed to be 1 millisecond in
duration. To calculate the velocity (and
kinetic energy) immediately after
impact, the deceleration contributing to
the pressure impulse in the water is
assumed for all munitions to be 1,500 gforces, or 48,300 feet per square second
over 1 millisecond. A substantial
portion of the change in kinetic energy
at impact is dissipated as a pressure
impulse in the water, with the
remainder being dissipated through
structural deformation of the munition,
heat, displacement of water, and other
smaller energy categories. Even with
1,500 g-forces of deceleration, the
change in velocity over this short time
period is small and is proportional to
the impact velocity and munition mass.
The impact energy is the portion of the
kinetic energy at impact that is
transmitted as an underwater pressure
impulse, expressed in units of
8171
trinitrotoluene-equivalent (TNTeq). The
impact energies of the proposed live
munitions were calculated and included
in their total energy estimations. The
impact energies of the inert munitions
proposed to be used were also
calculated. To assess the potential
impacts of inert munitions on marine
animals, the inert munitions were
categorized based on their impact
energies into the following four classes
of 2 lb (0.9 kg), 1 lb (0.45 kg), 0.5 lb
(0.22 kg), and 0.15 lb (0.07 kg) TNTeq;
these values correspond closely to the
actual or average impact energy values
of the munitions and are rounded for
the purpose of analysis. The 2 lb class
represents the largest inert bomb, which
includes the Mark (Mk)–84 General
Purpose (GP), Guided Bomb Unit
(GBU)–10, and GBU–31 bombs, whereas
the 1 lb class represents the largest inert
missile, which is the Air-to-Ground
Missile (AGM)–158 Joint Air-to-Surface
Standoff Missile (JASSM). The JASSM
has greater mass but lower impact
energy than the GBU–31; this is because
of the JASSM’s lower velocity at impact
and associated change in velocity over
the deceleration period, which
contributes to the pressure impulse. The
0.5 lb and 0.15 lb impact energy classes
each represent the approximate average
impact energy of multiple munitions,
with the 0.5 lb class representing
munitions with mid-level energies, and
the 0.15 lb class representing munitions
with the lowest energies (Table 22).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 22—IMPACT ENERGY CLASSES FOR PROPOSED INERT MUNITIONS
Impact energy
class
(lb TNTeq)/(kg)
Representative munitions
Approximate weight
(lb)/(kg)
2 (0.9) ....................
1 (0.45) ..................
0.5 (0.22) ...............
0.15 (0.07) .............
Mk–84, GBU–10, and GBU–31 ................................
AGM–158 JASSM ....................................................
GBU–54 and AIM–120 .............................................
AIM–9, GBU–39, and PGU–15 ................................
2,000 (907) ...............................................................
2,250 (1020.3) ..........................................................
250 to 650 (113.4 to 294.8) .....................................
1 to 285 (0.5 to 129.2) .............................................
The NEW associated with the
physical impact of each munition and
the unconsumed propellant in certain
munitions is added to the NEW of the
warhead to derive the NEW at impact
(NEWi) for each live munition. The
NEWi of each munition was then used
to calculate the peak pressure and
pressure decay for each munition. This
results in a more accurate estimate of
the actual energy released by each
detonation. Extensive research since the
1940s has shown that each explosive
formulation produces unique
correlations to explosive performance
metrics. The peak pressure and pressure
decay constant depend on the NEW,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
explosive formulation, and distance
from the detonation. The peak pressure
and duration of the impulse for each
munition can be calculated empirically
using similitude equations, with
constants used in these equations
determined from experimental data
(NSWC 2017). The explosive-specific
similitude constants and munitionspecific NEWi were used for calculating
the peak pressure and pressure decay
for each munition analyzed. It should be
noted that this analysis assumes that all
detonations occur in the water and none
of the detonations occur above the water
surface when a munition impacts a
target. This exceptionally conservative
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Approximate
velocity
(mach)
1.1.
0.9.
Variable.
Variable.
assumption implies that all munition
energy is imparted to the water rather
than the intended targets. See Appendix
A in the LOA application for detailed
explanations of similitude equations.
The following standard metrics are
used to assess underwater pressure and
impulsive noise impacts on marine
animals:
• SPL: The SPL for a given munition
can be explicitly calculated at a radial
distance using the similitude equations.
• SEL: A commercially available
software package, dBSea (version 2.3),
was used to calculate the SEL for each
mission day.
• Positive Impulse: This is the time
integral of the initial positive phase of
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8172
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the pressure impulse. This metric
provides a measure of energy in the
form of time-integrated pressure. Units
are typically pascal-seconds (Pa·s) or
pounds per square inch (psi) per
millisecond (msec) (psi·msec). The
positive impulse for a given munition
can be explicitly calculated at a given
distance using the similitude equations
and integrating the pressure over the
initial positive phase of the pressure
impulse.
The munition-specific peak pressure
and pressure decay at various radii were
used to determine the species-specific
distance to effect threshold for
mortality, non-auditory injury, peak
pressure–induced permanent threshold
shift (PTS) in hearing and peak
pressure–induced temporary threshold
shift (TTS) in hearing for each species.
The munition-specific peak pressures
and decays for all munitions in each
mission-day category were used as a
time-series input in the dBSea
underwater acoustic model to determine
the distance to effect for cumulative
SEL-based (24-hour) PTS, TTS, and
behavioral effects for each species for
each mission day.
The dBSea model was conducted
using a constant sound speed profile
(SSP) of 1500 m/s to be both
representative of local conditions and to
prevent thermocline induced refractions
from distorting the analysis results.
Salinity was assumed to be 35 parts per
thousand (ppt) and pH was 8. The water
surface was treated as smooth (no
waves) to conservatively eliminate
diffraction induced attenuation of
sound. Currents and tidal flow were
treated as zero. Energy expended on the
target and/or on ejecting water or
transfer into air was ignored and all
weapon energy was treated as going into
underwater acoustic energy to be
conservative. Finally, the bottom was
treated as sand with a sound speed of
1650 m/s and an attenuation of 0.8 dB/
wavelength.
The harassment zone is the area or
volume of ocean in which marine
animals could be exposed to various
pressure and impulsive noise levels
generated by a surface or subsurface
detonation that would result in
mortality; non-auditory injury and PTS
(Level A harassment impacts); and TTS
and behavioral impacts (Level B
harassment impacts). The harassment
zones for the proposed detonations were
estimated using Version 2.3 of the
dBSea model for cumulative SEL and
using explicit similitude equations for
SPL and positive impulse. The
characteristics of the impulse noise at
the source were calculated based on
munition-specific data including
munition mass at impact, munition
velocity at impact, NEW of warheads,
explosive-specific similitude data, and
propellant data for missiles. Table 23
presents the source-level SPLs (at r = 1
meter) calculated for the proposed
munitions.
TABLE 23—CALCULATED SOURCE SPLS FOR MUNITIONS
Peak pressure and decay values
Type
Warhead NEW
(lb)/(kg)
Modeled
explosive
Model NEWi
(lm)/(kg)
AGM–158 JASSM All Variants ..............................................
GBU–54 KMU–572C/B, B/B ..................................................
AGM–65 (all variants) ...........................................................
AIM–120C3 ............................................................................
AIM–9X Blk I .........................................................................
AGM–114 (All ex R2 with TM(R10)) .....................................
AGM–179 JAGM ...................................................................
AGM–114 R2 with TM (R10) ................................................
AGR–20 (APKWS) ................................................................
PGU–43 (105 mm) ................................................................
GBU–69 .................................................................................
GBU–70 .................................................................................
GBU–39 SDB (GTV) .............................................................
GBU–53/B (GTV) ..................................................................
GBU–12 .................................................................................
Mk–81 (GP 250 lb) ................................................................
240.26 (108.9)
192 (87.1)
85 (38.5)
15 (6.8)
7.7 (3.5)
9 (4.1)
9 (4.1)
8 (3.6)
2.3 (1.0)
4.7 (2.1)
36 (16.3)
36 (16.3)
0.39 (0.2)
0.34 (0.2)
192 (87.1)
100 (45.4)
Tritonal ..............
Tritonal ..............
Comp B .............
PBXN–110 .........
PBXN–110 .........
PBXN–110 .........
PBXN–110 ........
PBXN–9 .............
Comp B .............
Comp B .............
Tritonal ..............
Tritonal ..............
PBXN–9 .............
PBXN–9 .............
Tritonal ..............
H–6 ....................
241.36 (109.5)
192.3 (87.2)
98.3 (44.6)
36.18 (13.4)
20 (9.1)
13.08 (5.9)
13.08 (5.9)
13.08 (5.9)
3.8 (1.7)
4.72 (2.1)
36.1 (16.4)
36.1 (19.4)
0.49 (0.2)
0.44 (0.2)
192.3 (87.2)
100 (45.4)
Pmax @1 m
(psi)
45961.4858
42101.8577
37835.4932
24704.864
19617.2833
16630.2435
16630.2435
17240.2131
10187.8419
11118.8384
22074.1015
22074.1015
4757.6146
4561.06062
42101.8577
38017.3815
SPL @1 m dB
re 1 mPa
290.0
289.3
288.3
284.6
282.6
281.2
281.2
281.5
276.9
277.7
283.7
283.7
270.3
270.0
289.3
288.4
Q
msec
0.320
0.302
0.200
0.167
0.143
0.128
0.128
0.124
0.090
0.095
0.198
0.198
0.054
0.053
0.302
0.237
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
q = shock wave time constant; AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; AIM = Air Intercept Missile; APKWS = Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System; dB re 1 μPa = decibel(s) referenced to 1 micropascal; FU = Full Up; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; GP = General Purpose; GTV = Guided Test Vehicle; HACM = Hypersonic Attack Cruise
Missile; HE = High Explosive; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; lb = pound(s); lbm = pound-mass; LSDB = Laser Small-Diameter Bomb; m = meter(s);
Mk = Mark; mm = millimeter(s); msec = millisecond(s); NEW = net explosive weight; NEWi = net explosive weight at impact; NLOS = Non-Line-of-Sight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; Pmax = shock wave peak pressure; psi = pound(s) per square inch; SDB = Small-Diameter Bomb; SPL = sound pressure level; TM = telemetry.
For SEL analysis, the dBSea model
was used with the ray-tracing option for
calculating the underwater transmission
of impulsive noise sources represented
in a time series (1,000,000 samples per
second) as calculated using similitude
equations (r = 1 meter) for each
munition for each mission day. All
surface detonations are assumed to
occur at a depth of 1 m, and all
subsurface detonations, which would
include the GBU–10, GBU–24, GBU–31,
and subsurface mines, are assumed to
occur at a depth of 3 m. The model used
bathymetry for LIA with detonations
occurring at the center of the LIA with
a water depth of 70 m. The seafloor of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
the LIA is generally sandy, so sandy
bottom characteristics for reflectivity
and attenuation were used in the dBSea
model, as previously described. The
model was used to calculate impulsive
acoustic noise transmission on one-third
octaves from 31.5 hertz to 32 kilohertz.
Maximum SELs from all depths
projected to the surface were used for
the analyses.
The cumulative SEL is based on
multiple parameters including the
acoustic characteristics of the
detonation and sound propagation loss
in the marine environment, which is
influenced by a number of
environmental factors including water
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
depth and seafloor properties. Based on
integration of these parameters, the
dBSea model predicts the distances at
which each marine animal species is
estimated to experience SELs associated
with the onset of PTS, TTS, and
behavioral disturbance. As noted
previously, thresholds for the onset of
TTS and PTS used in the model and
pressure calculations are based on those
presented in Criteria and Thresholds for
U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive
Effects Analysis (Phase III) (DoN 2017)
for cetaceans with mid- to highfrequency hearing (dolphins) and lowfrequency hearing (Rice’s whale).
Behavioral thresholds are set 5 dB
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8173
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
below the SEL-based TTS threshold.
Table 24 shows calculated SPLs and
SELs for the designated mission-day
categories.
TABLE 24—CALCULATED SOURCE SPLS AND SELS FOR MISSION-DAY CATEGORIES
Total warhead
NEW, lbm a
(kg)
Mission day
A ...........................................................................................................
B ...........................................................................................................
C ..........................................................................................................
D ..........................................................................................................
E ...........................................................................................................
F ...........................................................................................................
G ..........................................................................................................
H ..........................................................................................................
I ............................................................................................................
J ...........................................................................................................
K ...........................................................................................................
L ...........................................................................................................
M ..........................................................................................................
N ..........................................................................................................
O ..........................................................................................................
P ...........................................................................................................
Q ..........................................................................................................
R ..........................................................................................................
S ...........................................................................................................
a lbm
2402.6 (108.6)
1961 (889.3)
1145 (519.2)
562 (254.8)
817.88 (370.9)
584 (264.8)
191(86.6)
60.5 (24.7)
18.4 (8.3)
945 (428.6)
Not available
624.52 (283.2)
324 (146.9)
219.92 (99.7)
72 (36.6)
90 (40.8)
94 (42.6)
35.12 (15.9)
130 (58.9)
Source
cumulative
SEL, dB
Modeled NEWi,
lbm/(kg)
2413.6 (1094.6)
2029.9 (920.6)
1376.2 (624.1)
836.22 (379.2)
997.62 (452.0)
584.6 (265.1)
191.6 (86.9)
61.1 (27.7)
30.4 (13.8)
946.8 (429.4)
350 (158.7)
627.12 (284.4)
324.9 (147.3)
238.08 (107.9)
104.64 (47.5)
130.8 (59.3)
94.4 (42.8)
35.82 (16.2)
130 (58.9)
Source peak
SPL, dB
262.1
261.4
259.8
257.6
257.1
256.2
250.4
245.2
242.5
258.1
253.4
256.2
253.2
252
248.3
249.3
247.5
241.7
249.4
290
289.3
288.3
288.3
281.5
289.3
277.7
268.8
276.9
294.6
291.5
290
283.6
285.3
281.2
281.2
277.7
270.3
283
= pound-mass.
Mission-Day Categories
The munitions proposed to be used by
each military unit were grouped into
mission-day categories so the acoustic
impact analysis could be based on the
total number of detonations conducted
during a given mission instead of each
individual detonation. This analysis
was done to account for the
accumulated energy from multiple
detonations over a 24-hour period.
The estimated number of mission
days assigned to each category was
based on historical numbers and
projections provided by certain user
groups. Although the mission-day
categories may not represent the exact
manner in which munitions would be
used, they provide a conservative range
of mission scenarios to account for
accumulated energy from multiple
controlled information and, therefore,
not identified in this LOA Request. For
the purpose of analysis, SINKEX
exercises are assigned to mission-day
category J, which represents a single
subsurface detonation of 945 lb NEW.
SINKEX exercises would not exceed this
NEW. The 2 annual SINKEX exercises
are added to the other 8 annual missions
involving subsurface detonations of
these bombs, resulting in 10 total annual
missions under mission-day category J.
As indicated in Table 25, a total of 19
mission-day categories (A through S)
were developed a part of this LOA
application. The table also contains
information on the number of munitions
per day, number of mission days per
year, annual quantity of munitions and
the NEWi per mission day.
detonations. It is important to note that
only acoustic energy metrics (SEL) are
affected by the accumulation of energy
over a 24-hour period. Pressure metrics
(e.g., peak SPL and positive impulse) do
not accumulate and are based on the
highest impulse pressure value within
the 24-hour period. Based on the
categories developed, the total NEWi
per mission day would range from
2,413.6 to 30.4 lb (1,094.6 to 13.8 kg).
The highest detonation energy of any
single munition used under the USAF’s
proposed activities would be 945 lb
(428.5 kg) NEW, which was also the
highest NEW for a single munition in
the previous LOA Request. The
munitions having this NEW include the
GBU–10, GBU–24, and GBU–31.
Note that the types of munitions that
would be used for SINKEX testing are
TABLE 25—MISSION-DAY CATEGORIES FOR ACOUSTIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Mission-day
category
User group
53 WEG ...
A
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
B
C
D
E
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Warhead NEW
(lb)/(kg)
Munition type
Category
AGM–158D JASSM
XR.
AGM–158B JASSM
ER.
AGM–158A JASSM
GBU–54 KMU–
572C/B.
GBU–54 KMU–
572B/B.
AGM–65D ...............
AGM–65H2 .............
AGM–65G2 .............
AGM–65K2 ..............
AGM–65L ................
AIM–120C3 .............
AIM–9X Blk I ...........
AGM–114 N–4D
with TM.
AGM–114 N–6D
with TM.
Missile .....................
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
240.26 (108.9)
NEWi (lb)/kg
241.36 (109.4)
Detonation scenario
Munitions
per day
Surface ...
4
Mission days
per year
1
Annual
quantity
4
NEWi per mission
day (lb)/(kg)
2,413.6 (1,095.9)
Missile .....................
240.26 (108.9)
241.36 (109.4)
Surface ...
3
1
3
..............................
Missile .....................
Bomb (Mk–82) ........
240.26 (108.9)
192 (87.1)
241.36 (109.4)
192.3 (87.2)
Surface ...
Surface ...
3
4
1
1
3
4
..............................
2,029.9 (920.5)
Bomb (Mk–82) ........
192 (87.1)
192.3 (87.2)
Surface ...
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
85 (38.5)
85 (37.5)
85 (38.5)
85 (38.5)
85 (38.5)
15 (6.8)
7.7 (4.5)
9 (4.1)
98.3 (44.6)
98.3 (44.6)
98.3 (44.6)
98.3 (44.6)
98.3 (44.6)
36.18 (16.4)
20 (9.1)
13.08 (5.9)
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Missile .....................
9 (4.1)
13.08 (5.9)
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Missile
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4
1
4
..............................
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
5
5
5
4
5
4
10
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
5
4
10
4
..............................
1,376.2 (624.1)
..............................
..............................
836.22 (379.2)
..............................
..............................
997.62 (452.4)
Surface ...
4
1
4
..............................
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8174
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 25—MISSION-DAY CATEGORIES FOR ACOUSTIC IMPACT ANALYSIS—Continued
Mission-day
category
User group
AFSOC ....
AFSOC ....
F
G
H
I
96 OG ......
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
NAVSCOL
EOD.
S
Warhead NEW
(lb)/(kg)
Munition type
Category
AGM–179 JAGM .....
AGM–114 R2 with
TM (R10).
AGM–114 R–9E
with TM (R11).
AGM–114Q with TM
AGR–20 (APKWS) ..
AGM–176 ................
PGU–43 (105 mm) ..
GBU–69 ..................
GBU–70 ..................
AGM–88C w/FTS ....
AGM–88B w/FTS ....
AGM–88F w/FTS ....
AGM–88G w/FTS ....
GBU–39 SDB (GTV)
GBU–53/B (GTV) ....
GBU–12 ..................
Mk–81 (GP 250 lb)
105 mm HE (FU) ....
30 mm HE ...............
105 mm HE (TR) ....
30 mm HE ...............
2.75-inch Rocket (including APKWS).
GBU–10, 24, or 31
(QUICKSINK).
HACM ......................
AGM–158 (JASSM)
GBU–39 (SDB I) Simultaneous
Launch c.
GBU–39 (SDB I) .....
GBU–39 (LSDB) .....
GBU–39B/B LSDB ..
Spike NLOS ............
GBU–53 (SDB II) ....
AGM–114R Hellfire
AGM–114 Hellfire ....
AGM–176 Griffin .....
105 mm HE (FU) ....
Inert GBU–39
(LSDB) with live
fuze.
Inert GBU–53 (SDB
II) with live fuze.
105 mm HE (TR) ....
30 mm HE ...............
Underwater Mine
Charge.
Floating Mine
Charge.
Missile .....................
Missile .....................
9 (4.1)
9 (4.1)
NEWi (lb)/kg
13.08 (5.9)
13.08 (5.9)
Missile .....................
9 (4.1)
13.08 (5.9)
Missile .....................
Rocket .....................
Missile .....................
Gun Ammunition .....
Bomb .......................
Bomb .......................
Missile .....................
Missile .....................
Missile .....................
Missile .....................
Bomb .......................
Bomb .......................
Bomb (Mk–82) ........
Bomb .......................
Gun Ammunition .....
Gun Ammunition .....
Gun Ammunition .....
Gun Ammunition .....
Rocket .....................
9 (4.1)
2.3 (1.0)
9 (4.1)
4.7 (2.1)
36 (16.3)
36 (16.3)
a 0.70 (0.3)
a 0.70 (0.3)
a 0.70 (0.3)
a 0.70 (0.3)
a 0.39 (0.2)
a 0.34 (0.2)
192 (87.1)
100 (45.3)
4.7 (2.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.35 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
2.3 (1.0)
13.08 (5.9)
3.8 (1.7)
13.08 (5.9)
4.72 (2.1)
36.1 (13.3)
36.1 (16.3)
0
0
0
0
0.49 (0.2)
0.44 (0.2)
192.3 (87.2)
100 (45.3)
4.72 (2.1)
0.1 (0.01)
0.37 (0.2)
0.1 (0.01)
3.8 (1.7)
Bomb (Mk–84) ........
945 (428.6)
946.8 (429.4)
Hypersonic Weapon
Missile .....................
Bomb .......................
Not available
240.26 (108.9)
72 (32.6)
350 (158.7)
241.36 (109.4)
72.2 (32.7)
Bomb .......................
Bomb .......................
Bomb .......................
Missile .....................
Bomb .......................
Missile .....................
Missile .....................
Missile .....................
Gun Ammunition .....
Bomb .......................
36 (16.3)
36 (16.3)
36 (16.3)
34.08 (15.4)
22.84 (13.4)
9 (4.1)
9 (4.1)
9 (4.1)
4.7 (2.1)
0.39 (0.2)
36.1 13.3)
36.1 (16.3)
36.1 (16.3)
40 (18.1)
22.94 (10.4)
13.08 (5.9)
13.08 (5.9)
13.08 (5.9)
4.72 (2.1)
0.49 (0.2)
Bomb .......................
0.34 (0.2)
0.35 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
(9.07)
Gun Ammunition .....
Gun Ammunition .....
Charge ....................
Charge ....................
d 20
d5
Detonation scenario
Munitions
per day
Surface ...
Surface ...
Mission days
per year
4
4
1
1
4
4
NEWi per mission
day (lb)/(kg)
..............................
..............................
4
1
4
..............................
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
4
12
4
100
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
8
2
2
30
500
30
500
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
15
25 (daytime)
50
4
12
4
100
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
8
30
30
750
12,500
1,350
22,500
400
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
584.6 (263.1)
..............................
191.6 (86.8)
..............................
61.1 (27.7)
..............................
30.4 (13.8)
Subsurface.
Surface ...
Surface ...
Surface ...
1
b 10
b 10
946.8 (429.4)
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
350 (158.7)
627.12 (284.3)
..............................
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
4
5
2
3
2
8
5
5
20
4
2
2
1
1
1
4
2
2
3
1
8
10
2
3
2
36
10
10
60
4
324.9 (147.3)
..............................
238.08 (107.9)
..............................
..............................
104.64 (47.5)
130.8 (59.3)
..............................
94.4 (42.8)
35.82 (16.2)
0.44 (0.2)
Surface ...
4
1
4
..............................
0.37 (0.2)
0.1 (0.01)
20 (9.07)
Surface ...
Surface ...
Subsurface.
Surface ...
60
99
4
1
1
8
60
99
32
..............................
..............................
130 (58.9)
10
8
80
..............................
(2.3)
5 (2.3)
Surface ...
Annual
quantity
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
45 (nighttime)
a Warhead
replaced by FTS/TM. Identified NEW is for the FTS.
2 SINKEX exercises.
is doubled for simultaneous launch.
d Estimated.
b Includes
c NEW
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Marine Mammal Density
Densities of the common bottlenose
dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, and
Rice’s whale in the study area are based
on habitat-based density models and
spatial density models developed by the
NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science
Center for the species in the Gulf of
Mexico (NOAA 2022). The density
models, herein referred to as the NOAA
model, integrated visual observations
from aerial and shipboard surveys
conducted in the Gulf of Mexico from
2003 to 2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
The NOAA model was used to predict
the average density of the common
bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted
dolphin in the existing LIA and
proposed East LIA. The model generates
densities for hexagon-shaped raster
grids that are 40 square kilometers
(km2). The average annual density of
each dolphin species in the existing LIA
and proposed East LIA was computed in
a geographic information system (GIS)
based on the densities of the raster grids
within the boundaries of each LIA. To
account for portions of the grids outside
of the LIA, the species density value of
each grid was area-weighted based on
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the respective area of the grid within the
LIA. For example, the density of a grid
that is 70 percent within the LIA would
be weighted to reflect only the 70
percent grid area, which contributes to
the average density of the entire LIA.
The density of the 30 percent grid area
outside the LIA does not contribute to
the average LIA density, so it is not
included in the estimation. The
resulting area-weighted densities of all
the grids were summed to determine the
average annual density of each dolphin
species within each LIA. The densities
of dolphins estimated are presented in
Table 26.
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8175
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 26—PREDICTED DOLPHIN DENSITIES IN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED LIAS
Density estimate
(animals per km2) a
Species
Existing LIA
Atlantic spotted dolphin ...........................................................................................................................................
Common bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................................
a Estimated
Proposed east
LIA
0.032
0.261
0.038
0.317
average density within LIA based on spatial density model developed by NOAA (2022).
The NOAA model was used to
determine Rice’s whale density in the
exposure analysis conducted for the
Rice’s whale in this LOA Request. Areas
of Rice’s whale exposure to pressure
and impulsive noise from munitions
use, predicted by underwater acoustic
modeling and quantified by GIS
analysis, were coupled with the
associated modeled grid densities from
the NOAA model to estimate abundance
of affected animals.
Take Estimation
The distances from the live
ammunition detonation point that
correspond to the various effect
thresholds described previously are
referred to as threshold distances. The
threshold distances were calculated
using dBSea for each mission-day
category for each marine mammal
species. The model was run assuming
that the detonation point is at the center
of the existing LIA, the SEL threshold
distances are the same for the proposed
East LIA, and all missions are
conducted in either the existing LIA or
proposed East LIA. Model outputs for
the two LIAs are statistically the same
as a result of similarities in water
depths, sea bottom profiles, water
temperatures, and other environmental
characteristics. Table 27, Table 28 and
Table 29 present the threshold distances
estimated for the dolphins and Rice’s
whale, respectively, for live missions in
the existing LIA.
The threshold distances were used to
calculate the harassment zones for each
effect threshold for each species. The
thresholds resemble concentric circles,
with the most severe (mortality) being
closest to the center (detonation point)
and the least severe (behavioral
disturbance) being farthest from the
center. The areas encompassed by the
concentric thresholds are the impact
areas associated with the applicable
criteria. To prevent double counting of
animals, areas associated with higherimpact criteria were subtracted from
areas associated with lower-impact
criteria. To estimate the number of
animals potentially exposed to the
various thresholds within the
harassment zone, the adjusted impact
area was multiplied by the predicted
animal density and the annual number
of events for each mission-day category.
The results were rounded at the annual
mission-day level and then summed for
each criterion to estimate the total
annual take numbers for each species.
For impulse and SPL metrics, a take is
considered to occur if the received level
is equal to or above the associated
threshold. For SEL metrics, a take is
considered to occur if the received level
is equal to or above the associated
threshold within the appropriate
frequency band of the sound received,
adjusted for the appropriate weighting
function value of that frequency band.
For impact categories with multiple
criteria (e.g., non-auditory injury and
PTS for Level A harassment) and criteria
with two thresholds (e.g., SEL and SPL
for PTS), the criterion and/or threshold
that yielded the higher exposure
estimate was used. Threshold distances
for dolphins are shown in Table 27 and
28, while Table 29 contains threshold
distances for Rice’s whale.
TABLE 27—BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN THRESHOLD DISTANCES (IN km) FOR LIVE MISSIONS IN THE EXISTING LIVE IMPACT
AREA
Mortality
Mission-day category
Positive
impulse
B: 248.4 Pa·s
AS: 197.1
Pa·s
Level A harassment
Slight
lung injury
GI tract injury
Positive impulse
B: 114.5 Pa·s
AS: 90.9 Pa·s
Peak SPL
237 dB
Level B harassment
Behavioral a
TTS
PTS
Weighted SEL
185 dB
Peak SPL
230 dB
Weighted SEL
170 dB
Peak SPL
224 dB
Weighted SEL
165 dB
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Bottlenose Dolphin
A ........................................
B ........................................
C ........................................
D ........................................
E ........................................
F ........................................
G ........................................
H ........................................
I .........................................
J .........................................
K ........................................
L ........................................
M .......................................
N ........................................
O ........................................
P ........................................
Q ........................................
R ........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
0.139
0.128
0.100
0.100
0.068
0.128
0.027
0.010
0.025
0.228
0.158
0.139
0.068
0.073
0.046
0.046
0.027
0.012
Jkt 259001
0.276
0.254
0.199
0.199
0.136
0.254
0.054
0.019
0.049
0.449
0.313
0.276
0.136
0.145
0.092
0.092
0.054
0.024
PO 00000
Frm 00031
0.194
0.180
0.144
0.144
0.103
0.180
0.048
0.021
0.045
0.306
0.222
0.194
0.103
0.113
0.078
0.078
0.048
0.026
Fmt 4701
0.562
0.581
0.543
0.471
0.479
0.352
0.274
0.225
0.136
0.678
0.258
0.347
0.286
0.25
0.185
0.204
0.247
0.139
Sfmt 4702
0.389
0.361
0.289
0.289
0.207
0.362
0.093
0.040
0.087
0.615
0.445
0.389
0.207
0.225
0.155
0.155
0.093
0.052
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
5.59
5.215
4.459
3.251
3.272
2.338
1.095
0.809
0.536
3.458
1.263
2.35
1.446
1.432
0.795
0.907
0.931
0.537
07FEP3
0.706
0.655
0.524
0.524
0.377
0.655
0.165
0.071
0.154
1.115
0.808
0.706
0.377
0.404
0.278
0.278
0.165
0.093
9.538
8.937
7.568
5.664
5.88
4.596
2.488
1.409
0.918
6.193
2.663
4.656
3.508
2.935
1.878
2.172
1.563
0.91
8176
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 27—BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN THRESHOLD DISTANCES (IN km) FOR LIVE MISSIONS IN THE EXISTING LIVE IMPACT
AREA—Continued
Mortality
Mission-day category
Positive
impulse
B: 248.4 Pa·s
AS: 197.1
Pa·s
S ........................................
a Behavioral
Level A harassment
Slight
lung injury
GI tract injury
Positive impulse
B: 114.5 Pa·s
AS: 90.9 Pa·s
Peak SPL
237 dB
0.053
Level B harassment
Behavioral a
TTS
0.104
PTS
Weighted SEL
185 dB
0.084
Peak SPL
230 dB
0.429
Weighted SEL
170 dB
0.164
1.699
Peak SPL
224 dB
0.294
Weighted SEL
165 dB
2.872
threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
TABLE 28—ATLANTIC SPOTTED DOLPHIN THRESHOLD DISTANCES (IN km) FOR LIVE MISSIONS IN THE EXISTING LIVE
IMPACT AREA
Mortality
Mission-day category
Positive
impulse
B: 248.4 Pa·s
AS: 197.1
Pa·s
Level A harassment
Slight lung
injury
GI tract injury
Positive
impulse
B: 114.5 Pa·s
AS: 90.9 Pa·s
Peak SPL
237 dB
Level B harassment
Behavioral a
TTS
PTS
Weighted SEL
185 dB
Peak SPL
230 dB
Weighted SEL
170 dB
Peak SPL
224 dB
Weighted SEL
165 dB
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
A ........................................
B ........................................
C ........................................
D ........................................
E ........................................
F ........................................
G ........................................
H ........................................
I .........................................
J .........................................
K ........................................
L ........................................
M .......................................
N ........................................
O ........................................
P ........................................
Q ........................................
R ........................................
S ........................................
a Behavioral
0.171
0.157
0.123
0.123
0.084
0.157
0.033
0.012
0.030
0.279
0.194
0.171
0.084
0.090
0.057
0.057
0.033
0.015
0.065
0.338
0.311
0.244
0.244
0.168
0.312
0.066
0.023
0.060
0.550
0.384
0.338
0.168
0.179
0.113
0.113
0.066
0.030
0.128
0.194
0.180
0.144
0.144
0.103
0.180
0.048
0.021
0.045
0.306
0.222
0.194
0.103
0.113
0.078
0.078
0.048
0.026
0.084
0.562
0.581
0.543
0.471
0.479
0.352
0.274
0.225
0.136
0.678
0.258
0.347
0.286
0.25
0.185
0.204
0.247
0.139
0.429
0.389
0.361
0.289
0.289
0.207
0.362
0.093
0.040
0.087
0.615
0.445
0.389
0.207
0.225
0.155
0.155
0.093
0.052
0.164
5.59
5.215
4.459
3.251
3.272
2.338
1.095
0.809
0.536
3.458
1.263
2.35
1.446
1.432
0.795
0.907
0.931
0.537
1.699
0.706
0.655
0.524
0.524
0.377
0.655
0.165
0.071
0.154
1.115
0.808
0.706
0.377
0.404
0.278
0.278
0.165
0.093
0.294
9.538
8.937
7.568
5.664
5.88
4.596
2.488
1.409
0.918
6.193
2.663
4.656
3.508
2.935
1.878
2.172
1.563
0.91
2.872
threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
TABLE 29—RICE’S WHALE THRESHOLD DISTANCES (IN km) FOR LIVE MISSIONS IN THE EXISTING LIVE IMPACT AREA
Mortality
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Mission-day category
Positive
impulse
906.2 Pa·s
A ........................................
B ........................................
C ........................................
D ........................................
E ........................................
F ........................................
G ........................................
H ........................................
I .........................................
J .........................................
K ........................................
L ........................................
M .......................................
N ........................................
O ........................................
P ........................................
Q ........................................
R ........................................
S ........................................
a Behavioral
VerDate Sep<11>2014
0.044
0.041
0.031
0.031
0.021
0.041
0.009
0.003
0.008
0.073
0.050
0.044
0.021
0.023
0.015
0.014
0.009
0.004
0.017
Level A harassment
Slight lung
injury
GI tract injury
Positive
impulse
417.9 Pa·s
Peak SPL
237 dB
Level B harassment
0.088
0.81
0.063
0.063
0.043
0.081
0.017
0.006
0.016
0.145
0.100
0.088
0.043
0.046
0.029
0.029
0.017
0.008
0.034
PTS
Weighted SEL
183 dB
0.194
0.180
0.144
0.144
0.103
0.180
0.048
0.021
0.045
0.306
0.222
0.194
0.103
0.113
0.078
0.078
0.048
0.026
0.084
Peak SPL
219 dB
5.695
5.253
4.332
2.979
2.323
2.208
0.494
0.401
0.305
4.487
0.831
2.325
1.304
1.026
0.611
0.671
0.549
0.283
0.938
Weighted SEL
168 dB
1.170
1.076
0.861
0.861
0.617
1.076
0.266
0.114
0.247
1.830
1.320
1.170
0.617
0.658
0.460
0.460
0.266
0.152
0.473
21.435
20.641
18.772
16.419
15.814
14.403
7.532
3.624
2.95
13.216
7.723
15.216
11.582
9.904
6.926
7.841
6.299
2.383
8.676
threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Behavioral a
TTS
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Peak SPL
213 dB
2.120
1.955
1.562
1.562
1.121
1.955
0.470
0.201
0.437
3.323
2.393
2.120
1.121
1.183
0.832
0.832
0.470
0.273
0.843
Weighted SEL
163 dB
27.923
26.845
24.526
21.579
21.22
19.439
12.92
7.065
6.059
16.88
11.809
20.319
16.688
14.859
11.159
12.307
10.393
5.06
12.874
8177
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
As discussed previously and shown
in Table 22, a portion of the kinetic
energy released by an inert munition at
impact is transmitted as underwater
acoustic energy in a pressure impulse.
The proposed inert munitions were
categorized into four classes based on
their impact energies to assess the
potential impacts of inert munitions on
marine mammals. The threshold
distances for each class were modeled
and calculated as described for the
mission-day categories. Table 30
presents the impact energy classes
developed for the proposed inert
munitions. The four impact energy
classes represent the entire suite of inert
munitions proposed to be used in the
EGTTR during the next mission period.
The impact energy is the portion of the
kinetic energy at impact that is
transmitted as an underwater pressure
impulse, expressed in units of TNTequivalent (TNTeq). Tables 30 and 31
present the threshold distances
estimated for the dolphins and Rice’s
whale, respectively, for inert munitions
in the existing LIA.
TABLE 30—DOLPHIN THRESHOLD DISTANCES (IN KM) FOR INERT MUNITIONS IN THE EXISTING LIVE IMPACT AREA
Mortality
Inert impact class
(lb TNTeq)
Level A harassment
Positive
impulse
B: 248.4 Pa·s
AS: 197.1 Pa·s
Slight lung
injury
GI tract injury
Positive
impulse
B: 114.5 Pa·s
AS: 90.9 Pa·s
Peak SPL
237 dB
Level B harassment
Behavioral a
TTS
PTS
Weighted SEL
185 dB
Peak SPL
230 dB
Weighted SEL
170 dB
Peak SPL
224 dB
Weighted SEL
165 dB
Bottlenose Dolphin
2 ............................
1 ............................
0.5 .........................
0.15 .......................
0.020
0.015
0.012
0.008
0.041
0.031
0.023
0.015
0.040
0.032
0.025
0.017
0.030
0.025
0.015
0.009
0.080
0.063
0.050
0.034
0.205
0.134
0.119
0.061
0.145
0.114
0.091
0.061
0.327
0.250
0.198
0.119
0.080
0.063
0.050
0.034
0.205
0.134
0.119
0.061
0.145
0.114
0.091
0.061
0.327
0.250
0.198
0.119
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
2 ............................
1 ............................
0.5 .........................
0.15 .......................
a Behavioral
0.025
0.019
0.014
0.009
0.051
0.038
0.029
0.018
0.040
0.032
0.025
0.017
0.030
0.025
0.015
0.009
threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
TABLE 31—RICE’S WHALE THRESHOLD DISTANCES (IN KM) FOR INERT MUNITIONS IN THE EXISTING LIVE IMPACT AREA
Mortality
Inert impact class
(lb TNTeq)
2 ............................
1 ............................
0.5 .........................
0.15 .......................
a Behavioral
Level A harassment
Positive
impulse
906.2 Pa·s
Slight lung
injury
GI tract injury
Positive
impulse
417.9 Pa·s
Peak SPL
237 dB
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.002
Level B harassment
Behavioral a
TTS
0.013
0.010
0.007
0.005
PTS
Weighted SEL
183 dB
0.040
0.032
0.025
0.017
Peak SPL
219 dB
0.151
0.110
0.055
0.026
Weighted SEL
168 dB
0.238
0.188
0.149
0.100
Peak SPL
213 dB
0.474
0.327
0.261
0.154
Weighted SEL
163 dB
0.430
0.340
0.270
0.181
0.884
0.542
0.521
0.284
threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
Dolphin Species
Estimated takes for dolphins are based
on the area of the Level A and Level B
harassment zones, predicted dolphin
density, and annual number of events
for each mission-day category. As
previously discussed, take estimates for
dolphins are based on the average yearly
density of each dolphin species in each
LIA. To estimate the takes of each
dolphin species in both LIAs
collectively, the take estimates for each
LIA were weighted based on the
expected usage of each LIA over the 7year mission period. This information
was provided by the user groups. Ninety
percent of the total missions are
expected to be conducted in the existing
LIA and 10 percent are expected to be
conducted in the proposed East LIA.
Therefore, total estimated takes are the
sum of 90 percent of the takes in the
existing LIA and 10 percent of the takes
in the proposed East LIA. Should the
usage ratio changes substantially in the
future, USAF would re-evaluate the
exposure estimates and reinitiate
consultation with NMFS to determine
whether the take estimations need to be
adjusted.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 32—CALCULATED ANNUAL EXPOSURES OF DOLPHINS UNDER THE USAF’S PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Level A harassment
Level B harassment
Mortality
Injury a
PTS
TTS
Behavioral
Bottlenose Dolphin
Missions at Existing LIA .......................................................
Missions at East LIA ............................................................
90 Percent of Existing LIA Missions ....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
0.74
0.89
0.66
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2.14
2.6
1.92
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
9.25
11.24
8.33
07FEP3
312.7
379.79
281.4
799.7
971.29
719.73
8178
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 32—CALCULATED ANNUAL EXPOSURES OF DOLPHINS UNDER THE USAF’S PROPOSED ACTIVITIES—Continued
Level A harassment
Level B harassment
Mortality
Injury a
PTS
TTS
Behavioral
10 Percent of East LIA Missions .........................................
0.09
0.26
1.12
37.98
97.13
Total ..............................................................................
0.75
2.18
9.45
319.14
816.86
Total Takes Requested .........................................
0
0
9
319
817
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Missions at Existing LIA .......................................................
Missions at East LIA ............................................................
90 Percent of Existing LIA Missions ....................................
10 Percent of East LIA Missions .........................................
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.02
0.39
0.47
0.36
0.05
0.96
1.14
0.86
0.11
38.34
45.53
34.50
4.55
98.05
116.43
88.24
11.64
Total ..............................................................................
0.14
0.4
0.98
39.06
99.89
Total Takes Proposed ...........................................
0
0
1
39
100
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
a Slight
lung and/or gastrointestinal tract injury.
The annual exposures of dolphins
requested by the USAF and proposed
for authorization by NMFS are
presented in Table 32. As indicated, a
total of 9 Level A harassment takes and
1,136 Level B harassment takes of the
common bottlenose dolphin, and 1
Level A harassment takes and 139 Level
B harassment takes of the Atlantic
spotted dolphin are requested annually
for EGTTR operations during the next 7year mission period. The presented
takes are overestimates of actual
exposure based on the conservative
assumption that all proposed
detonations would occur at or just
below the water surface instead of a
portion occurring upon impact with
targets.
Based on the best available science,
the USAF (in coordination with NMFS)
used the acoustic and pressure
thresholds indicated in Tables 26–30 to
predict the onset of tissue damage and
mortality for explosives (impulsive) and
other impulsive sound sources for inert
and live munitions in both the existing
LIA and proposed East LIA. The
mortality takes calculated for the
bottlenose dolphin (0.75) and Atlantic
spotted dolphin (0.14) are both less than
one animal. Mortality for Rice’s whale is
zero. Therefore, and in consideration of
the required mitigation measures, no
mortality takes are requested for either
dolphin species or Rice’s whale. The
non-auditory injury takes are calculated
to be 2.18 and 0.40 for the bottlenose
dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin,
respectively. However, these (and the
take estimates for the other effect
thresholds) are the sum of the respective
takes for all 19 mission-day categories.
Each individual mission-day category
results in a fraction of a non-auditory
injury take. Given the required
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
mitigation, adding up all the fractional
takes in this manner would likely result
in an over-estimate of take. Calculated
non-auditory injury for the Rice’s whale
is zero.
The mitigation measures associated
with explosives are expected to be
effective in preventing mortality and
non-auditory tissue damage to any
potentially affected species. All of the
calculated distances to mortality or nonauditory injury thresholds are less than
400 m. The USAF would be required to
employ trained protected species
observers (PSOs) to monitor the
mitigation zones based on the missionday activities. The mitigation zone is
defined as double the threshold distance
at which Level A harassment exposures
in the form of PTS could occur (also
referred to below as ‘‘double the Level
A PTS threshold distance’’). During premonitoring PSOs would be required to
postpone or cancel operations if animals
are found in these zones. Protected
species monitoring would be vesselbased, aerial-based or remote videobased depending on the mission-day
activities. The USAF would also be
required to conduct testing and training
exercise beyond setback distances
shown in Table 33. These setback
distances would start from the 100-m
isobath, which is approximately the
shallowest depth where the Rice’s
whale has been observed. The setback
distances are based on the PTS
threshold calculated for the Rice’s
whale depending on the mission-day
activity. Also, all gunnery missions
must take place 500 m landward of the
100-m isopleth to avoid impacts to the
Rice’s whale. When these mitigation
measures are considered in combination
with the modeled exposure results, no
species are anticipated to incur
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mortality or non-auditory tissue damage
during the period of this rule.
Based on the conservative
assumptions applied to the impact
analysis and the pre-mission surveys
conducted for dolphins, which extend
out to, at a minimum, twice the PTS
threshold distance that applies to both
dolphin species (185 dB SEL), NMFS
has determined that no mortality or
non-auditory injury takes are expected
and none are authorized for EGTTR
operations.
Rice’s Whale
Figure 6–2 in the LOA application
shows the estimated Rice’s whale
threshold distances and associated
harassment zones for mission-day
category A, J, and P and use of a 2 lb
class inert munition at the location
where the GRATV is typically anchored
in the existing LIA. As indicated on
Figure 6–2, portions of the behavioral
harassment zone of mission-day
categories A and J extend into Rice’s
whale habitat, whereas the monitoring
zones for mission-day category P and
the largest inert munition are entirely
outside Rice’s whale habitat. The
monitoring zone is defined as the area
between double the Level A harassment
mitigation zone and the human safety
zone perimeter. As previously
discussed, the spatial density model
developed by NOAA (2022) for the
Rice’s whale was used to predict Rice’s
whale density for the purpose of
estimating takes. The NOAA model
generates densities for hexagon-shaped
raster grids that are 40 km2. The specific
areas of the raster grids within each of
the Level A and Level B harassment
zones were computed in GIS and
coupled with their respective modeled
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8179
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
densities to estimate the number of
animals that would be exposed.
Figure 6–3 in the LOA application
shows the harassment zones of missionday category A at the current GRATV
anchoring site. As shown, portions of
the mitigation zones (TTS and
behavioral disturbance) are within grids
of modeled density greater than zero
individuals per 40 km2. However, the
modeled densities in these areas are
small and reflect higher occurrence
probability for the Rice’s whale farther
to the southwest, outside the LIA. To
estimate annual takes, the number of
animals in all model grids within each
mitigation, monitoring zone, and Level
B harassment (behavioral) zone for all
mission-day categories, except gunnery
missions (G and H), were computed
using the densities from the NOAA
model (2022) model and the impact
areas calculated in GIS. The modeled
densities and the associated areas were
multiplied together to estimate
abundance within each mitigation,
monitoring, and Level B harassment
zone. The resulting abundance estimates
were summed together and then
multiplied by the number of annual
missions proposed to estimate annual
takes. These calculations resulted in a
total of 0.04 annual TTS take and 0.10
annual behavioral disturbance take,
which indicates that all missions
conducted at the current GRATV site
combined would not result in a single
Level B harassment take of the Rice’s
whale. For comparison, Figure 6–4
shows the harassment zones of missionday category A at the center of the
proposed East LIA. As shown, a small
portion of the behavioral disturbance
zone (27.9 km) encompasses a grid of
low modeled density, with grids of
higher density being farther to the
southwest.
Certain missions could have a PTS
impact if they were to be conducted
farther to the southwest within the LIAs
closer to Rice’s whale habitat, as defined
by the 100-m isobath. The modeled
threshold distances were used to
determine the locations in the existing
LIA and proposed East LIA where each
mission-day category would cause the
onset of PTS, measured as a setback
from the 100-m isobath. At this setback
location, the mission would avoid PTS
and result only in non-injury Level B
harassment, if one or more Rice’s
whales were in the affected habitat. The
setback distances are based on the
longest distance predicted by the dBSea
model for a cumulative SEL of 168 dB
within the mitigation zone; the
predicted average cumulative SEL is
used as the basis of effect for estimating
takes. The setback distances determined
for the mission-day categories are
presented in Table 33 and are shown for
the existing LIA and proposed East LIA
on Figures 6–5 and 6–6, respectively.
TABLE 33—SETBACKS TO PREVENT PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IMPACTS TO THE RICE’S WHALE
Mission-day
category
User group
53 WEG ........................................................................................................................
AFSOC ..........................................................................................................................
96 OG ...........................................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
NAVSCOLEOD .............................................................................................................
Locating a given mission in the LIA at
its respective setback distance would
represent the maximum Level B
harassment scenario for the mission. If
all the missions were conducted at their
respective setbacks, the resulting takes
would represent the maximum Level B
harassment takes that would result for
all mission-day categories except for
gunnery missions. This is not a realistic
scenario; however, it is analyzed to
provide a worst-case estimate of takes.
The takes under this scenario were
calculated using the NOAA model
(2022) model as described for the
GRATV Location scenario. Figure 6–7
shows mission-day category A
conducted at its maximum Level B
setback location (7.23 km). Under this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
A
B
C
D
E
F
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
scenario, the TTS and behavioral
disturbance mitigation zones extend
farther into Rice’s whale habitat.
However, the modeled densities within
affected areas are still relatively small.
PTS impacts are avoided entirely. The
PTS mitigation zone is slightly offset
from the 100-m isobath because the
setback is based on the longest distance
predicted by the dBSea model, whereas
the mitigation zones shown are based on
the average distance predicted by the
model. The take calculations for the
maximum Level B harassment scenario
resulted in a total of 0.49 annual TTS
takes and 1.19 annual behavioral
disturbance takes as shown in Table 34.
These are the maximum number of takes
estimated to potentially result from
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
NEWi (lb)/(kg)
2,413.6 (1094.6)
2,029.9 (920.6)
1,376.2 (624.1)
836.22 (379.2)
934.9 (423.9)
584.6 (265.1)
29.6 (13.4)
946.8 (429.4
350 (158.7)
627.1 (284.3)
324.9 (147.3)
238.1 (107.9)
104.6 (47.5)
130.8 (59.3)
94.4 (42.8)
37.1 (16.8)
130 (58.9)
Setback from 100meter isobath
(km)/(nmi)
7.323 (3.95)
6.659 (5.59)
5.277 (2.84)
3.557 (1.92)
3.192 (1.72)
3.169 (1.71)
0.394 (0.21)
5.188 (2.80
1.338 (0.72)
3.315 (1.78)
2.017 (1.08)
1.815 (0.98)
0.734 (0.39)
0.787 (0.42)
0.667 (0.36)
0.368 (0.19)
1.042 (0.56)
detonations in the existing LIA. These
takes are overestimates because a
considerable portion of all missions in
the LIA are expected to continue to be
conducted at or near the currently used
GRATV anchoring site. These takes
would not be exceeded because all
missions will be conducted behind their
identified setbacks as a new mitigation
measure to prevent injury to the Rice’s
whale. Take calculations for the
maximum Level B harassment scenario
in the East LIA resulted in 0.63 annual
TTS takes and 2.33 annual behavioral
disturbance takes (Table 34). However,
if we assume that 90 percent of the
mission would occur in existing LIA
and 10 percent would occur in the
proposed East LIA as was done for
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8180
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
dolphins, the estimated result is 0.55
annual TTS (0.49 + 0.06) and 1.42
annual behavioral (1.19 + 0.23) takes.
The take calculations were performed
using the NOAA (2022) density model
for both day and night gunnery
missions. As indicated on Figures 6–8
and 6–9 in the application, the modeled
Rice’s whale densities in the TTS and
behavioral disturbance zones are small,
and reflect a higher occurrence
probability for the Rice’s whale farther
to the southwest. The take calculations
estimated 0.003 TTS takes and 0.012
behavioral disturbance takes per
daytime gunnery mission and 0.0006
TTS takes and 0.002 behavioral
disturbance takes per nighttime gunnery
mission. The resulting annual takes for
all proposed 25 daytime gunnery
missions are 0.08 TTS take and 0.30
behavioral disturbance take, and the
resulting annual takes for all 45
proposed nighttime gunnery missions
are 0.03 TTS take and 0.09 behavioral
disturbance take (Table 34). This is a
conservative estimation of Level B
harassment takes because all gunnery
missions would not be conducted
precisely 500 m landward of the 100-m
isobath as assumed under this worstcase take scenario. This represents a
mitigation measure described later in
the Proposed Mitigation section. Based
on a review of gunnery mission
locations, most gunnery missions during
the last 5 years have occurred in waters
shallower than 100 m.
The annual maximum Level B
harassment takes estimated for daytime
gunnery missions (mission-day G) and
nighttime gunnery missions (missionday category H) are combined with the
annual maximum Level B harassment
takes estimated for the other missionday categories to determine the total
takes of the Rice’s whale from all
EGTTR operations during the next
mission period. The annual takes of the
Rice’s whale requested under the
USAF’s proposed activities are 0.61 TTS
takes conservatively and 1.69 behavioral
takes as presented in Table 34.
However, the average group size for
Bryde’s whales found in the northeast
Gulf of Mexico is two animals (MazeFoley and Mullin 2006). NMFS will
assume that each exposure would result
in take of two animals. Therefore, NMFS
is proposing to authorize Level B
harassment in the form of two takes by
TTS and four takes by behavioral
disturbance annually for EGTTR
operations during the next 7-year
mission period.
Note that the requested takes are
likely overestimates because they
represent the maximum Level B
harassment scenario for all missions.
These takes are also likely overestimates
of actual exposure based on the
conservative assumption that all
proposed detonations would occur at or
just below the water surface instead of
a portion occurring upon impact with
targets.
TABLE 34—CALCULATED ANNUAL EXPOSURES OF THE RICE’S WHALE UNDER THE USAF’S PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Level A harassment
Injury a
Level B harassment
PTS
TTS
Behavioral
Missions at Existing LIA .......................................................
Missions at East LIA ............................................................
90 Percent of Existing LIA Missions ....................................
10 Percent of East LIA Missions .........................................
Daytime Gunnery Missions ..................................................
Nighttime Gunnery Missions ................................................
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.49
0.63
0.441
0.063
0.08
0.03
1.19
2.33
1.071
0.233
0.30
0.09
Total ..............................................................................
0
0
0
0.61
1.69
Total Takes Requested ................................................
0
0
0
2b
4b
a Slight
lung and/or gastrointestinal tract injury.
on average group size (Maze-Foley and Mullin (2006).
b Based
For the USAF’s proposed activities in
the EGTTR, Table 35 summarizes the
take NMFS proposes, to authorize,
including the maximum annual, 7-year
total amount, and type of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment that
NMFS anticipates is reasonably likely to
occur by species and stock. Note that
take by Level B harassment includes
both behavioral disturbance and TTS.
No mortality or non-auditory injury is
anticipated or proposed, as described
previously.
TABLE 35—PROPOSED ANNUAL AND SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE AUTHORIZATION FROM EXPLOSIVES FOR
ALL TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE EGTTR
Proposed annual take
Common name
Stock/DPS
Level B
Level A
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Northern Gulf of
Mexico Continental Shelf.
Northern Gulf of
Mexico.
NSD ......................
Level B
Level A
Behavioral
disturbance
TTS
PTS
Common
bottlenose dolphin.
Atlantic spotted
dolphin.
Rice’s whale * ........
Proposed 7-year total take
9
319
817
63
2,233
5,719
1
39
100
7
273
700
0
2
4
0
14
28
* ESA-listed species.
Note: NSD = No stock designation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Behavioral
disturbance
TTS
PTS
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Proposed Mitigation
Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
permissible methods of taking pursuant
to the activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the species or stocks and
their habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas
of similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stocks for
subsistence uses (latter not applicable
for this action). NMFS regulations
require applicants for incidental take
authorizations to include information
about the availability and feasibility
(economic and technological) of
equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting the activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004
amended the MMPA as it relates to
military readiness activities and the
incidental take authorization process
such that ‘‘least practicable impact’’
shall include consideration of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation,
and impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, NMFS considers two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned), the
likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned),
and
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
Assessment of Mitigation Measures for
the EGTTR
Section 216.104(a)(11) of NMFS’
implementing regulations requires an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
applicant for incidental take
authorization to include in its request,
among other things, ‘‘the availability
and feasibility (economic and
technological) of equipment, methods,
and manner of conducting such activity
or other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact upon the
affected species or stocks, their habitat,
and [where applicable] on their
availability for subsistence uses, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance.’’ Thus, NMFS’ analysis of
the sufficiency and appropriateness of
an applicant’s measures under the least
practicable adverse impact standard will
always begin with evaluation of the
mitigation measures presented in the
application.
NMFS has fully reviewed the
specified activities and the mitigation
measures included in the USAF’s
rulemaking/LOA application and the
EGTTR 2022 REA to determine if the
mitigation measures would result in the
least practicable adverse impact on
marine mammals and their habitat. The
USAF would be required to implement
the mitigation measures identified in
this rule for the full 7 years to avoid or
reduce potential impacts from proposed
training and testing activities.
Monitoring and mitigation measures
for protected species are implemented
for all EGTTR missions that involve the
use of live or inert munitions (i.e.,
missiles, bombs, and gun ammunition).
Mitigation includes operational
measures such as pre-mission
monitoring, postponement, relocation,
or cancellation of operations, to
minimize the exposures of all marine
mammals to pressure waves and
acoustic impacts as well as vessel strike
avoidance measures to minimize the
potential for ship strikes; geographic
mitigation measures, such as setbacks
and areas where mission activity is
prohibited, to minimize impacts in areas
used by Rice’s whales; gunnery-specific
mitigation measures which dictate how
and where gunnery operations occur;
and environmental mitigation which
describes when missions may occur and
under what weather conditions. These
measures are supported by the use of
PSOs from various platforms, and sea
state restrictions. Identification and
observation of appropriate mitigation
zones (i.e. double the threshold distance
at which Level A harassment exposures
in the form of PTS could occur) and
monitoring zones (i.e., area between the
mitigation zone and the human safety
zone perimeter) are important
components of an effective mitigation
plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8181
Operational Measures
Pre-Mission Surveys
Pre-mission surveys for protected
species are conducted prior to every
mission (i.e., missiles, bombs, and
gunnery) in order to verify that the
mitigation zone is free of visually
detectable marine mammals and to
evaluate the mission site for
environmental suitability. USAF rangeclearing vessels and protected species
survey vessels holding PSOs will be
onsite approximately 90 minutes prior
to the mission. The duration of premission surveys depends on the area
required to be surveyed, the type of
survey platforms used (i.e., vessels,
aircraft, video), and any potential lapse
in time between the end of the surveys
and the beginning of the mission.
Depending on the mission category,
vessel-based PSOs will survey the
mitigation and/or monitoring zones for
marine mammals. Surveys of the
mitigation zone will continue for
approximately 30 minutes or until the
entire mitigation zone has been
adequately surveyed, whichever comes
first. The mitigation zone survey area is
defined by the area covered by double
the dolphin Level A harassment (PTS)
threshold distances predicted for the
mission-day categories as presented
previously in Table 27 and Table 28.
Each user group will identify the
mission-day category that best
corresponds to its actual mission based
on the energy that would be released.
The user group will estimate the NEWi
of the actual mission to identify which
mission-day category to use. The energy
of the actual mission will be less than
the energy of the mission-day category
in terms of total NEWi and largest single
munition NEWi to ensure that the
energy and effects of the actual mission
will not exceed the energy and effects
estimated for the corresponding
mission-day category. For any live
mission other than gunnery missions,
the pre-mission survey mitigation zone
will extend out to, at a minimum,
double the Level A harassment PTS
threshold distance that applies to both
dolphin species. Depending on the
mission-day category that best
corresponds to the actual mission, the
distance from the detonation point to
the mitigation zone (i.e., double the
Level A harassment (PTS) threshold
distance) could vary between
approximately 1,356 m for mission-day
category J and 272 m for mission-day
category I (Table 36). Surveying twice
the dolphin Level A harassment (PTS)
threshold distance provides a buffer
area for when there is a lapse between
the time when the survey ends and the
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8182
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
time when the species observers reach
the perimeter of the human safety zone
before the start of the mission.
Surveying this additional buffer area
ensures that dolphins are not within the
PTS zone at the start of the mission.
Missions involving air-to-surface
gunnery operations must conduct
surveys of even larger areas based on
previously established safety profiles
and the ability to conduct aerial surveys
of large areas from the types of aircraft
used for these missions.
The monitoring zone for non-gunnery
missions is the area between the
mitigation zone and the human safety
zone and is not standardized, since the
size of the human safety zone is not
standardized. The safety zone will be
determined per each mission by the
Eglin AFB Test Wing Safety Office
based on the munition and parameters
of its release (to include altitude, pitch,
heading, and airspeed). Additionally,
based on the operational altitudes of
gunnery firing, and the fact that the only
monitoring during the mission will be
coming from onboard the aircraft
conducting the live firing, the
monitoring zone for gunnery missions
will be a smaller area than the
mitigation zone and will be based on the
field of view from the aircraft. These
observable areas will at least be double
the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold
distance for the mission-day categories
G, H, and Q (gunnery-only mission-day
categories) as shown in Table 36.
TABLE 36—MITIGATION AND MONITORING ZONE SIZES FOR LIVE MISSIONS IN THE EXISTING LIVE IMPACT AREA (m)
Mission-day category
Mitigation zone (m)/(ft)
Monitoring zone
A ..............................................................
B ..............................................................
C ..............................................................
D ..............................................................
E ..............................................................
F ..............................................................
G .............................................................
H ..............................................................
I ...............................................................
J ..............................................................
K ..............................................................
L ..............................................................
M .............................................................
N ..............................................................
O .............................................................
P ..............................................................
Q .............................................................
R ..............................................................
S ..............................................................
1,130 (3,706.4) ......................................................................
1,170 (3,837.6) ......................................................................
1,090 (3,575.2) ......................................................................
950 (3,116) ............................................................................
950 (3,116) ............................................................................
710 (2,328) ............................................................................
1 9,260 (30.372.8) ..................................................................
2 9,260 (30,372.8) ..................................................................
280 (918.4) ............................................................................
1,360 (4,460.8) ......................................................................
520 (1,705.6) .........................................................................
700 (2,296) ............................................................................
580 (1,640) ............................................................................
500 (1,640) ............................................................................
370 (1,213.6) .........................................................................
410 (1,344.8) .........................................................................
3 9,260 (30,372.6) ..................................................................
4 280 (918.4) and 9,260 (30372.8) ........................................
860 (2,820.8) .........................................................................
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
550 (1,804)
450 (1,476)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
490 (1,607)
TBD
TBD
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
1 For G, double the Level A harassment threshold distance (PTS) is 0.548 km, but G is AC–130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5 NMI.
2 For H, double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance is 0.450 km, but H is AC–130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5 nmi.
3 For Q, double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance is 0.494 km, but Q is AC–130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5 nmi.
4 R has components of both gunnery and inert small diameter bomb. Double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance is 0.278 km,
however, for gunnery component the inherent mitigation zone would be 9.260 km.
5 The Monitoring Zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between the Mitigation Zone and the Human Safety Zone and is not standardized, as the Human Safety Zone is not standardized. HSZ is determined per each mission by the Test Wing Safety Office based on the munition
and parameters of its release (to include altitude, pitch, heading, and airspeed).
6 Based on the operational altitudes of gunnery firing, and the only monitoring during mission coming from onboard the aircraft conducting the
firing, the Monitoring Zone for gunnery missions will be a smaller area than the Mitigation Zone and be based on the field of view from the aircraft. These observable areas will at least be double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance for the mission-day categories G, H, and
Q (gunnery-only mission-day categories).
For non-gunnery inert missions, the
mitigation zone is based on double the
Level A harassment (PTS) threshold
distance as shown in Table 37. The
monitoring zone is the area between the
mitigation zone and the human safety
zone which is not standardized. The
safety zone is determined per each
mission by the Test Wing Safety Office
based on the munition and parameters
of its release including altitude, pitch,
heading, and airspeed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Mission postponement, relocation, or
TABLE 37—PRE-MISSION MITIGATION
AND MONITORING ZONES (IN m) FOR cancellation—Mission postponement,
relocation, or cancellation would be
INERT MISSIONS IMPACT AREA
Inert impact
class
(lb TNTeq)
Mitigation
zone
m/(ft)
2 ................
1 ................
0.5 .............
0.15 ...........
160
126
100
68
(524)
(413)
(328)
(223)
Monitoring
zone 1
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1 The Monitoring Zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between the Mitigation Zone
and the Human Safety Zone and is not standardized, as the Human Safety Zone is not
standardized. HSZ is determined per each
mission by the Test Wing Safety Office based
on the munition and parameters of its release
(to include altitude, pitch, heading, and
airspeed).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
required when marine mammals are
observed within the mitigation or
monitoring zone depending on the
mission type to minimize the potential
for marine mammals to be exposed to
injurious levels of pressure and noise
energy from live detonations. If one or
more marine mammal species other
than the two dolphin species for which
take is proposed to be authorized are
detected in either the mitigation zone or
the monitoring zone, then mission
activities will be cancelled for the
remainder of the day. The mission must
be postponed, relocated or cancelled if
either of the two dolphin species are
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
visually detected in the mitigation zone
during the pre-mission survey. If
members of the two dolphin species for
which authorized take has been
proposed are observed in the monitoring
zone while vessels are exiting the
human safety zone and the PSO has
determined the animals are heading
towards the mitigation zone, then
missions will be postponed, relocated,
or cancelled, based on mission-specific
test and environmental parameters.
Postponement would continue until the
animals are confirmed to be outside of
the mitigation zone on a heading away
from the targets or are not seen again for
30 minutes and are presumed to be
outside the mitigation zone. If large
schools of fish or large flocks of birds
are observed feeding at the surface are
observed within the mitigation zone,
postponement would continue until
these potential indicators of marine
mammal presence are confirmed to be
outside the mitigation zone.
Vessel strike avoidance measures—
Vessel strike avoidance measures as
previously advised by NMFS Southeast
Regional Office must be employed by
the USAF to minimize the potential for
ship strikes. These measures include
staying at least 150 ft (46 m) away from
protected species and 300 ft (92 m)
away from whales. Additional action
area measures will require vessels to
stay 500 m away from the Rice’s whale.
If a baleen whale cannot be positively
identified to species level then it must
be assumed to be a Rice’s whale and
500 m separation distance must be
maintained. Vessels must avoid transit
in the Core Distribution Area (CDA) and
within the 100–400 m isobath zone
outside the CDA. If transit in these areas
is unavoidable, vessels must not exceed
10 knots and transit at night is
prohibited. An exception to the speed
restriction is for instances required for
human safety, such as when members of
the public need to be intercepted to
secure the human safety zone, or when
the safety of a vessel operations crew
could be compromised.
Geographic Mitigation Measures
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Setbacks From Rice’s Whale Habitat
New mitigation measures that were
not required as part of the existing LOA
have been proposed to reduce impacts
to the Rice’s whale. These measures
would require that given mission-day
activities could only occur in areas that
are exterior to and set back some
specified distance from Rice’s whale
habitat boundaries as well as areas
where mission activities are prohibited.
These are described below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
As a mitigation measure to prevent
impacts to cetacean species known to
occur in deeper portions of the Gulf of
Mexico, such as the federally
endangered sperm whale, all gunnery
missions have been located landward of
the 200-m isobath, which is generally
considered to be the shelf break in the
Gulf of Mexico. Most missions
conducted over the last 5 years under
the existing LOA have occurred in
waters less than 100 m in depth. While
implementing this measure would
prevent impacts to most marine
mammal species in the Gulf, it may not
provide full protection to the Rice’s
whale, which has been documented to
occur in waters as shallow as 117 m,
although the majority of sightings have
occurred in waters deeper than 200 m.
To prevent any PTS impacts to the
Rice’s whale from gunnery operations,
NMFS has proposed that all gunnery
missions would be conducted at least
500 m landward of the 100-m isobath
instead of landward of the 200-m
isobath as was originally proposed by
the USAF. This setback distance from
the 100-m isobath is based on the
modeled PTS threshold distance for
daytime gunnery missions (mission-day
G) of 494 m (Table 29). At this setback
distance, potential PTS effects from
daytime gunnery missions would not
extend into Rice’s whale habitat, as
defined by the 100-m isobath. The PTS
Level A harassment isopleth of a
nighttime gunnery mission, which is
401 m in radius, is contained farther
landward of the habitat boundary.
Another mitigation measure to
prevent any PTS (or more severe)
impacts to the Rice’s whale will restrict
the use of all live munitions in the
western part of the existing LIA and
proposed East LIA based on the setbacks
from the 100-m isobaths. The setback
distances determined for the missionday categories are presented in Table 33
and are shown for the existing LIA and
proposed East LIA on Figures 6–5 and
6–6, respectively. For example, the
subsurface detonation of a GBU–10,
GBU–24, or GBU–31, each of which
have a NEW of 945 lb (428.5 kg), would
represent the most powerful single
detonation that would be conducted
under the USAF’s proposed activities.
Such a detonation would correspond to
mission-day category J. To prevent any
PTS impacts to the Rice’s whale, a
mission that would involve such a
single subsurface detonation would be
conducted in a portion of the LIA that
is behind the setback identified for
mission-day category J.
Likewise, a mission that would
involve multiple detonations that have
a total cumulative NEWi comparable to
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8183
that of mission-day category A would be
conducted behind the setback identified
for mission-day category A. Each user
group will use the mission-day
categories and corresponding setback
distances to determine the setback
distance that is appropriate for their
actual mission. The user group will
estimate the NEWi of the actual mission
to identify which mission-day category
and associated setback to use. The
energy of the actual mission must be
less than the energy of the mission-day
category in terms of total NEWi and
largest single-munition NEWi to ensure
that the energy and effects of the actual
mission will not exceed the energy and
effects estimated for the corresponding
mission-day category.
Rice’s Whale Habitat Area Prohibitions
This section identifies areas where
firing of live or inert munitions is
prohibited to limit impacts to Rice’s
whales. The USAF will prohibit the use
of live or inert munitions in Rice’s
whale habitat during the effective
period for the proposed LOA. Under
this new mitigation measure, all
munitions use will be prohibited
between the 100-m and 400-m isobaths
which represents the area where most
Rice’s whale detections have occurred.
Live HACMs would be permitted to be
fired into the existing LIA or East LIA
but must have a setback of 1.338 km
from the 100-m isobath while inert
HACMs could be fired into portions of
the EGTTR outside the LIAs. However,
they would need to be outside the area
between the 100-m and 400-m isobaths.
Overall, the USAF has agreed to
procedural mitigation measures that
would reduce the probability and/or
severity of impacts expected to result
from acute exposure to live explosives
and inert munitions and impacts to
marine mammal habitat.
Gunnery-Specific Mitigation
Additional mitigation measures are
applicable only to gunnery missions.
The USAF must use 105 mm Training
Rounds (TR; NEW of 0.35 lb (0.16 kg))
for nighttime missions. These rounds
contain less explosive material content
than the 105 mm Full Up (FU; NEW of
4.7 lb (2.16 kg)) rounds that are used
during the day. Therefore, the
harassment zones associates with the
105 mm TR are smaller and can be more
effectively monitored compared to the
daytime zones. Ramp-up procedures
will also be required for day and night
gunnery missions which must begin
firing with the smallest round and
proceed to increasingly larger rounds.
The purpose of this measure is to
expose the marine environment to
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8184
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
steadily increasing noise levels with the
intent that marine animals will move
away from the area before noise levels
increase. During each gunnery training
mission, gun firing can last up to 90
minutes but typically lasts
approximately 30 minutes. Live firing is
continuous, with pauses usually lasting
well under 1 minute and rarely up to 5
minutes. Aircrews must reinitiate
protected species surveys if gunnery
firing pauses last longer than 10
minutes.
Protected species monitoring
procedures for CV–22 gunnery training
are similar to those described for AC–
130 gunnery training, except that CV–22
aircraft typically operate at much lower
altitudes than AC–130 gunships. If
protected marine species are detected
during pre-mission surveys or during
the mission, operations will be
immediately halted until the monitoring
zone is clear of all animals, or the
mission will be relocated to another
target area. If the mission is relocated,
the pre-mission survey procedures will
be repeated in the new area. If multiple
gunnery missions are conducted during
the same flight, marine species
monitoring will be conducted separately
for each mission. Following each
mission, aircrews will conduct a postmission survey beginning at the
operational altitude and continuing
through an orbiting descent to the
designated monitoring altitude.
All gunnery missions must monitor a
set distance depending on the aircraft
type as show in Table 38. Pre-mission
aerial surveys conducted by gunnery
aircrews in AC–130s extend out 5 nmi
(9,260 m) while CV–22 aircraft would
have a monitoring range of 3 nmi (5,556
m). The modeled distances for
behavioral disturbance for gunnery
daytime and nighttime missions are 12.9
km and 7.1 km, respectively. The
behavioral disturbance zone is smaller
at night due to the required use of less
impactful training rounds (105-mm TR).
Therefore, the aircrews are able to
survey all of the behavioral disturbance
for a nighttime gunnery mission but not
for a daytime gunnery mission. The size
of the monitoring areas are based on the
monitoring and operational altitudes of
each aircraft as well as previously
established aircraft safety profiles.
TABLE 38—MONITORING AREAS AND ALTITUDES FOR GUNNERY MISSIONS
Aircraft
Gunnery round
Monitoring area
Monitoring altitude
AC–30 Gunship .................
30 mm; 105 mm (FU and
TR).
.50 caliber .........................
5 nmi (9,260 m) ................
6,000 feet (1,828 m) .........
3 nmi (5,556 m) ................
1,000 feet (305 m) ............
CV–22 Osprey ...................
Other than gunnery training, HACM
tests are the only other EGTTR missions
currently proposed to be conducted at
nighttime during the 2023–2030 period.
HACM tests and any other missions that
are actually conducted at nighttime
during the mission period will be
required to be supported by AC–130
aircraft with night-vision
instrumentation or other platforms with
comparable nighttime monitoring
capabilities. For live HACM missions,
the pre-mission survey area will extend
out to, at a minimum, double the Level
A harassment (PTS) threshold distance
that applies to both dolphin species for
a HACM test. A HACM test would
correspond to mission-day category K,
which is estimated to have a PTS
threshold distance of 0.258 km.
Therefore, the pre-mission survey for a
HACM test would extend out to 0.52
km, at a minimum.
Environmental Conditions
Sea State Conditions—Appropriate
sea state conditions must exist for
protected species monitoring to be
effective. Wind speed and the associated
roughness of the sea surface are key
factors that influence the efficacy of
PSO monitoring. Strong winds increase
Operational altitude
15,000 to 20,000 feet
(4572–6096 m).
1,000 feet (305 m).
wave height and create whitecaps, both
of which limit a PSO’s ability to visually
detect marine species at or near the
surface. The sea state scale used for
EGTTR pre-mission protected species
surveys is presented in Table 39. All
missions will be postponed or
rescheduled if conditions exceed sea
state 4, which is defined as moderate
breeze, breaking crests, numerous white
caps, wind speed of 11 to 16 knots, and
wave height of 3.3 to 6 ft (1.0 to 1.8 m).
PSOs will determine whether sea
conditions are suitable for protective
species monitoring.
TABLE 39—SEA STATE SCALE USED FOR EGTTR PRE-MISSION PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEYS
Sea state number
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
0
1
2
3
4
5
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
Sea conditions
Flat, calm, no waves or ripples.
Light air, winds 1 to 2 knots; wave height to 1 foot; ripples without crests.
Light breeze, winds 3 to 6 knots; wave height 1 to 2 feet; small wavelets, crests not breaking.
Gentle breeze, winds 7 to 10 knots; wave height 2 to 3.5 feet; large wavelets, scattered whitecaps.
Moderate breeze, winds 11 to 16 knots; wave height 3.5 to 6 feet; breaking crests, numerous whitecaps.
Strong breeze, winds 17 to 21 knots; wave height 6 to 10 feet; large waves, spray possible.
Daylight Restrictions—Daylight and
visibility restrictions are also
implemented to ensure the effectiveness
of protected species monitoring. All live
missions except for nighttime gunnery
and hypersonic weapon missions will
occur no earlier than 2 hours after
sunrise and no later than 2 hours before
sunset to ensure adequate daylight for
pre- and post-mission monitoring.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the
USAF’s proposed mitigation measures.
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 mitigation measures is expected to
reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of adverse impacts to marine mammal
species and their habitat; the proven or
likely efficacy of the measures; and the
practicability of the measures for
applicant implementation, including
consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8185
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Based on our evaluation of the
USAF’s proposed measures including
pre-mission surveys; mission
postponements or cancellations if
animals are observed in the mitigation
or monitoring zones; Rice’s whale
setbacks; Rice’s whale habitat
prohibitions; gunnery-specific
measures; and environmental measures,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that these proposed mitigation measures
are the appropriate means of effecting
the least practicable adverse impact on
the marine mammal species and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and considering
specifically personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
Additionally, an adaptive management
provision ensures that mitigation is
regularly assessed and provides a
mechanism to improve the mitigation,
based on the factors above, through
modification as appropriate.
The proposed rule comment period
provides the public an opportunity to
submit recommendations, views, and/or
concerns regarding the USAF’s activities
and the proposed mitigation measures.
While NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the USAF’s proposed
mitigation measures would effect the
least practicable adverse impact on the
affected species and their habitat, NMFS
will consider all public comments to
help inform our final determination.
Consequently, the proposed mitigation
measures may be refined, modified,
removed, or added to prior to the
issuance of the final rule, based on
public comments received, and, as
appropriate, analysis of additional
potential mitigation measures.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA 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
some combination of these approaches
depending on the requirements of the
mission type as shown in Table 40.
Specific PSO training requirements are
described below.
requests for authorizations 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 while conducting the activities.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as to ensuring that
the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (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
activity; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and,
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
The USAF will require training for all
PSOs who will utilize vessel-based,
aerial-based, video-based platforms or
PSO Training
All personnel who conduct protected
species monitoring are required to
complete Eglin AFB’s Marine Species
Observer Training Course, which was
developed in consultation with NMFS.
The required PSO training covers
applicable environmental laws and
regulations, consequences of noncompliance, PSO roles and
responsibilities, photographs and
descriptions of protected species and
indicators, survey methods, monitoring
requirements, and reporting procedures.
Any person who will serve as a PSO for
a particular mission must have
completed the training within a year
prior to the mission. For missions that
require multiple survey platforms to
cover a large area, a Lead Biologist is
designated to lead the monitoring and
coordinate sighting information with the
Eglin AFB Test Director (Test Director)
or the Eglin AFB Safety Officer (Safety
Officer).
Note that all three monitoring
platforms described in Table 40 are not
needed for all missions. The use of the
platforms for a given mission are
evaluated based on mission logistics,
public safety, and the effectiveness of
the platform to monitor for protected
species. Vessel and video monitoring
are almost always used but aerial
monitoring may not be used for some
missions because it is not needed in
addition to the vessel-based surveys that
are conducted. Aerial monitoring is
considered to be supplemental to vesselbased monitoring and is used only when
needed, for example if not enough
vessels are available or to provide
coverage in areas farther offshore where
using vessels may be more logistically
difficult. Note that at least one of the
monitoring platforms described in Table
40 must be used for every mission. In
most instances, two or three of the
monitoring platforms will be employed.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 40—MONITORING OPTIONS REQUIRED TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE AND LOCATIONS FOR LIVE AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSION PROPONENTS OPERATING IN THE EGTTR
Monitoring platform
Mission-day
category
User group
53 WEG ..........................................
A
B
C
D
E
AFSOC ...........................................
F
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Munition type
Missile .............................................
Missile, Bomb .................................
Missile .............................................
Missile .............................................
Missile, Bomb, Rocket, Gun Ammunition.
Bomb ..............................................
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Location
Aerialbased
Vesselbased
Videobased
LIA
East LIA
Outside
LIAs
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
................
................
................
................
................
x
x
x
x
x
................
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8186
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 40—MONITORING OPTIONS REQUIRED TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE AND LOCATIONS FOR LIVE AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSION PROPONENTS OPERATING IN THE EGTTR—Continued
Monitoring platform
Mission-day
category
User group
96 OG .............................................
NAVSCOLOED ...............................
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
Gun Ammunition .............................
Gun Ammunition .............................
Rockets ...........................................
Bomb ..............................................
Hypersonic ......................................
Missile, Bomb .................................
Bomb ..............................................
Missile, Bomb .................................
Missile .............................................
Missile .............................................
Gun Ammunition .............................
Bomb, Gun Ammunition .................
Charge ............................................
Monitoring Platforms
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Vessel-Based Monitoring
Pre-mission surveys conducted from
vessels will typically begin at sunrise.
Vessel-based monitoring is required for
all mission-day categories except for
gunnery missions. Trained marine
species PSOs will use dedicated vessels
to monitor for protected marine species
and potential indicators during the premission surveys. For missions that
require multiple vessels to cover a large
survey area, a Lead Biologist will be
designated to coordinate all survey
efforts, compile sighting information
from the other vessels, serve as the point
of contact between the survey vessels
and Tower Control, and provide final
recommendations to the Safety Officer/
Test Director on the suitability of the
mission site based on environmental
conditions and survey results.
Survey vessels will run
predetermined line transects, or survey
routes, that will provide sufficient
coverage of the survey area. Monitoring
will be conducted from the highest
point feasible on the vessels. There will
be at least two PSOs on each vessel, and
they will each use professional-grade
binoculars.
All sighting information from premission surveys will be communicated
to the Lead Biologist on a
predetermined radio channel to reduce
overall radio chatter and potential
confusion. After compiling all the
sighting information from the other
survey vessels, the Lead Biologist will
inform Tower Control if the survey area
is clear or not clear of protected species.
If the area is not clear, the Lead
Biologist will provide recommendations
on whether the mission should be
postponed or cancelled. For example, a
mission postponement would be
recommended if a protected species is
in the mitigation zone but appears to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Munition type
Aerialbased
Vesselbased
Videobased
LIA
East LIA
Outside
LIAs
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
................
................
................
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
................
................
x
................
................
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
................
................
................
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
x
heading away from the mission area.
The postponement would continue until
the Lead Biologist has confirmed that
the animals are no longer in the
mitigation zone and are swimming away
from the range. A mission cancellation
could be recommended if one or more
protected species are sighted in the
mitigation zones and there is no
indication that they would leave the
area within a reasonable time frame.
Tower Control will relay the Lead
Biologist’s recommendation to the
Safety Officer. The Safety Officer and
Test Director will collaborate regarding
range conditions based on the
information provided. Ultimately, the
Safety Officer will have final authority
on decisions regarding postponements
and cancellations of missions.
Human Safety Zone Monitoring
Established range clearance
procedures are followed during all
EGTTR missions for public safety. Prior
to each mission, a human safety zone
appropriate for the mission is
established around the target area. The
size of the human safety zone varies
depending on the munition type and
delivery method. A composite safety
zone is often developed for missions
that involve multiple munition types
and delivery methods. A typical
composite safety zone is octagon-shaped
to make it easier to monitor by range
clearing boats and easier to interpret by
the public when it is overlaid on maps
with latitude and longitude coordinates.
The perimeter of a composite safety
zone may extend out to approximately
15 miles (13 nmi) from the center of the
zone and may be monitored by up to 25
range-clearing boats to ensure it is free
of any non-participating vessels before
and during the mission.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Location
Air Force Support Vessels
USAF support vessels will be
operated by a combination of USAF and
civil service/civilian personnel
responsible for mission site/target setup
and range-clearing activities. For each
mission, USAF personnel will be within
the mission area (on boats and the
GRATV) well in advance of initial
munitions use, typically around sunrise.
While in the mission area, they will
perform a variety of tasks, such as target
preparation and equipment checks, and
will also observe for marine mammals
and indicators when possible. Any
sightings would be relayed to the Lead
Biologist.
The Safety Officer, in cooperation
with the CCF (Central Control Facility)
and Tower Control, will coordinate and
manage all range-clearing efforts and
will be in direct communication with
the survey vessel team, typically
through the Lead Biologist. All support
vessels will be in radio contact with
each other and with Tower Control. The
Safety Officer will monitor all radio
communications, and Tower Control
will relay messages between the vessels
and the Safety Officer. The Safety
Officer and Tower Control will also be
in constant contact with the Test
Director throughout the mission to
convey information on range clearance
and marine species surveys. Final
decisions regarding mission execution,
including possible mission
postponement or cancellation based on
marine species sightings or civilian boat
traffic, will be the responsibility of the
Safety Officer, with concurrence from
the Test Director.
Aerial-Based Monitoring
Aircraft provide an excellent viewing
platform for detecting marine mammals
at or near the sea surface. Depending on
the mission, the aerial survey team will
consist of Eglin AFB Natural Resources
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Office personnel or their designees
aboard a non-mission aircraft or the
mission aircrew who have completed
the PSO training. The Eglin AFB Natural
Resources Office has overall
responsibility for implementing the
natural resources management program
and is the lead organization for
monitoring compliance with applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations. It
reports to the installation command, the
96th Test Wing, via the Environmental
Management Branch of the 96th Civil
Engineer Group. All mission-day
categories require aerial-based
monitoring, assuming assets are
available and when such monitoring
does not interfere with testing and
training parameters required by mission
proponents. Note that gunnery mission
aircraft must also serve as aerial-based
monitoring platforms.
For non-mission aircraft, the pilot will
be instructed on marine species survey
techniques and will be familiar with the
protected species expected to occur in
the area. One PSO in the aircraft will
record data and relay information on
species sightings, including the species
(if possible), location, direction of
movement, and number of animals, to
the Lead Biologist. The aerial team will
also look for potential indicators of
protected species presence, such as
large schools of fish and large, active
groups of birds. Pilots will fly the
aircraft so that the entire mitigation and
monitoring zones (and a buffer, if
required) are monitored. Marine species
sightings from the aerial survey team
will be compiled by the Lead Biologist
and communicated to the Test Director
or Safety Officer. Monitoring by nonmission aircraft would be conducted
only for certain missions, when the use
of such aircraft is practicable based on
other mission-related factors.
Some mission aircraft have the
capability to conduct aerial surveys for
marine species immediately prior to
releasing munitions. Mission aircraft
used to conduct aerial surveys will be
operated at reasonable and safe altitudes
appropriate for visually scanning the sea
surface and/or using onboard
instrumentation to detect protected
species. The primary mission aircraft
that conduct aerial surveys for marine
species are the AC–130 gunship and
CV–22 Osprey used for gunnery
operations.
AC–130 gunnery training involves the
use of 30 mm and 105 mm FU rounds
during daytime and 30 mm and 105 mm
TRs during nighttime. The TR variant
(0.35 lb (0.15 kg) NEW) of the 105 mm
HE round has less explosive material
than the FU round (4.7 lb (2.13 kg)
NEW). AC–130s are equipped with and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
required to use low-light electro-optical
and infrared sensor systems that provide
excellent night vision. Gunnery
missions use the 105 mm TRs during
nighttime missions as an additional
mitigation measure for protected marine
species. If a towed target is used,
mission personnel will maintain the
target in the center portion of the survey
area to ensure gunnery impacts do not
extend past the predetermined
mitigation and monitoring zones.
During the low-altitude orbits and
climb, the aircrew will visually scan the
sea surface for the presence of protected
marine species. The visual survey will
be conducted by the flight crew in the
cockpit and personnel stationed in the
tail observer bubble and starboard
viewing window.
After arriving at the mission site and
before initiating gun firing, the aircraft
would be required to fly at least two
complete orbits around the target area
out to the applicable monitoring zone at
a minimum safe airspeed and
appropriate monitoring altitude. If no
protected species or indicators are
detected, the aircraft will then ascend to
an operational altitude while continuing
to orbit the target area as it climbs. The
initial orbits typically last
approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
Monitoring for marine species and nonparticipating vessels continues
throughout the mission. When aerial
monitoring is conducted by aircraft, a
minimum ceiling of 305 m (1,000 feet)
and visibility of 5.6 km (3 nmi) are
required for effective monitoring efforts
and flight safety.
Infrared systems are equally effective
during day or night. Nighttime missions
would be conducted by AC–130s that
have been upgraded recently with MX–
25D sensor systems, which provide
superior night-vision capabilities
relative to earlier sensor systems. CV–22
training involves the use of only .50
caliber rounds, which do not contain
explosive material and, therefore, do not
detonate. Aircrews will conduct visual
and instrumentation-based scans during
the post-mission survey as described for
the pre-mission survey.
Video-Based Monitoring
Video-based monitoring is conducted
via transmission of live, high-definition
video feeds from the GRATV at the
mission site to the CCF and is required
on all mission-day categories except for
gunnery missions. These video feeds
can be used to remotely view the
mission site to evaluate environmental
conditions and monitor for marine
species up to the time munitions are
used. There are multiple sources of
video that can be streamed to multiple
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8187
monitors within the CCF. A PSO from
Eglin Natural Resources will monitor
the live video feeds transmitted to the
CCF when practicable and will report
any protected marine species sightings
to the Safety Officer, who will also be
at the CCF. Video monitoring can
mitigate the lapse in time between the
end of the pre-mission survey and the
beginning of the mission.
Four video cameras are typically
operated on the GRATV for real-time
monitoring and data collection during
the mission. All cameras have a zoom
capability of up to at least a 300 mm
equivalent. The cameras allow video
PSOs to detect an item as small as 1
square foot (0.09 square m) up to 4,000
m away.
Supplemental video monitoring must
be used when practicable via additional
aerial assets. Aerial assets with video
monitoring capabilities include Eglin
AFB’s aerostat balloon and unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs). These aerial
assets support certain missions, for
example by providing video of munition
detonations and impacts; these assets
are not used during all missions. The
video feeds from these aerial assets can
be used to monitor protected species;
however, they would always be a
supplemental form of monitoring that
would be used only when available and
practicable. Eglin AFB’s aerostat balloon
provides aerial imagery of weapon
impacts and instrumentation relay.
When used, it is tethered to a boat
anchored near the GRATV. The balloon
can be deployed to an altitude of up to
2,000 ft (607 m). It is equipped with a
high-definition camera system that is
remotely controlled to pivot and focus
on a specific target or location within
the mission site. The video feed from
the camera system is transmitted to the
CCF. Eglin AFB may also employ other
assets such as intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance aircraft to provide
real-time imagery or relay targeting pod
videos from mission aircraft. UAVs may
also be employed to provide aerial video
surveillance. While each of these
platforms may not be available for all
missions, they typically can be used in
combination with each other and with
the GRATV cameras to supplement
overall monitoring efforts. Even with a
variety of platforms potentially available
to supply video feeds to the CCF, the
entirety of the mitigation and
monitoring zones may not be visible for
the entire duration of the mission. The
targets and immediate surrounding
areas will typically be in the field of
view of the GRATV cameras, which will
allow the PSO to detect any protected
species that may enter the target area
before weapon releases. The cameras
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8188
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
also allow the PSO to readily inspect the
target area for any signs that animals
were injured. If a protected marine
species is detected on the live video, the
weapon release can be stopped almost
immediately because the video camera
PSO is in direct contact with Test
Director and Safety Officer at the CCF.
The video camera PSO will have open
lines of communication with the PSOs
on vessels to facilitate real-time
reporting of marine species sightings
and other relevant information, such as
the presence of non-participating
vessels near the human safety zone.
Direct radio communication will be
maintained between vessels, GRATV
personnel, and Tower Control
throughout the mission. The Safety
Officer will monitor all radio
communications from the CCF, and
information between the Safety Officer
and support vessels will be relayed via
Tower Control.
Post-Mission Monitoring
During post-mission monitoring,
PSOs would survey the mission site for
any dead or injured marine mammals.
Vessels will move into the survey area
from outside the safety zone and
monitor for at least 30 minutes,
concentrating on the area down current
of the test site. The duration of postmission surveys is based on the survey
platforms used and any potential time
lapse between the last detonation and
the beginning of the post-mission
survey. This lapse typically occurs
when survey vessels stationed on the
perimeter of the human safety zone are
required to wait until the range has been
declared clear before they can begin the
survey. Up to 10 USAF support vessels
will spend several hours in this area
collecting debris from damaged targets.
All vessels will report any dead or
injured marine mammals to the Lead
Biologist. All marine mammal sightings
during post-mission surveys are
documented on report forms that are
submitted to Eglin Natural Resources
Office after the mission. The postmission survey area will be the area
covered in 30 minutes of observation in
a direction down-current from impact
site or the actual pre-mission survey
area, whichever is reached first.
For gunnery missions, aircrews must
conduct a post-mission surveys
beginning at the operational altitude
and continuing through an orbiting
descent to the designated monitoring
altitude. The descent will typically last
approximately 3 to 5 minutes. The postmission survey area will be the area
covered in 30 minutes of observation in
a direction down-current from impact
site or the actual pre-mission survey
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
area, whichever is reached first.
Aircrews will conduct visual and
instrumentation-based scans during the
post-mission survey as described for the
pre-mission survey.
As agreed upon between the USAF
and NMFS, the proposed mitigation
monitoring measures presented in the
Proposed Mitigation section focus on
the protection and management of
potentially affected marine mammals. A
well-designed monitoring program can
provide important feedback for
validating assumptions made in
analyses and allow for adaptive
management of marine resources.
Adaptive Management
NMFS may modify (including
augment) the existing mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures (after
consulting with Eglin AFB 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 Eglin AFB’s acoustic monitoring
study; (2) results from monitoring
during previous year(s); (3) results from
other marine mammal and/or sound
research or studies; and (4) 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 the Gulf
of Mexico, 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.
Proposed Reporting
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA
states that, in order to issue incidental
take authorization for an activity, NMFS
must set forth requirements pertaining
to the monitoring and reporting of such
taking. Effective reporting is critical
both to compliance as well as to
ensuring that the most value is obtained
from the required monitoring.
A summary annual report of marine
mammal observations and mission
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
activities must be submitted to the
NMFS Southeast Regional Office and
the NMFS Office of Protected Resources
90 days after completion of mission
activities each year. A final report shall
be prepared and submitted within 30
days following resolution of comments
on the draft report from NMFS. This
annual report must include the
following information:
• Date, time and location of each
mission including mission-day category,
general munition type, and specific
munitions used;
• Complete description of the premission and post-mission monitoring
activities including type and location of
monitoring platforms utilized (i.e.,
vessel-, aerial or video-based);
• Summary of mitigation measures
employed including postponements,
relocations, or cancellations of mission
activity;
• Number, species, and any other
relevant information regarding marine
mammals observed and estimated
exposed/taken during activities;
• Description of the observed
behaviors (in both presence and absence
of test activities);
• Environmental conditions when
observations were made, including
visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind
speed, and swell height and direction;
• Assessment of the implementation
and effectiveness of mitigation and
monitoring measures; and
• PSO observation results as provided
through the use of protected species
observer report forms.
A Final Comprehensive Report
summarizing monitoring and mitigation
activities over the 7-year LOA effective
period must be submitted 90 days after
the completion of mission activities at
the end of Year 7.
If a dead or seriously injured marine
mammal is found during post-mission
monitoring, the incident must be
reported to the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS Southeast
Region Marine Mammal Stranding
Network, and the Florida Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. In the
unanticipated event that any cases of
marine mammal mortality are judged to
result from missions in the EGTTR at
any time during the period covered by
the LOA, this will be reported to NMFS
Office of Protected Resources and the
National Marine Fisheries Service’s
Southeast Regional Administrator. The
report must include the following
information:
1. Time and date of the incident;
2. Description of the incident;
3. Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, cloud cover,
and visibility);
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4. Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
5. Fate of the animal(s); and
6. Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
Mission activities must not resume in
the EGTTR until NMFS is able to review
the circumstances of the prohibited
take. If it is determined that the
unauthorized take was caused by
mission activities, NMFS will work with
the USAF to determine what measures
are necessary to minimize the likelihood
of further prohibited take and ensure
MMPA compliance. The USAF may not
resume their activities until notified by
NMFS.
Past Monitoring Results in the EGTTR
Eglin AFB has submitted to NMFS
annual reports that summarize the
results of protected species surveys
conducted for EGTTR missions. From
2010 to 2021, Eglin AFB conducted 67
gunnery missions in the EGTTR. To
date, there has been no evidence that
marine mammals have been impacted
from gunnery operations conducted in
the EGTTR. The use of instrumentation
on the AC–130 and CV–22 in premission surveys has proven effective to
ensure the mission site is clear of
protected species prior to gun firing.
Monitoring altitudes during pre-mission
surveys for both the AC–130 and CV–22
are much lower than 15,000 ft (4,572 m);
therefore, the instrumentation on these
aircraft would be even more effective at
detecting marine species than indicated
by photographs. From 2013 to 2020,
Eglin AFB conducted 25 live missions
collectively under the Maritime Strike
Operations and Maritime Weapons
System Evaluation Program (WSEP)
Operational Testing programs in the
EGTTR. From 2016–2021, Eglin AFB
conducted 16 live PSW (Precision Strike
Weapon) missions in the EGTTR.
Protected species monitoring for these
past missions was conducted using a
combination of vessel-based surveys
and live video monitoring from the CCF,
as described. Pre-mission survey areas
for Maritime WSEP and PSW missions
were based on mission-day categories
developed per NMFS’s request to
account for the accumulated energy
from multiple detonations. Note that
surveys conducted for the earlier
Maritime Strike missions were based on
thresholds determined for single
detonations; however, these Maritime
WSEP and PSW missions involved
detonations of larger munitions. There
has been no evidence of mortality,
injury, or any other detectable adverse
impact to any marine mammal from the
Maritime Strike, Maritime WSEP, or
WSEP missions conducted to date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Dolphins were sighted within the
mitigation zone prior to ordnance
delivery during some of these past
missions. In these cases, the mission
was postponed until the animals were
confirmed to be outside the mitigation
zone. Although monitoring during and
following munitions use is limited to
observable impacts within and in the
vicinity of the mission area, the lack of
any past evidence of any associated
impacts on marine mammals is an
indication that the monitoring and
mitigation measures implemented for
EGTTR operations are effective.
Eglin AFB submitted annual reports
required under the existing LOA from
2018–2021. Although marine mammals
were sighted on a number of mission
days, usually during pre-and postmission surveys, Eglin AFB concluded
that no marine mammal takes occurred
as a result of any mission activities from
2018–2021. The annual monitoring
reports are available at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-us-airforce-testing-and-training-activitieseglin-gulf-test.
Preliminary Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
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
(i.e., population-level effects) (50 CFR
216.103). An estimate of the number of
takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In considering how
Level A harassment or Level B
harassment factor into the negligible
impact analysis, in addition to
considering the number of estimated
takes, NMFS considers 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 effects on habitat,
and the likely effectiveness of the
mitigation. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’ implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the
species, population size and growth rate
where known).
In the Estimated Take of Marine
Mammals section of this proposed rule,
we identified the subset of potential
effects that are reasonably expected to
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8189
occur and rise to the level of takes based
on the methods described. The impact
that any given take will have on an
individual, and ultimately the species or
stock, is dependent on many casespecific factors that need to be
considered in the negligible impact
analysis (e.g., the context of behavioral
exposures such as duration or intensity
of a disturbance, the health of impacted
animals, the status of a species that
incurs fitness-level impacts to
individuals, etc.). For this proposed
rule, we evaluated the likely impacts of
the number of harassment takes
reasonably expected to occur, and
proposed for authorization, in the
context of the specific circumstances
surrounding these predicted takes. Last,
we collectively evaluated this
information, as well as other more taxaspecific information and mitigation
measure effectiveness, to support our
negligible impact conclusions for each
species and stock.
As explained in the Estimated Take of
Marine Mammals section, no take by
serious injury or mortality is proposed
for authorization or anticipated to occur.
Further, any Level A harassment would
be expected to be in the form of PTS; no
non-auditory injury is anticipated or
authorized.
The Specified Activities reflect
maximum levels of training and testing
activities. The Description of the
Proposed Activity section describes
annual activities. There may be some
flexibility in the exact number of
missions that may vary from year to
year, but take totals will not exceed the
maximum annual numbers or the 7-year
totals indicated in Table 35. We base
our analysis and negligible impact
determination on the maximum number
of takes that are reasonably expected to
occur and that are proposed for
authorization, although, as stated before,
the number of takes are only a part of
the analysis, which includes qualitative
consideration of other contextual factors
that influence the degree of impact of
the takes on the affected individuals. To
avoid repetition, in this Preliminary
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination section we provide some
general analysis that applies to all the
species and stocks listed in Table 35,
given that some of the anticipated
effects of the USAF’s training and
testing activities on marine mammals
are expected to be relatively similar in
nature. Next, we break up our analysis
by species and stock, to provide more
specific information related to the
anticipated effects on individuals of that
species and to discuss where there is
information about the status or structure
of any species that would lead to a
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
8190
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
differing assessment of the effects on the
species.
The USAF’s take request, which, as
described above, is for harassment only,
is based on its acoustic effects model.
The model calculates sound energy
propagation from explosive and inert
munitions during training and testing
activities in the EGTTR. The munitions
proposed to be used by each military
unit were grouped into mission-day
categories so the acoustic impact
analysis could be based on the total
number of detonations conducted
during a given mission to account for
the accumulated energy from multiple
detonations over a 24-hour period. A
total of 19 mission-day categories were
developed for the munitions proposed
to be used. Using the dBSea underwater
acoustic model and associated analyses,
the threshold distances and harassment
zones were estimated for each missionday category for each marine mammal
species. Takes were estimated based on
the area of the harassment zones,
predicted animal density, and annual
number of events for each mission-day
category. To assess the potential impacts
of inert munitions on marine mammals,
the proposed inert munitions were
categorized into four classes based on
their impact energies, and the threshold
distances for each class were modeled
and calculated as described for the
mission-day categories. Assumptions in
the USAF model intentionally err on the
side of overestimation. For example, the
model conservatively assumes that (1)
the water surface is flat (no waves) to
allow for maximum energy reflectivity;
(2) munitions striking targets confer all
weapon energy into underwater acoustic
energy; and (3) above or at surface
explosions assume no energy losses
from surface effects (e.g., venting which
dissipates energy through the ejection of
water and release of detonation gases
into the atmosphere).
Generally speaking, the USAF and
NMFS anticipate more severe effects
from takes resulting from exposure to
higher received levels (though this is in
no way a strictly linear relationship for
behavioral effects throughout species,
individuals, or circumstances) and less
severe effects from takes resulting from
exposure to lower received levels.
However, there is also growing evidence
of the importance of distance in
predicting marine mammal behavioral
response to sound—i.e., sounds of a
similar level emanating from a more
distant source have been shown to be
less likely to evoke a response of equal
magnitude (DeRuiter 2012, Falcone et
al. 2017). The estimated number of
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment takes does not necessarily
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
equate to the number of individual
animals the USAF expects to harass
(which is likely slightly lower). Rather,
the estimates are for the instances of
take (i.e., exposures above the Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
threshold) that are anticipated to occur
annually and over the 7-year period.
Some of the enumerated instances of
exposure could potentially represent
exposures of the same individual
marine mammal on different days,
meaning that the number of individuals
taken is less than the number of
instances of take, but the nature of the
activities in this rule (e.g., short
duration, intermittent) and the
distribution and behavior of marine
mammals in the area do not suggest that
any single marine mammal would likely
be taken on more than a few days within
a year. Further, any of these instances of
take may represent either brief
exposures (seconds) or, in some cases,
several exposures within a day. Most
explosives detonating at or near the
surface have brief exposures lasting only
a few milliseconds to minutes for the
entire event. Explosive events may be a
single event involving one explosion
(single exposure) or a series of
intermittent explosives (multiple
explosives) occurring over the course of
a day. Gunnery events, in some cases,
may have longer durations of exposure
to intermittent sound. In general,
gunnery events can last intermittently
up to 90 minutes total, but typically
lasts approximately 30 minutes. Live
firing is continuous, with pauses
usually lasting well under 1 minute and
rarely up to 5 minutes.
Behavioral Disturbance
Behavioral reactions from explosive
sounds are likely to be similar to
reactions studied for other impulsive
sounds such as those produced by air
guns. Impulsive signals, particularly at
close range, have a rapid rise time and
higher instantaneous peak pressure than
other signal types, making them more
likely to cause startle responses or
avoidance responses. Most data has
come from seismic surveys that occur
over long durations (e.g., on the order of
days to weeks), and typically utilize
large multi-air gun arrays that fire
repeatedly. While seismic air gun data
provides the best available science for
assessing behavioral responses to
impulsive sounds (i.e., sounds from
explosives) by marine mammals, it is
likely that these responses represent a
worst-case scenario compared to most
USAF explosive noise sources, because
the overall duration of exposure to a
seismic airgun survey would be
expected to be significantly longer than
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the exposure to sounds from any
exercise using explosives.
Take estimates alone do not provide
information regarding the potential
fitness or other biological consequences
of the reactions on the affected
individuals. NMFS therefore considers
the available activity-specific,
environmental, and species-specific
information to determine the likely
nature of the modeled behavioral
responses and the potential fitness
consequences for affected individuals.
In the range of potential behavioral
effects that might be expected to be part
of a response that qualifies as an
instance of Level B harassment by
behavioral disturbance (which by nature
of the way it is modeled/counted,
occurs within one day), the less severe
end might include exposure to
comparatively lower levels of a sound,
at a detectably greater distance from the
animal, for a few or several minutes. A
less severe exposure of this nature could
result in a behavioral response such as
avoiding an area that an animal would
otherwise have chosen to move through
or feed in for some amount of time or
breaking off one or a few feeding bouts.
More severe effects could occur when
the animal gets close enough to the
source to receive a comparatively higher
level, or is exposed intermittently to
different sources throughout a day. Such
effects might result in an animal having
a more severe flight response and
leaving a larger area for a day or more
or potentially losing feeding
opportunities for a day. However, such
severe behavioral effects are expected to
occur infrequently since monitoring and
mitigation requirements would limit
exposures to marine mammals.
Additionally, previous marine mammal
monitoring efforts in the EGTTR over a
number of years have not demonstrated
any impacts on marine mammals.
The majority of Level B harassment
takes are expected to be in the form of
milder responses (i.e., lower-level
exposures that still rise to the level of
take) of a generally shorter duration due
to lower received levels that would
occur at greater distances from the
detonation site due to required
monitoring and mitigation efforts. For
example, the largest munitions (e.g.
mission-day category A with 2,413 lb
(1.094.6 kg) NEWi) feature up to 10
intermittent explosions over several
hours. However, it is likely that animals
would not be present in the PTS or TTS
zones due to mitigation efforts, and this
activity would occur on only a single
day per year. Gunnery missions may last
continuously up to 90 minutes, but most
will be less than 30 minutes and the
NEWi of such missions (i.e., 191.6 to
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
61.1 lb (86.9 to 27.7 kg) are relatively
small. We anticipate more severe effects
from takes when animals are exposed to
higher received levels or at closer
proximity to the source. However,
depending on the context of an
exposure (e.g., depth, distance, if an
animal is engaged in important behavior
such as feeding), a behavioral response
can vary across species and individuals
within a species. Specifically, given a
range of behavioral responses that may
be classified as Level B harassment, to
the degree that higher received levels
are expected to result in more severe
behavioral responses, only a smaller
percentage of the anticipated Level B
harassment from USAF activities would
be expected to potentially result in more
severe responses. To fully understand
the likely impacts of the predicted/
authorized take on an individual (i.e.,
what is the likelihood or degree of
fitness impacts), one must look closely
at the available contextual information
presented above, such as the duration of
likely exposures and the likely severity
of the exposures (e.g., whether they will
occur for a longer duration over
sequential days or the comparative
sound level that will be received).
Ellison et al. (2012) and Moore and
Barlow (2013), among others, emphasize
the importance of context (e.g.,
behavioral state of the animals, distance
from the sound source) in evaluating
behavioral responses of marine
mammals to acoustic sources.
Diel Cycle
Many animals perform vital functions,
such as feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour
cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise
exposure (such as disruption of critical
life functions, displacement, or
avoidance of important habitat) are
more likely to be significant for fitness
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). It is
important to note the difference
between behavioral reactions lasting or
recurring over multiple days and
anthropogenic activities lasting or
recurring over multiple days (e.g., vessel
traffic noise). The duration of USAF
activities utilizing explosives vary by
mission category and weapon type.
There are a maximum of 230 mission
days proposed in any given year,
assuming every mission category
utilizes all of their allotted mission
days.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
Many mission days feature only a
single or limited number of explosive
munitions. Explosive detonations on
such days would likely last only a few
seconds. There are likely to be days or
weeks that pass without mission
activities. Because of their short activity
duration and the fact that they are in the
open ocean and animals can easily
move away, it is similarly unlikely that
animals would be exposed for long,
continuous amounts of time, or
repeatedly, or demonstrate sustained
behavioral responses. All of these
factors make it unlikely that individuals
would be exposed to the exercise for
extended periods or on consecutive
days.
Temporary Threshold Shift
NMFS and the USAF have estimated
that some species and stocks of marine
mammals may sustain some level of
TTS from explosive detonations. In
general, TTS can last from a few
minutes to days, be of varying degree,
and occur across various frequency
bandwidths, all of which determine the
severity of the impacts on the affected
individual, which can range from minor
to more severe. Explosives are generally
referenced as broadband because of the
various frequencies. Table 32 indicates
the number of takes by TTS that may be
incurred by different species from
exposure to explosives. The TTS
sustained by an animal is primarily
classified by three characteristics:
1. Frequency—Available data (of midfrequency hearing specialists exposed to
mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall
et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS
occurs in the frequency range of the
source up to one octave higher than the
source (with the maximum TTS at onehalf octave above). TTS from explosives
would be broadband.
2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how
many dB the sensitivity of the hearing
is reduced)—Generally, both the degree
of TTS and the duration of TTS will be
greater if the marine mammal is exposed
to a higher level of energy (which would
occur when the peak dB level is higher
or the duration is longer). The threshold
for the onset of TTS was discussed
previously in this proposed rule. An
animal would have to approach closer
to the source or remain in the vicinity
of the sound source appreciably longer
to increase the received SEL. The sound
resulting from an explosive detonation
is considered an impulsive sound and
shares important qualities (i.e., short
duration and fast rise time) with other
impulsive sounds such as those
produced by air guns. Given the
anticipated duration and levels of sound
exposure, we would not expect marine
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8191
mammals to incur more than relatively
low levels of TTS (i.e., single digits of
sensitivity loss).
3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)—
In the TTS laboratory studies (as
discussed in the Potential Effects of
Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and their Habitat section of
the proposed rule), some using
exposures of almost an hour in duration
or up to 217 SEL, almost all individuals
recovered within 1 day (or less, often in
minutes), although in one study
(Finneran et al. 2007) recovery took 4
days. For the same reasons discussed in
the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination - Diel Cycle
section, and because of the short
distance animals would need to be from
the sound source, it is unlikely that
animals would be exposed to the levels
necessary to induce TTS in subsequent
time periods such that their recovery is
impeded.
The TTS takes would be the result of
exposure to explosive detonations
(broad-band). As described above, we
expect the majority of these takes to be
in the form of mild (single-digit), shortterm (minutes to hours) TTS. This
means that for one time a year, for
several minutes, a taken individual will
have slightly diminished hearing
sensitivity (slightly more than natural
variation, but nowhere near total
deafness). The expected results of any
one of these small number of mild TTS
occurrences could be that (1) it does not
overlap signals that are pertinent to that
animal in the given time period, (2) it
overlaps parts of signals that are
important to the animal, but not in a
manner that impairs interpretation, or
(3) it reduces detectability of an
important signal to a small degree for a
short amount of time—in which case the
animal may be aware and be able to
compensate (but there may be slight
energetic cost), or the animal may have
some reduced opportunities (e.g., to
detect prey) or reduced capabilities to
react with maximum effectiveness (e.g.,
to detect a predator or navigate
optimally). However, given the small
number of times that any individual
might incur TTS, the low degree of TTS
and the short anticipated duration, and
the low likelihood that one of these
instances would occur across a time
period in which the specific TTS
overlapped the entirety of a critical
signal, it is unlikely that TTS of the
nature expected to result from the
USAF’s activities would result in
behavioral changes or other impacts that
would impact any such individual’s
reproduction or survival.
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8192
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Auditory Masking
The ultimate potential impacts of
masking on an individual (if it were to
occur) are similar to those discussed for
TTS, but an important difference is that
masking only occurs during the time of
the signal, versus TTS, which continues
beyond the duration of the signal.
Fundamentally, masking is referred to
as a chronic effect because one of the
key potential harmful components of
masking is its duration—the fact that an
animal would have reduced ability to
hear or interpret critical cues becomes
much more likely to cause a problem
the longer it is occurring. Also inherent
in the concept of masking is the fact that
the potential for the effect is only
present during the times that the animal
and the source are in close enough
proximity for the effect to occur (and
further, this time period would need to
coincide with a time that the animal
was utilizing sounds at the masked
frequency). As our analysis has
indicated, because of the sound sources
primarily involved in this rule, we do
not expect the exposures with the
potential for masking to be of a long
duration. Masking is fundamentally
more of a concern at lower frequencies,
because low frequency signals propagate
significantly further than higher
frequencies and because they are more
likely to overlap both the narrower lowfrequency calls of mysticetes, as well as
many non-communication cues, such as
sounds from fish and invertebrate prey
and geologic sounds that inform
navigation. Masking is also more of a
concern from continuous (versus
intermittent) sources when there is no
quiet time between a sound source
within which auditory signals can be
detected and interpreted. Explosions
introduce low-frequency, broadband
sounds into the environment, which
could momentarily mask hearing
thresholds in animals that are nearby,
although sounds from missile and bomb
explosions last for only a few seconds.
Sound from gunnery ammunition,
however, can last up to 90 minutes,
although a 30-minute duration is more
typical. Masking due to these relatively
short duration detonations would not be
significant. Effects of masking are only
present when the sound from the
explosion is present, and the effect is
over the moment the sound is no longer
detectable. Therefore, short-term
exposure to the predominantly
intermittent or single explosions are not
expected to result in a meaningful
amount of masking. For the reasons
described here, any limited masking
that could potentially occur from
explosives would be minor, short-term
and intermittent. Long-term
consequences from physiological stress
due to the sound of explosives would
not be expected. In conclusion, masking
is more likely to occur in the presence
of broadband, relatively continuous
noise sources, such as from vessels;
however, the duration of temporal and
spatial overlap with any individual
animal would not be expected to result
in more than short-term, low impact
masking that would not affect
reproduction or survival of individuals.
Auditory Injury (Permanent Threshold
Shift)
Table 42 indicates the number of
individuals of each species for which
Level A harassment in the form of PTS
resulting from exposure to or explosives
is estimated to occur. The number of
individuals to potentially incur PTS
annually from explosives for each
species ranges from 0 (Rice’s whale) to
9 (bottlenose dolphin). As described
previously, no species are expected to
incur non-auditory injury from
explosives.
As discussed previously, the USAF
utilizes aerial, vessel and video
monitoring to detect marine mammals
for mitigation implementation, which is
not taken into account when estimating
take by PTS. Therefore, NMFS expects
that Level A harassment is unlikely to
occur at the authorized numbers.
However, since it is difficult to quantify
the degree to which the mitigation and
avoidance will reduce the number of
animals that might incur Level A
harassment, NMFS proposes to
authorize take by Level A harassment at
the numbers derived from the exposure
model. These estimated Level A
harassment take numbers represent the
maximum number of instances in which
marine mammals would be reasonably
expected to incur PTS, and we have
analyzed them accordingly. In relation
to TTS, the likely consequences to the
health of an individual that incurs PTS
can range from mild to more serious
depending upon the degree of PTS and
the frequency band. Any PTS accrued as
a result of exposure to USAF activities
would be expected to be of a small
amount due to required monitoring and
mitigation measures. Permanent loss of
some degree of hearing is a normal
occurrence for older animals, and many
animals are able to compensate for the
shift, both in old age or at younger ages
as the result of stressor exposure (Green
et al. 1987; Houser et al. 2008; Ketten
2012). While a small loss of hearing
sensitivity may include some degree of
energetic costs for compensating or may
mean some small loss of opportunities
or detection capabilities, at the expected
scale it would be unlikely to impact
behaviors, opportunities, or detection
capabilities to a degree that would
interfere with reproductive success or
survival of any individuals.
Physiological Stress Response
Some of the lower level physiological
stress responses (e.g., orientation or
startle response, change in respiration,
change in heart rate) discussed in the
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and their Habitat
would 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. However, we would not expect
the USAF’s generally short-term and
intermittent activities to create
conditions of long-term, continuous
noise leading to long-term physiological
stress responses in marine mammals
that could affect reproduction or
survival.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 41—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE EGTTR
AND THE NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE
Proposed annual take by Level A and Level B
harassment
Common name
Stock/DPS
Total take
Behavioral
disturbance
Common
bottlenose dolphin.
Atlantic spotted
dolphin.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Northern Gulf of
Mexico Continental Shelf.
Northern Gulf of
Mexico.
23:34 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
TTS
Abundance
(2021 SARS)
PTS
Takes as
a percentage
of abundance
817
319
9
1145
63,280
1.8
100
39
1
140
21,506
0.6
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8193
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 41—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE EGTTR
AND THE NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE—Continued
Proposed annual take by Level A and Level B
harassment
Common name
Stock/DPS
Behavioral
disturbance
Rice’s whale * ........
Abundance
(2021 SARS)
Total take
...............................
TTS
4
PTS
2
0
6
51
Takes as
a percentage
of abundance
11.8
* ESA-listed species in EGTTR
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Assessing the Number of Individuals
Taken and the Likelihood of Repeated
Takes
The estimated takes by Level B
harassment shown in Table 40 represent
instances of take, not the number of
individuals taken (the much lower and
less frequent takes by Level A
harassment are far more likely to be
associated with separate individuals).
As described previously, USAF
modeling uses the best available science
to predict the instances of exposure
above certain acoustic thresholds,
which are quantified as harassment
takes. However, these numbers from the
model do not identify whether and
when the enumerated instances occur to
the same individual marine mammal on
different days, or how any such
repeated takes may impact those
individuals. One method that NMFS can
use to help better understand the overall
scope of the impacts is to compare the
total instances of take against the
abundance of that species (or stock if
applicable). For example, if there are
100 estimated harassment takes in a
population of 100, one can assume
either that every individual will be
exposed above acoustic thresholds in no
more than 1 day, or that some smaller
number will be exposed in one day but
a few individuals will be exposed
multiple days within a year and a few
not exposed at all. Abundance
percentage comparisons are less than 8
percent for all authorized species and
stocks. This means that: (1) not all of the
individuals will be taken, and many
will not be taken at all; (2) barring
specific circumstances suggesting
repeated takes of individuals, the
average or expected number of days
taken for those individuals taken is one
per year; and (3) we would not expect
any individuals to be taken more than
a few times in a year. There are often
extended periods of days or even weeks
between individual mission days,
although a small number of missiondays may occur consecutively. Marine
mammals proposed to be authorized for
take in this area of the Gulf of Mexico
have expansive ranges and are unlikely
to congregate in a small area that would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:34 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
be subject to repeated mission-related
exposures for an extended time.
To assist in understanding what this
analysis means, we clarify a few issues
related to estimated takes and the
analysis here. An individual that incurs
PTS or TTS may sometimes, for
example, also be subject to direct
behavioral disturbance at the same time.
As described above in this section, the
degree of PTS, and the degree and
duration of TTS, expected to be
incurred from the USAF’s activities are
not expected to impact marine
mammals such that their reproduction
or survival could be affected. Similarly,
data do not suggest that a single
instance in which an animal incurs PTS
or TTS and also has an additional direct
behavioral response would result in
impacts to reproduction or survival.
Accordingly, in analyzing the numbers
of takes and the likelihood of repeated
and sequential takes, we consider all the
types of take, so that individuals
potentially experiencing both threshold
shift and direct behavioral responses are
appropriately considered. The number
of Level A harassment takes by PTS are
so low for dolphin species (and zero for
Rice’s whale) compared to abundance
numbers that it is considered highly
unlikely that any individual would be
taken at those levels more than once.
Occasional, milder behavioral
reactions are unlikely to cause long-term
consequences for individual animals or
populations, and even if some smaller
subset of the takes are in the form of
longer (several hours or a day) and more
severe responses, if they are not
expected to be repeated over sequential
days, impacts to individual fitness are
not anticipated. Nearly all studies and
experts agree that infrequent exposures
of a single day or less are unlikely to
impact an individual’s overall energy
budget (Farmer et al. 2018; Harris et al.
2017; NAS 2017; New et al. 2014;
Southall et al. 2007; Villegas-Amtmann
et al. 2015).
Impacts to Marine Mammal Habitat
Any impacts to marine mammal
habitat are expected to be relatively
minor. Noise and pressure waves
resulting from live weapon detonations
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are not likely to result in long-term
physical alterations of the water column
or ocean floor. These effects are not
expected to substantially affect prey
availability, are of limited duration, and
are intermittent. Impacts to marine fish
were analyzed in our Potential Effects of
Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and their Habitat section as
well as in the 2002 (REA)(USAF 2022).
In the REA, it was determined that fish
populations were unlikely to be affected
and prey availability for marine
mammals would not be impaired. Other
factors related to EGTTR activities that
could potentially affect marine mammal
habitat include the introduction of
metals, explosives and explosion byproducts, other chemical materials, and
debris into the water column and
substrate due to the use of munitions
and target vessels. However, the effects
of each were analyzed in the REA and
were determined to be not significant.
Species/Stock-Specific Analyses
This section builds on the broader
discussion above and brings together the
discussion of the different types and
amounts of take that different species
are likely to incur, the applicable
mitigation, and the status of the species
to support the negligible impact
determinations for each species. We
have described (above in the
Preliminary Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination section) the
unlikelihood of any masking having
effects that would impact the
reproduction or survival of any of the
individual marine mammals affected by
the USAF’s activities. We also described
in the Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and their
Habitat section of the proposed rule the
unlikelihood of any habitat impacts
having effects that would impact the
reproduction or survival of any of the
individual marine mammals affected by
the USAF’s activities. There is no
predicted non-auditory tissue damage
from explosives for any species, and
limited takes of dolphin species by PTS
are predicted. Much of the discussion
below focuses on the Level B
harassment (behavioral disturbance and
TTS) and the mitigation measures that
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8194
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
reduce the probability or severity of
effects. Because there are speciesspecific considerations, these are
discussed below where necessary.
Rice’s Whale
The Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale
was listed as an endangered subspecies
under the ESA in 2019. NMFS revised
the common and scientific name of the
listed animal in 2021 to Rice’s whale
and classification to a separate species
to reflect the new scientifically accepted
taxonomy and nomenclature. NMFS has
identified the core distribution area in
the northern Gulf of Mexico where the
Rice’s whale is primarily found and,
further, LaBreque et al. (2015) identify
the area as a small and resident BIA.
The Rice’s whale has a very small
estimated population size (51, Hayes et
al. 2021) with limited distribution.
NMFS is proposing to allow for the
authorization of two annual takes of
Rice’s whale by Level B harassment in
the form of TTS and four annual takes
by Level B harassment in the form of
behavioral disturbance. The
implementation of the required
mitigation is expected to minimize the
severity of any behavioral disturbance
and TTS of Rice’s whales. When we
look at the northern Gulf of Mexico
where the USAF has been intensively
training and testing with explosives in
the EGTTR for a number of years, there
are no data suggesting any long-term
consequences to reproduction or
survival rates of Rice’s whale from
explosives.
Rice’s whale will benefit from the
mitigation measures proposed to limit
impacts to the species. As a mitigation
measure to prevent any PTS and limit
TTS and behavioral impacts to the
Rice’s whale, the USAF will restrict the
use of live munitions in the western part
of each LIA based on the setbacks from
the 100-m isobath presented earlier. The
USAF will also prohibit the use of inert
munitions in Rice’s whale habitat (100–
400 m depth) throughout the EGTTR.
The less impactful 105 mm Training
Round must be used by the USAF for
nighttime missions and all gunnery
missions must be conducted 500 m
landward of the 100-m isobath.
Furthermore, depending on the mission
category, vessel-based, aerial, or video
feed monitoring would be required.
Noise from explosions is broadband
with most energy below a few hundred
Hz; therefore, any reduction in hearing
sensitivity from exposure to explosive
sounds is likely to be broadband with
effects predominantly at lower
frequencies. The limited number of
Rice’s whales, estimated to be two
animals, that do experience TTS from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
exposure to explosives may have
reduced ability to detect biologically
important sounds (e.g., social
vocalizations). However, any TTS that
would occur would be of short duration.
Research and observations show that
if mysticetes are exposed to impulsive
sounds such as those from explosives,
they may react in a variety of ways,
which may include alerting, startling,
breaking off feeding dives and surfacing,
diving or swimming away, changing
vocalization, or showing no response at
all (DOD 2017; Nowacek 2007;
Richardson 1995; Southall et al. 2007).
Overall, and in consideration of the
context for an exposure, mysticetes have
been observed to be more reactive to
acoustic disturbance when a noise
source is located directly in their path
or the source is nearby (somewhat
independent of the sound level)
(Dunlop et al. 2016; Dunlop et al. 2018;
Ellison et al. 2011; Friedlaender et al.
2016; Henderson et al. 2019; Malme et
al. 1985; Richardson et al. 1995;
Southall et al. 2007a). Animals
disturbed while engaged in feeding or
reproductive behaviors may be more
likely to ignore or tolerate the
disturbance and continue their natural
behavior patterns. Because noise from
most activities using explosives is short
term and intermittent, and because
detonations usually occur within a
small area (most of which are set back
from the primary area of Rice’s whale
use), behavioral reactions from Rice’s
whales, if they occur at all, are likely to
be short term and of little to no
significance.
As described, the anticipated and
proposed take of Rice’s whale is of a low
magnitude and severity that is not
expected to impact the reproduction or
survival of any individuals, much less
population rates of recruitment or
survival. Accordingly, we have found
that the take allowable and proposed for
authorization under the rule will have a
negligible impact on Rice’s whales.
Delphinids
Neither the common bottlenose
dolphin (Northern Gulf of Mexico
continental shelf stock) or Atlantic
spotted dolphin (Gulf of Mexico stock)
are listed as strategic or depleted under
the MMPA, and no active unusual
mortality events (UME) have been
declared. No mortality or non-auditory
injury is predicted or proposed for
authorization for either of these species.
There are no areas of known biological
significance for dolphins in the EGTTR.
Repeated takes of the same individual
animals would be unlikely. The number
of PTS takes from the proposed
activities are low (one for Atlantic
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
spotted dolphin; nine for common
bottlenose dolphin). Because of the low
degree of PTS discussed previously (i.e.,
low amount of hearing sensitivity loss),
it is unlikely to affect reproduction or
survival of any individuals. Regarding
the severity of individual takes by Level
B harassment by behavioral disturbance,
we have explained the duration of any
exposure is expected to be between
seconds and minutes (i.e., relatively
short duration) and the severity of takes
by TTS are expected to be low-level, of
short duration and not at a level that
will impact reproduction or survival.
As described, the anticipated and
proposed take of dolphins is of a low
magnitude and severity such that it is
not expected to impact the reproduction
or survival of any individuals, much
less population rates of recruitment or
survival. Accordingly, we have found
that the take allowable and proposed for
authorization under the rule will have a
negligible impact on common bottlenose
dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins.
Determination
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, NMFS preliminarily
finds that the total marine mammal take
from the specified activities will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species. In addition as
described previously, the USAF’s
proposed implementation of monitoring
and mitigation measures would further
reduce impacts to marine mammals.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact
Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species 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 the species or stocks
for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency ensure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
LOAs, NMFS consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species, in
this case with the NMFS Office of
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Protected Resources Interagency
Cooperation Division.
NMFS is proposing to authorize take
of the Rice’s whale, which is listed
under the ESA. The Permits and
Conservation Division has requested
initiation of section 7 consultation with
the Interagency Cooperation Division for
the issuance of this proposed rule.
NMFS will conclude the ESA
consultation prior to reaching a
determination regarding the proposed
issuance of the authorization.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
NMFS will work with NOAA’s Office
of National Marine Sanctuaries to fulfill
our responsibilities under the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act as warranted
and will complete any NMSA
requirements prior to a determination
on the issuance of the final rule and
LOA.
Classification
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that this proposed rule
is not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), 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 Federal agencies 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.
The USAF is the sole entity that would
be affected by this rulemaking, and the
USAF is not a small governmental
jurisdiction, small organization, or small
business, as defined by the RFA. Any
requirements imposed by an LOA
issued pursuant to these regulations,
and any monitoring or reporting
requirements imposed by these
regulations, would be applicable only to
the USAF. NMFS does not expect the
issuance of these regulations or the
associated LOA to result in any impacts
to small entities pursuant to the RFA.
Because this action, if adopted, would
directly affect the USAF and not a small
entity, NMFS concludes that the action
would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental
take, Indians, Labeling, Marine
mammals, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Seafood,
Sonar, Transportation, USAF.
Dated: January 30, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 218 is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 218—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE TAKING AND
IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 218
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless
otherwise noted.
■
2. Revise subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G—Taking and Importing
Marine Mammals; U.S. Air Force’s
Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range
(EGTTR)
occurs in the area described in
paragraph (b) of this section and that
occurs incidental to the activities listed
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by
the USAF under this subpart may be
authorized in a Letter of Authorization
(LOA) only if it occurs within the Eglin
Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR).
The EGTTR is located adjacent to Santa
Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties
and includes property on Santa Rosa
Island and Cape San Blas. The EGTTR
is the airspace controlled by Eglin AFB
over the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 3
nautical miles (nmi) from shore, and the
underlying Gulf of Mexico waters. The
EGTTR extends southward and
westward off the coast of Florida and
encompasses approximately 102,000
square nautical miles (nmi2). It is
subdivided into blocks of airspace that
consist of Warning Areas W–155, W–
151, W–470, W–168, and W–174 and
Eglin Water Test Areas 1 through 6. The
two primary components of the EGTTR
Complex are Live Impact Area and East
Live Impact Area.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by
the USAF is only authorized if it occurs
incidental to the USAF conducting
training and testing activities, including
air warfare and surface warfare training
and testing activities.
§ 218.61
§ 218.60 Specified activity and
geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply
only to the U.S. Air Force (USAF) for
the taking of marine mammals that
Effective dates.
Regulations in this subpart are
effective for seven years from the date
of issuance.
§ 218.62
Sec.
218.60 Specified activity and geographical
region.
218.61 Effective dates.
218.62 Permissible methods of taking.
218.63 Prohibitions.
218.64 Mitigation requirements.
218.65 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
218.66 Letters of Authorization.
218.67 Renewals and modifications of
Letters of Authorization.
218.68 [Reserved]
218.69 [Reserved]
Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under an LOA issued pursuant to
§ 216.106 of this subchapter and
§ 218.66, the Holder of the LOA
(hereinafter ‘‘USAF’’) may incidentally,
but not intentionally, take marine
mammals within the area described in
§ 218.60(b) by Level A and Level B
harassment associated training and
testing activities described in § 218.60(c)
provided the activity is in compliance
with all terms, conditions, and
requirements of the regulations in this
subpart and the applicable LOA.
(b) The incidental take of marine
mammals by the activities listed in
§ 218.60(c) is limited to the species and
stocks listed in Table 1 of this section.
TABLE 1 TO § 218.62(b)
Common name
Scientific name
Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................
Common Bottlenose dolphin ................................................
Rice’s whale ..........................................................................
Stenella frontalis ........
Tursiops truncatus .....
Balaenoptera ricei .....
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8195
Stock
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf.
No Stock Designated.
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8196
§ 218.63
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Prohibitions.
Except for permissible incidental take
described in § 218.62 and authorized by
an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this
section and § 218.66, no person in
connection with the activities listed in
§ 218.66 may do any of the following in
connection with activities listed in
§ 218.60(c):
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the
terms, conditions, or requirements of
this subpart or an LOA issued under
§ 216.106 of this section and § 218.66;
(b) Take any marine mammal not
specified in § 218.62(b);
(c) Take any marine mammal
specified in § 218.62(b) in any manner
other than as specified in the LOA
issued under § 216.106 of this
subchapter and § 218.66;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified
in § 218.62(b) after NMFS determines
such taking results in more than a
negligible impact on the species or stock
of such marine mammal.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 218.64
Mitigation requirements.
When conducting the activities
identified in § 218.60(c), the mitigation
measures contained in this part and any
LOA issued under § 216.106 of this
subchapter and § 218.66 must be
implemented. These mitigation
measures include, but are not limited to:
(a) Operational measures. Operational
mitigation is mitigation that the USAF
must implement whenever and
wherever an applicable training or
testing activity takes place within the
EGTTR for each mission-day category.
(1) Pre-mission Survey.
(i) All missions must occur during
daylight hours with the exception of
gunnery training and Hypersonic Active
Cruise Missile (HACM) Tests, and other
missions that can have nighttime
monitoring capabilities comparable to
the nighttime monitoring capabilities of
gunnery aircraft.
(ii) USAF range-clearing vessels and
protected species survey vessels must be
onsite 90 minutes before mission to
clear prescribed human safety zone and
survey the mitigation zone for the given
mission-day category.
(iii) For all live missions except
gunnery missions, USAF Protected
Species Observers (PSOs) must monitor
the mitigation zones as defined in Table
2 for the given mission-day category for
a minimum of 30 minutes or until the
entirety of the mitigation zone has been
surveyed, whichever comes first.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
(A) The mitigation zone for live
munitions must be defined by the
mission-day category that most closely
corresponds to the actual planned
mission based on the predicted net
explosive weight at impact (NEWi) to be
released, as shown in Table 2.
(B) The mitigation zone for inert
munitions must be defined by the
energy class that most closely
corresponds to the actual planned
mission, as shown in Table 3.
(C) The energy of the actual mission
must be less than the energy of the
identified mission-day category in terms
of total NEWi as well as the largest
single munition NEWi.
(D) For any inert mission other than
gunnery missions PSOs must at a
minimum monitor out to the mitigation
zone distances shown in Table 3 that
applies for the corresponding energy
class.
(E) Missions falling under missionday categories A, B, C, and J, and all
other missions when practicable must
allot time to provide PSOs to vacate the
human safety zone. While exiting, PSOs
must observe the monitoring zone out to
corresponding mission-day category as
shown in Table 1 to § 218.64(a)(1)(iv).
(iv) For all missions except gunnery
missions, PSOs and vessels must exit
and remain outside the human safety
zone designated by the USAF at least
thirty minutes prior to live weapon
deployment.
TABLE 1 TO § 218.64(a)(1)(iv)—PREMISSION MITIGATION AND MONITORING ZONES (IN m) FOR LIVE MISSIONS IMPACT AREA
Mission-day
category
A ...................
B ...................
C ...................
D ...................
E ...................
F ....................
G ...................
H ...................
I .....................
J ....................
K ...................
L ....................
M ...................
N ...................
O ...................
P ...................
Q ...................
R ...................
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Mitigation
zone
1,130
1,170
1,090
950
950
710
1 9,260
2 9,260
280
1,360
520
700
580
500
370
410
3 9,260
4 280 and
9,260
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Monitoring
zone 5 6
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
550
450
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
490
TBD
TABLE 1 TO § 218.64(a)(1)(iv)—PREMISSION MITIGATION AND MONITORING ZONES (IN m) FOR LIVE MISSIONS IMPACT AREA—Continued
Mission-day
category
S ...................
Mitigation
zone
860
Monitoring
zone 5 6
TBD
1 For
G, double the Level A harassment
threshold distance (PTS) is 0.548 km, but G is
AC–130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation zone of 9.260 km/5 nmi.
2 For H, double the Level A harassment
threshold distance (PTS) is 0.450 km, but H is
AC–130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation zone of 9.260 km/5 nmi.
3 For Q, double the Level A harassment
threshold distance (PTS) is 0.494 km, but Q is
AC–130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation zone of 9.260 km/5nmi.
4 R has components of both gunnery and
inert small diameter bomb. Double the Level A
harassment threshold distance (PTS) is 0.278
km, however, for gunnery component the inherent mitigation zone would be 9.260 km.
5 The Monitoring Zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between the Mitigation Zone
and the Human Safety Zone and is not standardized, as the Human Safety Zone is not
standardized. The Human Safety Zone is determined per each mission by the Test Wing
Safety Office based on the munition and parameters of its release (to include altitude,
pitch, heading, and airspeed).
6 Based on the operational altitudes of gunnery firing, and the only monitoring during mission coming from onboard the aircraft conducting the firing, the Monitoring Zone for gunnery missions will be a smaller area than the
Mitigation Zone and be based on the field of
view from the aircraft. These observable areas
will at least be double the Level A harassment
threshold distance (PTS) for the mission-day
categories G, H, and Q (gunnery-only missionday categories).
TABLE 2 TO § 218.64(a)(1)(iv)—PREMISSION MITIGATION AND MONITORING ZONES (IN m) FOR INERT
MISSIONS IMPACT AREA
Inert impact
class
(lb TNTeq)
2 ........................
1 ........................
0.5 .....................
0.15 ...................
Mitigation
zone
160
126
100
68
Monitoring
zone 1
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1 The Monitoring Zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between the Mitigation Zone
and the Human Safety Zone and is not standardized, as the Human Safety Zone is not
standardized. HSZ is determined per each
mission by the Test Wing Safety Office based
on the munition and parameters of its release
(to include altitude, pitch, heading, and
airspeed).
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8197
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(v) Missions involving air-to-surface
gunnery operations must conduct aerial
monitoring of the mitigation zones, as
described in the Table 4.
TABLE 3 TO § 218.64(a)(1)(v)—AERIAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR-TO-SURFACE GUNNERY OPERATIONS
Aircraft
Gunnery round
Mitigation zone
Monitoring altitude
Operational altitude
AC–30
Gunship.
CV–22 Osprey
30 mm; 105 mm (FU and TR) ...............
5 nmi (9,260 m) .....
6,000 ft (1,828 m) ..
.50 caliber ..............................................
3 nmi (5,556 m) .....
1,000 ft (3,280 m) ..
15,000 ft (4,572 m) to 20,000 ft (6,096
m).
1,000 ft (3,280 m).
FU = Full Up; TR = Training Round.
(2) Mission postponement, relocation,
or cancellation.
(i) If marine mammals other than the
two authorized dolphin species for
which take is authorized are observed in
either the mitigation zone or monitoring
zone by PSOs, then mission activities
must be cancelled for the remainder of
the day.
(ii) The mission must be postponed,
relocated or cancelled if either of the
two authorized dolphin species are
visually detected in the mitigation zone
during the pre-mission survey.
Postponement must continue until the
animals are confirmed to be outside of
the mitigation zone and observed by a
PSO to be heading away from the
mitigation zone or until the animals are
not seen again for 30 minutes.
(iii) The mission must be postponed
if marine mammal indicators (i.e., large
schools of fish or large flocks of birds)
are observed feeding at the surface
within the mitigation zone.
Postponement must continue until these
potential indicators are confirmed to be
outside the mitigation zone.
(iv) If either of the two authorized
dolphin species are observed in the
monitoring zone by PSOs when
observation vessels are exiting the
human safety zone, and if PSOs
determine the marine mammals are
heading toward the mitigation zone,
then missions must either be postponed,
relocated, or cancelled based on
mission-specific test and environmental
parameters. Postponement must
continue until the animals are
(D) Vessels are required to stay 500 m
away from the Rice’s whale. If a baleen
whale cannot be positively identified to
species level then it must be assumed to
be a Rice’s whale and the 500 m
separation distance must be maintained.
(E) Vessels must avoid transit in the
Core Distribution Area (CDA) and
within the 100–400 m isobath zone
outside the CDA. If transit in these areas
is unavoidable, vessels must not exceed
10 knots and transit at night is
prohibited.
(F) An exception to any vessel strike
avoidance measure is for instances
required for human safety, such as when
members of the public need to be
intercepted to secure the human safety
zone, or when the safety of a vessel
operations crew could be compromised.
(4) Gunnery-specific Mitigation.
(A) 105–mm training rounds (TR)
must be used during nighttime gunnery
missions.
(B) Ramp-up procedures. Within a
mission, firing must start with use of the
lowest caliber munition and proceed to
increasingly larger rounds.
(C) Any pause in live fire activities
greater than 10 minutes must be
followed by the re-initiation of
protected species surveys.
(b) Geographic mitigation measures.
(1) Use of live munitions is restricted
in the western part of the existing LIA
and proposed East LIA such that
activities may not occur seaward of the
setbacks from the 100 m-isobath shown
in Table 5.
confirmed by a PSO to be heading away
from the mitigation zone or until the
animals are not seen again for 30
minutes.
(v) Aerial-based PSOs must look for
potential indicators of protected species
presence, such as large schools of fish
and large, active groups of birds.
(vi) If protected marine species or
potential indicators are detected in the
monitoring area during pre-mission
surveys or during the mission by aerialbased or video-based PSOs, operations
must be immediately halted until the
mitigation zone is clear of all marine
mammals, or the mission must be
relocated to another target area.
(3) Vessel avoidance measures.
(i) Vessel operators must follow
Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures.
(A) When a marine mammal protected
species is sighted, vessels must attempt
to maintain a distance of at least 150 ft
(46 m) away from protected species and
300 ft (92 m) away from whales. Vessels
must reduce speed and avoid abrupt
changes in direction until the animal(s)
has left the area.
(B) If a whale is sighted in a vessel’s
path or within 300 feet (92 m) from the
vessel, the vessel speed must be reduced
and the vessel’s engine must be shifted
to neutral. The engines must not be
engaged until the animals are clear of
the area.
(C) If a whale is sighted farther than
300 feet (92 m) from the vessel, the
vessel must maintain a distance of 300
feet greater between the whale and the
vessel’s speed must be reduced to 10
knots or less.
TABLE 4 TO § 218.64(b)(1)—SETBACK DISTANCES TO PREVENT PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IMPACTS TO THE RICE’S
WHALE
Mission-day
category
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
User group
53 WEG .........................................................................................................................................
AFSOC ..........................................................................................................................................
96 OG ............................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A
B
C
D
E
F
I
J
K
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
NEWi (lb)
2,413.6
2,029.9
1,376.2
836.22
934.9
584.6
29.6
946.8
350
07FEP3
Setback from
100-meter
isobath (km)
7.323
6.659
5.277
3.557
3.192
3.169
0.394
5.188
1.338
8198
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4 TO § 218.64(b)(1)—SETBACK DISTANCES TO PREVENT PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IMPACTS TO THE RICE’S
WHALE—Continued
Mission-day
category
User group
NAVSCOLEOD ..............................................................................................................................
(2) All gunnery missions must be
conducted at least 500 meters landward
of the 100–m isobath.
(3) Use of live munitions must be
restricted to the LIA and East LIA and
is prohibited from the area between the
100–m and 400–m isobaths.
(4) Use of inert munitions is
prohibited between the 100–m and 400–
m isobaths throughout the EGTTR.
(5) Live Hypersonic Attack Cruise
Missiles (HACMs) must be fired into the
EGTTR inside of the LIAs and outside
of the area between 100–m to 400–m
isobaths
(6) Live HACMs (Mission-day
category K) must have a setback of 1.338
km from the 100–m isobath.
(7) Inert HACMs may be fired into
portions of the EGTTR outside the LIAs
but must be outside the area between
the 100–m and 400–m isobaths.
(4) Environmental mitigation.
(i) Sea state conditions—Missions
must be postponed or rescheduled if
conditions exceed Beaufort sea state 4,
which is defined as moderate breeze,
breaking crests, numerous white caps,
wind speed of 11 to 16 knots, and wave
height of 3.3 to 6 feet.
(ii) Daylight Restrictions—All live
missions except for nighttime gunnery
and hypersonic weapon missions will
occur no earlier than 2 hours after
sunrise and no later than 2 hours before
sunset.
§ 218.65
Monitoring and Reporting
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Requirements
(a) PSO Training. All personnel who
conduct protected species monitoring
must complete Eglin Air Force Base’s
(AFB) Marine Species Observer Training
Course.
(1) Any person who will serve as a
PSO for a particular mission must have
completed the training within a year
prior to the mission.
(2) For missions that require multiple
survey platforms to cover a large area,
a Lead Biologist must be designated to
lead the monitoring and coordinate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
sighting information with the Test
Director or Safety Officer.
(b) Vessel-based Monitoring.
(1) Survey vessels must run
predetermined line transects, or survey
routes that will provide sufficient
coverage of the survey area.
(2) Monitoring must be conducted
from the highest point feasible on the
vessels.
(3) There must be at least two PSOs
on each survey vessel.
(4) For missions that require multiple
vessels to cover a large survey area, a
Lead Biologist must be designated.
(i) The Lead Biologist must coordinate
all survey efforts.
(ii) The Lead Biologist must compile
sightings information from other
vessels.
(iii) The Lead Biologist must inform
Tower Control if the mitigation and
monitoring zones are clear or not clear
of protected species.
(iv) If the area is not clear, the Lead
Biologist must provide
recommendations on whether the
mission should be postponed or
canceled.
(v) Tower Control must relay the Lead
Biologist’s recommendation to the
Safety Officer. The Safety Officer and
Test Director must collaborate regarding
range conditions based on the
information provided.
(vi) The Safety Officer must have the
final authority on decisions regarding
postponements and cancellations of
missions.
(c) Aerial-based monitoring.
(1) All mission-day categories require
aerial-based monitoring, assuming
assets are available and when such
monitoring does not interfere with
testing and training parameters required
by mission proponents.
(2) Gunnery mission aircraft must also
serve as aerial-based monitoring
platforms.
(3) Aerial survey teams must consist
of Eglin Natural Resources Office
personnel or their designees aboard a
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
NEWi (lb)
627.1
324.9
238.1
104.6
130.8
94.4
37.1
130
Setback from
100-meter
isobath (km)
3.315
2.017
1.815
0.734
0.787
0.667
0.368
1.042
non-mission aircraft or the mission
aircrew.
(4) All aircraft personnel on nonmission and mission aircraft who are
acting in the role of a PSO must have
completed Eglin AFB’s Marine Species
Observer Training course.
(5) One trained PSO in the aircraft
must record data and relay information
on species sightings, including the
species (if possible), location, direction
of movement, and number of animals, to
the Lead Biologist.
(6) For gunnery missions, after
arriving at the mission site and before
initiating gun firing, the aircraft must fly
at least two complete orbits around the
target area out to the applicable
monitoring zone at a minimum safe
airspeed and appropriate monitoring
altitude.
(7) Aerial monitoring by aircraft must
maintain a minimum ceiling of 305 m
(1,000 feet) and visibility of 5.6 km (3
nmi) for effective monitoring efforts and
flight safety as show in Table 5.
(8) Pre-mission aerial surveys
conducted by gunnery aircrews in AC–
130s must extend out 5 nmi (9,260 m)
from the target location while aerial
surveys in CV–22 aircraft must extend
out from the target location to a range
of 3 nmi (5,556 m) as shown in Table
4.
(9) If the mission is relocated, the premission survey procedures must be
repeated in the new area.
(10) If multiple gunnery missions are
conducted during the same flight,
marine species monitoring must be
conducted separately for each mission;
(11) During nighttime missions, nightvision goggles must be used.
(12) During nighttime missions, lowlight electro-optical and infrared sensor
systems on board the aircraft must be
used for protected species monitoring.
(13) HACM tests and any other
missions that are conducted at
nighttime must be supported by AC–130
aircraft with night-vision
instrumentation or other platforms with
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
comparable nighttime monitoring
capabilities.
(14) For HACM missions, the premission survey area must extend out to,
at a minimum, double the Level A
harassment (PTS) threshold distance for
delphinids (0.52 km). A HACM test
would correspond to mission-day
category K, which is estimated to have
a PTS threshold distance of 0.26 km.
(d) Video-based monitoring.
(1) All mission-day categories require
video-based monitoring when
practicable except for gunnery missions.
(2) A trained PSO (the video camera
PSO) must monitor the live video feeds
from the Gulf Range Armament Test
Vessel (GRATV) transmitted to the
Central Control Facility (CCF).
(3) The video camera PSO must report
any protected marine species sightings
to the Safety Officer, who will also be
at the CCF.
(4) The video camera PSO must have
open lines of communication with the
PSOs on vessels to facilitate real-time
reporting of marine species sightings.
(5) Direct radio communication must
be maintained between vessels, GRATV
personnel, and Tower Control
throughout the mission.
(6) If a protected marine species is
detected on the live video by a PSO
prior to weapon release, the mission
must be stopped immediately by the
Safety Officer.
(7) Supplemental video monitoring by
additional aerial assets must be used
when practicable (e.g., balloons,
unmanned aerial vehicles).
(e) Post-mission monitoring.
(1) All marine mammal sightings must
be documented on report forms that are
submitted to the Eglin Natural
Resources Office after the mission.
(2) For gunnery missions, following
each mission, aircrews must conduct a
post-mission survey beginning at the
operational altitude and continuing
through an orbiting descent to the
designated monitoring altitude. The
post-mission survey area will be the
area covered in 30 minutes of
observation in a direction down-current
from the impact site or the actual premission survey area, whichever is
reached first.
(3) During post-mission monitoring,
PSOs must survey the mission site for
any dead or injured marine mammals.
The post-mission survey area will be the
area covered in 30 minutes of
observation in a direction down-current
from the impact site or the actual premission survey area, whichever is
reached first.
(f) The USAF must submit an annual
draft monitoring report to NMFS within
90 working days of the completion of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
each year’s activities authorized by the
LOA as well as a comprehensive
summary report at the end of the
project. The annual reports and final
comprehensive report must be prepared
and submitted within 30 days following
resolution of any NMFS comments on
the draft report. If no comments are
received from NMFS within 30 days of
receipt of the draft report, the report
will be considered final. If comments
are received, a final report addressing
NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of
comments. The annual reports must
contain the informational elements
described below, at a minimum. The
comprehensive 7-year report must
include a summary of the monitoring
information collected over the 7-year
period (including summary tables),
along with a discussion of the
practicability and effectiveness of the
mitigation and monitoring and any
other important observations or
discoveries.
(1) Dates and times (begin and end) of
each EGTTR mission;
(2) Complete description of mission
activities;
(3) Complete description of pre-and
post-monitoring activities occurring
during each mission;
(4) Environmental conditions during
monitoring periods including Beaufort
sea state and any other relevant weather
conditions such as cloud cover, fog, sun
glare, and overall visibility to the
horizon, and estimated observable
distance;
(5) Upon observation of a marine
mammal, the following information
should be collected:
(i) Observer who sighted the animal
and observer location and activity at
time of sighting;
(ii) Time of sighting;
(iii) Identification of the animal (e.g.,
genus/species, lowest possible
taxonomic level, or unidentified),
observer confidence in identification,
and the composition of the group if
there is a mix of species;
(iv) Distances and bearings of each
marine mammal observed in relation to
the target site;
(v) Estimated number of animals
including the minimum number,
maximum number, and best estimate);
(vi) Estimated number of animals by
cohort (e.g., adults, juveniles, neonates,
group composition etc.);
(vii) Estimated time that the animal(s)
spent within the mitigation and
monitoring zones;
(viii) Description of any marine
mammal behavioral observations (e.g.,
observed behaviors such as feeding or
traveling);
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8199
(ix) Detailed information about
implementation of any mitigation (e.g.,
postponements, relocations and
cancellations), and
(x) All PSO datasheets and/or raw
sightings data.
(6) The final comprehensive report
must include a summary of data
collected as part of the annual reports.
(g) In the event that personnel
involved in the monitoring activities
discover an injured or dead marine
mammal, the USAF must report the
incident to NMFS Office of Protected
Resources (OPR), and to the NMFS
Southeast Region Marine Mammal
Stranding Network Coordinator, as soon
as feasible. If the death or injury was
likely caused by the USAF’s activity, the
USAF must immediately cease the
specified activities until NMFS OPR is
able to review the circumstances of the
incident and determine what, if any,
additional measures are appropriate to
ensure compliance with the terms of
this rule and the LOA issued under
§ 216.106 of this subchapter and
§ 218.66.
(1) The USAF will not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS. The
report must include the following
information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the first discovery (and
updated location information if known
and applicable);
(ii) Species identification (if known)
or description of the animal(s) involved;
(iii) Condition of the animal(s)
(including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
(iv) Observed behaviors of the
animal(s), if alive;
(v) If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and
(vi) General circumstances under
which the animal was discovered.
(2) [Reserved]
§ 218.66
Letters of Authorization.
(a) To incidentally take marine
mammals pursuant to the regulations in
this subpart, the USAF must apply for
and obtain an LOA in accordance with
§ 216.106 of this section.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or
revoked, may be effective seven years
from the date of issuance.
(c) Except for changes made pursuant
to the adaptive management provision
of § 218.67(b)(1), in the event of
projected changes to the activity or to
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
required by an LOA issued under this
subpart, the USAF must apply for and
obtain a modification of the LOA as
described in § 218.67.
(d) Each LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
8200
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(2) Geographic areas for incidental
taking;
(3) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species or stocks of
marine mammals and their habitat; and
(4) Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
(e) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be
based on a determination that the level
of taking is consistent with the findings
made for the total taking allowable
under the regulations in this subpart.
(f) Notice of issuance or denial of the
LOA(s) will be published in the Federal
Register within 30 days of a
determination.
§ 218.67 Renewals and modifications of
Letters of Authorization.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of
this subchapter and § 218.66 for the
activity identified in § 218.60(c) may be
modified upon request by the applicant,
consistent with paragraph (b), provided
that any requested changes to the
activity or to the mitigation, monitoring,
or reporting measures (excluding
changes made pursuant to the adaptive
management provision in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section) do not change the
underlying findings made for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Feb 06, 2023
Jkt 259001
regulations and do not result in 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 of the change, and
solicit public comment before issuing
the LOA.
(b) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of
this section and § 218.66 may be
modified by NMFS under the following
circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. After
consulting with the USAF regarding the
practicability of the modifications,
NMFS may modify (including adding or
removing measures) the existing
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures if doing so creates a
reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of
the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures in an LOA include:
(A) Results from USAF’s annual
monitoring report and annual exercise
report from the previous year(s);
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
(B) Results from other marine
mammal and/or sound research or
studies;
(C) Results from specific stranding
investigations; or
(D) Any information that reveals
marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent, or number not
authorized by the regulations in this
subpart 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 a new 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 of marine mammals specified in
LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of
this section and § 218.66, an LOA may
be modified without prior public notice
or opportunity for public comment.
Notice will be published in the Federal
Register within thirty days of the action.
§ 218.68
[Reserved]
§ 218.69
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2023–02242 Filed 2–6–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\07FEP3.SGM
07FEP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8146-8200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02242]
[[Page 8145]]
Vol. 88
Tuesday,
No. 25
February 7, 2023
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 218
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental
to Testing and Training Operations in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training
Range; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8146]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 230127-0029]
RIN 0648-BL77
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Testing and Training Operations in the Eglin Gulf Test
and Training Range
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments and information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Department of the
Air Force (USAF) to take marine mammals incidental to testing and
training military operations proposed to be conducted in the Eglin Gulf
Test and Training Range (EGTTR) from 2023 to 2030 in the Gulf of
Mexico. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to issue regulations and subsequent
Letter of Authorization (LOA) to the USAF to incidentally take marine
mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public
comments prior to issuing any final rule and making final decisions on
the issuance of the requested LOA. Agency responses to public comments
will be summarized in the notice of the final decision in the final
rule. The USAF's activities qualify as military readiness activities
pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA).
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March 9,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-
NMFS-2021-0064 in the Search box. Click on the ``Comment'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
A copy of the USAF's application and other supporting documents and
documents cited herein may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-us-air-force-eglin-gulf-testing-and-training. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please use the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Regulatory Action
These proposed regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), would provide the framework for authorizing
the take of marine mammals incidental to the USAF's training and
testing activities (which qualify as military readiness activities)
from air-to-surface operations that involve firing live or inert
munitions, including missiles, bombs, and gun ammunition, from aircraft
at various types of targets on the water surface. Live munitions used
in the EGTTR are set to detonate either in the air a few feet above the
water, instantaneously upon contact with the water or target, or
approximately 5 to 10 feet (ft) (1.5 to 3 meters (m)) below the water
surface. There would also be training exercises for Navy divers that
require the placement of small explosive charges by hand to disable
live mines.
Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) would conduct operations in the existing
Live Impact Area (LIA). In addition, the USAF is also proposing to
create and use a new, separate LIA within the EGTTR that would be used
for live missions in addition to the existing LIA. Referred to as the
East LIA, it is located approximately 40 nautical miles (nmi)/(74
kilometers (km)) southeast of the existing LIA. (See Figure 1).
NMFS received an application from the USAF requesting 7-year
regulations and an authorization to incidentally take individuals of
multiple species of marine mammals (``USAF's rulemaking/LOA
application'' or ``USAF's application''). Take is anticipated to occur
by Level A and Level B harassment incidental to the USAF's training and
testing activities, with no serious injury or mortality expected or
proposed for authorization.
Background
The MMPA prohibits the take of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA direct the
Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) 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 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 and the opportunity to submit
comments.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in this rule as
``mitigation measures''). NMFS also must prescribe the requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The MMPA
defines ``take'' to mean to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt
to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. The Preliminary
Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section below discusses
the definition of ``negligible impact.''
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) amended
section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to remove the ``small numbers'' and
``specified geographical region'' provisions indicated above and
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as applied to a ``military
readiness activity.'' The definition of harassment for military
readiness activities (section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA) is: (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
[[Page 8147]]
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). In addition, the 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it
relates to military readiness activities such that the least
practicable adverse impact analysis shall include consideration of
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
More recently, section 316 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019
NDAA) (Pub. L. 115-232), signed on August 13, 2018, amended the MMPA to
allow incidental take rules for military readiness activities under
section 101(a)(5)(A) to be issued for up to 7 years. Prior to this
amendment, all incidental take rules under section 101(a)(5)(A) were
limited to 5 years.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must evaluate our USAF's proposed activities and alternatives with
respect to potential impacts on the human environment. Accordingly,
NMFS plans to adopt the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range
Environmental Assessment (2022 REA) (USAF 2022), provided our
independent evaluation of the document finds that it includes adequate
information analyzing the effects on the human environment of issuing
regulations and LOAs under the MMPA. NMFS is a cooperating agency on
the 2022 REA and has worked with the USAF developing the document. The
draft 2022 REA was made available for public comment on December 13,
2022 through January 28, 2023. We will review all comments submitted in
response to the request for comments on the 2022 REA and in response to
the request for comments on this proposed rule prior to concluding our
NEPA process or making a final decision on this proposed rule for the
issuance of regulations under the MMPA and any subsequent issuance of a
Letter of Authorization (LOA) to the USAF to incidentally take marine
mammals during the specified activities.
Summary of Request
On January 18, 2022, NMFS received an application from the USAF for
authorization to take marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment
incidental to training and testing activities (categorized as military
readiness activities) in the EGTTR for a period of 7 years. On June 17,
2022 NMFS received an adequate and complete application for missions
that would include air-to-surface operations that involve firing live
or inert munitions, including missiles, bombs, and gun ammunition from
aircraft at targets on the water surface. The types of targets used
vary by mission and primarily include stationary, remotely controlled,
and towed boats, inflatable targets, and marker flares. Live munitions
used in the EGTTR are set to detonate either in the air a few feet
above the water surface (airburst detonation), instantaneously upon
contact with the water or target (surface detonation), or approximately
5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3 m) below the water surface (subsurface
detonation). On July 17, 2022, we published a notice of receipt (NOR)
of application in the Federal Register (87 FR 42711), requesting
comments and information related to the USAF's request. The public
comment period was open for 30 days. We reviewed and considered all
comments and information received on the NOR in development of this
proposed rule.
On February 8, 2018, NMFS promulgated a rulemaking and issued an
LOA for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's training and
testing operations in the EGTTR (83 FR 5545). Current EGTTR operations
are authorized under the 2018 EGTTR LOA which will expire on February
12, 2023. Under this proposed rulemaking action, the EGTTR would
continue to be used during the next mission period based on the
maritime training and testing requirements of the various military
units that use the EGTTR. The next mission period would span 7 years,
from 2023 to 2030. Most operations during this period would be a
continuation of the same operations conducted by the same military
units during the previous mission period. There would, however, be an
increase in the annual quantities of all general categories of
munitions (bombs, missiles, and gun ammunition) under the USAF's
proposed activities, except for live gun ammunition, which is proposed
to be used less over the next mission period. The highest net explosive
weight (NEW) of the munitions under the USAF's proposed activities
would be 945 pounds (lb) (430 kilograms (kg), which was also the
highest NEW for the previous mission period. Live missions proposed for
the 2023-2030 period would be conducted in the existing Live Impact
Area (LIA) within the EGTTR. Certain missions may also be conducted in
the proposed East LIA, which would be a new, separate area within the
EGTTR where live munitions would be used. The USAF's rulemaking/LOA
application reflects the most up-to-date compilation of training and
testing activities deemed necessary to accomplish military readiness
requirements. EGTTR training and testing operations are critical for
achieving military readiness and the overall goals of the National
Defense Strategy. The regulations proposed in this action, if issued,
would be effective for seven years, beginning from the date of
issuance.
Description of the Proposed Activity
The USAF requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental
to conducting training and testing activities. The USAF has determined
that acoustic and explosives stressors are most likely to result in
impacts on marine mammals that could qualify as take under the MMPA,
and NMFS concurs with this determination. Eglin AFB proposes to conduct
military aircraft missions within the EGTTR that involve the employment
of multiple types of live (explosive) and inert (non-explosive)
munitions (i.e., missiles, bombs, and gun ammunition) against various
surface targets. Munitions may be delivered by multiple types of
aircraft including, but not limited to, fighter jets, bombers, and
gunships.
Detailed descriptions of these activities are described in the
Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) Range Environmental
Assessment (REA) (USAF 2022), currently under preparation as well as
the USAF's rulemaking/LOA application. (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-us-air-force-eglin-gulf-testing-and-training). A summary of the proposed activities and are presented
below.
Dates and Duration
The specified activities would occur at any time during the 7-year
period of validity of the regulations. The proposed amount of training
and testing activities are described in the Detailed Description of the
Specified Activities section.
Geographical Region
The Eglin Military Complex encompasses approximately 724 square
miles (1,825 km\2\ of land in the Florida Panhandle and consists of the
Eglin Reservation in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties, and
property on Santa Rosa Island and Cape San Blas. The EGTTR is the
airspace controlled by Eglin AFB over the Gulf of Mexico, beginning 3
nautical miles (nmi) (5.56
[[Page 8148]]
km) from shore, and the underlying Gulf of Mexico waters. The EGTTR
extends southward and westward off the coast of Florida and encompasses
approximately 102,000 nmi (349,850 km\2\). It is subdivided into blocks
of airspace that consist of Warning Areas W-155, W-151, W-470, W-168,
and W-174 and Eglin Water Test Areas 1 through 6 (Figure 1). Most of
the blocks are further subdivided into smaller airspace units for
scheduling purposes (for example, W-151A, B, C, and D). Although Eglin
AFB may use any portion of the EGTTR, the majority of training and
testing operations proposed for the 2023-2030 mission period would
occur in Warning Area W-151. The nearshore boundary of W-151 parallels
much of the coastline of the Florida Panhandle and extends horizontally
from 3 nmi (5.56 km) offshore to approximately 85 to 100 nmi (158 to185
km) to offshore, depending on the specific portion of its outer
boundary. W-151 encompasses approximately 10,247 nmi\2\ (35146 km\2\)
and includes water depths that range from approximately 5 to 720 m. The
existing LIA, which is the portion of the EGTTR where the use of live
munitions is currently authorized, lies mostly within W-151. The
existing LIA encompasses approximately 940 nmi\2\ (3,224 km\2\ and
includes water depths that range from approximately 30 to 145 m (Figure
2). This is where live munitions within the EGTTR are currently used in
the existing LOA (83 FR 5545; February 8, 2018) and where the Gulf
Range Armament Test Vessel (GRATV) is anchored. The GRATV remains
anchored at a specific location during a given mission; however, it is
mobile and relocated within the LIA based on mission needs.
The USAF's proposed activities provide for the creation of a new,
separate area within the EGTTR that would be used for live missions in
addition to the existing LIA. This area, herein referred to as the East
LIA, would be located approximately 40 NM offshore of Eglin AFB
property on Cape San Blas. Cape San Blas is located on St. Joseph
Peninsula in Gulf County, Florida, approximately 90 mi (144 km)
southeast of the Eglin Reservation. Eglin AFB facilities on Cape San
Blas remotely support EGTTR operations via radar tracking, telemetry,
and other functions. The proposed East LIA would be circular-shaped and
have a radius of approximately 10 nmi (18.5 km) and a total area of
approximately 314 NM \2\. Water depths range from approximately 35 to
95 m. The general location of the proposed East LIA is shown in Figure
2. Establishment of the East LIA would allow Eglin AFB to maximize the
flight range for large-footprint weapons and minimize the distance,
time, and cost of deploying support vessels and targets. Based on these
factors, the East LIA would allow testing of weapon systems and flight
profiles that cannot be conducted within the constraints of the
existing LIA.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 8149]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07FE23.046
[[Page 8150]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07FE23.047
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Detailed Description of the Specified Activities
This section provides descriptions of each military user group's
proposed EGTTR operations, as well as information regarding munitions
proposed to be used during the operations. This information includes
munition type, category, net explosive weight (NEW), detonation
scenario, and annual quantity proposed to be expended in the EGTTR. NEW
applies only to live munitions and is the total mass of the explosive
substances in a given munition, without packaging, casings, bullets, or
other non-explosive components of the munition. Note that for some
munitions the warhead is removed and replaced with a telemetry package
that tracks the munition's path and/or Flight Termination System (FTS)
that ends the flight of the munition in a controlled manner. These
munitions have been categorized as live munitions with NEWs that range
from 0.30 to 0.70
[[Page 8151]]
lb (0.13 to 0.31 kg) While certain munitions with only FTS may be
considered inert due to negligible NEW, those contained here are
considered to be live with small amounts of NEW. The detonation
scenario applies only to live munitions which are set to detonate in
one of three ways: (1) in the air a few feet above the water surface,
referred to as airburst or height of burst (HOB); (2) instantaneously
upon contact with the water or target on the water surface; or (3)
after a slight delay, up to 10 milliseconds, after impact, which would
correspond to a subsurface detonation at a water depth of approximately
5 to 10 ft (1.5 to 3 m). Estimated take is only modeled for scenarios
(2) and (3). The proposed annual expenditures of munitions are the
quantities determined necessary to meet the mission requirements of the
user groups.
Live missions proposed for the 2023-2030 period would be conducted
in the existing LIA and potentially in the proposed East LIA, depending
on the mission type and objectives. Live missions that involve only
airburst or aerial target detonations would continue to be conducted in
or outside the LIA in any portion of the EGTTR; such detonations have
no appreciable effect on marine mammals because there is negligible
transmission of pressure or acoustic energy across the air-water
interface. Use of inert munitions and live air-to-surface gunnery
operations would also continue to occur in or outside the LIA, subject
to proposed mitigation and monitoring measures.
Eglin AFB proposes the following actions in the EGTTR which would
be conducted in the existing LIA and potentially in the proposed East
LIA, depending on the mission type and objectives:
(1) 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group missions that involve air-to-
ground Weapons System Evaluation Program (WSEP) known as Combat Hammer
which tests various types of munitions against small target boats and
air-to-air missile testing known as Combat Archer;
(2) Continuation of the Air Force Special Operations Command
(AFSOC) training missions in the EGTTR primarily involving air-to-
surface gunnery, bomb, and missile exercises including AC-130 gunnery
training, CV-22 training, and bomb and missile training;
(3) 96th Operations Group missions including AC-130 gunnery testing
against floating marker targets on the water surface, MQ-9 air-to-
surface testing, and 780th Test Squadron Precision Strike Weapons
testing including air-launched cruise missile tests, air-to-air missile
tests, Longbow and Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) testing; Spike
Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) air-to-surface missile testing, Patriot
missile testing, Hypersonic Weapon Testing, sink at-sea live-fire
training exercises (SINKEX), and testing using live and inert munitions
against targets on the water surface; and
(4) Naval School Explosive Ordnance Disposal (NAVSCOLEOD) training
missions that involve students diving and placing small explosive
charges adjacent to inert mines.
53rd Weapons Evaluation Group
The 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group (53 WEG) conducts the USAF's air-
to-ground Weapons System Evaluation Program (WSEP). The Combat Hammer
program involves testing various types of live and inert munitions
against small target boats. This testing is conducted to develop
tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) to be used by USAF aircraft
to counter small, maneuvering, hostile vessels. Combat Hammer missions
proposed in the EGTTR for the 2023-2030 period would involve the use of
several types of aircraft, including F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, and
A-10 fighter aircraft, AC-130 gunships, B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber
aircraft, and MQ-1 and MQ-9 drone aircraft. USAF, Air National Guard,
and U.S. Navy units would support these missions. Live munitions would
be deployed against static (anchored), remotely controlled, and towed
targets. Static and remotely controlled targets would consist of
stripped boat hulls with simulated systems and, in some cases, heat
sources. Various types of live and inert munitions are used during
Combat Hammer missions in the EGTTR, including missiles, bombs, and gun
ammunition. Table 1 presents information on the munitions proposed for
Combat Hammer missions in the EGTTR during the 2023-2030 period.
Table 1--Proposed Munitions for WSEP Combat Hammer Missions in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Destination
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Munitions:
AGR-20...................... Rocket............. 9.1 (4.1) Surface............ 12
AGM-158D JASSM XR........... Missile............ 240.26 (108.9) Surface............ 4
AGM-158B JASSM ER........... Missile............ 240.26 (108.9) Surface............ 3
AGM-158A JASSM.............. Missile............ 240.26 (108.9) Surface............ 3
AGM-65D..................... Missile............ 150 (68) Surface............ 5
AGM-65G2.................... Missile............ 145 (65.7) Surface............ 5
AGM-65H2.................... Missile............ 150 (68) Surface............ 5
AGM-65K2.................... Missile............ 145 (65.7) Surface............ 4
AGM-65L..................... Missile............ 150 (68) Surface............ 5
AGM-114 N-6D with TM........ Missile............ 29.1 (13.2) Surface............ 4
AGM-114 N-4D with TM........ Missile............ 29.94 (13.6) Surface............ 4
AGM-114 R2 with TM (R10).... Missile............ 27.41 (12.4) Surface............ 4
AGM-114 R-9E with TM (R11).. Missile............ 27.38 (12.4) Surface............ 4
AGM-114Q with TM............ Missile............ 20.16 (9.1) Surface............ 4
CBU-105D.................... Bomb............... 108.6 (49.5) HOB................ 8
GBU-53/B (GTV).............. Bomb............... 0.34(0.1)\a\ HOB/Surface........ 8
GBU-39 SDB (GTV)............ Bomb............... 0.39(0.1)\a\ Surface............ 4
AGM-88C w/FTS............... Missile............ 0.70 (0.31)\a\ Surface............ 2
AGM-88B w/FTS............... Missile............ 0.70 (0.31)\a\ Surface............ 2
AGM-88F w/FTS............... Missile............ 0.70(0.31)\a\ Surface............ 2
AGM-88G w/FTS............... Missile............ 0.70(0.31)\a\ Surface............ 2
AGM-179 JAGM................ Missile............ 27.47(12.5) Surface............ 4
GBU-69...................... Bomb............... 6.88 (3.1) Surface............ 2
GBU-70...................... Bomb............... 6.88 (3.1) Surface............ 4
[[Page 8152]]
AGM-176..................... Missile............ 8.14 (3.7) Surface............ 4
GBU-54 KMU-572C/B........... Bomb............... 193 (87.5) Surface............ 4
GBU-54 KMU-572B/B........... Bomb............... 193 Surface............ 4
PGU-43 (105 mm)............. Gun Ammunition..... 4.7 Surface............ 100
Inert Munitions:
ADM-160B MALD............... Missile............ N/A N/A................ 4
ADM-160C MALD-J............. Missile............ N/A N/A................ 4
ADM-160C-1 MALD-J........... Missile............ N/A N/A................ 4
ADM-160D MALD-J............. Missile............ N/A N/A................ 4
GBU-10...................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 8
GBU-12...................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 32
GBU-49...................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 16
GBU-24/B (84)............... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 16
GBU-24A/B (109)............. Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 2
GBU-31B(v)1................. Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 16
GBU-31C(v)1................. Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 16
GBU-31B(v)3................. Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 2
GBU-31C(v)3................. Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 2
GBU-32C..................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 8
GBU-38B..................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 4
GBU-38C w/BDU-50 (No TM).... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 4
GBU-38C..................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 10
GBU-54 KMU-572C/B........... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 4
GBU-54 KMU-572B/B........... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 4
GBU-69...................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 2
BDU-56A/B................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 4
PGU-27 (20 mm).............. Gun Ammunition..... 0.09 (0.04) N/A................ 16,000
PGU-15 (30 mm).............. Gun Ammunition..... N/A N/A................ 16,000
PGU-25 (25 mm).............. Gun Ammunition..... N/A N/A................ 16,000
ALE-50...................... Decoy System....... N/A N/A................ 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Warhead replaced by FTS/TM. Identified NEW is for the FTS.
ADM = American Decoy Missile; AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; ALE = Ammunition Loading Equipment; BDU = Bomb Dummy
Unit; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; ER = Extended Range; FTS = Flight
Termination System; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; GTV = Guided Test Vehicle; HOB = height of burst; JAGM = Joint Air-
to-Ground Missile; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; lb = pound(s); MALD = Miniature Air-Launched
Decoy; mm = millimeter(s); N/A = not applicable; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = Small-Diameter Bomb, TM =
telemetry; WSEP = Weapons System Evaluation Program.
The Combat Archer program involves live air-to-air missile testing
in the EGTTR. Combat Archer missions also include firing inert gun
ammunition and releasing flares and chaff from aircraft. Air-to-air
missile testing during these missions specifically involves firing live
AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles
(AMRAAMs) at BOM-167 Subscale Aerial Targets and QF-16 Full-Scale
Aerial Targets to evaluate the effectiveness of missile delivery
techniques. Combat Archer missions involve the use of several types of
fighter aircraft, including the F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, and A-10.
Table 2 presents information on the munitions proposed to be used
during Combat Archer missions in the EGTTR.
Table 2--Proposed Munitions for Combat Archer Missions in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) Detonation scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Munitions:
AIM-120D.................... Missile............ 113.05 (51.3) HOB................ 24
AIM-120C7................... Missile............ 113.05 (51.3) HOB................ 10
AIM-120C5/6................. Missile............ 113.05 (51.3) HOB................ 8
AIM-120C3................... Missile............ 102.65 (46.5) HOB................ 14
AIM-120C3................... Missile............ 117.94 (63.5) HOB/Surface........ 4
AIM-120B.................... Missile............ 102.65 (46.5) HOB................ 18
AIM-9X Blk I................ Missile............ 60.25 (27.3) HOB................ 7
AIM-9X Blk I................ Missile............ 67.9 (30.8) HOB/Surface........ 10
AIM-9X Blk II............... Missile............ 60.25 (27.3) HOB................ 24
AIM-9M-9.................... Missile............ 60.55 (27.3) HOB................ 90
Inert Munitions:
AIM-260A JATM............... Missile............ N/A N/A................ 4
PGU-27 (20 mm).............. Gun Ammunition..... N/A N/A................ 80,000
PGU-23 (25 mm).............. Gun Ammunition..... N/A N/A................ 6,000
MJU-7A/B Flare.............. Flare.............. N/A N/A................ 1,800
R-188 Chaff................. Chaff.............. N/A N/A................ 6,000
[[Page 8153]]
R-196 (T-1) Chaff........... Chaff.............. N/A N/A................ 1,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIM = Air Intercept Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; HOB = height of burst; JATM = Joint
Advanced Tactical Missile; lb = pound(s); MJU = Mobile Jettison Unit; mm = millimeter(s); N/A = not
applicable; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; WSEP = Weapons System Evaluation Program.
Air Force Special Operations Command Training
The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) proposes to
continue conducting training missions during the 2023-2030 period.
These missions primarily involve air-to-surface gunnery, bomb, and
missile exercises. Gunnery training in the EGTTR involves firing live
rounds from AC-130 gunships at targets on the water surface. Gun
ammunition used for this training primarily includes 30-millimeter (mm)
High Explosive (HE) and 105 mm HE rounds. A standard 105 mm HE round
has a NEW of 4.7 lb. The Training Round (TR) variant of the 105 mm HE
round, which has a NEW of 0.35 lb, is used by AFSOC for nighttime
missions. This TR was developed to have less explosive material to
minimize potential impacts to protected marine species, which could not
be adequately surveyed at night by earlier aircraft instrumentation.
Since the development of the 105 mm HE TR, AC-130s have been equipped
with low-light electro-optical and infrared sensor systems that provide
excellent night vision. Targets used for AC-130 gunnery training
include Mark (Mk)-25 marine markers and inflatable targets. During each
gunnery training mission, gun firing can last up to 90 minutes but
typically lasts approximately 30 minutes. Live firing is continuous,
with pauses usually lasting well under 1 minute and rarely up to 5
minutes. Table 3 presents information on the rounds proposed for AC-130
gunnery training by AFSOC.
Table 3--Proposed Rounds for AC-130 Gunnery Training in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation Number of Rounds per Annual
Type weight (lb)/(kg) scenario missions mission quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daytime Missions:
105 mm HE (FU).......... 4.7 (2.1) Surface........ 25 30 750
30 mm HE................ 0.1 (0.04) 500 12,500
Nighttime Missions:
105 mm HE (TR).......... 0.35 (0.2 Surface........ 45 30 1,350
30 mm HE................ 0.1 (0.04) 500 22,500
------------------- -----------------------------------------------
Total............... ................. ............... 70 .............. 37,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; FU = Full Up; HE = High Explosive; mm = millimeter(s); lb =
pound(s); TR = Training Round.
The 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) under AFSOC conducts
training in the EGTTR using the tiltrotor CV-22 Osprey. This training
involves firing .50 caliber rounds from CV-22s at floating marker
targets on the water surface. The .50 caliber rounds do not contain
explosive material and, therefore, do not detonate. Flight procedures
for CV-22 training are similar to those described for AC-130 gunnery
training, except that CV-22 aircraft typically operate at much lower
altitudes (100 to 1,000 feet (30.48 to 304.8 m) (AGL) than AC-130
gunships (6,000 to 20,000 feet (1,828 to6,96 m) AGL). Like AC-130
gunships, CV-22s are equipped with highly sophisticated electro-optical
and infrared sensor systems that allow advanced detection capability
during day and night. Table 4 presents information on the rounds
proposed for CV-22 training missions.
Table 4--Proposed Rounds for CV-22 Training in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation Number of Rounds per Annual
Type weight (lb) scenario missions mission quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daytime Missions:
.50 Caliber............. N/A Surface........ 25 600 15,000
Nighttime Missions:
.50 Caliber............. N/A Surface........ 25 600 15,000
----------------- -------------------------------
Total............... ................. ............... .............. 50 30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to AC-130 gunnery and CV-22 training, AFSOC also
conducts other air-to-surface training in the EGTTR using various types
of bombs and missiles as shown in Table 5. This training is conducted
primarily to develop TTPs and train strike aircraft to counter small
moving boats. Munitions used for this training primarily include live
AGM-176 Griffin missiles, live AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, and various
types of live and inert bombs. These
[[Page 8154]]
munitions are launched from various types of aircraft against small
target boats, and they either detonate on impact with the target or at
a programmed HOB.
Table 5--Proposed Munitions for AFSOC Bomb and Missile Training in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive weight Detonation
Type Category (lb)(kg) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Munitions:
AGM-176 Griffin.......... Missile........ 4.58 (2.1) HOB............ 100
AGM-114R9E/R2 Hellfire... Missile........ 20.0 (9.07) HOB............ 70
2.75-inch Rocket Rocket......... 2.3 (1.0) Surface........ 400
(including APKWS).
GBU-12................... Bomb........... 198.0 (89.8)/298.0 (135.1) Surface........ 30
Mk-81 (GP 250 lb)........ Bomb........... 151.0 (98.4) Surface........ 30
GBU-39 (SDB I)........... Bomb........... 37.0 (16.7) HOB............ 30
GBU-69................... Bomb........... 36.0 (16.3) HOB............ 40
Inert Munitions:
.50 caliber.............. Gun Ammunition. N/A N/A............ 30,000
GBU-12................... Bomb........... N/A N/A............ 30
MkK-81 (GP 250 lb)....... Bomb........... N/A N/A............ 30
BDU-50................... Bomb........... N/A N/A............ 30
BDU-33................... Bomb........... N/A N/A............ 50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFSOC = Air Force Special Operations Command; AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; APKWS = Advanced Precision Kill
Weapon System; BDU = Bomb Dummy Unit; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; GP =
General Purpose; HOB = height of burst; lb = pound(s); Mk = Mark; N/A = not applicable; SDB = Small-Diameter
Bomb.
96th Operations Group
Three units under the 96th Operations Group (96 OG) propose to
conduct missions in the EGTTR during the 2023-2030 period: the 417th
Flight Test Squadron (417 FLTS), the 96th Operational Support Squadron
(96 OSS), and the 780th Test Squadron (780 TS).
The 417 FLTS proposes to continue conducting AC-130 testing in the
EGTTR to evaluate the capabilities of the Precision Strike Package
(PSP), Stand Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM), and other systems
on AC-13O aircraft. AC-130 gunnery testing is generally similar to
activities previously described for AFSOC AC-130 gunnery training.
Table 6 presents information on the munitions proposed for AC-130
testing in the EGTTR during the 2023-2030 mission period.
Table 6--Proposed Rounds for AC-130 Gunnery Testing in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) Detonation scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Munitions:
AGM-176 Griffin............. Missile............ 4.58 (2.1) Surface............ 10
AGM-114 Hellfire............ Missile............ 20.0 (9.1) Surface............ 10
GBU-39 (SDB I).............. Bomb............... 37.0 (16.8) Surface............ 6
GBU-39 (LSDB)............... Bomb............... 37.0 (16.8) Surface............ 10
105 mm HE (FU).............. Gun Ammunition..... 4.7 (2.1) Surface............ 60
105 mm HE (TR).............. Gun Ammunition..... 0.35 (0.2) Surface............ 60
30 mm HE.................... Gun Ammunition..... 0.1 (0.1) Surface............ 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; FU = Full Up; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit;
HE = High Explosive; lb = pound(s); mm = millimeter(s); LSDB = Laser Small-Diameter Bomb; SDB = Small-Diameter
Bomb; TR = Training Round.
The 96 OSS proposes to conduct air-to-surface testing in the EGTTR
using assorted live missiles and live and inert precision-guided bombs
to support testing requirements of the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) program. The proposed munitions would be tested for MQ-9
integration and would include captive carry and munitions employment
tests. During munition employment tests, the proposed munitions would
be launched from MQ-9 aircraft at various types of static and moving
targets on the water surface. Table 7 presents information on the
munitions proposed by the 96 OSS for MQ-9 testing in the EGTTR.
Table 7--Proposed Munitions for MQ-9 Testing in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) Detonation scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Munitions:
AGM-114R Hellfire........... Missile............ 20.0 (9.1) Surface............ 36
AIM-9X...................... Missile............ 7.9 (3.6) HOB................ 1
[[Page 8155]]
GBU-39B/B LSDB.............. Bomb............... 37.0 (16.8) Surface............ 2
Inert Munitions:
GBU-39B/B LSDB.............. Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 2
GBU-49...................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 10
GBU-48...................... Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; AIM = Air Intercept Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; GBU =
Guided Bomb Unit; lb = pound(s); LSDB = Laser Small-Diameter Bomb.
The 780 TS, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, and the
U.S. Navy jointly conduct Precision Strike Weapons (PSW) test missions
in the EGTTR. These missions use the AGM-158 JASSM and GBU-39 SDB
precision-guided bomb. The JASSM is an air-launched cruise missile with
a range of more than 200 nmi (370 km). During test missions, the JASSM
would be launched from aircraft more than 200 nmi (370 km) from the
target location at altitudes greater than 25,000 ft (7,620 m) km above
ground level (AGL). The JASSM would cruise at altitudes greater than
12,000 ft (3,657 m) AGL for most of the flight profile until its
terminal descent toward the target. The GBU-39 SDB is a precision-
guided glide bomb with a range of more than 50 nmi (92.6 km). This bomb
would be launched from aircraft more than 50 nmi (92.6 km) from the
target location at altitudes greater than 5,000 ft (1,524 m) AGL. The
bomb would travel via a non-powered glide to the intended target.
Instrumentation in the bomb self-controls the bomb's flight path. Live
JASSMs would detonate at a HOB of approximately 5 ft (0.30 m); however,
these detonations are assumed to occur at the surface for the impact
analysis. The SDBs would detonate either at a HOB of approximately 7 to
14 ft (2.1 to 4.2 m) or upon impact with the target (surface). For
simultaneous SDB launches, two SDBs would be launched from the same
aircraft at approximately the same time to strike the same target. The
SDBs would strike the target within approximately 5 seconds or less of
each other. Such detonations would be considered a single event, with
the associated NEW being doubled for a conservative impact analysis.
Two types of targets are typically used for PSW tests: Container
Express (CONEX) targets and hopper barge targets. CONEX targets
typically consist of up to five CONEX containers strapped, braced, and
welded together to form a single structure. A hopper barge is a common
type of barge that cannot move itself; a typical hopper barge measures
approximately 30 ft (9.1 m) by 12 ft (3.6 m) by 125 ft (38.1 m).
Other SDB tests in the EGTTR during the 2023-2030 mission period
may include operational testing of the GBU-53 (SDB II). These tests may
involve live and inert testing of the munition against target boats.
Table 8 presents information on the munitions proposed for PSW
missions in the EGTTR during the 2023-2030 period.
Table 8--Proposed Munitions for Precision Strike Weapon Missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) Detonation scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Munitions:
AGM-158 (JASSM)............. Missile............ 240.26 (108.9) Surface............ 2
GBU-39 (SDB I).............. Bomb............... 37.0 (16.8) HOB/Surface........ 2
GBU-39 (SDB I) Simultaneous Bomb............... 74.0 (33.35) HOB/Surface........ 2
Launch\a\.
GBU-53 (SDB II)............. Bomb............... 22.84 (10.4) HOB/Surface........ 2
Inert Munitions:
AGM-158 (JASSM)............. Missile............ N/A N/A................ 4
GBU-39 (SDB I).............. Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 4
GBU-39 (SDB I) Simultaneous Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 4
Launch.
GBU-53 (SDB II)............. Bomb............... N/A N/A................ 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NEW is doubled for simultaneous launch.
AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HOB = height of
burst; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; lb = pound(s); N/A = not applicable; SDB = Small-
Diameter Bomb.
The 780 TS, along with the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center
and U.S. Navy, propose to jointly conduct air-to-air missile testing in
the EGTTR. These missions would involve the use of the AIM-260A Joint
Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM), AIM-9X Sidewinder, and AIM-120 AMRAAM
missiles; all missiles used in these tests would be inert. Table 9
presents information on the munitions proposed for air-to-air missile
testing missions in the EGTTR during the 2023-2030 mission period.
[[Page 8156]]
Table 9--Proposed Munitions for Air-to-Air Missile Testing in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation
Type Category weight (lb) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIM-260 JATM--Inert............. Missile............ N/A N/A................ 6
AIM-9X--Inert................... Missile............ N/A N/A................ 10
AIM-120 AMRAAM--Inert........... Missile............ N/A N/A................ 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIM = Air Intercept Missile; AMRAAM = Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and
Training Range; lb = pound(s); JATM = Joint Advanced Tactical Missile; N/A = not applicable.
The 780 TS proposes to test the ability of the AGM-114L Longbow
missile and AGM-179A Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) missile to
track and impact moving target boats in the EGTTR as shown in Table 10.
These missiles are typically launched from an AH-64D Apache helicopter.
The test targets would be remotely controlled boats, including the 25-
foot High-Speed Maneuverable Surface Target (HSMST) (foam filled) and
41-foot (12.5 m) Coast Guard Utility Boat (metal hull). The missiles
would be launched approximately 0.9 to 4.3 nmi (1.7 to 7.9 km) from the
targets.
Table 10--Proposed Munitions for Longbow and JAGM Missile Testing in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM-114L Longbow................ Missile............ 35.95 (16.3) HOB................ 6
AGM-179A JAGM................... Missile............ 27.47 (11.1) HOB................ 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; HOB = height of burst; JAGM = Joint Air-
to-Ground Missile; lb = pound(s).
The 780 TS proposes to test the Spike Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) air-
to-surface tactical missile system against static and moving target
boats in the EGTTR in support of the U.S. Army's initiative to
incorporate the Spike NLOS missile system onto the AH-64E Apache
helicopter. These missiles shown in Table 11 would be launched from an
AH-64D Apache helicopter and the test targets would include foam-filled
fiberglass boats approximately 25 ft (7.62 m) in length that are either
anchored or towed by a remotely controlled (HSMST).
Table 11--Proposed Munitions for NLOS Spike Missile Testing in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike NLOS...................... Missile........... 34.08 (14.5) Surface........... 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 780 TS proposes to conduct surface-to-air testing of Patriot
Advanced Capability (PAC)-2 and PAC-3 missiles in the EGTTR. These
missiles are expected to be fired from the A-15 launch site on Santa
Rosa Island at drones in the EGTTR. Detailed operational data for this
testing are not yet available. Standard inventory missiles would be
used and up to eight PAC-2 tests and two PAC-3 tests per year are
proposed as shown in Table 12.
Table 12--Proposed Munitions for Patriot Missile Testing in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAC-2........................... Missile............ \a\145.0 (65.7) N/A (drone target). 8
PAC-3........................... Missile............ \a\145.0 (65.7) N/A (drone target). 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Assumed for impact analysis.
Hypersonic weapons are capable of traveling at least five times the
speed of sound, referred to as Mach 5. While conventional weapons
typically rely on explosive warheads to inflict damage on a target,
hypersonic weapons typically rely on kinetic energy from high-velocity
impact to inflict damage on targets. For the purpose of assessing
impacts, the kinetic energy of a hypersonic weapon may be correlated to
energy release in units of feet-lb or trinitrotoluene (TNT)
equivalency.
The 780 TS supports several hypersonic weapon programs, including
the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) and Precision Strike
Missile (PrSM) programs, which are presented in Table 13.
HACM is a developmental air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile
that uses scramjet technology for propulsion. This weapon would air-
launched. The 780 TS proposes to conduct HACM
[[Page 8157]]
testing, which would involve air launches through a north-south
corridor within the EGTTR to a target location on the water surface.
The dimensions and orientation of the test flight corridor within the
EGTTR for HACM tests are to be determined; the flight corridor is
preliminarily expected to be 300 to 400 nmi (555 to 740 km) in total
length. Live HACMs would be fired from the southern portion of the
EGTTR into either the existing LIA or proposed East LIA. Up to two live
HACMs per year are proposed to be tested in the EGTTR during the 2023-
2030 mission period.
The PrSM is being developed by the U.S. Army as a surface-to-
surface, long-range, precision-strike guided missile to be fired from
the M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System and the M142 High Mobility
Artillery Rocket System. The 780 TS in coordination with the U.S. Army
proposes to conduct PrSM testing in the EGTTR. Some PrSM testing is
expected to involve surface launches of the PrSM from the A-15 launch
site on Santa Rosa Island. The dimensions and orientation of the test
flight corridor within the EGTTR for PrSM tests are to be determined;
the flight corridor is preliminarily expected to be 162 to 270 nmi (300
to 500 km) in total length. For tests that involve a live warhead on
the PrSM, the PrSM would be preset to detonate at a specific height
above the water surface (HOB/airburst) and could occur in any portion
of the EGTTR. Any surface strikes proposed with live PrSMs would be
required to be in the existing LIA or proposed East LIA. Like inert
HACM tests, inert PrSM tests could occur in any portion of the EGTTR,
except between the 100-m and 400-m isobaths to prevent impacts to the
Rice's whale.
Table 13--Proposed Munitions for Hypersonic Weapon Testing in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Munitions:
HACM........................ Hypersonic Weapon.. \a\350 (158.7) Surface............ 2
PrSM........................ Hypersonic Weapon.. \a\46 (158.7) HOB................ 2
Inert Munitions:
PrSM--Inert................. Hypersonic Weapon.. N/A N/A................ 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Net explosive weight at impact/detonation.
The 780 TS, in coordination with the Air Force Research Laboratory,
proposes to conduct SINKEX testing in the EGTTR. SINKEX exercises would
involve the sinking of vessels, typically 200-400 ft (61 -122 m) in
length, in the existing LIA. The types of munitions that would be used
for SINKEX testing is controlled information and, therefore, not
identified (Table 14).
Table 14--Proposed SINKEX Exercises in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation
Type Category weight (lb) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINKEX.......................... Vessel Sinking Not Available..... Not Available..... 2
Exercise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 780 TS plans to lead or support other types of testing in the
EGTTR as shown in Table 15. These missions would primarily include
testing live and inert munitions against targets on the water surface,
such as boats and barges. Some of the tests would involve munitions
with NEWs of up to 945 lb, which is the highest NEW associated with the
munitions analyzed in this LOA application.
Table 15--Proposed Munitions for Other 780 Test Squadron Testing in the EGTTR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive weight
Type Category (lb)/(kg) Detonation scenario Target type Annual quantity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Munitions:
GBU-10, 24, or 31 (QUICKSINK)... Bomb................... 945 (428.5)........... Subsurface............ TBD................... 4 to 8
2,000 lb bomb with JDAM kit..... Bomb................... 945 (428.5) or less... HOB................... TBD................... 2
Inert GBU-39 (LSDB)............. Bomb................... 0.4 (0.2)............. HOB/Surface........... Small Boat............ 4
with live fuze..................
Inert GBU-53 (SDB II)........... Bomb................... 0.4 (0.2)............. HOB/Surface........... Small Boat............ 4
with live fuze..................
Inert Munitions:
SiAW AARGM-ER................... Missile................ N/A................... N/A................... TBD................... 7
Multipurpose Booster................ Booster................ N/A................... N/A................... TBD................... 1
JDAM ER......................... Bomb................... N/A................... N/A................... Water Surface and 3
Barge.
[[Page 8158]]
Navy HAAWC...................... Torpedo................ N/A................... N/A................... Water Surface......... 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AARGM-ER = Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile--Extended Range; EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; Guided Bomb Unit; HOB = height of burst;
HAAWC = High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability; JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; lb = pound(s); LSDB = Laser Small-Diameter Bomb;
N/A = not applicable; SDB = Small-Diameter Bomb; SiAW = Stand-in Attack Weapon; TBD = to be determined.
The 96 OG proposes to continue expending approximately nine inert
bombs a year in the EGTTR for testing purposes. The bombs are expected
to be up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) in total weight. For the impact analysis,
the bombs to be used by the 96 OG in the EGTTR during the 2023-2030
mission period are assumed to be Mk-84 2,000 lb (907 kg) General
Purpose (GP) inert bombs (Table 16).
Table 16--Proposed Munitions for Inert Bomb Testing in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net explosive Detonation
Type Category weight (lb) scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mk-84 (GP 2,000 lb) \a\......... Bomb.............. N/A N/A 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\Assumed for impact analysis.
EGTTR = Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range; GP = General Purpose; lb = pound(s); Mk = Mark; N/A = not
applicable.
Naval School Explosive Ordnance Disposal (NAVSCOLEOD)
NAVSCOLEOD proposes to conduct training missions in the EGTTR which
would include Countermeasures (MCM) exercises to teach NAVSCOLEOD
students techniques for neutralizing mines underwater (Table 17).
Underwater MCM training exercises are conducted in nearshore waters and
primarily involve diving and placing small explosive charges adjacent
to inert mines by hand; the detonation of such charges disables live
mines. NAVSCOLEOD training is conducted offshore of Santa Rosa Island
and in other locations and has not yet extended into the EGTTR.
NAVSCOLEOD training proposed for the 2023-2030 mission period would
extend approximately 5 nmi (9.26 km) offshore of Santa Rosa Island, in
the EGTTR. Up to 8 MCM training missions would be conducted annually in
the EGTTR during the 2023-2030 period. Each mission would involve 4
underwater detonations of charges hand placed adjacent to inert mines,
for a total of 32 annual detonations. The MCM neutralization charges
consist of C-4 explosives, detonation cord, non-electric blasting caps,
time fuzes, and fuze igniters; each charge has a NEW of approximately
20 lb. (9.07 kg). During each mission, with a maximum of 4 charges,
would detonate with a delay no greater than 20 minutes between shots.
After the final detonation, or a delay greater than 20 minutes, a 30-
minute environmental observation would be conducted. Additionally,
NAVSCOLEOD proposes to conduct up to 80 floating mine training
missions, which would involve detonations of charges on the water
surface; these charges would have a NEW of approximately 5 lb (2.3 kg).
All NAVSCOLEOD missions would occur only during daylight hours.
Table 17--Proposed Munitions for NAVSCOLEOD Training in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Explosive
Type Category weight (lb)/(kg) Detonation scenario Annual quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater Mine Charge.......... Charge............. \a\20 (9.1) Subsurface......... 32
Floating Mine Charge............ Charge............. \a\5 (2.3) Surface............ 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Estimated
Description of Stressors
The USAF uses the EGTTR for training purposes and for testing of a
variety of weapon systems described in this proposed rule. All of the
weapons systems considered likely to cause the take of marine mammals
involve explosive detonations. Training and testing with these systems
may introduce acoustic (sound) energy or shock waves from explosives
into the environment. The following section describes explosives
detonated at or just below the surface of the water within the EGTTR.
Because of the complexity of analyzing sound propagation in the ocean
environment, the USAF relied on acoustic models in its environmental
analyses and rulemaking/LOA application that considered sound source
characteristics and conditions across the EGTTR.
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. When an air-to-surface munition impacts the
water, some of the kinetic energy displaces water in the formation of
an impact ``crater'' in the water, some of the kinetic energy is
transmitted from the impact point as underwater acoustic energy in a
pressure impulse, and the remaining kinetic energy is retained by the
munition continuing to move through the water. Following impact, the
warhead of a live munition detonates at or slightly below the water
surface. The warhead detonation converts explosive
[[Page 8159]]
material into gas, further displacing water through the rapid creation
of a gas bubble in the water, and creates a much larger pressure wave
than the pressure wave created by the impact. These impulse pressure
waves radiate from the impact point at the speed of sound in water,
roughly 1,500 m per second. If the detonation is sufficiently deep, the
gas bubble goes through a series of expansions and contractions, with
each cycle being of successively lower energy. When detonations occur
below but near the water surface, the initial gas bubble reaches the
surface and causes venting, which also dissipates energy through the
ejection of water and release of detonation gases into the atmosphere.
When a detonation occurs below the water surface after the impact
crater has fully or partially closed, water can be violently ejected
upward by the pressure impulse and through venting of the gas bubble
formed by the detonation.
With radii of up to 15 m, the gas bubbles that would be generated
by EGTTR munition detonations would be larger than the depth of
detonation but much smaller than the water depth, so all munitions
analyzed are considered to fully vent to the surface without forming
underwater bubble expansion and contraction cycles. When detonations
occur at the water surface, a large portion of the energy and gases
that would otherwise form a detonation bubble are reflected upward from
the water. Likewise, when a shallow detonation occurs below the water
surface but prior to the impact crater closing, considerable energy is
reflected upward from the water. As a conservative assumption, no
energy losses from surface effects are included in the acoustic model.
The impulsive pressure waves generated by munition impact and
warhead detonation radiate spherically and are reflected between the
water surface and the sea bottom. There is generally some attenuation
of the pressure waves by the sea bottom but relatively little
attenuation of the pressure waves by the water surface. As a
conservative assumption, the water surface is assumed to be flat (no
waves) to allow for maximum reflectivity. Additionally, is it assumed
that all detonations occur in the water and none of the detonations
occur above the water surface when a munition impacts a target. This
conservative assumption implies that all munition energy is imparted to
the water rather than the intended targets. The potential impacts of
exposure to explosive detonations are discussed in detail in the
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their
Habitat section.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities
Table 18 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this activity, and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. PBR is 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 (as described in NMFS'
SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is expected to occur, PBR
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or
stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All stocks managed under the MMPA in this region
are assessed in NMFS' 2021 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessment (Hayes et al. 2022; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports). All values presented in Table 18 are the
most recent available at the time of publication and are available
online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments).
Table 18--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Specified Geographical Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS stock abundance
ESA/MMPA status; (CV, Nmin, most recent Annual M/
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) abundance survey) \2\ PBR SI \3\
\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Rice's whale \4\................ Balaenoptera ricei..... Gulf of Mexico......... E/D; Y 51 (0.50; 34; 2017-18) 0.1 0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Common bottlenose dolphin....... Tursiops 939runcates Northern GOM -; N 63,280 (0.11; 57,917; 556 65
truncatus. Continental Shelf. 2018).
Atlantic spotted dolphin........ Stenella frontalis..... GOM.................... -; N 21,506 (0.26; 17,339; 166 36
2017-18).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered/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 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\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV
is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality (M) plus serious injury (SI) from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). These values are generally considered minimums because, among other reasons, not all fisheries that could interact
with a particular stock are observed and/or observer coverage is very low, and, for some stocks (such as the Atlantic spotted dolphin and continental
shelf stock of bottlenose dolphin), no estimate for injury due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has been included. See SARs for further discussion.
\4\ The 2021 final rule refers to the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni). These whales were subsequently described as a new
species, Rice's whale (Balaenoptera ricei) (Rosel et al., 2021).
[[Page 8160]]
As indicated above, all three species (with three managed stocks)
in Table 18 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. These species are
generally categorized into those species that occur over the
continental shelf, which is typically considered to extend from shore
to the 200-m (656-ft) isobath, and those species that occur beyond the
continental shelf break in waters deeper than 200 m. Since water depths
range from approximately 30 to 145 m in the existing LIA and from
approximately 35 to 95 m in the proposed new East LIA, most of EGTTR
activities would occur in waters over the continental shelf. Any live
munitions would be set to detonate above the water surface if used
outside the LIA beyond the 200-m isobath. Airburst detonations are not
considered to affect marine mammals because there is little
transmission of pressure or sound energy across the air-water
interface. For these reasons, only cetacean species that predominantly
occur landward of the 200-m isobath are carried forward in the
analysis. These species include common bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic
spotted dolphin, and Rice's whale.
Common Bottlenose Dolphin
The common bottlenose dolphin is abundant in the northeastern Gulf
from inshore to upper continental slope waters less than 1,000 m deep
(Mullin and Fulling 2004). It is the most common cetacean species found
in the coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Genetically distinct
coastal and offshore ecotypes of the bottlenose dolphin occur in the
Gulf of Mexico and in other locations (Hoelzel et al. 1998). A total of
36 common bottlenose dolphin stocks have been identified in the
northern Gulf of Mexico including coastal, continental shelf, and
oceanic stocks, as well as 31 bay, sound, and estuarine stocks (Waring
et al. 2016). Stocks that may be found near or within the EGTTR include
the Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal, Northern Gulf of Mexico
Continental Shelf, and Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic stocks, in
addition to three inshore stocks, which include the Choctawhatchee Bay,
Pensacola/East Bay, and St. Andrew Bay stocks. However, the designated
inshore stock areas are landward of the EGTTR boundary; therefore,
individuals from these stocks are not anticipated to be exposed to or
affected by EGTTR operations. The Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal Stock
inhabits waters from shore to the 20-m (65-ft) isobath and, therefore,
has potential to occur within the EGTTR, which starts at 3 nmi (5.5 km)
offshore, where water depths can be 20 m or slightly less. However,
given that most EGTTR operations would occur in either the existing
LIA, where water depths range from approximately 30 to 145 m, or in the
proposed East LIA, where water depths range from approximately 35 to 85
m, EGTTR operations are expected to have no appreciable effect on this
stock. The Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf Stock inhabits
waters that are 20 to 200 m deep and, therefore, is expected to be the
primary bottlenose dolphin stock that occurs in the existing LIA. The
Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic Stock inhabits waters deeper than 200 m
and, therefore, is not expected to be exposed to or affected by EGGTR
operations in either LIA.
The bottlenose dolphin reaches a length ranging from about 6 to 13
ft (1.8 to 3.9 m) and a weight ranging from about 300 to 1,400 lb (136
to 635 kg). The diet of bottlenose dolphins consists primarily of fish,
squid, and crustaceans. They hunt for prey using a variety of
techniques individually and cooperatively. For example, they may work
as a group to herd and trap fish as well as use high-frequency
echolocation, to catch prey.
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
The Atlantic spotted dolphin occurs throughout the Atlantic Ocean
and the Gulf of Mexico. There is a single stock of the Atlantic spotted
dolphin in U.S. Gulf waters, which is the Northern Gulf of Mexico
Stock. Animals occur primarily from continental shelf waters of 10-200
m deep to slope waters <500 m deep and were spotted in all seasons
during aerial and vessel surveys of the northern Gulf of Mexico (i.e.,
U.S. Gulf of Mexico; Hansen et al. 1996; Mullin and Hoggard 2000;
Fulling et al. 2003; Mullin and Fulling 2004; Maze-Foley and Mullin
2006). Atlantic spotted dolphins are about 5 to 7.5 ft (1.5 to 2.3 m)
long and weigh about 220 to 315 lb (99.8 to 142.8 kg). Their diet
consists primarily of small fish, invertebrates, and cephalopods, which
they catch using a variety of techniques including echolocation.
Atlantic spotted dolphins are social animals and form groups of up to
200 individuals. Most groups consist of fewer than 50 individuals, and
in coastal waters groups typically consist of 5 to 15 individuals (NMFS
2021b).
Rice's Whale
The Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale was listed as endangered
throughout its entire range on April 15, 2019, under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Based on genetic analyses and new morphological
information NOAA Fisheries recently revised the common and scientific
names to recognize this new species (Balaenoptera ricei) as being
separate from other Bryde's whale populations (86 FR 47022; August 21,
2021). Rosel and Wilcox (2014) first identified a new, evolutionarily
distinct lineage of whale in the Gulf of Mexico. Genetic analysis of
whales sampled in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico revealed that this
population is evolutionarily distinct from all other whales within the
Bryde's whale complex and all other known balaenopterid species (Rosel
and Wilcox 2014).
The Rice's whale is the only year-round resident baleen whale
species in the Gulf of Mexico. Rosel et.al. (2021) reported that based
on a compilation of sighting and stranding data from 1992 to 2019, the
primary habitat of the Rice's whale is the northeastern Gulf of Mexico,
particularly the De Soto Canyon area, at water depths of 150 to 410 m.
Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) include areas of known
importance for reproduction, feeding, or migration, or areas where
small and resident populations are known to occur (Van Parijs, 2015).
Unlike ESA critical habitat, these areas are not formally designated
pursuant to any statute or law but are a compilation of the best
available science intended to inform impact and mitigation analyses. In
2015, a year round small and resident population BIA for Bryde's whales
(later designated as Rice's whales) was identified from the De Soto
Canyon along the shelf break to the southeast (LaBrecque et al. 2015).
The 23,559 km\2\ BIA covers waters between 100 and 300 m deep from
approximately south of Pensacola to approximately west of Fort Myers,
FL (LaBrecque et al. 2015). The deepest location where a Rice's whale
has been sighted is 408 m (Rosel et al. 2021). Habitat for the Rice's
whale is currently considered by NMFS to be primarily within the depth
range of 100 to 400 m in this part of the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS 2016,
2020a), and in 2019 NMFS delineated a Core Distribution Area (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/rices-whale-core-distribution-area-map-gis-data) based on visual and tag data available through 2019. No
critical habitat has yet been designated for the species, and no
recovery plan has yet been developed.
The Rice's whale is a medium-sized baleen whale. To date, the
largest verified Rice's whale to strand was a lactating female about
12.65 m long; the largest male was 11.26 m (Rosel et al. 2021). Little
is known about their
[[Page 8161]]
foraging ecology and diet. However, data from two Rice's whales suggest
they may mostly forage at or near the seafloor.
Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs)
An UME is defined under Section 410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding
that is unexpected; it involves a significant die-off of any marine
mammal population and demands immediate response. There are currently
no UMEs with ongoing investigations in the EGTTR. There was a UME for
bottlenose dolphins that was active beginning in February 2019 and
closing in November of the same year that included the northern Gulf of
Mexico. Dolphins developed lesions that were thought to be caused by
exposure to low salinity water stemming from extreme freshwater
discharge. This UME is closed.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 19.
Table 19--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans......... 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
(baleen whales)......................
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans......... 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans........ 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
(true porpoises, Kogia, river
dolphins, Cephalorhynchid,
Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)... 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).........................
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater).. 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea 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).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al. 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary of the ways that components of the
specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this rule includes a
quantitative analysis of the number of instances of take that could
occur from these activities. The Preliminary Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation
Measures section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of
these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and whether those impacts on individuals are likely to
adversely affect the species through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
The USAF has requested authorization for the take of marine mammals
that may occur incidental to training and testing activities in the
EGTTR. The USAF analyzed potential impacts to marine mammals from air-
to-surface operations that involve firing live or inert munitions,
including missiles, bombs, and gun ammunition, from aircraft at targets
on the water surface in the LOA application as well as the 2022 REA,
for which NMFS served as a cooperating agency. The proposed training
and testing exercises have the potential to cause take of marine
mammals by exposing them to impulsive noise and pressure waves
generated by explosive detonation at or near the surface of the water.
Exposure to noise or pressure resulting from these detonations could
result in non-lethal injury (Level A harassment) or disturbance (Level
B harassment). As explained in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, neither mortality nor non-auditory injury are anticipated or
authorized.
A summary of the potential impacts of the pressure waves generated
by explosive detonations is included below. Following, a brief
technical background is provided here on sound, on the characteristics
of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal. Last, a
brief overview of the potential effects (e.g., tolerance, masking,
hearing threshold shift, behavioral disturbance, and stress responses)
to marine mammals associated with the USAF's proposed activities is
included.
[[Page 8162]]
Impacts from Pressure Waves Caused by Explosive Detonations
Exposure to the pressure waves generated by explosive detonations
has the potential to cause injury, serious injury, or mortality,
although those impacts are not anticipated here. (This conclusion is
based on the size, type, depth, and duration of the explosives in
combination with the density of marine mammals, which together predict
a low probability of exposures, as well as the required mitigation
measures, as described in detail the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section.) The potential acoustic impacts of explosive detonations
(e.g., permanent threshold shift (PTS), temporary threshold shift
(TTS), and behavioral disturbance) are described in subsequent
sections.
Generally speaking, the pressure from munition detonations have the
potential to cause mortality, injury, hearing impairment, or behavioral
disturbances in marine mammals, depending on the explosive energy
released by the munition and the distance of the animal from the
detonation. The impulsive noise from these detonations may also cause
hearing impairment or behavioral disturbances. The most potentially
severe effects would occur close to the detonation point, including
tissue damage, barotrauma, or even death. Serious injury or mortality
to marine mammals from explosive detonations, if they occurred, which
is not expected here, would consist of primary blast injury, which
refers to those injuries that result from the compression of a body
exposed to a blast wave and which is usually observed as barotrauma of
gas-containing structures (e.g., lung and gut) and structural damage to
the auditory system (Richmond et al. 1973). The near instantaneous high
magnitude pressure change near an explosion can injure an animal where
tissue material properties significantly differ from the surrounding
environment, such as around air-filled cavities in the lungs or
gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The gas-containing organs (lungs and GI
tract) are most vulnerable to primary blast injury. Severe injuries to
these organs are presumed to result in mortality (e.g., severe lung
damage may introduce air into the cardiopulmonary vascular system,
resulting in lethal air emboli). Large pressure changes at tissue-air
interfaces in the lungs and GI tract may cause tissue rupture,
resulting in a range of injuries depending on degree of exposure.
Recoverable injuries would include slight lung injury, such as
capillary interstitial bleeding, and contusions to the GI tract. More
severe injuries, such as tissue lacerations, major hemorrhage, organ
rupture, or air in the chest cavity (pneumothorax), would significantly
reduce fitness and likely cause death in the wild. Rupture of the lung
may also introduce air into the vascular system, producing air emboli
that can cause a stroke or heart attack and restrict oxygen delivery to
critical organs. Susceptibility would increase with depth, until normal
lung collapse (due to increasing hydrostatic pressure) and increasing
ambient pressures again reduce susceptibility.
Exposures to higher levels of impulse and pressure levels would
generally result in greater impacts to an individual animal. However,
the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, often
depending on species and contextual factors (Richardson et al. 1995).
As described in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, the more
serious impacts (i.e., mortality, serious injury, and non-auditory
injury) are not anticipated to result from this action.
The USAF performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the
probability that marine mammals could be exposed to the sound and
energy from explosions during USAF activities and the effects of those
exposures (Appendix A in LOA Application). The effects of underwater
explosions on marine mammals depend on a variety of factors including
animal size and depth; charge size and depth; depth of the water
column; and distance between the animal and the charge. In general, an
animal would be less susceptible to injury near the water surface
because the pressure wave reflected from the water surface would
interfere with the direct path pressure wave, reducing positive
pressure exposure. There are a limited number of explosives that would
detonate just below the water surface as outlined previously in the
section, Description of Stressors. Most explosives would detonate at or
near the surface of the water and are unlikely to transfer energy
underwater sufficient to result in non-auditory injury (GI injury or
lung injury) or mortality. For reasons described in the Estimated Take
of Marine Mammals section, NMFS agrees with USAF's analysis that no
mortality or serious injury from tissue damage in the form of GI injury
or lung injury is anticipated to result from the proposed activities.
The USAF did not request, and NMFS does not propose, mortality or
serious injury for authorization, and therefore this proposed rule will
not discuss it further. For additional details on the criteria for
estimating non-auditory physiological impacts on marine mammals due to
naval underwater explosions, we refer the reader to the report,
Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects
Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e).
Sections 6, 7, and 9 of the USAF's application include summaries of
the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine
mammals and their habitat, including specific discussion of potential
effects to marine mammals from noise and pressure waves produced
through the use explosives detonating at or near the surface. We have
reviewed the USAF's discussion of potential effects for accuracy and
completeness in its application and refer to that information rather
than repeating it in full here. Below we include a summary of the
potential effects to marine mammals.
Description of Sound Sources
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals found later in this document. For general
information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment,
please see Au and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995); and Urick
(1983).
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 or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance
between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of
one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower
frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly,
except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is typically
described using the relative unit of the decibel (dB). A sound pressure
level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure
and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal
([mu]Pa)), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations
in amplitude. Therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to
large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the
SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1
[mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position
(referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
[[Page 8163]]
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the
square root of the average (Urick 1983). Root mean square accounts for
both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all
values positive so that they may be accounted for 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.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s)
represents the total energy in a stated frequency band over a stated
time interval or event and considers both intensity and duration of
exposure. The per-pulse SEL is calculated over the time window
containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic energy).
SEL is a cumulative metric; it can be accumulated over a single pulse,
or calculated over periods containing multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL
represents the total energy accumulated by a receiver over a defined
time window or during an event. Peak sound pressure (also referred to
as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum instantaneous
sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the
source and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure.
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 a
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either
directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions
(omnidirectional sources). 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, which is
defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single
source or point (Richardson et al. 1995). 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., wind and
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic
(e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number of sources
contribute to ambient sound, including wind and waves, which are a main
source of naturally occurring ambient sound 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. Precipitation can
become an important component of total sound at frequencies above 500
Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals can
contribute significantly to ambient sound levels, as can some fish and
snapping shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is
from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient sound
related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels),
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production,
geophysical surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel noise typically
dominates the total ambient sound 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.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources that
comprise ambient sound at any given location and time depends not only
on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and
levels of biological and human 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 decibels (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. Details of source types are described in the following
text.
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types:
Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). 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) and NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) Underwater
Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shift
(Acoustic Technical Guidance) (NMFS 2018) for an in-depth discussion of
these concepts. The distinction between these two sound types is not
always obvious, as certain signals share properties of both pulsed and
non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a source could be categorized as a
pulse, but due to propagation effects as it moves farther from the
source, the signal duration becomes longer (e.g., Greene and Richardson
1988).
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI 1986, 2005; Harris 1998; NIOSH 1998; ISO 2003) and occur either
as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds are
all characterized by 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.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g.,
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems. The
duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly
extended in a highly reverberant environment.
Hearing Loss--Threshold Shift
Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to lower-
intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing threshold
shift, which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency
ranges after cessation of sound (Finneran 2015). Threshold shift 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).
[[Page 8164]]
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause
PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the
elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner
ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear
fluids (Southall et al. 2007). PTS is considered an injury and Level A
harassment while TTS is considered to be Level B harassment and not
considered an injury.
Hearing loss, or threshold shift (TS), is typically quantified in
terms of the amount (in decibels) that hearing thresholds at one or
more specified frequencies are elevated, compared to their pre-exposure
values, at some specific time after the noise exposure. The amount of
TS measured usually decreases with increasing recovery time--the amount
of time that has elapsed since a noise exposure. If the TS eventually
returns to zero (i.e., the hearing threshold returns to the pre-
exposure value), the threshold shift is called a TTS. If the TS does
not completely recover (the threshold remains elevated compared to the
pre-exposure value), the remaining TS is a PTS.
Hearing loss has only been studied in a few species of marine
mammals, although hearing studies with terrestrial mammals are also
informative. There are no direct measurements of hearing loss in marine
mammals due to exposure to explosive sources. The sound resulting from
an explosive detonation is considered an impulsive sound and shares
important qualities (i.e., short duration and fast rise time) with
other impulsive sounds such as those produced by air guns. General
research findings regarding TTS and PTS in marine mammals, as well as
findings specific to exposure to other impulsive sound sources, are
discussed below.
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine
mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall et al. (2019) for summaries),
however for cetaceans, published data on the onset of TTS are limited
to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze
finless porpoise, and, for pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are
limited to harbor seals, elephant seals, and California sea lions.
These studies examine hearing thresholds measured in marine mammals
before and after exposure to intense sounds. The difference between the
pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds can then be used to determine
the amount of threshold shift at various post-exposure times. NMFS has
reviewed the available studies, which are summarized below:
The method used to test hearing may affect the resulting
amount of measured TTS, with neurophysiological measures producing
larger amounts of TTS compared to psychophysical measures (Finneran et
al. 2007; Finneran 2015).
The amount of TTS varies with the hearing test frequency.
As the exposure SPL increases, the frequency at which the maximum TTS
occurs also increases (Kastelein et al. 2014). For high-level
exposures, the maximum TTS typically occurs one-half to one octave
above the exposure frequency (Finneran et al. 2007; Mooney et al.
2009a; Nachtigall et al. 2004; Popov et al. 2011; Popov et al. 2013;
Schlundt et al. 2000; Kastelein et al. 2021b; Kastelein et al. 2022).
The overall spread of TTS from tonal exposures can therefore extend
over a large frequency range (i.e., narrowband exposures can produce
broadband (greater than one octave) TTS).
The amount of TTS increases with exposure SPL and duration
and is correlated with SEL, especially if the range of exposure
durations is relatively small (Kastak et al. 2007; Kastelein et al.
2014b; Popov et al. 2014). As the exposure duration increases, however,
the relationship between TTS and SEL begins to break down.
Specifically, duration has a more significant effect on TTS than would
be predicted on the basis of SEL alone (Finneran et al. 2010a; Kastak
et al. 2005; Mooney et al. 2009a). This means if two exposures have the
same SEL but different durations, the exposure with the longer duration
(thus lower SPL) will tend to produce more TTS than the exposure with
the higher SPL and shorter duration. In most acoustic impact
assessments, the scenarios of interest involve shorter duration
exposures than the marine mammal experimental data from which impact
thresholds are derived; therefore, use of SEL tends to over-estimate
the amount of TTS. Despite this, SEL continues to be used in many
situations because it is relatively simple, more accurate than SPL
alone, and lends itself easily to scenarios involving multiple
exposures with different SPL.
Gradual increases of TTS may not be directly observable
with increasing exposure levels before the onset of PTS (Reichmuth et
al. 2019). Similarly, PTS can occur without measurable behavioral
modifications (Reichmuth et al. 2019).
The amount of TTS depends on the exposure frequency.
Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity,
are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of
best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). The onset of TTS--
defined as the exposure level necessary to produce 6 dB of TTS (i.e.,
clearly above the typical variation in threshold measurements)--also
varies with exposure frequency. At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure
levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity.
For example, for harbor porpoises exposed to one-sixth octave noise
bands at 16 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2019a), 32 kHz (Kastelein et al.
2019b), 63 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2020a), and 88.4 kHz (Kastelein et al.
2020b), less susceptibility to TTS was found as frequency increased,
whereas exposure frequencies below ~6.5 kHz showed an increase in TTS
susceptibility as frequency increased and approached the region of best
sensitivity. Kastelein et al. (2020b) showed a much higher onset of TTS
for a 88.5 kHz exposure as compared to lower exposure frequencies
(i.e., 16 kHz (Kastelein et al., 2019) 1.5 kHz and 6.5 kHz (Kastelein
et al. 2020a)). For the 88.4 kHz test frequency, a 185 dB re 1
micropascal squared per second ([micro]Pa\2\ -s) exposure resulted in
3.6 dB of TTS, and a 191 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\ -s exposure produced 5.2
dB of TTS at 100 kHz and 5.4 dB of TTS at 125 kHz. Together, these new
studies demonstrate that the criteria for high-frequency (HF) cetacean
auditory impacts is likely to be conservative.
TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures, but the
resulting TTS will be less than the TTS from a single, continuous
exposure with the same SEL (Finneran et al. 2010a; Kastelein et al.
2014b; Kastelein et al. 2015b; Mooney et al. 2009b). This means that
TTS predictions based on the total, cumulative SEL will overestimate
the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures such as sonars and
impulsive sources. The importance of duty cycle in predicting the
likelihood of TTS is demonstrated further in Kastelein et al. (2021b).
The authors found that reducing the duty cycle of a sound generally
reduced the potential for TTS in California sea lions, and that,
further, California sea lions are more susceptible to TTS than
previously believed at the 2 and 4 kHz frequencies tested.
The amount of observed TTS tends to decrease with
increasing time following the exposure; however, the relationship is
not monotonic (i.e., increasing exposure does not always increase TTS).
The time required for complete recovery of hearing depends on the
magnitude of the initial shift; for relatively small shifts recovery
may be complete in a few minutes, while large
[[Page 8165]]
shifts (e.g., approximately 40 dB) may require several days for
recovery. Recovery times are consistent for similar-magnitude TTS,
regardless of the type of fatiguing sound exposure (impulsive,
continuous noise band, or sinusoidal wave; (Kastelein et al. 2019c)).
Under many circumstances TTS recovers linearly with the logarithm of
time (Finneran et al., 2010a, 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt 2013;
Kastelein et al. 2012a; Kastelein et al. 2012b; Kastelein et al. 2014b;
Kastelein et al. 2014c; Popov et al. 2011; Popov et al. 2013; Popov et
al. 2014). This means that for each doubling of recovery time, the
amount of TTS will decrease by the same amount (e.g., 6 dB recovery per
doubling of time).
Nachtigall et al. (2018) and Finneran (2018) describe the
measurements of hearing sensitivity of multiple odontocete species
(bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer whale)
when a relatively loud sound was preceded by a warning sound. These
captive animals were shown to reduce hearing sensitivity when warned of
an impending intense sound. Based on these experimental observations of
captive animals, the authors suggest that wild animals may dampen their
hearing during prolonged exposures or if conditioned to anticipate
intense sounds. Another study showed that echolocating animals
(including odontocetes) might have anatomical specializations that
might allow for conditioned hearing reduction and filtering of low-
frequency ambient noise, including increased stiffness and control of
middle ear structures and placement of inner ear structures (Ketten et
al. 2021). Finneran recommends further investigation of the mechanisms
of hearing sensitivity reduction in order to understand the
implications for interpretation of existing TTS data obtained from
captive animals, notably for considering TTS due to short duration,
unpredictable exposures.
Marine mammal TTS data from impulsive sources are limited. Two
studies with measured TTS of 6 dB or more, with Finneran et al. (2002)
reporting behaviorally measured TTSs of 6 and 7 dB in a beluga exposed
to single impulses from a seismic water gun, and with Lucke et al.
(2009) reporting Audio-evoked Potential measured TTS of 7-20 dB in a
harbor porpoise exposed to single impulses from a seismic air gun.
Kastelein et al. (2017) quantified TTS caused by exposure to 10-20
consecutive shots from 2 airguns simultaneously in harbor porpoises.
Statistically significant initial TTS (1-4 min after sound exposure
stopped) of ~4.4 dB occurred. However, recovery occurred within 12 min
post-exposure.
Several impulsive noise exposure studies have also been conducted
without behaviorally measurable TTS. Specifically, Finneran et al.
(2000) exposed dolphins and belugas to single impulses from an
explosion simulator, and Finneran et al. (2015) exposed three dolphins
to sequences of 10 impulses from a seismic air gun (maximum cumulative
SEL = 193-195 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\s, peak SPL =196-210 dB re 1 [mu]Pa)
without measurable TTS. The proposed activities include both TTS and a
limited amount of PTS in some marine mammals.
Behavioral Disturbance
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific. Many different variables can influence an animal's perception
of and response to an acoustic event. An animal's prior experience with
a sound or sound source affects whether it is less likely (habituation)
or more likely (sensitization) to respond to certain sounds in the
future (animals can also be innately predisposed to respond to certain
sounds in certain ways) (Southall et al. 2007). Related to the sound
itself, the perceived nearness of the sound, bearing of the sound
(approaching vs. retreating), the similarity of a sound to biologically
relevant sounds in the animal's environment (i.e., calls of predators,
prey, or conspecifics), and familiarity of the sound may affect the way
an animal responds to the sound (Southall et al.2007, DeRuiter et al.
2013). Individuals (of different age, gender, reproductive status,
etc.) among most populations will have variable hearing capabilities,
and differing behavioral sensitivities to sounds that will be affected
by prior conditioning, experience, and current activities of those
individuals. Often, specific acoustic features of the sound and
contextual variables (i.e., proximity, duration, or recurrence of the
sound or the current behavior that the marine mammal is engaged in or
its prior experience), as well as entirely separate factors such as the
physical presence of a nearby vessel, may be more relevant to the
animal's response than the received level alone.
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have shown
pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud underwater
sound sources (Ridgway et al. 1997; Finneran et al. 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices) have been
varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral
changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds 2002; Thorson and
Reyff 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007).
The onset of noise can result in temporary, short-term changes in
an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area.
These behavioral changes may include: reduced/increased vocal
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior; avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or
flight responses (Richardson et al. 1995).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could potentially be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. 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).
Ellison et al. (2011) outlined an approach to assessing the effects
of sound on marine mammals that incorporates contextual-based factors.
The authors recommend considering not just the received level of sound,
but also the activity the animal is engaged in at the time the sound is
received, the nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is this a new
sound from the animal's perspective), and the distance between the
sound source and the animal. They submit that this ``exposure
context,'' as described, greatly influences the type of behavioral
response exhibited by the animal. Forney et al. (2017) also point out
that an apparent lack of response (e.g., no displacement or avoidance
of a sound source) may not necessarily mean there is no cost to the
individual or population, as some resources or habitats may be of such
high value that animals may choose to stay, even when experiencing
stress or hearing loss. Forney et al. (2017) recommend considering both
the costs of remaining in an area of noise exposure such as TTS, PTS,
or masking, which could lead to an increased risk of predation or other
threats or a decreased capability to forage, and the costs of
displacement,
[[Page 8166]]
including potential increased risk of vessel strike, increased risks of
predation or competition for resources, or decreased habitat suitable
for foraging, resting, or socializing. This sort of contextual
information is challenging to predict with accuracy for ongoing
activities that occur over large spatial and temporal expanses.
However, distance is one contextual factor for which data exist to
quantitatively inform a take estimate, and the method for predicting
Level B harassment in this proposed rule does consider distance to the
source. Other factors are often considered qualitatively in the
analysis of the likely consequences of sound exposure, where supporting
information is available.
Exposure of marine mammals to sound sources can result in, but is
not limited to, no response or any of the following observable
responses: increased alertness; orientation or attraction to a sound
source; vocal modifications; cessation of feeding; cessation of social
interaction; alteration of movement or diving behavior; habitat
abandonment (temporary or permanent); and, in severe cases, panic,
flight, stampede, or stranding, potentially resulting in death
(Southall et al. 2007). A review of marine mammal responses to
anthropogenic sound was first conducted by Richardson (1995). More
recent reviews (Nowacek et al. 2007; DeRuiter et al. 2012 and 2013;
Ellison et al. 2012; Gomez et al. 2016) address studies conducted since
1995 and focused on observations where the received sound level of the
exposed marine mammal(s) was known or could be estimated. Gomez et al.
(2016) conducted a review of the literature considering the contextual
information of exposure in addition to received level and found that
higher received levels were not always associated with more severe
behavioral responses and vice versa. Southall et al. (2016) states that
results demonstrate that some individuals of different species display
clear yet varied responses, some of which have negative implications,
while others appear to tolerate high levels, and that responses may not
be fully predictable with simple acoustic exposure metrics (e.g.,
received sound level). Rather, the authors state that differences among
species and individuals along with contextual aspects of exposure
(e.g., behavioral state) appear to affect response probability.
During an activity with a series of explosions (not concurrent
multiple explosions shown in a burst), an animal is expected to exhibit
a startle reaction to the sound of the first detonation followed by
another behavioral response after multiple detonations. At close ranges
and high sound levels, avoidance of the area around the explosions is
the assumed behavioral response in most cases. In certain
circumstances, exposure to loud sounds can interrupt feeding behaviors
and potentially decrease foraging success, interfere with communication
or migration, or disrupt important reproductive or young-rearing
behaviors, among other effects.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Behavioral
reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical life
functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more
likely to be significant for fitness 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). It is
important to note the difference between behavioral reactions lasting
or recurring over multiple days and anthropogenic activities lasting or
recurring over multiple days. For example, just because a given
anthropogenic activity lasts for multiple days (e.g., a training event)
does not necessarily mean that individual animals will be either
exposed to those activity-related stressors (i.e., explosions) for
multiple days or further exposed at a level would result in sustained
multi-day substantive behavioral responses.
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, or
navigation) (Richardson et al. 1995; Erbe and Farmer 2000; Tyack 2000;
Erbe et al. 2016). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is
interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and
at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is
natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or
anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin.
The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds
depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal
of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability,
direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing
abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios,
frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age, or TTS
hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.
Masking these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual
animals, groups of animals, or entire populations. Masking can lead to
behavioral changes including vocal changes (e.g., Lombard effect,
increasing amplitude, or changing frequency), cessation of foraging,
and leaving an area, to both signalers and receivers, in an attempt to
compensate for noise levels (Erbe et al. 2016). Masking only occurs in
the presence of the masking noise and does not persist after the
cessation of the noise. Masking may lead to a change in vocalizations
or a change in behavior (e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an area).
Masking by explosive detonation sounds would not be expected, given the
short duration, and there are no direct observations of masking in
marine mammals due to exposure to sound from explosive detonations.
Physiological Stress
There is growing interest in monitoring and assessing the impacts
of stress responses to sound in marine animals. Classic stress
responses begin when an animal's central nervous system perceives a
potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception triggers stress
responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually threatens the
animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to trigger a
stress response (Moberg 2000; Sapolsky et al. 2005; Seyle 1950). Once
an animal's central nervous system perceives a threat, it mounts a
biological response or defense that consists of a combination of the
four general biological defense responses: behavioral responses,
autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune
responses.
According to Moberg (2000), in the case of many stressors, an
animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of biotic costs)
response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor or avoidance
of continued exposure to a stressor. An animal's second line of defense
to stressors involves the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous
system and the classical ``fight or flight'' response which includes
the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine
glands, and the adrenal medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly
[[Page 8167]]
associate with ``stress.'' These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its
neuroendocrine systems or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that
has received the most study has been the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal
system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-
pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress
responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all
neuro-endocrine 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 (Moberg,
1987; Rivier and Rivest 1991), altered metabolism (Elasser et al.
2000), reduced immune competence (Blecha 2000), and behavioral
disturbance (Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, corticosterone, and aldosterone in
marine mammals; see Romano et al. 2004) have been equated with stress
for many years.
Because there are many unknowns regarding the occurrence of
acoustically induced stress responses in marine mammals, it is assumed
that any physiological response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or
significant behavioral response is also associated with a stress
response.
Munition Strike
Another potential risk to marine mammals is direct strike by
ordnance, in which the ordnance physically hits an animal. Based on the
dispersed distribution of marine mammals in the open ocean, the
relatively short amount of time they spend at the water surface
compared with the time they spend underwater, and the annual quantities
of munitions proposed to be expended, it is highly improbable that a
marine mammal would be directly struck by a munition during EGTTR
operations. This conclusion, which NMFS concurs with, was reached in
the previous 2015 REA (USAF 2015). The Air Force did not request take
of marine mammals by direct munition strikes, as it is not anticipated,
and it is not analyzed further.
Marine Mammal Habitat
Impacts on marine mammal habitat are part of the consideration in
making a finding of negligible impact on the species and stocks of
marine mammals. Habitat includes, but is not necessarily limited to,
rookeries, mating grounds, feeding areas, and areas of similar
significance. We have preliminarily determined USAF's proposed
activities would not result in permanent effects on the habitats used
by the marine mammals in the EGTTR, including the availability of prey
(i.e. fish and invertebrates). While it is anticipated that the
proposed activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas
due to temporary ensonification, any impact to habitat is temporary and
reversible and was considered in further detail earlier in this
document, as behavioral modification. The main impact associated with
the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the
associated direct effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in
this proposed rule.
Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance,
behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., crustaceans,
cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species,
season, and location and, for some species, is not well documented.
Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known
marine mammal prey.
Effects on Fish--Fish utilize the soundscape and components of
sound in their environment to perform important functions such as
foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick et al.
1999; Fay 2009). The most likely effects on fishes exposed to loud,
intermittent, low-frequency sounds are behavioral responses (i.e.,
flight or avoidance). Short duration, sharp sounds (such as pile
driving or air guns) can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior
and local distribution. The reaction of fish to acoustic sources
depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures,
motivation (e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and other
environmental factors. Key impacts to fishes may include behavioral
responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), and
mortality.
Fishes, like other vertebrates, have a variety of different sensory
systems to glean information from ocean around them (Astrup and Mohl
1993; Astrup 1999; Braun and Grande 2008; Carroll et al. 2017; Hawkins
and Johnstone 1978; Ladich and Popper 2004; Ladich and Schulz-Mirbach
2016; Nedwell et al. 2004; Popper et al. 2003; Popper et al. 2005).
Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures,
which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and
particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of
surrounding water (Fay et al. 2008) (terrestrial vertebrates generally
only detect pressure). Most marine fishes primarily detect particle
motion using the inner ear and lateral line system, while some fishes
possess additional morphological adaptations or specializations that
can enhance their sensitivity to sound pressure, such as a gas-filled
swim bladder (Braun and Grande 2008; Popper and Fay 2011).
Hearing capabilities vary considerably between different fish
species with data only available for just over 100 species out of the
34,000 marine and freshwater fish species (Eschmeyer and Fong 2016). In
order to better understand acoustic impacts on fishes, fish hearing
groups are defined by species that possess a similar continuum of
anatomical features which result in varying degrees of hearing
sensitivity (Popper and Hastings 2009a). There are four hearing groups
defined for all fish species (modified from Popper et al. 2014) within
this analysis and they include: fishes without a swim bladder (e.g.,
flatfish, sharks, rays, etc.); fishes with a swim bladder not involved
in hearing (e.g., salmon, cod, pollock, etc.); fishes with a swim
bladder involved in hearing (e.g., sardines, anchovy, herring, etc.);
and fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and high-frequency
hearing (e.g., shad and menhaden). Currently, less data are available
to estimate the range of best sensitivity for fishes without a swim
bladder.
In terms of behavioral responses of fish, Juanes et al. (2017)
discuss the potential for negative impacts from anthropogenic
soundscapes on fish, but the authors' focus was on broader based
sounds, such as ship and boat noise sources. Occasional behavioral
reactions to intermittent explosions occurring at or near the surface
are unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individual fish or
populations; there are no detonations of explosives occurring
underwater from the proposed activities. Fish that experience hearing
loss as a result of exposure to explosions may have a reduced ability
to detect relevant sounds, such as predators, prey, or social
vocalizations. However, PTS has not been known to occur in fishes and
any hearing loss in fish may be as temporary as the timeframe required
to repair or replace the sensory cells that were damaged or destroyed
(Popper et al. 2005; Popper et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2006). It is not
known if damage to auditory nerve fibers could occur, and if so,
whether fibers would recover during this process. It is also possible
for fish to be injured or killed by an explosion in the immediate
[[Page 8168]]
vicinity of the surface from dropped or fired ordnance. Physical
effects from pressure waves generated by detonations at or near the
surface could potentially affect fish within proximity of training or
testing activities. The shock wave from an explosion occurring at or
near the surface may be lethal to fish at close range, causing massive
organ and tissue damage and internal bleeding (Keevin and Hempen,
1997). At greater distance from the detonation point, the extent of
mortality or injury depends on a number of factors including fish size,
body shape, orientation, and species (Keevin and Hempen, 1997; Wright,
1982). At the same distance from the source, larger fish are generally
less susceptible to death or injury, elongated forms that are round in
cross-section are less at risk than deep-bodied forms, and fish
oriented sideways to the blast suffer the greatest impact (Edds-Walton
and Finneran 2006; Wiley et al. 1981; Yelverton et al. 1975). Species
with gas-filled organs are more susceptible to injury and mortality
than those without them (Gaspin, 1975; Gaspin et al. 1976; Goertner et
al. 1994).
Training and testing exercises involving explosions at or near the
surface are dispersed in space and time; therefore, repeated exposure
of individual fishes are unlikely. Mortality and injury effects to
fishes from explosives would be localized around the area of a given
explosion at or above the water surface, but only if individual fish
and the explosive at the surface were co-located at the same time.
Fishes deeper in the water column or on the bottom would not be
affected by surface explosions. Most acoustic effects, if any, are
expected to be short term and localized. Long-term consequences for
fish populations, including key prey species within the EGTTR Area,
would not be expected.
Effects on Invertebrates--In addition to fish, prey sources such as
marine invertebrates could potentially be impacted by sound stressors
as a result of the proposed activities. However, most marine
invertebrates' ability to sense sounds is very limited. In most cases,
marine invertebrates would not respond to impulsive sounds. Data on
response of invertebrates such as squid, another marine mammal prey
species, to anthropogenic sound has been documented (de Soto 2016; Sole
et al. 2017). Explosions could kill or injure nearby marine
invertebrates. Vessels also have the potential to impact marine
invertebrates by disturbing the water column or sediments, or directly
striking organisms (Bishop 2008). The propeller wash (water displaced
by propellers used for propulsion) from vessel movement and water
displaced from vessel hulls can potentially disturb marine
invertebrates in the water column and are a likely cause of zooplankton
mortality (Bickel et al. 2011). The localized and short-term exposure
to explosions or vessels at or near the surface could displace, injure,
or kill zooplankton, invertebrate eggs or larvae, and macro-
invertebrates. However, mortality or long-term consequences for a few
animals is unlikely to have measurable effects on overall populations.
As with fish, cumulatively individual and population-level impacts from
exposure to explosives at or above the water surface are not
anticipated, and impacts would be short term and localized, and would
likely be inconsequential to invertebrate populations, and to the
marine mammals that use them as prey.
Expended Materials--Military expended materials resulting from
training and testing activities could potentially result in minor long-
term changes to benthic habitat, however the impacts of small amounts
of expended materials are unlikely to have measurable effects on
overall populations. Military expended materials may be colonized over
time by benthic organisms that prefer hard substrate and would provide
structure that could attract some species of fish or invertebrates.
Overall, the combined impacts of explosions and military expended
materials resulting from the proposed activities would not be expected
to have measurable effects on populations of marine mammal prey
species. Prey species exposed to sound might move away from the sound
source or show no obvious direct effects at all, but a rapid return to
normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. Long-
term consequences to fish or marine invertebrate populations would not
be expected as a result of exposure to sounds or vessels in the EGTTR.
Acoustic Habitat--Acoustic habitat is the soundscape which
encompasses all of the sound present in a particular location and time,
as a whole, when considered from the perspective of the animals
experiencing it. Animals produce sound for, or listen for sounds
produced by, conspecifics (communication during feeding, mating, and
other social activities), other animals (finding prey or avoiding
predators), and the physical environment (finding suitable habitats,
navigating). Together, sounds made by animals and the geophysical
environment (e.g., produced by earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain,
waves) make up the natural contributions to the total acoustics of a
place. These acoustic conditions, termed acoustic habitat, are one
attribute of an animal's total habitat.
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced
by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include
incidental emissions from sources, such as vessel traffic or may be
intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition
purposes (e.g., as in the use of air gun arrays) or USAF training and
testing purposes (as in the use of explosives). Anthropogenic noise
varies widely in its frequency, content, duration, and loudness, and
these characteristics greatly influence the potential habitat-mediated
effects to marine mammals, which may range from local effects for brief
periods of time to chronic effects over large areas and for long
durations. Depending on the extent of effects to habitat, animals may
alter their communications signals (thereby potentially expending
additional energy) or miss acoustic cues (either conspecific or
adventitious). Problems arising from a failure to detect cues are more
likely to occur when noise stimuli are chronic and overlap with
biologically relevant cues used for communication, orientation, and
predator/prey detection (Francis and Barber, 2013). For more detail on
these concepts see Pijanowski et al. 2011; Francis and Barber 2013;
Lillis et al. 2014. We do not anticipate these problems arising from at
or near surface explosions during training and testing activities as
they would be either widely dispersed or concentrated in small areas
for shorter periods of time. Sound produced from training and testing
activities in the EGTTR would be temporary and transitory; the affected
area would be expected to immediately return to the original state when
these activities cease.
Marine Water Quality--Training and testing activities may introduce
water quality constituents into the water column. Metals are the
dominant constituent by weight of bombs, missiles, gun ammunition, and
other munitions, including inert munitions, used during EGTTR training
and testing operations. Some targets used during EGTTR missions also
contain metals, including CONEX and hopper barge targets used for PSW
tests and certain components of remotely controlled target boats.
Metals contained in casing fragments of detonated munitions, intact
inert munitions, unexploded ordnance, and other mission-related debris
will corrode from exposure to seawater. The
[[Page 8169]]
rate of corrosion depends on the metal type and the extent to which the
item is directly exposed to seawater, which can be influenced by
existing corrosion on the item, and how much the item may be encrusted
by marine organisms and/or buried in sediments. Aluminum and steel,
which is composed mostly of iron, comprise the bulk of the metal that
enters the marine environment from EGTTR operations. Iron and aluminum
are relatively benign metals in terms of toxicity. Chromium, lead, and
copper, which make up a relatively small percentage of the overall
metal input into the marine environment from EGTTR operations, have
higher toxicity effects. Through its lifetime in the marine
environment, a portion of the overall metal content would dissolve,
depending on the solubility of the material. Dissolved metals would
readily undergo mixing and dilution and would have no appreciable
effect on water quality or marine life within the water column. Metals
in particulate form would be released into sediments through the
corrosion process. Elevated levels of undissolved metals in sediments
would be restricted to a relatively small area around the metal-
containing item and any associated impacts to water quality would be
negligible.
Munitions used for EGTTR training and testing operations contain a
wide variety of explosives, including TNT, RDX, HMX, Composition B,
Tritonal, AFX-757, PBXN, and others. During live missions in the EGTTR,
explosives can enter the marine environment via high-order detonations,
which occur when the munition functions as intended and the vast
majority of explosives are consumed; low-order detonations, which occur
when the munition partially functions and only a portion of the
explosives are consumed; and unexploded munitions, which fail to
detonate with no explosives consumed. During high-order detonations, a
residual amount of the explosive material, typically less than 1
percent, would be unconsumed and released into the environment (Walsh
et al. 2011). The majority of live munitions used during EGTTR
operations are successfully detonated as intended. During low-order
detonations, a residual amount of explosives associated with the
detonation and the remaining unconsumed portion of the explosive fill
would enter the marine environment. If the munition does not explode,
it becomes unexploded ordnance (UXO). In this case, all the explosive
material would remain within the munition casing and enter the marine
environment with explosives potentially being released due to corrosion
or rupture. Explosives and explosives by-products released into the
marine environment can be removed via biodegradation, and expended or
disposed military munitions on the seafloor do not result in excessive
accumulation of explosives in sediments or significant degradation of
sediment quality by explosives. Given that high-order detonations
consume the vast majority of explosive material in the munition,
successful detonations are considered a negligible source of explosives
released into the marine environment.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section indicates the number of takes that NMFS is proposing
to authorize, which is based on the maximum amount that is reasonably
likely to occur, depending on the type of take and the methods used to
estimate it, as described in detail below. NMFS preliminarily agrees
that the methods the USAF has put forth described herein to estimate
take (including the model, thresholds, and density estimates), and the
resulting numbers estimated for authorization, are appropriate and
based on the best available science.
All takes are by harassment. For a military readiness activity, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as (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). No serious injury or
mortality of marine mammals is expected to occur.
Proposed authorized takes would primarily be in the form of Level B
harassment, as use of the explosive sources may result, either directly
or as result of TTS, in the disruption of natural behavioral patterns
to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered (as
defined specifically at the beginning of this section, but referred to
generally as behavioral disruption). There is also the potential for
Level A harassment, in the form of auditory injury to result from
exposure to the sound sources utilized in training and testing
activities. As described in this Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, no non-auditory injury is anticipated or proposed for
authorization, nor is any serious injury or mortality.
Generally speaking, for acoustic impacts NMFS estimates the amount
and type of harassment by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above
which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals
will be taken by Level B harassment or incur some degree of temporary
or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that
will be ensonified above these levels in a day or event; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas;
and (4) the number of days of activities or events. This analysis of
the potential impacts of the proposed activities on marine mammals was
conducted by using the spatial density models developed by NOAA's
Southeast Fisheries Science Center for the species in the Gulf of
Mexico (NOAA 2022). The density model integrated visual observations
from aerial and shipboard surveys conducted in the Gulf of Mexico from
2003 to 2019.
The munitions proposed to be used by each military unit were
grouped into mission-day categories so the acoustic impact analysis
could be based on the total number of detonations conducted during a
given mission to account for the accumulated energy from multiple
detonations over a 24-hour period. A total of 19 mission-day categories
were developed for the munitions proposed to be used. Using the dBSea
underwater acoustic model and associated analyses, the threshold
distances associated with Level A harassment (PTS) and Level B (TTS and
behavioral) harassment zones were estimated for each mission-day
category for each marine mammal species. Takes were estimated based on
the area of the harassment zones, predicted animal density, and annual
number of events for each mission-day category. To assess the potential
impacts of inert munitions on marine mammals, the proposed inert
munitions were categorized into four classes based on their impact
energies, and the threshold distances for each class were modeled and
calculated as described for the mission-day categories.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has established acoustic
thresholds that identify the most appropriate received level of
underwater sound above which marine mammals exposed to these sound
sources could be reasonably expected to directly experience a
disruption in behavior patterns to a point where they are abandoned or
significantly altered,
[[Page 8170]]
to incur TTS (equated to Level B harassment), or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been
developed to identify the pressure levels above which animals may incur
non-auditory injury from exposure to pressure waves from explosive
detonation. Refer to the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic
and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. Department of
the Navy 2017c) for detailed information on how the criteria and
thresholds were derived.
Hearing Impairment (TTS/PTS), Tissues Damage, and Mortality
NMFS' Acoustic Technical Guidance (NMFS 2018) identifies dual
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). The Acoustic Technical Guidance also
identifies criteria to predict TTS, which is not considered injury and
falls into the Level B harassment category. The USAF's proposed
activity only includes the use of impulsive (explosives) sources. These
thresholds (Table 20) were developed by compiling and synthesizing the
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both
the public and peer reviewers. The references, analysis, and
methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in
Acoustic Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Additionally, based on the best available science, NMFS uses the
acoustic and pressure thresholds indicated in Table 20 to predict the
onset of TTS, PTS, tissue damage, and mortality for explosives
(impulsive) and other impulsive sound sources.
Table 20--Onset of TTS, PTS, Tissue Damage, and Mortality Thresholds for Marine Mammals for Explosives and Other Impulsive Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean onset
Functional hearing group Species Onset TTS Onset PTS Mean onset slight slight lung Mean onset
GI tract injury injury mortality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency cetaceans......... Rice's whale....... 168 dB SEL 183 dB SEL 237 dB Peak SPL.... Equation 1 Equation 2
(weighted) or 213 (weighted) or 219
dB Peak SPL. dB Peak SPL.
Mid-frequency cetaceans......... Dolphins........... 170 dB SEL 185 dB SEL 237 dB Peak SPL....
(weighted) or 224 (weighted) or 230
dB Peak SPL. dB Peak SPL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Equation 1: 47.5M\1/3\ (1+[DRm/10.1])\1/6\ Pa-sec. Equation 2: 103M\1/3\ (1+[DRm/10.1])\1/6\ Pa-sec. M = mass of the animals in kg; DRm = depth
of the receiver (animal) in meters; SPL = sound pressure level.
Refer to the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. Department of the
Navy, 2017c) for detailed information on how the criteria and
thresholds were derived. Non-auditory injury (i.e., other than PTS) and
mortality are so unlikely as to be discountable under normal conditions
and are therefore not considered further in this analysis.
Behavioral Disturbance
Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of Level B
harassment by direct behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related
to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, distance),
the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing,
motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be
difficult to predict (Ellison et al. 2011; Southall et al. 2007). Based
on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use
thresholds based on a factor or factors that are both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS uses generalized acoustic
thresholds based primarily on received level (and distance in some
cases) to estimate the onset of Level B harassment by behavioral
disturbance.
Explosives--Explosive thresholds for Level B harassment by
behavioral disturbance for marine mammals are the hearing groups' TTS
thresholds minus 5 dB (see Table 21 below for the TTS thresholds for
explosives) for events that contain multiple impulses from explosives
underwater. See the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. Department of the
Navy 2017c) for detailed information on how the criteria and thresholds
were derived. NMFS continues to concur that this approach represents
the best available science for determining behavioral disturbance of
marine mammals from multiple explosives. While marine mammals may also
respond to single explosive detonations, these responses are expected
to more typically be in the form of startle reaction, rather than a
disruption in natural behavioral patterns to the point where they are
abandoned or significantly altered. On the rare occasion that a single
detonation might result in a more severe behavioral response that
qualifies as Level B harassment, it would be expected to be in response
to a comparatively higher received level. Accordingly, NMFS considers
the potential for these responses to be quantitatively accounted for
through the application of the TTS threshold, which, as noted above, is
5 dB higher than the behavioral harassment threshold for multiple
explosives.
Table 21--Thresholds for Level B Harassment by Behavioral Disturbance
for Explosives for Marine Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEL
Medium Functional hearing group (weighted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwater................... LF 163
Underwater................... MF 165
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Weighted SEL thresholds in dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\s underwater. LF = low-
frequency, MF = mid-frequency, HF = high-frequency.
USAF's Acoustic Effects Model
The USAF's Acoustic Effects Model calculates sound energy
propagation from explosives during UASF activities in the EGTTR. The
net explosive weight (NEW) of a munition at impact can be directly
correlated with the energy in the impulsive pressure wave generated by
the warhead detonation. The NEWs of munitions addressed as part of this
proposed rule range from 0.1 lb (0.04 kg) for small projectiles to 945
lb (428.5kg) for the largest bombs. The explosive materials used in
these munitions also vary considerably with different formulations used
to produce different intended effects. The primary detonation metrics
directly considered and used for modeling analysis are the peak impulse
pressure and duration of the impulse. An integration of the
[[Page 8171]]
pressure of an impulse over the duration (time) of an impulse provides
a measure of the energy in an impulse. Some of the NEWs of certain
types of munitions, such as missiles, are associated with the
propellant used for the flight of the munition. This propellant NEW is
unrelated to the NEW of the warhead, which is the primary source of
explosive energy in most munitions. The propellant of a missile fuels
the flight phase and is mostly consumed prior to impact. Missile
propellant typically has a lower flame speed than warhead explosives
and is relatively insensitive to detonation from impacts but burns
readily. A warhead detonation provides a high-pressure, high-velocity
flame front that may cause burning propellant to detonate; therefore,
this analysis assumes that the unconsumed residual propellant that
remains at impact contributes to the detonation-induced pressure
impulse in the water. The impact analysis assumes that 20 percent of
the propellant remains unconsumed in missiles at impact; this
assumption is based on input from user groups and is considered a
reasonable estimate for the purpose of analysis. The NEW associated
with this unconsumed propellant is added to the NEW of the warhead to
derive the total energy released by the detonation. Absent a warhead
detonation, it is assumed that continued burning or deflagration of
unconsumed residual propellant does not contribute to the pressure
impulse in the water; this applies to inert missiles that lack a
warhead but contain propellant for flight.
In addition to the energy associated with the detonation, energy is
also released by the physical impact of the munition with the water.
This kinetic energy has been calculated and incorporated into the
estimations of munitions energy for both live and inert munitions in
this proposed rule. The kinetic energy of the munition at impact is
calculated as one half of the munition mass times the square of the
munition velocity. The initial impact event contributing to the
pressure impulse in water is assumed to be 1 millisecond in duration.
To calculate the velocity (and kinetic energy) immediately after
impact, the deceleration contributing to the pressure impulse in the
water is assumed for all munitions to be 1,500 g-forces, or 48,300 feet
per square second over 1 millisecond. A substantial portion of the
change in kinetic energy at impact is dissipated as a pressure impulse
in the water, with the remainder being dissipated through structural
deformation of the munition, heat, displacement of water, and other
smaller energy categories. Even with 1,500 g-forces of deceleration,
the change in velocity over this short time period is small and is
proportional to the impact velocity and munition mass. The impact
energy is the portion of the kinetic energy at impact that is
transmitted as an underwater pressure impulse, expressed in units of
trinitrotoluene-equivalent (TNTeq). The impact energies of the proposed
live munitions were calculated and included in their total energy
estimations. The impact energies of the inert munitions proposed to be
used were also calculated. To assess the potential impacts of inert
munitions on marine animals, the inert munitions were categorized based
on their impact energies into the following four classes of 2 lb (0.9
kg), 1 lb (0.45 kg), 0.5 lb (0.22 kg), and 0.15 lb (0.07 kg) TNTeq;
these values correspond closely to the actual or average impact energy
values of the munitions and are rounded for the purpose of analysis.
The 2 lb class represents the largest inert bomb, which includes the
Mark (Mk)-84 General Purpose (GP), Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-10, and GBU-
31 bombs, whereas the 1 lb class represents the largest inert missile,
which is the Air-to-Ground Missile (AGM)-158 Joint Air-to-Surface
Standoff Missile (JASSM). The JASSM has greater mass but lower impact
energy than the GBU-31; this is because of the JASSM's lower velocity
at impact and associated change in velocity over the deceleration
period, which contributes to the pressure impulse. The 0.5 lb and 0.15
lb impact energy classes each represent the approximate average impact
energy of multiple munitions, with the 0.5 lb class representing
munitions with mid-level energies, and the 0.15 lb class representing
munitions with the lowest energies (Table 22).
Table 22--Impact Energy Classes for Proposed Inert Munitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact energy class (lb TNTeq)/ Approximate weight (lb)/ Approximate velocity
(kg) Representative munitions (kg) (mach)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 (0.9)......................... Mk-84, GBU-10, and GBU- 2,000 (907)............. 1.1.
31.
1 (0.45)........................ AGM-158 JASSM........... 2,250 (1020.3).......... 0.9.
0.5 (0.22)...................... GBU-54 and AIM-120...... 250 to 650 (113.4 to Variable.
294.8).
0.15 (0.07)..................... AIM-9, GBU-39, and PGU- 1 to 285 (0.5 to 129.2). Variable.
15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEW associated with the physical impact of each munition and
the unconsumed propellant in certain munitions is added to the NEW of
the warhead to derive the NEW at impact (NEWi) for each live munition.
The NEWi of each munition was then used to calculate the peak pressure
and pressure decay for each munition. This results in a more accurate
estimate of the actual energy released by each detonation. Extensive
research since the 1940s has shown that each explosive formulation
produces unique correlations to explosive performance metrics. The peak
pressure and pressure decay constant depend on the NEW, explosive
formulation, and distance from the detonation. The peak pressure and
duration of the impulse for each munition can be calculated empirically
using similitude equations, with constants used in these equations
determined from experimental data (NSWC 2017). The explosive-specific
similitude constants and munition-specific NEWi were used for
calculating the peak pressure and pressure decay for each munition
analyzed. It should be noted that this analysis assumes that all
detonations occur in the water and none of the detonations occur above
the water surface when a munition impacts a target. This exceptionally
conservative assumption implies that all munition energy is imparted to
the water rather than the intended targets. See Appendix A in the LOA
application for detailed explanations of similitude equations.
The following standard metrics are used to assess underwater
pressure and impulsive noise impacts on marine animals:
SPL: The SPL for a given munition can be explicitly
calculated at a radial distance using the similitude equations.
SEL: A commercially available software package, dBSea
(version 2.3), was used to calculate the SEL for each mission day.
Positive Impulse: This is the time integral of the initial
positive phase of
[[Page 8172]]
the pressure impulse. This metric provides a measure of energy in the
form of time-integrated pressure. Units are typically pascal-seconds
(Pa[middot]s) or pounds per square inch (psi) per millisecond (msec)
(psi[middot]msec). The positive impulse for a given munition can be
explicitly calculated at a given distance using the similitude
equations and integrating the pressure over the initial positive phase
of the pressure impulse.
The munition-specific peak pressure and pressure decay at various
radii were used to determine the species-specific distance to effect
threshold for mortality, non-auditory injury, peak pressure-induced
permanent threshold shift (PTS) in hearing and peak pressure-induced
temporary threshold shift (TTS) in hearing for each species. The
munition-specific peak pressures and decays for all munitions in each
mission-day category were used as a time-series input in the dBSea
underwater acoustic model to determine the distance to effect for
cumulative SEL-based (24-hour) PTS, TTS, and behavioral effects for
each species for each mission day.
The dBSea model was conducted using a constant sound speed profile
(SSP) of 1500 m/s to be both representative of local conditions and to
prevent thermocline induced refractions from distorting the analysis
results. Salinity was assumed to be 35 parts per thousand (ppt) and pH
was 8. The water surface was treated as smooth (no waves) to
conservatively eliminate diffraction induced attenuation of sound.
Currents and tidal flow were treated as zero. Energy expended on the
target and/or on ejecting water or transfer into air was ignored and
all weapon energy was treated as going into underwater acoustic energy
to be conservative. Finally, the bottom was treated as sand with a
sound speed of 1650 m/s and an attenuation of 0.8 dB/wavelength.
The harassment zone is the area or volume of ocean in which marine
animals could be exposed to various pressure and impulsive noise levels
generated by a surface or subsurface detonation that would result in
mortality; non-auditory injury and PTS (Level A harassment impacts);
and TTS and behavioral impacts (Level B harassment impacts). The
harassment zones for the proposed detonations were estimated using
Version 2.3 of the dBSea model for cumulative SEL and using explicit
similitude equations for SPL and positive impulse. The characteristics
of the impulse noise at the source were calculated based on munition-
specific data including munition mass at impact, munition velocity at
impact, NEW of warheads, explosive-specific similitude data, and
propellant data for missiles. Table 23 presents the source-level SPLs
(at r = 1 meter) calculated for the proposed munitions.
Table 23--Calculated Source SPLs for Munitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak pressure and decay values
Warhead NEW Model NEWi -----------------------------------------------
Type (lb)/(kg) Modeled explosive (lm)/(kg) Pmax @1 m SPL @1 m dB re
(psi) 1 mPa [Theta] msec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM-158 JASSM All Variants.............. 240.26 (108.9) Tritonal...................... 241.36 (109.5) 45961.4858 290.0 0.320
GBU-54 KMU-572C/B, B/B.................. 192 (87.1) Tritonal...................... 192.3 (87.2) 42101.8577 289.3 0.302
AGM-65 (all variants)................... 85 (38.5) Comp B........................ 98.3 (44.6) 37835.4932 288.3 0.200
AIM-120C3............................... 15 (6.8) PBXN-110...................... 36.18 (13.4) 24704.864 284.6 0.167
AIM-9X Blk I............................ 7.7 (3.5) PBXN-110...................... 20 (9.1) 19617.2833 282.6 0.143
AGM-114 (All ex R2 with TM(R10))........ 9 (4.1) PBXN-110...................... 13.08 (5.9) 16630.2435 281.2 0.128
AGM-179 JAGM............................ 9 (4.1) PBXN-110...................... 13.08 (5.9) 16630.2435 281.2 0.128
AGM-114 R2 with TM (R10)................ 8 (3.6) PBXN-9........................ 13.08 (5.9) 17240.2131 281.5 0.124
AGR-20 (APKWS).......................... 2.3 (1.0) Comp B........................ 3.8 (1.7) 10187.8419 276.9 0.090
PGU-43 (105 mm)......................... 4.7 (2.1) Comp B........................ 4.72 (2.1) 11118.8384 277.7 0.095
GBU-69.................................. 36 (16.3) Tritonal...................... 36.1 (16.4) 22074.1015 283.7 0.198
GBU-70.................................. 36 (16.3) Tritonal...................... 36.1 (19.4) 22074.1015 283.7 0.198
GBU-39 SDB (GTV)........................ 0.39 (0.2) PBXN-9........................ 0.49 (0.2) 4757.6146 270.3 0.054
GBU-53/B (GTV).......................... 0.34 (0.2) PBXN-9........................ 0.44 (0.2) 4561.06062 270.0 0.053
GBU-12.................................. 192 (87.1) Tritonal...................... 192.3 (87.2) 42101.8577 289.3 0.302
Mk-81 (GP 250 lb)....................... 100 (45.4) H-6........................... 100 (45.4) 38017.3815 288.4 0.237
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[thgr] = shock wave time constant; AGM = Air-to-Ground Missile; AIM = Air Intercept Missile; APKWS = Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System; dB re 1
[micro]Pa = decibel(s) referenced to 1 micropascal; FU = Full Up; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; GP = General Purpose; GTV = Guided Test Vehicle; HACM =
Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile; HE = High Explosive; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; lb = pound(s); lbm = pound-mass; LSDB = Laser
Small-Diameter Bomb; m = meter(s); Mk = Mark; mm = millimeter(s); msec = millisecond(s); NEW = net explosive weight; NEWi = net explosive weight at
impact; NLOS = Non-Line-of-Sight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; Pmax = shock wave peak pressure; psi = pound(s) per square inch; SDB = Small-Diameter
Bomb; SPL = sound pressure level; TM = telemetry.
For SEL analysis, the dBSea model was used with the ray-tracing
option for calculating the underwater transmission of impulsive noise
sources represented in a time series (1,000,000 samples per second) as
calculated using similitude equations (r = 1 meter) for each munition
for each mission day. All surface detonations are assumed to occur at a
depth of 1 m, and all subsurface detonations, which would include the
GBU-10, GBU-24, GBU-31, and subsurface mines, are assumed to occur at a
depth of 3 m. The model used bathymetry for LIA with detonations
occurring at the center of the LIA with a water depth of 70 m. The
seafloor of the LIA is generally sandy, so sandy bottom characteristics
for reflectivity and attenuation were used in the dBSea model, as
previously described. The model was used to calculate impulsive
acoustic noise transmission on one-third octaves from 31.5 hertz to 32
kilohertz. Maximum SELs from all depths projected to the surface were
used for the analyses.
The cumulative SEL is based on multiple parameters including the
acoustic characteristics of the detonation and sound propagation loss
in the marine environment, which is influenced by a number of
environmental factors including water depth and seafloor properties.
Based on integration of these parameters, the dBSea model predicts the
distances at which each marine animal species is estimated to
experience SELs associated with the onset of PTS, TTS, and behavioral
disturbance. As noted previously, thresholds for the onset of TTS and
PTS used in the model and pressure calculations are based on those
presented in Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and
Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (DoN 2017) for cetaceans with
mid- to high-frequency hearing (dolphins) and low-frequency hearing
(Rice's whale). Behavioral thresholds are set 5 dB
[[Page 8173]]
below the SEL-based TTS threshold. Table 24 shows calculated SPLs and
SELs for the designated mission-day categories.
Table 24--Calculated Source SPLs and SELs for Mission-Day Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total warhead Source
Mission day NEW, lbm \a\ Modeled NEWi, lbm/ cumulative Source peak
(kg) (kg) SEL, dB SPL, dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................................... 2402.6 (108.6) 2413.6 (1094.6) 262.1 290
B......................................... 1961 (889.3) 2029.9 (920.6) 261.4 289.3
C......................................... 1145 (519.2) 1376.2 (624.1) 259.8 288.3
D......................................... 562 (254.8) 836.22 (379.2) 257.6 288.3
E......................................... 817.88 (370.9) 997.62 (452.0) 257.1 281.5
F......................................... 584 (264.8) 584.6 (265.1) 256.2 289.3
G......................................... 191(86.6) 191.6 (86.9) 250.4 277.7
H......................................... 60.5 (24.7) 61.1 (27.7) 245.2 268.8
I......................................... 18.4 (8.3) 30.4 (13.8) 242.5 276.9
J......................................... 945 (428.6) 946.8 (429.4) 258.1 294.6
K......................................... Not available 350 (158.7) 253.4 291.5
L......................................... 624.52 (283.2) 627.12 (284.4) 256.2 290
M......................................... 324 (146.9) 324.9 (147.3) 253.2 283.6
N......................................... 219.92 (99.7) 238.08 (107.9) 252 285.3
O......................................... 72 (36.6) 104.64 (47.5) 248.3 281.2
P......................................... 90 (40.8) 130.8 (59.3) 249.3 281.2
Q......................................... 94 (42.6) 94.4 (42.8) 247.5 277.7
R......................................... 35.12 (15.9) 35.82 (16.2) 241.7 270.3
S......................................... 130 (58.9) 130 (58.9) 249.4 283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ lbm = pound-mass.
Mission-Day Categories
The munitions proposed to be used by each military unit were
grouped into mission-day categories so the acoustic impact analysis
could be based on the total number of detonations conducted during a
given mission instead of each individual detonation. This analysis was
done to account for the accumulated energy from multiple detonations
over a 24-hour period.
The estimated number of mission days assigned to each category was
based on historical numbers and projections provided by certain user
groups. Although the mission-day categories may not represent the exact
manner in which munitions would be used, they provide a conservative
range of mission scenarios to account for accumulated energy from
multiple detonations. It is important to note that only acoustic energy
metrics (SEL) are affected by the accumulation of energy over a 24-hour
period. Pressure metrics (e.g., peak SPL and positive impulse) do not
accumulate and are based on the highest impulse pressure value within
the 24-hour period. Based on the categories developed, the total NEWi
per mission day would range from 2,413.6 to 30.4 lb (1,094.6 to 13.8
kg). The highest detonation energy of any single munition used under
the USAF's proposed activities would be 945 lb (428.5 kg) NEW, which
was also the highest NEW for a single munition in the previous LOA
Request. The munitions having this NEW include the GBU-10, GBU-24, and
GBU-31.
Note that the types of munitions that would be used for SINKEX
testing are controlled information and, therefore, not identified in
this LOA Request. For the purpose of analysis, SINKEX exercises are
assigned to mission-day category J, which represents a single
subsurface detonation of 945 lb NEW. SINKEX exercises would not exceed
this NEW. The 2 annual SINKEX exercises are added to the other 8 annual
missions involving subsurface detonations of these bombs, resulting in
10 total annual missions under mission-day category J.
As indicated in Table 25, a total of 19 mission-day categories (A
through S) were developed a part of this LOA application. The table
also contains information on the number of munitions per day, number of
mission days per year, annual quantity of munitions and the NEWi per
mission day.
Table 25--Mission-Day Categories for Acoustic Impact Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission-day Warhead NEW (lb)/ Detonation Munitions Mission days Annual NEWi per mission
User group category Munition type Category (kg) NEWi (lb)/kg scenario per day per year quantity day (lb)/(kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 WEG....................... A AGM-158D JASSM Missile........ 240.26 (108.9) 241.36 (109.4) Surface........ 4 1 4 2,413.6 (1,095.9)
XR.
AGM-158B JASSM Missile........ 240.26 (108.9) 241.36 (109.4) Surface........ 3 1 3 .................
ER.
AGM-158A JASSM.. Missile........ 240.26 (108.9) 241.36 (109.4) Surface........ 3 1 3 .................
B GBU-54 KMU-572C/ Bomb (Mk-82)... 192 (87.1) 192.3 (87.2) Surface........ 4 1 4 2,029.9 (920.5)
B.
GBU-54 KMU-572B/ Bomb (Mk-82)... 192 (87.1) 192.3 (87.2) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
B.
AGM-65D......... Missile........ 85 (38.5) 98.3 (44.6) Surface........ 5 1 5 .................
C AGM-65H2........ Missile........ 85 (37.5) 98.3 (44.6) Surface........ 5 1 5 1,376.2 (624.1)
AGM-65G2........ Missile........ 85 (38.5) 98.3 (44.6) Surface........ 5 1 5 .................
AGM-65K2........ Missile........ 85 (38.5) 98.3 (44.6) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
D AGM-65L......... Missile........ 85 (38.5) 98.3 (44.6) Surface........ 5 1 5 836.22 (379.2)
AIM-120C3....... Missile........ 15 (6.8) 36.18 (16.4) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
AIM-9X Blk I.... Missile........ 7.7 (4.5) 20 (9.1) Surface........ 10 1 10 .................
E AGM-114 N-4D Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 4 1 4 997.62 (452.4)
with TM.
AGM-114 N-6D Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
with TM.
[[Page 8174]]
AGM-179 JAGM.... Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
AGM-114 R2 with Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
TM (R10).
AGM-114 R-9E Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
with TM (R11).
AGM-114Q with TM Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
AGR-20 (APKWS).. Rocket......... 2.3 (1.0) 3.8 (1.7) Surface........ 12 1 12 .................
AGM-176......... Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
PGU-43 (105 mm). Gun Ammunition. 4.7 (2.1) 4.72 (2.1) Surface........ 100 1 100 .................
GBU-69.......... Bomb........... 36 (16.3) 36.1 (13.3) Surface........ 2 1 2 .................
GBU-70.......... Bomb........... 36 (16.3) 36.1 (16.3) Surface........ 1 1 4 .................
AGM-88C w/FTS... Missile........ \a\ 0.70 (0.3) 0 Surface........ 2 1 2 .................
AGM-88B w/FTS... Missile........ \a\ 0.70 (0.3) 0 Surface........ 2 1 2 .................
AGM-88F w/FTS... Missile........ \a\ 0.70 (0.3) 0 Surface........ 2 1 2 .................
AGM-88G w/FTS... Missile........ \a\ 0.70 (0.3) 0 Surface........ 2 1 2 .................
GBU-39 SDB (GTV) Bomb........... \a\ 0.39 (0.2) 0.49 (0.2) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
GBU-53/B (GTV).. Bomb........... \a\ 0.34 (0.2) 0.44 (0.2) Surface........ 8 1 8 .................
AFSOC........................ F GBU-12.......... Bomb (Mk-82)... 192 (87.1) 192.3 (87.2) Surface........ 2 15 30 584.6 (263.1)
Mk-81 (GP 250 Bomb........... 100 (45.3) 100 (45.3) Surface........ 2 15 30 .................
lb).
AFSOC........................ G 105 mm HE (FU).. Gun Ammunition. 4.7 (2.1) 4.72 (2.1) Surface........ 30 25 (daytime) 750 191.6 (86.8)
30 mm HE........ Gun Ammunition. 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.01) Surface........ 500 12,500 .................
H 105 mm HE (TR).. Gun Ammunition. 0.35 (0.2) 0.37 (0.2) Surface........ 30 45 (nighttime) 1,350 61.1 (27.7)
30 mm HE........ Gun Ammunition. 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.01) Surface........ 500 22,500 .................
I 2.75-inch Rocket Rocket......... 2.3 (1.0) 3.8 (1.7) Surface........ 8 50 400 30.4 (13.8)
(including
APKWS).
96 OG........................ J GBU-10, 24, or Bomb (Mk-84)... 945 (428.6) 946.8 (429.4) Subsurface..... 1 \b\ 10 \b\ 10 946.8 (429.4)
31 (QUICKSINK).
K HACM............ Hypersonic Not available 350 (158.7) Surface........ 1 1 2 350 (158.7)
Weapon.
L AGM-158 (JASSM). Missile........ 240.26 (108.9) 241.36 (109.4) Surface........ 2 1 2 627.12 (284.3)
GBU-39 (SDB I) Bomb........... 72 (32.6) 72.2 (32.7) Surface........ 2 1 2 .................
Simultaneous
Launch \c\.
M GBU-39 (SDB I).. Bomb........... 36 (16.3) 36.1 13.3) Surface........ 4 2 8 324.9 (147.3)
GBU-39 (LSDB)... Bomb........... 36 (16.3) 36.1 (16.3) Surface........ 5 2 10 .................
N GBU-39B/B LSDB.. Bomb........... 36 (16.3) 36.1 (16.3) Surface........ 2 1 2 238.08 (107.9)
Spike NLOS...... Missile........ 34.08 (15.4) 40 (18.1) Surface........ 3 1 3 .................
GBU-53 (SDB II). Bomb........... 22.84 (13.4) 22.94 (10.4) Surface........ 2 1 2 .................
O AGM-114R Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 8 4 36 104.64 (47.5)
Hellfire.
P AGM-114 Hellfire Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 5 2 10 130.8 (59.3)
AGM-176 Griffin. Missile........ 9 (4.1) 13.08 (5.9) Surface........ 5 2 10 .................
Q 105 mm HE (FU).. Gun Ammunition. 4.7 (2.1) 4.72 (2.1) Surface........ 20 3 60 94.4 (42.8)
R Inert GBU-39 Bomb........... 0.39 (0.2) 0.49 (0.2) Surface........ 4 1 4 35.82 (16.2)
(LSDB) with
live fuze.
Inert GBU-53 Bomb........... 0.34 (0.2) 0.44 (0.2) Surface........ 4 1 4 .................
(SDB II) with
live fuze.
105 mm HE (TR).. Gun Ammunition. 0.35 (0.2) 0.37 (0.2) Surface........ 60 1 60 .................
30 mm HE........ Gun Ammunition. 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.01) Surface........ 99 1 99 .................
NAVSCOL EOD.................. S Underwater Mine Charge......... \d\ 20 (9.07) 20 (9.07) Subsurface..... 4 8 32 130 (58.9)
Charge.
Floating Mine Charge......... \d\ 5 (2.3) 5 (2.3) Surface........ 10 8 80 .................
Charge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Warhead replaced by FTS/TM. Identified NEW is for the FTS.
\b\ Includes 2 SINKEX exercises.
\c\ NEW is doubled for simultaneous launch.
\d\ Estimated.
Marine Mammal Density
Densities of the common bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic spotted
dolphin, and Rice's whale in the study area are based on habitat-based
density models and spatial density models developed by the NOAA
Southeast Fisheries Science Center for the species in the Gulf of
Mexico (NOAA 2022). The density models, herein referred to as the NOAA
model, integrated visual observations from aerial and shipboard surveys
conducted in the Gulf of Mexico from 2003 to 2019.
The NOAA model was used to predict the average density of the
common bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin in the existing
LIA and proposed East LIA. The model generates densities for hexagon-
shaped raster grids that are 40 square kilometers (km\2\). The average
annual density of each dolphin species in the existing LIA and proposed
East LIA was computed in a geographic information system (GIS) based on
the densities of the raster grids within the boundaries of each LIA. To
account for portions of the grids outside of the LIA, the species
density value of each grid was area-weighted based on the respective
area of the grid within the LIA. For example, the density of a grid
that is 70 percent within the LIA would be weighted to reflect only the
70 percent grid area, which contributes to the average density of the
entire LIA. The density of the 30 percent grid area outside the LIA
does not contribute to the average LIA density, so it is not included
in the estimation. The resulting area-weighted densities of all the
grids were summed to determine the average annual density of each
dolphin species within each LIA. The densities of dolphins estimated
are presented in Table 26.
[[Page 8175]]
Table 26--Predicted Dolphin Densities in the Existing and Proposed LIAs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density estimate (animals per
km\2\) \a\
Species -------------------------------
Proposed east
Existing LIA LIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin................ 0.032 0.038
Common bottlenose dolphin............... 0.261 0.317
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Estimated average density within LIA based on spatial density model
developed by NOAA (2022).
The NOAA model was used to determine Rice's whale density in the
exposure analysis conducted for the Rice's whale in this LOA Request.
Areas of Rice's whale exposure to pressure and impulsive noise from
munitions use, predicted by underwater acoustic modeling and quantified
by GIS analysis, were coupled with the associated modeled grid
densities from the NOAA model to estimate abundance of affected
animals.
Take Estimation
The distances from the live ammunition detonation point that
correspond to the various effect thresholds described previously are
referred to as threshold distances. The threshold distances were
calculated using dBSea for each mission-day category for each marine
mammal species. The model was run assuming that the detonation point is
at the center of the existing LIA, the SEL threshold distances are the
same for the proposed East LIA, and all missions are conducted in
either the existing LIA or proposed East LIA. Model outputs for the two
LIAs are statistically the same as a result of similarities in water
depths, sea bottom profiles, water temperatures, and other
environmental characteristics. Table 27, Table 28 and Table 29 present
the threshold distances estimated for the dolphins and Rice's whale,
respectively, for live missions in the existing LIA.
The threshold distances were used to calculate the harassment zones
for each effect threshold for each species. The thresholds resemble
concentric circles, with the most severe (mortality) being closest to
the center (detonation point) and the least severe (behavioral
disturbance) being farthest from the center. The areas encompassed by
the concentric thresholds are the impact areas associated with the
applicable criteria. To prevent double counting of animals, areas
associated with higher-impact criteria were subtracted from areas
associated with lower-impact criteria. To estimate the number of
animals potentially exposed to the various thresholds within the
harassment zone, the adjusted impact area was multiplied by the
predicted animal density and the annual number of events for each
mission-day category. The results were rounded at the annual mission-
day level and then summed for each criterion to estimate the total
annual take numbers for each species. For impulse and SPL metrics, a
take is considered to occur if the received level is equal to or above
the associated threshold. For SEL metrics, a take is considered to
occur if the received level is equal to or above the associated
threshold within the appropriate frequency band of the sound received,
adjusted for the appropriate weighting function value of that frequency
band. For impact categories with multiple criteria (e.g., non-auditory
injury and PTS for Level A harassment) and criteria with two thresholds
(e.g., SEL and SPL for PTS), the criterion and/or threshold that
yielded the higher exposure estimate was used. Threshold distances for
dolphins are shown in Table 27 and 28, while Table 29 contains
threshold distances for Rice's whale.
Table 27--Bottlenose Dolphin Threshold Distances (in km) for Live Missions in the Existing Live Impact Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality Level A harassment Level B harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight lung GI tract PTS TTS Behavioral \a\
injury injury -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive --------------------------------
Mission-day category impulse B: Positive
248.4 impulse B:
Pa[middot]s 114.5 Peak SPL 237 Weighted SEL Peak SPL 230 Weighted SEL Peak SPL 224 Weighted SEL
AS: 197.1 Pa[middot]s dB 185 dB dB 170 dB dB 165 dB
Pa[middot]s AS: 90.9
Pa[middot]s
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose Dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................................................... 0.139 0.276 0.194 0.562 0.389 5.59 0.706 9.538
B............................................................... 0.128 0.254 0.180 0.581 0.361 5.215 0.655 8.937
C............................................................... 0.100 0.199 0.144 0.543 0.289 4.459 0.524 7.568
D............................................................... 0.100 0.199 0.144 0.471 0.289 3.251 0.524 5.664
E............................................................... 0.068 0.136 0.103 0.479 0.207 3.272 0.377 5.88
F............................................................... 0.128 0.254 0.180 0.352 0.362 2.338 0.655 4.596
G............................................................... 0.027 0.054 0.048 0.274 0.093 1.095 0.165 2.488
H............................................................... 0.010 0.019 0.021 0.225 0.040 0.809 0.071 1.409
I............................................................... 0.025 0.049 0.045 0.136 0.087 0.536 0.154 0.918
J............................................................... 0.228 0.449 0.306 0.678 0.615 3.458 1.115 6.193
K............................................................... 0.158 0.313 0.222 0.258 0.445 1.263 0.808 2.663
L............................................................... 0.139 0.276 0.194 0.347 0.389 2.35 0.706 4.656
M............................................................... 0.068 0.136 0.103 0.286 0.207 1.446 0.377 3.508
N............................................................... 0.073 0.145 0.113 0.25 0.225 1.432 0.404 2.935
O............................................................... 0.046 0.092 0.078 0.185 0.155 0.795 0.278 1.878
P............................................................... 0.046 0.092 0.078 0.204 0.155 0.907 0.278 2.172
Q............................................................... 0.027 0.054 0.048 0.247 0.093 0.931 0.165 1.563
R............................................................... 0.012 0.024 0.026 0.139 0.052 0.537 0.093 0.91
[[Page 8176]]
S............................................................... 0.053 0.104 0.084 0.429 0.164 1.699 0.294 2.872
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Behavioral threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
Table 28--Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Threshold Distances (in km) for Live Missions in the Existing Live Impact Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality Level A harassment Level B harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight lung GI tract PTS TTS Behavioral \a\
injury injury -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive --------------------------------
Mission-day category impulse B: Positive
248.4 impulse B:
Pa[middot]s 114.5 Peak SPL 237 Weighted SEL Peak SPL 230 Weighted SEL Peak SPL 224 Weighted SEL
AS: 197.1 Pa[middot]s dB 185 dB dB 170 dB dB 165 dB
Pa[middot]s AS: 90.9
Pa[middot]s
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................................................... 0.171 0.338 0.194 0.562 0.389 5.59 0.706 9.538
B............................................................... 0.157 0.311 0.180 0.581 0.361 5.215 0.655 8.937
C............................................................... 0.123 0.244 0.144 0.543 0.289 4.459 0.524 7.568
D............................................................... 0.123 0.244 0.144 0.471 0.289 3.251 0.524 5.664
E............................................................... 0.084 0.168 0.103 0.479 0.207 3.272 0.377 5.88
F............................................................... 0.157 0.312 0.180 0.352 0.362 2.338 0.655 4.596
G............................................................... 0.033 0.066 0.048 0.274 0.093 1.095 0.165 2.488
H............................................................... 0.012 0.023 0.021 0.225 0.040 0.809 0.071 1.409
I............................................................... 0.030 0.060 0.045 0.136 0.087 0.536 0.154 0.918
J............................................................... 0.279 0.550 0.306 0.678 0.615 3.458 1.115 6.193
K............................................................... 0.194 0.384 0.222 0.258 0.445 1.263 0.808 2.663
L............................................................... 0.171 0.338 0.194 0.347 0.389 2.35 0.706 4.656
M............................................................... 0.084 0.168 0.103 0.286 0.207 1.446 0.377 3.508
N............................................................... 0.090 0.179 0.113 0.25 0.225 1.432 0.404 2.935
O............................................................... 0.057 0.113 0.078 0.185 0.155 0.795 0.278 1.878
P............................................................... 0.057 0.113 0.078 0.204 0.155 0.907 0.278 2.172
Q............................................................... 0.033 0.066 0.048 0.247 0.093 0.931 0.165 1.563
R............................................................... 0.015 0.030 0.026 0.139 0.052 0.537 0.093 0.91
S............................................................... 0.065 0.128 0.084 0.429 0.164 1.699 0.294 2.872
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Behavioral threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
Table 29--Rice's Whale Threshold Distances (in km) for Live Missions in the Existing Live Impact Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality Level A harassment Level B harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight lung GI tract PTS TTS Behavioral \a\
injury injury -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission-day category Positive --------------------------------
impulse 906.2 Positive Weighted SEL Peak SPL 219 Weighted SEL Peak SPL 213 Weighted SEL
Pa[middot]s impulse 417.9 Peak SPL 237 183 dB dB 168 dB dB 163 dB
Pa[middot]s dB
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................................................... 0.044 0.088 0.194 5.695 1.170 21.435 2.120 27.923
B............................................................... 0.041 0.81 0.180 5.253 1.076 20.641 1.955 26.845
C............................................................... 0.031 0.063 0.144 4.332 0.861 18.772 1.562 24.526
D............................................................... 0.031 0.063 0.144 2.979 0.861 16.419 1.562 21.579
E............................................................... 0.021 0.043 0.103 2.323 0.617 15.814 1.121 21.22
F............................................................... 0.041 0.081 0.180 2.208 1.076 14.403 1.955 19.439
G............................................................... 0.009 0.017 0.048 0.494 0.266 7.532 0.470 12.92
H............................................................... 0.003 0.006 0.021 0.401 0.114 3.624 0.201 7.065
I............................................................... 0.008 0.016 0.045 0.305 0.247 2.95 0.437 6.059
J............................................................... 0.073 0.145 0.306 4.487 1.830 13.216 3.323 16.88
K............................................................... 0.050 0.100 0.222 0.831 1.320 7.723 2.393 11.809
L............................................................... 0.044 0.088 0.194 2.325 1.170 15.216 2.120 20.319
M............................................................... 0.021 0.043 0.103 1.304 0.617 11.582 1.121 16.688
N............................................................... 0.023 0.046 0.113 1.026 0.658 9.904 1.183 14.859
O............................................................... 0.015 0.029 0.078 0.611 0.460 6.926 0.832 11.159
P............................................................... 0.014 0.029 0.078 0.671 0.460 7.841 0.832 12.307
Q............................................................... 0.009 0.017 0.048 0.549 0.266 6.299 0.470 10.393
R............................................................... 0.004 0.008 0.026 0.283 0.152 2.383 0.273 5.06
S............................................................... 0.017 0.034 0.084 0.938 0.473 8.676 0.843 12.874
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Behavioral threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
[[Page 8177]]
As discussed previously and shown in Table 22, a portion of the
kinetic energy released by an inert munition at impact is transmitted
as underwater acoustic energy in a pressure impulse. The proposed inert
munitions were categorized into four classes based on their impact
energies to assess the potential impacts of inert munitions on marine
mammals. The threshold distances for each class were modeled and
calculated as described for the mission-day categories. Table 30
presents the impact energy classes developed for the proposed inert
munitions. The four impact energy classes represent the entire suite of
inert munitions proposed to be used in the EGTTR during the next
mission period. The impact energy is the portion of the kinetic energy
at impact that is transmitted as an underwater pressure impulse,
expressed in units of TNT-equivalent (TNTeq). Tables 30 and 31 present
the threshold distances estimated for the dolphins and Rice's whale,
respectively, for inert munitions in the existing LIA.
Table 30--Dolphin Threshold Distances (in km) for Inert Munitions in the Existing Live Impact Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality Level A harassment Level B harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight lung GI tract PTS TTS Behavioral \a\
injury injury -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive --------------------------------
Inert impact class (lb impulse B: Positive
TNTeq) 248.4 impulse B:
Pa[middot]s 114.5 Peak SPL 237 Weighted SEL Peak SPL 230 Weighted SEL Peak SPL 224 Weighted SEL
AS: 197.1 Pa[middot]s dB 185 dB dB 170 dB dB 165 dB
Pa[middot]s AS: 90.9
Pa[middot]s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose Dolphin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................... 0.020 0.041 0.040 0.030 0.080 0.205 0.145 0.327
1....................... 0.015 0.031 0.032 0.025 0.063 0.134 0.114 0.250
0.5..................... 0.012 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.050 0.119 0.091 0.198
0.15.................... 0.008 0.015 0.017 0.009 0.034 0.061 0.061 0.119
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................... 0.025 0.051 0.040 0.030 0.080 0.205 0.145 0.327
1....................... 0.019 0.038 0.032 0.025 0.063 0.134 0.114 0.250
0.5..................... 0.014 0.029 0.025 0.015 0.050 0.119 0.091 0.198
0.15.................... 0.009 0.018 0.017 0.009 0.034 0.061 0.061 0.119
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Behavioral threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
Table 31--Rice's Whale Threshold Distances (in km) for Inert Munitions in the Existing Live Impact Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality Level A harassment Level B harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight lung GI tract PTS TTS Behavioral \a\
Inert impact class (lb injury injury -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TNTeq) Positive --------------------------------
impulse 906.2 Positive Weighted SEL Peak SPL 219 Weighted SEL Peak SPL 213 Weighted SEL
Pa[middot]s impulse 417.9 Peak SPL 237 183 dB dB 168 dB dB 163 dB
Pa[middot]s dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................... 0.006 0.013 0.040 0.151 0.238 0.474 0.430 0.884
1....................... 0.005 0.010 0.032 0.110 0.188 0.327 0.340 0.542
0.5..................... 0.004 0.007 0.025 0.055 0.149 0.261 0.270 0.521
0.15.................... 0.002 0.005 0.017 0.026 0.100 0.154 0.181 0.284
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Behavioral threshold for multiple detonations assumes TTS threshold minus 5 dB.
Dolphin Species
Estimated takes for dolphins are based on the area of the Level A
and Level B harassment zones, predicted dolphin density, and annual
number of events for each mission-day category. As previously
discussed, take estimates for dolphins are based on the average yearly
density of each dolphin species in each LIA. To estimate the takes of
each dolphin species in both LIAs collectively, the take estimates for
each LIA were weighted based on the expected usage of each LIA over the
7-year mission period. This information was provided by the user
groups. Ninety percent of the total missions are expected to be
conducted in the existing LIA and 10 percent are expected to be
conducted in the proposed East LIA. Therefore, total estimated takes
are the sum of 90 percent of the takes in the existing LIA and 10
percent of the takes in the proposed East LIA. Should the usage ratio
changes substantially in the future, USAF would re-evaluate the
exposure estimates and reinitiate consultation with NMFS to determine
whether the take estimations need to be adjusted.
Table 32--Calculated Annual Exposures of Dolphins Under the USAF's Proposed Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment Level B harassment
Mortality ---------------------------------------------------------------
Injury \a\ PTS TTS Behavioral
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose Dolphin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missions at Existing LIA........ 0.74 2.14 9.25 312.7 799.7
Missions at East LIA............ 0.89 2.6 11.24 379.79 971.29
90 Percent of Existing LIA 0.66 1.92 8.33 281.4 719.73
Missions.......................
[[Page 8178]]
10 Percent of East LIA Missions. 0.09 0.26 1.12 37.98 97.13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 0.75 2.18 9.45 319.14 816.86
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Takes Requested... 0 0 9 319 817
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missions at Existing LIA........ 0.14 0.39 0.96 38.34 98.05
Missions at East LIA............ 0.16 0.47 1.14 45.53 116.43
90 Percent of Existing LIA 0.12 0.36 0.86 34.50 88.24
Missions.......................
10 Percent of East LIA Missions. 0.02 0.05 0.11 4.55 11.64
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 0.14 0.4 0.98 39.06 99.89
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Takes Proposed.... 0 0 1 39 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Slight lung and/or gastrointestinal tract injury.
The annual exposures of dolphins requested by the USAF and proposed
for authorization by NMFS are presented in Table 32. As indicated, a
total of 9 Level A harassment takes and 1,136 Level B harassment takes
of the common bottlenose dolphin, and 1 Level A harassment takes and
139 Level B harassment takes of the Atlantic spotted dolphin are
requested annually for EGTTR operations during the next 7-year mission
period. The presented takes are overestimates of actual exposure based
on the conservative assumption that all proposed detonations would
occur at or just below the water surface instead of a portion occurring
upon impact with targets.
Based on the best available science, the USAF (in coordination with
NMFS) used the acoustic and pressure thresholds indicated in Tables 26-
30 to predict the onset of tissue damage and mortality for explosives
(impulsive) and other impulsive sound sources for inert and live
munitions in both the existing LIA and proposed East LIA. The mortality
takes calculated for the bottlenose dolphin (0.75) and Atlantic spotted
dolphin (0.14) are both less than one animal. Mortality for Rice's
whale is zero. Therefore, and in consideration of the required
mitigation measures, no mortality takes are requested for either
dolphin species or Rice's whale. The non-auditory injury takes are
calculated to be 2.18 and 0.40 for the bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic
spotted dolphin, respectively. However, these (and the take estimates
for the other effect thresholds) are the sum of the respective takes
for all 19 mission-day categories. Each individual mission-day category
results in a fraction of a non-auditory injury take. Given the required
mitigation, adding up all the fractional takes in this manner would
likely result in an over-estimate of take. Calculated non-auditory
injury for the Rice's whale is zero.
The mitigation measures associated with explosives are expected to
be effective in preventing mortality and non-auditory tissue damage to
any potentially affected species. All of the calculated distances to
mortality or non-auditory injury thresholds are less than 400 m. The
USAF would be required to employ trained protected species observers
(PSOs) to monitor the mitigation zones based on the mission-day
activities. The mitigation zone is defined as double the threshold
distance at which Level A harassment exposures in the form of PTS could
occur (also referred to below as ``double the Level A PTS threshold
distance''). During pre-monitoring PSOs would be required to postpone
or cancel operations if animals are found in these zones. Protected
species monitoring would be vessel-based, aerial-based or remote video-
based depending on the mission-day activities. The USAF would also be
required to conduct testing and training exercise beyond setback
distances shown in Table 33. These setback distances would start from
the 100-m isobath, which is approximately the shallowest depth where
the Rice's whale has been observed. The setback distances are based on
the PTS threshold calculated for the Rice's whale depending on the
mission-day activity. Also, all gunnery missions must take place 500 m
landward of the 100-m isopleth to avoid impacts to the Rice's whale.
When these mitigation measures are considered in combination with the
modeled exposure results, no species are anticipated to incur mortality
or non-auditory tissue damage during the period of this rule.
Based on the conservative assumptions applied to the impact
analysis and the pre-mission surveys conducted for dolphins, which
extend out to, at a minimum, twice the PTS threshold distance that
applies to both dolphin species (185 dB SEL), NMFS has determined that
no mortality or non-auditory injury takes are expected and none are
authorized for EGTTR operations.
Rice's Whale
Figure 6-2 in the LOA application shows the estimated Rice's whale
threshold distances and associated harassment zones for mission-day
category A, J, and P and use of a 2 lb class inert munition at the
location where the GRATV is typically anchored in the existing LIA. As
indicated on Figure 6-2, portions of the behavioral harassment zone of
mission-day categories A and J extend into Rice's whale habitat,
whereas the monitoring zones for mission-day category P and the largest
inert munition are entirely outside Rice's whale habitat. The
monitoring zone is defined as the area between double the Level A
harassment mitigation zone and the human safety zone perimeter. As
previously discussed, the spatial density model developed by NOAA
(2022) for the Rice's whale was used to predict Rice's whale density
for the purpose of estimating takes. The NOAA model generates densities
for hexagon-shaped raster grids that are 40 km\2\. The specific areas
of the raster grids within each of the Level A and Level B harassment
zones were computed in GIS and coupled with their respective modeled
[[Page 8179]]
densities to estimate the number of animals that would be exposed.
Figure 6-3 in the LOA application shows the harassment zones of
mission-day category A at the current GRATV anchoring site. As shown,
portions of the mitigation zones (TTS and behavioral disturbance) are
within grids of modeled density greater than zero individuals per 40
km\2\. However, the modeled densities in these areas are small and
reflect higher occurrence probability for the Rice's whale farther to
the southwest, outside the LIA. To estimate annual takes, the number of
animals in all model grids within each mitigation, monitoring zone, and
Level B harassment (behavioral) zone for all mission-day categories,
except gunnery missions (G and H), were computed using the densities
from the NOAA model (2022) model and the impact areas calculated in
GIS. The modeled densities and the associated areas were multiplied
together to estimate abundance within each mitigation, monitoring, and
Level B harassment zone. The resulting abundance estimates were summed
together and then multiplied by the number of annual missions proposed
to estimate annual takes. These calculations resulted in a total of
0.04 annual TTS take and 0.10 annual behavioral disturbance take, which
indicates that all missions conducted at the current GRATV site
combined would not result in a single Level B harassment take of the
Rice's whale. For comparison, Figure 6-4 shows the harassment zones of
mission-day category A at the center of the proposed East LIA. As
shown, a small portion of the behavioral disturbance zone (27.9 km)
encompasses a grid of low modeled density, with grids of higher density
being farther to the southwest.
Certain missions could have a PTS impact if they were to be
conducted farther to the southwest within the LIAs closer to Rice's
whale habitat, as defined by the 100-m isobath. The modeled threshold
distances were used to determine the locations in the existing LIA and
proposed East LIA where each mission-day category would cause the onset
of PTS, measured as a setback from the 100-m isobath. At this setback
location, the mission would avoid PTS and result only in non-injury
Level B harassment, if one or more Rice's whales were in the affected
habitat. The setback distances are based on the longest distance
predicted by the dBSea model for a cumulative SEL of 168 dB within the
mitigation zone; the predicted average cumulative SEL is used as the
basis of effect for estimating takes. The setback distances determined
for the mission-day categories are presented in Table 33 and are shown
for the existing LIA and proposed East LIA on Figures 6-5 and 6-6,
respectively.
Table 33--Setbacks To Prevent Permanent Threshold Shift Impacts to the Rice's Whale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setback from 100-
User group Mission-day category NEWi (lb)/(kg) meter isobath
(km)/(nmi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 WEG.................................. A 2,413.6 (1094.6) 7.323 (3.95)
B 2,029.9 (920.6) 6.659 (5.59)
C 1,376.2 (624.1) 5.277 (2.84)
D 836.22 (379.2) 3.557 (1.92)
E 934.9 (423.9) 3.192 (1.72)
AFSOC................................... F 584.6 (265.1) 3.169 (1.71)
I 29.6 (13.4) 0.394 (0.21)
96 OG................................... J 946.8 (429.4 5.188 (2.80
K 350 (158.7) 1.338 (0.72)
L 627.1 (284.3) 3.315 (1.78)
M 324.9 (147.3) 2.017 (1.08)
N 238.1 (107.9) 1.815 (0.98)
O 104.6 (47.5) 0.734 (0.39)
P 130.8 (59.3) 0.787 (0.42)
Q 94.4 (42.8) 0.667 (0.36)
R 37.1 (16.8) 0.368 (0.19)
NAVSCOLEOD.............................. S 130 (58.9) 1.042 (0.56)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locating a given mission in the LIA at its respective setback
distance would represent the maximum Level B harassment scenario for
the mission. If all the missions were conducted at their respective
setbacks, the resulting takes would represent the maximum Level B
harassment takes that would result for all mission-day categories
except for gunnery missions. This is not a realistic scenario; however,
it is analyzed to provide a worst-case estimate of takes. The takes
under this scenario were calculated using the NOAA model (2022) model
as described for the GRATV Location scenario. Figure 6-7 shows mission-
day category A conducted at its maximum Level B setback location (7.23
km). Under this scenario, the TTS and behavioral disturbance mitigation
zones extend farther into Rice's whale habitat. However, the modeled
densities within affected areas are still relatively small. PTS impacts
are avoided entirely. The PTS mitigation zone is slightly offset from
the 100-m isobath because the setback is based on the longest distance
predicted by the dBSea model, whereas the mitigation zones shown are
based on the average distance predicted by the model. The take
calculations for the maximum Level B harassment scenario resulted in a
total of 0.49 annual TTS takes and 1.19 annual behavioral disturbance
takes as shown in Table 34. These are the maximum number of takes
estimated to potentially result from detonations in the existing LIA.
These takes are overestimates because a considerable portion of all
missions in the LIA are expected to continue to be conducted at or near
the currently used GRATV anchoring site. These takes would not be
exceeded because all missions will be conducted behind their identified
setbacks as a new mitigation measure to prevent injury to the Rice's
whale. Take calculations for the maximum Level B harassment scenario in
the East LIA resulted in 0.63 annual TTS takes and 2.33 annual
behavioral disturbance takes (Table 34). However, if we assume that 90
percent of the mission would occur in existing LIA and 10 percent would
occur in the proposed East LIA as was done for
[[Page 8180]]
dolphins, the estimated result is 0.55 annual TTS (0.49 + 0.06) and
1.42 annual behavioral (1.19 + 0.23) takes.
The take calculations were performed using the NOAA (2022) density
model for both day and night gunnery missions. As indicated on Figures
6-8 and 6-9 in the application, the modeled Rice's whale densities in
the TTS and behavioral disturbance zones are small, and reflect a
higher occurrence probability for the Rice's whale farther to the
southwest. The take calculations estimated 0.003 TTS takes and 0.012
behavioral disturbance takes per daytime gunnery mission and 0.0006 TTS
takes and 0.002 behavioral disturbance takes per nighttime gunnery
mission. The resulting annual takes for all proposed 25 daytime gunnery
missions are 0.08 TTS take and 0.30 behavioral disturbance take, and
the resulting annual takes for all 45 proposed nighttime gunnery
missions are 0.03 TTS take and 0.09 behavioral disturbance take (Table
34). This is a conservative estimation of Level B harassment takes
because all gunnery missions would not be conducted precisely 500 m
landward of the 100-m isobath as assumed under this worst-case take
scenario. This represents a mitigation measure described later in the
Proposed Mitigation section. Based on a review of gunnery mission
locations, most gunnery missions during the last 5 years have occurred
in waters shallower than 100 m.
The annual maximum Level B harassment takes estimated for daytime
gunnery missions (mission-day G) and nighttime gunnery missions
(mission-day category H) are combined with the annual maximum Level B
harassment takes estimated for the other mission-day categories to
determine the total takes of the Rice's whale from all EGTTR operations
during the next mission period. The annual takes of the Rice's whale
requested under the USAF's proposed activities are 0.61 TTS takes
conservatively and 1.69 behavioral takes as presented in Table 34.
However, the average group size for Bryde's whales found in the
northeast Gulf of Mexico is two animals (Maze-Foley and Mullin 2006).
NMFS will assume that each exposure would result in take of two
animals. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize Level B harassment
in the form of two takes by TTS and four takes by behavioral
disturbance annually for EGTTR operations during the next 7-year
mission period.
Note that the requested takes are likely overestimates because they
represent the maximum Level B harassment scenario for all missions.
These takes are also likely overestimates of actual exposure based on
the conservative assumption that all proposed detonations would occur
at or just below the water surface instead of a portion occurring upon
impact with targets.
Table 34--Calculated Annual Exposures of the Rice's Whale Under the USAF's Proposed Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment Level B harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Injury \a\ PTS TTS Behavioral
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missions at Existing LIA........ 0 0 0 0.49 1.19
Missions at East LIA............ 0 0 0 0.63 2.33
90 Percent of Existing LIA 0 0 0 0.441 1.071
Missions.......................
10 Percent of East LIA Missions. 0 0 0 0.063 0.233
Daytime Gunnery Missions........ 0 0 0 0.08 0.30
Nighttime Gunnery Missions...... 0 0 0 0.03 0.09
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 0 0 0 0.61 1.69
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Takes Requested....... 0 0 0 2 \b\ 4 \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Slight lung and/or gastrointestinal tract injury.
\b\ Based on average group size (Maze-Foley and Mullin (2006).
For the USAF's proposed activities in the EGTTR, Table 35
summarizes the take NMFS proposes, to authorize, including the maximum
annual, 7-year total amount, and type of Level A harassment and Level B
harassment that NMFS anticipates is reasonably likely to occur by
species and stock. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both
behavioral disturbance and TTS. No mortality or non-auditory injury is
anticipated or proposed, as described previously.
Table 35--Proposed Annual and Seven-Year Total Species-specific Take Authorization From Explosives for All Training and Testing Activities in the EGTTR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed annual take Proposed 7-year total take
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Level A Level B
Common name Stock/DPS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behavioral Behavioral
PTS TTS disturbance PTS TTS disturbance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common bottlenose dolphin......... Northern Gulf of 9 319 817 63 2,233 5,719
Mexico Continental
Shelf.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.......... Northern Gulf of 1 39 100 7 273 700
Mexico.
Rice's whale *.................... NSD................. 0 2 4 0 14 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ESA-listed species.
Note: NSD = No stock designation.
[[Page 8181]]
Proposed Mitigation
Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses (latter not
applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include information about the
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment,
methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA
for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness
activities and the incidental take authorization process such that
``least practicable impact'' shall include consideration of personnel
safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness
of the military readiness activity.
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Assessment of Mitigation Measures for the EGTTR
Section 216.104(a)(11) of NMFS' implementing regulations requires
an applicant for incidental take authorization to include in its
request, among other things, ``the availability and feasibility
(economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their
habitat, and [where applicable] on their availability for subsistence
uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance.'' Thus, NMFS' analysis of the
sufficiency and appropriateness of an applicant's measures under the
least practicable adverse impact standard will always begin with
evaluation of the mitigation measures presented in the application.
NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and the mitigation
measures included in the USAF's rulemaking/LOA application and the
EGTTR 2022 REA to determine if the mitigation measures would result in
the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their
habitat. The USAF would be required to implement the mitigation
measures identified in this rule for the full 7 years to avoid or
reduce potential impacts from proposed training and testing activities.
Monitoring and mitigation measures for protected species are
implemented for all EGTTR missions that involve the use of live or
inert munitions (i.e., missiles, bombs, and gun ammunition). Mitigation
includes operational measures such as pre-mission monitoring,
postponement, relocation, or cancellation of operations, to minimize
the exposures of all marine mammals to pressure waves and acoustic
impacts as well as vessel strike avoidance measures to minimize the
potential for ship strikes; geographic mitigation measures, such as
setbacks and areas where mission activity is prohibited, to minimize
impacts in areas used by Rice's whales; gunnery-specific mitigation
measures which dictate how and where gunnery operations occur; and
environmental mitigation which describes when missions may occur and
under what weather conditions. These measures are supported by the use
of PSOs from various platforms, and sea state restrictions.
Identification and observation of appropriate mitigation zones (i.e.
double the threshold distance at which Level A harassment exposures in
the form of PTS could occur) and monitoring zones (i.e., area between
the mitigation zone and the human safety zone perimeter) are important
components of an effective mitigation plan.
Operational Measures
Pre-Mission Surveys
Pre-mission surveys for protected species are conducted prior to
every mission (i.e., missiles, bombs, and gunnery) in order to verify
that the mitigation zone is free of visually detectable marine mammals
and to evaluate the mission site for environmental suitability. USAF
range-clearing vessels and protected species survey vessels holding
PSOs will be onsite approximately 90 minutes prior to the mission. The
duration of pre-mission surveys depends on the area required to be
surveyed, the type of survey platforms used (i.e., vessels, aircraft,
video), and any potential lapse in time between the end of the surveys
and the beginning of the mission. Depending on the mission category,
vessel-based PSOs will survey the mitigation and/or monitoring zones
for marine mammals. Surveys of the mitigation zone will continue for
approximately 30 minutes or until the entire mitigation zone has been
adequately surveyed, whichever comes first. The mitigation zone survey
area is defined by the area covered by double the dolphin Level A
harassment (PTS) threshold distances predicted for the mission-day
categories as presented previously in Table 27 and Table 28. Each user
group will identify the mission-day category that best corresponds to
its actual mission based on the energy that would be released. The user
group will estimate the NEWi of the actual mission to identify which
mission-day category to use. The energy of the actual mission will be
less than the energy of the mission-day category in terms of total NEWi
and largest single munition NEWi to ensure that the energy and effects
of the actual mission will not exceed the energy and effects estimated
for the corresponding mission-day category. For any live mission other
than gunnery missions, the pre-mission survey mitigation zone will
extend out to, at a minimum, double the Level A harassment PTS
threshold distance that applies to both dolphin species. Depending on
the mission-day category that best corresponds to the actual mission,
the distance from the detonation point to the mitigation zone (i.e.,
double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance) could vary
between approximately 1,356 m for mission-day category J and 272 m for
mission-day category I (Table 36). Surveying twice the dolphin Level A
harassment (PTS) threshold distance provides a buffer area for when
there is a lapse between the time when the survey ends and the
[[Page 8182]]
time when the species observers reach the perimeter of the human safety
zone before the start of the mission. Surveying this additional buffer
area ensures that dolphins are not within the PTS zone at the start of
the mission. Missions involving air-to-surface gunnery operations must
conduct surveys of even larger areas based on previously established
safety profiles and the ability to conduct aerial surveys of large
areas from the types of aircraft used for these missions.
The monitoring zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between
the mitigation zone and the human safety zone and is not standardized,
since the size of the human safety zone is not standardized. The safety
zone will be determined per each mission by the Eglin AFB Test Wing
Safety Office based on the munition and parameters of its release (to
include altitude, pitch, heading, and airspeed). Additionally, based on
the operational altitudes of gunnery firing, and the fact that the only
monitoring during the mission will be coming from onboard the aircraft
conducting the live firing, the monitoring zone for gunnery missions
will be a smaller area than the mitigation zone and will be based on
the field of view from the aircraft. These observable areas will at
least be double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance for the
mission-day categories G, H, and Q (gunnery-only mission-day
categories) as shown in Table 36.
Table 36--Mitigation and Monitoring Zone Sizes for Live Missions in the
Existing Live Impact Area (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation zone
Mission-day category (m)/(ft) Monitoring zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................... 1,130 (3,706.4)... TBD
B............................... 1,170 (3,837.6)... TBD
C............................... 1,090 (3,575.2)... TBD
D............................... 950 (3,116)....... TBD
E............................... 950 (3,116)....... TBD
F............................... 710 (2,328)....... TBD
G............................... \1\ 9,260 550 (1,804)
(30.372.8).
H............................... \2\ 9,260 450 (1,476)
(30,372.8).
I............................... 280 (918.4)....... TBD
J............................... 1,360 (4,460.8)... TBD
K............................... 520 (1,705.6)..... TBD
L............................... 700 (2,296)....... TBD
M............................... 580 (1,640)....... TBD
N............................... 500 (1,640)....... TBD
O............................... 370 (1,213.6)..... TBD
P............................... 410 (1,344.8)..... TBD
Q............................... \3\ 9,260 490 (1,607)
(30,372.6).
R............................... \4\ 280 (918.4) TBD
and 9,260
(30372.8).
S............................... 860 (2,820.8)..... TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For G, double the Level A harassment threshold distance (PTS) is
0.548 km, but G is AC-130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5 NMI.
\2\ For H, double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance is
0.450 km, but H is AC-130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5 nmi.
\3\ For Q, double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance is
0.494 km, but Q is AC-130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5 nmi.
\4\ R has components of both gunnery and inert small diameter bomb.
Double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance is 0.278 km,
however, for gunnery component the inherent mitigation zone would be
9.260 km.
\5\ The Monitoring Zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between
the Mitigation Zone and the Human Safety Zone and is not standardized,
as the Human Safety Zone is not standardized. HSZ is determined per
each mission by the Test Wing Safety Office based on the munition and
parameters of its release (to include altitude, pitch, heading, and
airspeed).
\6\ Based on the operational altitudes of gunnery firing, and the only
monitoring during mission coming from onboard the aircraft conducting
the firing, the Monitoring Zone for gunnery missions will be a smaller
area than the Mitigation Zone and be based on the field of view from
the aircraft. These observable areas will at least be double the Level
A harassment (PTS) threshold distance for the mission-day categories
G, H, and Q (gunnery-only mission-day categories).
For non-gunnery inert missions, the mitigation zone is based on
double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance as shown in
Table 37. The monitoring zone is the area between the mitigation zone
and the human safety zone which is not standardized. The safety zone is
determined per each mission by the Test Wing Safety Office based on the
munition and parameters of its release including altitude, pitch,
heading, and airspeed.
Table 37--Pre-mission Mitigation and Monitoring Zones (in m) for Inert
Missions Impact Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation Monitoring
Inert impact class (lb TNTeq) zone m/(ft) zone \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................................... 160 (524) TBD
1....................................... 126 (413) TBD
0.5..................................... 100 (328) TBD
0.15.................................... 68 (223) TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Monitoring Zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between the
Mitigation Zone and the Human Safety Zone and is not standardized, as
the Human Safety Zone is not standardized. HSZ is determined per each
mission by the Test Wing Safety Office based on the munition and
parameters of its release (to include altitude, pitch, heading, and
airspeed).
Mission postponement, relocation, or cancellation--Mission
postponement, relocation, or cancellation would be required when marine
mammals are observed within the mitigation or monitoring zone depending
on the mission type to minimize the potential for marine mammals to be
exposed to injurious levels of pressure and noise energy from live
detonations. If one or more marine mammal species other than the two
dolphin species for which take is proposed to be authorized are
detected in either the mitigation zone or the monitoring zone, then
mission activities will be cancelled for the remainder of the day. The
mission must be postponed, relocated or cancelled if either of the two
dolphin species are
[[Page 8183]]
visually detected in the mitigation zone during the pre-mission survey.
If members of the two dolphin species for which authorized take has
been proposed are observed in the monitoring zone while vessels are
exiting the human safety zone and the PSO has determined the animals
are heading towards the mitigation zone, then missions will be
postponed, relocated, or cancelled, based on mission-specific test and
environmental parameters. Postponement would continue until the animals
are confirmed to be outside of the mitigation zone on a heading away
from the targets or are not seen again for 30 minutes and are presumed
to be outside the mitigation zone. If large schools of fish or large
flocks of birds are observed feeding at the surface are observed within
the mitigation zone, postponement would continue until these potential
indicators of marine mammal presence are confirmed to be outside the
mitigation zone.
Vessel strike avoidance measures--Vessel strike avoidance measures
as previously advised by NMFS Southeast Regional Office must be
employed by the USAF to minimize the potential for ship strikes. These
measures include staying at least 150 ft (46 m) away from protected
species and 300 ft (92 m) away from whales. Additional action area
measures will require vessels to stay 500 m away from the Rice's whale.
If a baleen whale cannot be positively identified to species level then
it must be assumed to be a Rice's whale and 500 m separation distance
must be maintained. Vessels must avoid transit in the Core Distribution
Area (CDA) and within the 100-400 m isobath zone outside the CDA. If
transit in these areas is unavoidable, vessels must not exceed 10 knots
and transit at night is prohibited. An exception to the speed
restriction is for instances required for human safety, such as when
members of the public need to be intercepted to secure the human safety
zone, or when the safety of a vessel operations crew could be
compromised.
Geographic Mitigation Measures
Setbacks From Rice's Whale Habitat
New mitigation measures that were not required as part of the
existing LOA have been proposed to reduce impacts to the Rice's whale.
These measures would require that given mission-day activities could
only occur in areas that are exterior to and set back some specified
distance from Rice's whale habitat boundaries as well as areas where
mission activities are prohibited. These are described below.
As a mitigation measure to prevent impacts to cetacean species
known to occur in deeper portions of the Gulf of Mexico, such as the
federally endangered sperm whale, all gunnery missions have been
located landward of the 200-m isobath, which is generally considered to
be the shelf break in the Gulf of Mexico. Most missions conducted over
the last 5 years under the existing LOA have occurred in waters less
than 100 m in depth. While implementing this measure would prevent
impacts to most marine mammal species in the Gulf, it may not provide
full protection to the Rice's whale, which has been documented to occur
in waters as shallow as 117 m, although the majority of sightings have
occurred in waters deeper than 200 m.
To prevent any PTS impacts to the Rice's whale from gunnery
operations, NMFS has proposed that all gunnery missions would be
conducted at least 500 m landward of the 100-m isobath instead of
landward of the 200-m isobath as was originally proposed by the USAF.
This setback distance from the 100-m isobath is based on the modeled
PTS threshold distance for daytime gunnery missions (mission-day G) of
494 m (Table 29). At this setback distance, potential PTS effects from
daytime gunnery missions would not extend into Rice's whale habitat, as
defined by the 100-m isobath. The PTS Level A harassment isopleth of a
nighttime gunnery mission, which is 401 m in radius, is contained
farther landward of the habitat boundary.
Another mitigation measure to prevent any PTS (or more severe)
impacts to the Rice's whale will restrict the use of all live munitions
in the western part of the existing LIA and proposed East LIA based on
the setbacks from the 100-m isobaths. The setback distances determined
for the mission-day categories are presented in Table 33 and are shown
for the existing LIA and proposed East LIA on Figures 6-5 and 6-6,
respectively. For example, the subsurface detonation of a GBU-10, GBU-
24, or GBU-31, each of which have a NEW of 945 lb (428.5 kg), would
represent the most powerful single detonation that would be conducted
under the USAF's proposed activities. Such a detonation would
correspond to mission-day category J. To prevent any PTS impacts to the
Rice's whale, a mission that would involve such a single subsurface
detonation would be conducted in a portion of the LIA that is behind
the setback identified for mission-day category J.
Likewise, a mission that would involve multiple detonations that
have a total cumulative NEWi comparable to that of mission-day category
A would be conducted behind the setback identified for mission-day
category A. Each user group will use the mission-day categories and
corresponding setback distances to determine the setback distance that
is appropriate for their actual mission. The user group will estimate
the NEWi of the actual mission to identify which mission-day category
and associated setback to use. The energy of the actual mission must be
less than the energy of the mission-day category in terms of total NEWi
and largest single-munition NEWi to ensure that the energy and effects
of the actual mission will not exceed the energy and effects estimated
for the corresponding mission-day category.
Rice's Whale Habitat Area Prohibitions
This section identifies areas where firing of live or inert
munitions is prohibited to limit impacts to Rice's whales. The USAF
will prohibit the use of live or inert munitions in Rice's whale
habitat during the effective period for the proposed LOA. Under this
new mitigation measure, all munitions use will be prohibited between
the 100-m and 400-m isobaths which represents the area where most
Rice's whale detections have occurred. Live HACMs would be permitted to
be fired into the existing LIA or East LIA but must have a setback of
1.338 km from the 100-m isobath while inert HACMs could be fired into
portions of the EGTTR outside the LIAs. However, they would need to be
outside the area between the 100-m and 400-m isobaths.
Overall, the USAF has agreed to procedural mitigation measures that
would reduce the probability and/or severity of impacts expected to
result from acute exposure to live explosives and inert munitions and
impacts to marine mammal habitat.
Gunnery-Specific Mitigation
Additional mitigation measures are applicable only to gunnery
missions. The USAF must use 105 mm Training Rounds (TR; NEW of 0.35 lb
(0.16 kg)) for nighttime missions. These rounds contain less explosive
material content than the 105 mm Full Up (FU; NEW of 4.7 lb (2.16 kg))
rounds that are used during the day. Therefore, the harassment zones
associates with the 105 mm TR are smaller and can be more effectively
monitored compared to the daytime zones. Ramp-up procedures will also
be required for day and night gunnery missions which must begin firing
with the smallest round and proceed to increasingly larger rounds. The
purpose of this measure is to expose the marine environment to
[[Page 8184]]
steadily increasing noise levels with the intent that marine animals
will move away from the area before noise levels increase. During each
gunnery training mission, gun firing can last up to 90 minutes but
typically lasts approximately 30 minutes. Live firing is continuous,
with pauses usually lasting well under 1 minute and rarely up to 5
minutes. Aircrews must reinitiate protected species surveys if gunnery
firing pauses last longer than 10 minutes.
Protected species monitoring procedures for CV-22 gunnery training
are similar to those described for AC-130 gunnery training, except that
CV-22 aircraft typically operate at much lower altitudes than AC-130
gunships. If protected marine species are detected during pre-mission
surveys or during the mission, operations will be immediately halted
until the monitoring zone is clear of all animals, or the mission will
be relocated to another target area. If the mission is relocated, the
pre-mission survey procedures will be repeated in the new area. If
multiple gunnery missions are conducted during the same flight, marine
species monitoring will be conducted separately for each mission.
Following each mission, aircrews will conduct a post- mission survey
beginning at the operational altitude and continuing through an
orbiting descent to the designated monitoring altitude.
All gunnery missions must monitor a set distance depending on the
aircraft type as show in Table 38. Pre-mission aerial surveys conducted
by gunnery aircrews in AC-130s extend out 5 nmi (9,260 m) while CV-22
aircraft would have a monitoring range of 3 nmi (5,556 m). The modeled
distances for behavioral disturbance for gunnery daytime and nighttime
missions are 12.9 km and 7.1 km, respectively. The behavioral
disturbance zone is smaller at night due to the required use of less
impactful training rounds (105-mm TR). Therefore, the aircrews are able
to survey all of the behavioral disturbance for a nighttime gunnery
mission but not for a daytime gunnery mission. The size of the
monitoring areas are based on the monitoring and operational altitudes
of each aircraft as well as previously established aircraft safety
profiles.
Table 38--Monitoring Areas and Altitudes for Gunnery Missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Operational
Aircraft Gunnery round Monitoring area altitude altitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC-30 Gunship................... 30 mm; 105 mm (FU 5 nmi (9,260 m)... 6,000 feet (1,828 15,000 to 20,000
and TR). m). feet (4572-6096
m).
CV-22 Osprey.................... .50 caliber....... 3 nmi (5,556 m)... 1,000 feet (305 m) 1,000 feet (305
m).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than gunnery training, HACM tests are the only other EGTTR
missions currently proposed to be conducted at nighttime during the
2023-2030 period. HACM tests and any other missions that are actually
conducted at nighttime during the mission period will be required to be
supported by AC-130 aircraft with night-vision instrumentation or other
platforms with comparable nighttime monitoring capabilities. For live
HACM missions, the pre-mission survey area will extend out to, at a
minimum, double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold distance that
applies to both dolphin species for a HACM test. A HACM test would
correspond to mission-day category K, which is estimated to have a PTS
threshold distance of 0.258 km. Therefore, the pre-mission survey for a
HACM test would extend out to 0.52 km, at a minimum.
Environmental Conditions
Sea State Conditions--Appropriate sea state conditions must exist
for protected species monitoring to be effective. Wind speed and the
associated roughness of the sea surface are key factors that influence
the efficacy of PSO monitoring. Strong winds increase wave height and
create whitecaps, both of which limit a PSO's ability to visually
detect marine species at or near the surface. The sea state scale used
for EGTTR pre-mission protected species surveys is presented in Table
39. All missions will be postponed or rescheduled if conditions exceed
sea state 4, which is defined as moderate breeze, breaking crests,
numerous white caps, wind speed of 11 to 16 knots, and wave height of
3.3 to 6 ft (1.0 to 1.8 m). PSOs will determine whether sea conditions
are suitable for protective species monitoring.
Table 39--Sea State Scale Used for EGTTR Pre-Mission Protected Species
Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea state number Sea conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................ Flat, calm, no waves or ripples.
1............................ Light air, winds 1 to 2 knots; wave
height to 1 foot; ripples without
crests.
2............................ Light breeze, winds 3 to 6 knots; wave
height 1 to 2 feet; small wavelets,
crests not breaking.
3............................ Gentle breeze, winds 7 to 10 knots; wave
height 2 to 3.5 feet; large wavelets,
scattered whitecaps.
4............................ Moderate breeze, winds 11 to 16 knots;
wave height 3.5 to 6 feet; breaking
crests, numerous whitecaps.
5............................ Strong breeze, winds 17 to 21 knots; wave
height 6 to 10 feet; large waves, spray
possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daylight Restrictions--Daylight and visibility restrictions are
also implemented to ensure the effectiveness of protected species
monitoring. All live missions except for nighttime gunnery and
hypersonic weapon missions will occur no earlier than 2 hours after
sunrise and no later than 2 hours before sunset to ensure adequate
daylight for pre- and post-mission monitoring.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the USAF's proposed mitigation
measures. 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
mitigation measures is expected to reduce the likelihood and/or
magnitude of adverse impacts to marine mammal species and their
habitat; the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the
practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, including
consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
[[Page 8185]]
Based on our evaluation of the USAF's proposed measures including
pre-mission surveys; mission postponements or cancellations if animals
are observed in the mitigation or monitoring zones; Rice's whale
setbacks; Rice's whale habitat prohibitions; gunnery-specific measures;
and environmental measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that
these proposed mitigation measures are the appropriate means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the marine mammal
species and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and considering
specifically personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Additionally, an adaptive management provision ensures that mitigation
is regularly assessed and provides a mechanism to improve the
mitigation, based on the factors above, through modification as
appropriate.
The proposed rule comment period provides the public an opportunity
to submit recommendations, views, and/or concerns regarding the USAF's
activities and the proposed mitigation measures. While NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the USAF's proposed mitigation measures
would effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected
species and their habitat, NMFS will consider all public comments to
help inform our final determination. Consequently, the proposed
mitigation measures may be refined, modified, removed, or added to
prior to the issuance of the final rule, based on public comments
received, and, as appropriate, analysis of additional potential
mitigation measures.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA 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
authorizations 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 while
conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as to ensuring that the most value is obtained from
the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (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 activity; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and,
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The USAF will require training for all PSOs who will utilize
vessel-based, aerial-based, video-based platforms or some combination
of these approaches depending on the requirements of the mission type
as shown in Table 40. Specific PSO training requirements are described
below.
PSO Training
All personnel who conduct protected species monitoring are required
to complete Eglin AFB's Marine Species Observer Training Course, which
was developed in consultation with NMFS. The required PSO training
covers applicable environmental laws and regulations, consequences of
non-compliance, PSO roles and responsibilities, photographs and
descriptions of protected species and indicators, survey methods,
monitoring requirements, and reporting procedures. Any person who will
serve as a PSO for a particular mission must have completed the
training within a year prior to the mission. For missions that require
multiple survey platforms to cover a large area, a Lead Biologist is
designated to lead the monitoring and coordinate sighting information
with the Eglin AFB Test Director (Test Director) or the Eglin AFB
Safety Officer (Safety Officer).
Note that all three monitoring platforms described in Table 40 are
not needed for all missions. The use of the platforms for a given
mission are evaluated based on mission logistics, public safety, and
the effectiveness of the platform to monitor for protected species.
Vessel and video monitoring are almost always used but aerial
monitoring may not be used for some missions because it is not needed
in addition to the vessel-based surveys that are conducted. Aerial
monitoring is considered to be supplemental to vessel-based monitoring
and is used only when needed, for example if not enough vessels are
available or to provide coverage in areas farther offshore where using
vessels may be more logistically difficult. Note that at least one of
the monitoring platforms described in Table 40 must be used for every
mission. In most instances, two or three of the monitoring platforms
will be employed.
Table 40--Monitoring Options Required to the Extent Practicable and Locations for Live Air-to-Surface Mission Proponents Operating in the EGTTR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring platform Location
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
User group Mission-day category Munition type Aerial- Vessel- Video- Outside
based based based LIA East LIA LIAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 WEG............................ A Missile............. x x x x x ..........
B Missile, Bomb....... x x x x x ..........
C Missile............. x x x x x ..........
D Missile............. x x x x x ..........
E Missile, Bomb, x x x x x ..........
Rocket, Gun
Ammunition.
AFSOC............................. F Bomb................ x x x x x ..........
[[Page 8186]]
G Gun Ammunition...... x .......... .......... x x x
H Gun Ammunition...... x .......... .......... x x x
I Rockets............. x x x x x ..........
96 OG............................. J Bomb................ x x x x x ..........
K Hypersonic.......... x x x x x ..........
L Missile, Bomb....... x x x x x ..........
M Bomb................ x x x x x ..........
N Missile, Bomb....... x x x x x ..........
O Missile............. x x x x x ..........
P Missile............. x x x x x ..........
Q Gun Ammunition...... x .......... .......... x x ..........
R Bomb, Gun Ammunition x .......... .......... x x ..........
NAVSCOLOED........................ S Charge.............. .......... x .......... x x x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Platforms
Vessel-Based Monitoring
Pre-mission surveys conducted from vessels will typically begin at
sunrise. Vessel-based monitoring is required for all mission-day
categories except for gunnery missions. Trained marine species PSOs
will use dedicated vessels to monitor for protected marine species and
potential indicators during the pre-mission surveys. For missions that
require multiple vessels to cover a large survey area, a Lead Biologist
will be designated to coordinate all survey efforts, compile sighting
information from the other vessels, serve as the point of contact
between the survey vessels and Tower Control, and provide final
recommendations to the Safety Officer/Test Director on the suitability
of the mission site based on environmental conditions and survey
results.
Survey vessels will run predetermined line transects, or survey
routes, that will provide sufficient coverage of the survey area.
Monitoring will be conducted from the highest point feasible on the
vessels. There will be at least two PSOs on each vessel, and they will
each use professional-grade binoculars.
All sighting information from pre-mission surveys will be
communicated to the Lead Biologist on a predetermined radio channel to
reduce overall radio chatter and potential confusion. After compiling
all the sighting information from the other survey vessels, the Lead
Biologist will inform Tower Control if the survey area is clear or not
clear of protected species. If the area is not clear, the Lead
Biologist will provide recommendations on whether the mission should be
postponed or cancelled. For example, a mission postponement would be
recommended if a protected species is in the mitigation zone but
appears to be heading away from the mission area. The postponement
would continue until the Lead Biologist has confirmed that the animals
are no longer in the mitigation zone and are swimming away from the
range. A mission cancellation could be recommended if one or more
protected species are sighted in the mitigation zones and there is no
indication that they would leave the area within a reasonable time
frame. Tower Control will relay the Lead Biologist's recommendation to
the Safety Officer. The Safety Officer and Test Director will
collaborate regarding range conditions based on the information
provided. Ultimately, the Safety Officer will have final authority on
decisions regarding postponements and cancellations of missions.
Human Safety Zone Monitoring
Established range clearance procedures are followed during all
EGTTR missions for public safety. Prior to each mission, a human safety
zone appropriate for the mission is established around the target area.
The size of the human safety zone varies depending on the munition type
and delivery method. A composite safety zone is often developed for
missions that involve multiple munition types and delivery methods. A
typical composite safety zone is octagon-shaped to make it easier to
monitor by range clearing boats and easier to interpret by the public
when it is overlaid on maps with latitude and longitude coordinates.
The perimeter of a composite safety zone may extend out to
approximately 15 miles (13 nmi) from the center of the zone and may be
monitored by up to 25 range-clearing boats to ensure it is free of any
non-participating vessels before and during the mission.
Air Force Support Vessels
USAF support vessels will be operated by a combination of USAF and
civil service/civilian personnel responsible for mission site/target
setup and range-clearing activities. For each mission, USAF personnel
will be within the mission area (on boats and the GRATV) well in
advance of initial munitions use, typically around sunrise. While in
the mission area, they will perform a variety of tasks, such as target
preparation and equipment checks, and will also observe for marine
mammals and indicators when possible. Any sightings would be relayed to
the Lead Biologist.
The Safety Officer, in cooperation with the CCF (Central Control
Facility) and Tower Control, will coordinate and manage all range-
clearing efforts and will be in direct communication with the survey
vessel team, typically through the Lead Biologist. All support vessels
will be in radio contact with each other and with Tower Control. The
Safety Officer will monitor all radio communications, and Tower Control
will relay messages between the vessels and the Safety Officer. The
Safety Officer and Tower Control will also be in constant contact with
the Test Director throughout the mission to convey information on range
clearance and marine species surveys. Final decisions regarding mission
execution, including possible mission postponement or cancellation
based on marine species sightings or civilian boat traffic, will be the
responsibility of the Safety Officer, with concurrence from the Test
Director.
Aerial-Based Monitoring
Aircraft provide an excellent viewing platform for detecting marine
mammals at or near the sea surface. Depending on the mission, the
aerial survey team will consist of Eglin AFB Natural Resources
[[Page 8187]]
Office personnel or their designees aboard a non-mission aircraft or
the mission aircrew who have completed the PSO training. The Eglin AFB
Natural Resources Office has overall responsibility for implementing
the natural resources management program and is the lead organization
for monitoring compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local
regulations. It reports to the installation command, the 96th Test
Wing, via the Environmental Management Branch of the 96th Civil
Engineer Group. All mission-day categories require aerial-based
monitoring, assuming assets are available and when such monitoring does
not interfere with testing and training parameters required by mission
proponents. Note that gunnery mission aircraft must also serve as
aerial-based monitoring platforms.
For non-mission aircraft, the pilot will be instructed on marine
species survey techniques and will be familiar with the protected
species expected to occur in the area. One PSO in the aircraft will
record data and relay information on species sightings, including the
species (if possible), location, direction of movement, and number of
animals, to the Lead Biologist. The aerial team will also look for
potential indicators of protected species presence, such as large
schools of fish and large, active groups of birds. Pilots will fly the
aircraft so that the entire mitigation and monitoring zones (and a
buffer, if required) are monitored. Marine species sightings from the
aerial survey team will be compiled by the Lead Biologist and
communicated to the Test Director or Safety Officer. Monitoring by non-
mission aircraft would be conducted only for certain missions, when the
use of such aircraft is practicable based on other mission-related
factors.
Some mission aircraft have the capability to conduct aerial surveys
for marine species immediately prior to releasing munitions. Mission
aircraft used to conduct aerial surveys will be operated at reasonable
and safe altitudes appropriate for visually scanning the sea surface
and/or using onboard instrumentation to detect protected species. The
primary mission aircraft that conduct aerial surveys for marine species
are the AC-130 gunship and CV-22 Osprey used for gunnery operations.
AC-130 gunnery training involves the use of 30 mm and 105 mm FU
rounds during daytime and 30 mm and 105 mm TRs during nighttime. The TR
variant (0.35 lb (0.15 kg) NEW) of the 105 mm HE round has less
explosive material than the FU round (4.7 lb (2.13 kg) NEW). AC-130s
are equipped with and required to use low-light electro-optical and
infrared sensor systems that provide excellent night vision. Gunnery
missions use the 105 mm TRs during nighttime missions as an additional
mitigation measure for protected marine species. If a towed target is
used, mission personnel will maintain the target in the center portion
of the survey area to ensure gunnery impacts do not extend past the
predetermined mitigation and monitoring zones. During the low-altitude
orbits and climb, the aircrew will visually scan the sea surface for
the presence of protected marine species. The visual survey will be
conducted by the flight crew in the cockpit and personnel stationed in
the tail observer bubble and starboard viewing window.
After arriving at the mission site and before initiating gun
firing, the aircraft would be required to fly at least two complete
orbits around the target area out to the applicable monitoring zone at
a minimum safe airspeed and appropriate monitoring altitude. If no
protected species or indicators are detected, the aircraft will then
ascend to an operational altitude while continuing to orbit the target
area as it climbs. The initial orbits typically last approximately 10
to 15 minutes. Monitoring for marine species and non-participating
vessels continues throughout the mission. When aerial monitoring is
conducted by aircraft, a minimum ceiling of 305 m (1,000 feet) and
visibility of 5.6 km (3 nmi) are required for effective monitoring
efforts and flight safety.
Infrared systems are equally effective during day or night.
Nighttime missions would be conducted by AC-130s that have been
upgraded recently with MX-25D sensor systems, which provide superior
night-vision capabilities relative to earlier sensor systems. CV-22
training involves the use of only .50 caliber rounds, which do not
contain explosive material and, therefore, do not detonate. Aircrews
will conduct visual and instrumentation-based scans during the post-
mission survey as described for the pre-mission survey.
Video-Based Monitoring
Video-based monitoring is conducted via transmission of live, high-
definition video feeds from the GRATV at the mission site to the CCF
and is required on all mission-day categories except for gunnery
missions. These video feeds can be used to remotely view the mission
site to evaluate environmental conditions and monitor for marine
species up to the time munitions are used. There are multiple sources
of video that can be streamed to multiple monitors within the CCF. A
PSO from Eglin Natural Resources will monitor the live video feeds
transmitted to the CCF when practicable and will report any protected
marine species sightings to the Safety Officer, who will also be at the
CCF. Video monitoring can mitigate the lapse in time between the end of
the pre-mission survey and the beginning of the mission.
Four video cameras are typically operated on the GRATV for real-
time monitoring and data collection during the mission. All cameras
have a zoom capability of up to at least a 300 mm equivalent. The
cameras allow video PSOs to detect an item as small as 1 square foot
(0.09 square m) up to 4,000 m away.
Supplemental video monitoring must be used when practicable via
additional aerial assets. Aerial assets with video monitoring
capabilities include Eglin AFB's aerostat balloon and unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs). These aerial assets support certain missions, for
example by providing video of munition detonations and impacts; these
assets are not used during all missions. The video feeds from these
aerial assets can be used to monitor protected species; however, they
would always be a supplemental form of monitoring that would be used
only when available and practicable. Eglin AFB's aerostat balloon
provides aerial imagery of weapon impacts and instrumentation relay.
When used, it is tethered to a boat anchored near the GRATV. The
balloon can be deployed to an altitude of up to 2,000 ft (607 m). It is
equipped with a high-definition camera system that is remotely
controlled to pivot and focus on a specific target or location within
the mission site. The video feed from the camera system is transmitted
to the CCF. Eglin AFB may also employ other assets such as
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft to provide
real-time imagery or relay targeting pod videos from mission aircraft.
UAVs may also be employed to provide aerial video surveillance. While
each of these platforms may not be available for all missions, they
typically can be used in combination with each other and with the GRATV
cameras to supplement overall monitoring efforts. Even with a variety
of platforms potentially available to supply video feeds to the CCF,
the entirety of the mitigation and monitoring zones may not be visible
for the entire duration of the mission. The targets and immediate
surrounding areas will typically be in the field of view of the GRATV
cameras, which will allow the PSO to detect any protected species that
may enter the target area before weapon releases. The cameras
[[Page 8188]]
also allow the PSO to readily inspect the target area for any signs
that animals were injured. If a protected marine species is detected on
the live video, the weapon release can be stopped almost immediately
because the video camera PSO is in direct contact with Test Director
and Safety Officer at the CCF.
The video camera PSO will have open lines of communication with the
PSOs on vessels to facilitate real-time reporting of marine species
sightings and other relevant information, such as the presence of non-
participating vessels near the human safety zone. Direct radio
communication will be maintained between vessels, GRATV personnel, and
Tower Control throughout the mission. The Safety Officer will monitor
all radio communications from the CCF, and information between the
Safety Officer and support vessels will be relayed via Tower Control.
Post-Mission Monitoring
During post-mission monitoring, PSOs would survey the mission site
for any dead or injured marine mammals. Vessels will move into the
survey area from outside the safety zone and monitor for at least 30
minutes, concentrating on the area down current of the test site. The
duration of post-mission surveys is based on the survey platforms used
and any potential time lapse between the last detonation and the
beginning of the post-mission survey. This lapse typically occurs when
survey vessels stationed on the perimeter of the human safety zone are
required to wait until the range has been declared clear before they
can begin the survey. Up to 10 USAF support vessels will spend several
hours in this area collecting debris from damaged targets.
All vessels will report any dead or injured marine mammals to the
Lead Biologist. All marine mammal sightings during post-mission surveys
are documented on report forms that are submitted to Eglin Natural
Resources Office after the mission. The post-mission survey area will
be the area covered in 30 minutes of observation in a direction down-
current from impact site or the actual pre-mission survey area,
whichever is reached first.
For gunnery missions, aircrews must conduct a post-mission surveys
beginning at the operational altitude and continuing through an
orbiting descent to the designated monitoring altitude. The descent
will typically last approximately 3 to 5 minutes. The post-mission
survey area will be the area covered in 30 minutes of observation in a
direction down-current from impact site or the actual pre-mission
survey area, whichever is reached first. Aircrews will conduct visual
and instrumentation-based scans during the post-mission survey as
described for the pre-mission survey.
As agreed upon between the USAF and NMFS, the proposed mitigation
monitoring measures presented in the Proposed Mitigation section focus
on the protection and management of potentially affected marine
mammals. A well-designed monitoring program can provide important
feedback for validating assumptions made in analyses and allow for
adaptive management of marine resources.
Adaptive Management
NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Eglin AFB
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 Eglin AFB's acoustic monitoring study; (2)
results from monitoring during previous year(s); (3) results from other
marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and (4) 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 the Gulf of Mexico, 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.
Proposed Reporting
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that, in order to issue
incidental take authorization for an activity, NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as to
ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
A summary annual report of marine mammal observations and mission
activities must be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office and
the NMFS Office of Protected Resources 90 days after completion of
mission activities each year. A final report shall be prepared and
submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft
report from NMFS. This annual report must include the following
information:
Date, time and location of each mission including mission-
day category, general munition type, and specific munitions used;
Complete description of the pre-mission and post-mission
monitoring activities including type and location of monitoring
platforms utilized (i.e., vessel-, aerial or video-based);
Summary of mitigation measures employed including
postponements, relocations, or cancellations of mission activity;
Number, species, and any other relevant information
regarding marine mammals observed and estimated exposed/taken during
activities;
Description of the observed behaviors (in both presence
and absence of test activities);
Environmental conditions when observations were made,
including visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind speed, and swell
height and direction;
Assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of
mitigation and monitoring measures; and
PSO observation results as provided through the use of
protected species observer report forms.
A Final Comprehensive Report summarizing monitoring and mitigation
activities over the 7-year LOA effective period must be submitted 90
days after the completion of mission activities at the end of Year 7.
If a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is found during post-
mission monitoring, the incident must be reported to the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding
Network, and the Florida Marine Mammal Stranding Network. In the
unanticipated event that any cases of marine mammal mortality are
judged to result from missions in the EGTTR at any time during the
period covered by the LOA, this will be reported to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources and the National Marine Fisheries Service's
Southeast Regional Administrator. The report must include the following
information:
1. Time and date of the incident;
2. Description of the incident;
3. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, cloud
cover, and visibility);
[[Page 8189]]
4. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
5. Fate of the animal(s); and
6. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Mission activities must not resume in the EGTTR until NMFS is able
to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. If it is determined
that the unauthorized take was caused by mission activities, NMFS will
work with the USAF to determine what measures are necessary to minimize
the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance.
The USAF may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
Past Monitoring Results in the EGTTR
Eglin AFB has submitted to NMFS annual reports that summarize the
results of protected species surveys conducted for EGTTR missions. From
2010 to 2021, Eglin AFB conducted 67 gunnery missions in the EGTTR. To
date, there has been no evidence that marine mammals have been impacted
from gunnery operations conducted in the EGTTR. The use of
instrumentation on the AC-130 and CV-22 in pre-mission surveys has
proven effective to ensure the mission site is clear of protected
species prior to gun firing. Monitoring altitudes during pre-mission
surveys for both the AC-130 and CV-22 are much lower than 15,000 ft
(4,572 m); therefore, the instrumentation on these aircraft would be
even more effective at detecting marine species than indicated by
photographs. From 2013 to 2020, Eglin AFB conducted 25 live missions
collectively under the Maritime Strike Operations and Maritime Weapons
System Evaluation Program (WSEP) Operational Testing programs in the
EGTTR. From 2016-2021, Eglin AFB conducted 16 live PSW (Precision
Strike Weapon) missions in the EGTTR. Protected species monitoring for
these past missions was conducted using a combination of vessel-based
surveys and live video monitoring from the CCF, as described. Pre-
mission survey areas for Maritime WSEP and PSW missions were based on
mission-day categories developed per NMFS's request to account for the
accumulated energy from multiple detonations. Note that surveys
conducted for the earlier Maritime Strike missions were based on
thresholds determined for single detonations; however, these Maritime
WSEP and PSW missions involved detonations of larger munitions. There
has been no evidence of mortality, injury, or any other detectable
adverse impact to any marine mammal from the Maritime Strike, Maritime
WSEP, or WSEP missions conducted to date. Dolphins were sighted within
the mitigation zone prior to ordnance delivery during some of these
past missions. In these cases, the mission was postponed until the
animals were confirmed to be outside the mitigation zone. Although
monitoring during and following munitions use is limited to observable
impacts within and in the vicinity of the mission area, the lack of any
past evidence of any associated impacts on marine mammals is an
indication that the monitoring and mitigation measures implemented for
EGTTR operations are effective.
Eglin AFB submitted annual reports required under the existing LOA
from 2018-2021. Although marine mammals were sighted on a number of
mission days, usually during pre-and post-mission surveys, Eglin AFB
concluded that no marine mammal takes occurred as a result of any
mission activities from 2018-2021. The annual monitoring reports are
available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-us-air-force-testing-and-training-activities-eglin-gulf-test.
Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact 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 (i.e., population-
level effects) (50 CFR 216.103). An estimate of the number of takes
alone is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In considering how Level A harassment or Level B
harassment factor into the negligible impact analysis, in addition to
considering the number of estimated takes, NMFS considers 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 effects on habitat, and the
likely effectiveness of the mitigation. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities
are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population
size and growth rate where known).
In the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of this proposed
rule, we identified the subset of potential effects that are reasonably
expected to occur and rise to the level of takes based on the methods
described. The impact that any given take will have on an individual,
and ultimately the species or stock, is dependent on many case-specific
factors that need to be considered in the negligible impact analysis
(e.g., the context of behavioral exposures such as duration or
intensity of a disturbance, the health of impacted animals, the status
of a species that incurs fitness-level impacts to individuals, etc.).
For this proposed rule, we evaluated the likely impacts of the number
of harassment takes reasonably expected to occur, and proposed for
authorization, in the context of the specific circumstances surrounding
these predicted takes. Last, we collectively evaluated this
information, as well as other more taxa-specific information and
mitigation measure effectiveness, to support our negligible impact
conclusions for each species and stock.
As explained in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, no
take by serious injury or mortality is proposed for authorization or
anticipated to occur. Further, any Level A harassment would be expected
to be in the form of PTS; no non-auditory injury is anticipated or
authorized.
The Specified Activities reflect maximum levels of training and
testing activities. The Description of the Proposed Activity section
describes annual activities. There may be some flexibility in the exact
number of missions that may vary from year to year, but take totals
will not exceed the maximum annual numbers or the 7-year totals
indicated in Table 35. We base our analysis and negligible impact
determination on the maximum number of takes that are reasonably
expected to occur and that are proposed for authorization, although, as
stated before, the number of takes are only a part of the analysis,
which includes qualitative consideration of other contextual factors
that influence the degree of impact of the takes on the affected
individuals. To avoid repetition, in this Preliminary Analysis and
Negligible Impact Determination section we provide some general
analysis that applies to all the species and stocks listed in Table 35,
given that some of the anticipated effects of the USAF's training and
testing activities on marine mammals are expected to be relatively
similar in nature. Next, we break up our analysis by species and stock,
to provide more specific information related to the anticipated effects
on individuals of that species and to discuss where there is
information about the status or structure of any species that would
lead to a
[[Page 8190]]
differing assessment of the effects on the species.
The USAF's take request, which, as described above, is for
harassment only, is based on its acoustic effects model. The model
calculates sound energy propagation from explosive and inert munitions
during training and testing activities in the EGTTR. The munitions
proposed to be used by each military unit were grouped into mission-day
categories so the acoustic impact analysis could be based on the total
number of detonations conducted during a given mission to account for
the accumulated energy from multiple detonations over a 24-hour period.
A total of 19 mission-day categories were developed for the munitions
proposed to be used. Using the dBSea underwater acoustic model and
associated analyses, the threshold distances and harassment zones were
estimated for each mission-day category for each marine mammal species.
Takes were estimated based on the area of the harassment zones,
predicted animal density, and annual number of events for each mission-
day category. To assess the potential impacts of inert munitions on
marine mammals, the proposed inert munitions were categorized into four
classes based on their impact energies, and the threshold distances for
each class were modeled and calculated as described for the mission-day
categories. Assumptions in the USAF model intentionally err on the side
of overestimation. For example, the model conservatively assumes that
(1) the water surface is flat (no waves) to allow for maximum energy
reflectivity; (2) munitions striking targets confer all weapon energy
into underwater acoustic energy; and (3) above or at surface explosions
assume no energy losses from surface effects (e.g., venting which
dissipates energy through the ejection of water and release of
detonation gases into the atmosphere).
Generally speaking, the USAF and NMFS anticipate more severe
effects from takes resulting from exposure to higher received levels
(though this is in no way a strictly linear relationship for behavioral
effects throughout species, individuals, or circumstances) and less
severe effects from takes resulting from exposure to lower received
levels. However, there is also growing evidence of the importance of
distance in predicting marine mammal behavioral response to sound--
i.e., sounds of a similar level emanating from a more distant source
have been shown to be less likely to evoke a response of equal
magnitude (DeRuiter 2012, Falcone et al. 2017). The estimated number of
Level A harassment and Level B harassment takes does not necessarily
equate to the number of individual animals the USAF expects to harass
(which is likely slightly lower). Rather, the estimates are for the
instances of take (i.e., exposures above the Level A harassment and
Level B harassment threshold) that are anticipated to occur annually
and over the 7-year period. Some of the enumerated instances of
exposure could potentially represent exposures of the same individual
marine mammal on different days, meaning that the number of individuals
taken is less than the number of instances of take, but the nature of
the activities in this rule (e.g., short duration, intermittent) and
the distribution and behavior of marine mammals in the area do not
suggest that any single marine mammal would likely be taken on more
than a few days within a year. Further, any of these instances of take
may represent either brief exposures (seconds) or, in some cases,
several exposures within a day. Most explosives detonating at or near
the surface have brief exposures lasting only a few milliseconds to
minutes for the entire event. Explosive events may be a single event
involving one explosion (single exposure) or a series of intermittent
explosives (multiple explosives) occurring over the course of a day.
Gunnery events, in some cases, may have longer durations of exposure to
intermittent sound. In general, gunnery events can last intermittently
up to 90 minutes total, but typically lasts approximately 30 minutes.
Live firing is continuous, with pauses usually lasting well under 1
minute and rarely up to 5 minutes.
Behavioral Disturbance
Behavioral reactions from explosive sounds are likely to be similar
to reactions studied for other impulsive sounds such as those produced
by air guns. Impulsive signals, particularly at close range, have a
rapid rise time and higher instantaneous peak pressure than other
signal types, making them more likely to cause startle responses or
avoidance responses. Most data has come from seismic surveys that occur
over long durations (e.g., on the order of days to weeks), and
typically utilize large multi-air gun arrays that fire repeatedly.
While seismic air gun data provides the best available science for
assessing behavioral responses to impulsive sounds (i.e., sounds from
explosives) by marine mammals, it is likely that these responses
represent a worst-case scenario compared to most USAF explosive noise
sources, because the overall duration of exposure to a seismic airgun
survey would be expected to be significantly longer than the exposure
to sounds from any exercise using explosives.
Take estimates alone do not provide information regarding the
potential fitness or other biological consequences of the reactions on
the affected individuals. NMFS therefore considers the available
activity-specific, environmental, and species-specific information to
determine the likely nature of the modeled behavioral responses and the
potential fitness consequences for affected individuals.
In the range of potential behavioral effects that might be expected
to be part of a response that qualifies as an instance of Level B
harassment by behavioral disturbance (which by nature of the way it is
modeled/counted, occurs within one day), the less severe end might
include exposure to comparatively lower levels of a sound, at a
detectably greater distance from the animal, for a few or several
minutes. A less severe exposure of this nature could result in a
behavioral response such as avoiding an area that an animal would
otherwise have chosen to move through or feed in for some amount of
time or breaking off one or a few feeding bouts. More severe effects
could occur when the animal gets close enough to the source to receive
a comparatively higher level, or is exposed intermittently to different
sources throughout a day. Such effects might result in an animal having
a more severe flight response and leaving a larger area for a day or
more or potentially losing feeding opportunities for a day. However,
such severe behavioral effects are expected to occur infrequently since
monitoring and mitigation requirements would limit exposures to marine
mammals. Additionally, previous marine mammal monitoring efforts in the
EGTTR over a number of years have not demonstrated any impacts on
marine mammals.
The majority of Level B harassment takes are expected to be in the
form of milder responses (i.e., lower-level exposures that still rise
to the level of take) of a generally shorter duration due to lower
received levels that would occur at greater distances from the
detonation site due to required monitoring and mitigation efforts. For
example, the largest munitions (e.g. mission-day category A with 2,413
lb (1.094.6 kg) NEWi) feature up to 10 intermittent explosions over
several hours. However, it is likely that animals would not be present
in the PTS or TTS zones due to mitigation efforts, and this activity
would occur on only a single day per year. Gunnery missions may last
continuously up to 90 minutes, but most will be less than 30 minutes
and the NEWi of such missions (i.e., 191.6 to
[[Page 8191]]
61.1 lb (86.9 to 27.7 kg) are relatively small. We anticipate more
severe effects from takes when animals are exposed to higher received
levels or at closer proximity to the source. However, depending on the
context of an exposure (e.g., depth, distance, if an animal is engaged
in important behavior such as feeding), a behavioral response can vary
across species and individuals within a species. Specifically, given a
range of behavioral responses that may be classified as Level B
harassment, to the degree that higher received levels are expected to
result in more severe behavioral responses, only a smaller percentage
of the anticipated Level B harassment from USAF activities would be
expected to potentially result in more severe responses. To fully
understand the likely impacts of the predicted/authorized take on an
individual (i.e., what is the likelihood or degree of fitness impacts),
one must look closely at the available contextual information presented
above, such as the duration of likely exposures and the likely severity
of the exposures (e.g., whether they will occur for a longer duration
over sequential days or the comparative sound level that will be
received). Ellison et al. (2012) and Moore and Barlow (2013), among
others, emphasize the importance of context (e.g., behavioral state of
the animals, distance from the sound source) in evaluating behavioral
responses of marine mammals to acoustic sources.
Diel Cycle
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Behavioral
reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical life
functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more
likely to be significant for fitness 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). It is
important to note the difference between behavioral reactions lasting
or recurring over multiple days and anthropogenic activities lasting or
recurring over multiple days (e.g., vessel traffic noise). The duration
of USAF activities utilizing explosives vary by mission category and
weapon type. There are a maximum of 230 mission days proposed in any
given year, assuming every mission category utilizes all of their
allotted mission days.
Many mission days feature only a single or limited number of
explosive munitions. Explosive detonations on such days would likely
last only a few seconds. There are likely to be days or weeks that pass
without mission activities. Because of their short activity duration
and the fact that they are in the open ocean and animals can easily
move away, it is similarly unlikely that animals would be exposed for
long, continuous amounts of time, or repeatedly, or demonstrate
sustained behavioral responses. All of these factors make it unlikely
that individuals would be exposed to the exercise for extended periods
or on consecutive days.
Temporary Threshold Shift
NMFS and the USAF have estimated that some species and stocks of
marine mammals may sustain some level of TTS from explosive
detonations. In general, TTS can last from a few minutes to days, be of
varying degree, and occur across various frequency bandwidths, all of
which determine the severity of the impacts on the affected individual,
which can range from minor to more severe. Explosives are generally
referenced as broadband because of the various frequencies. Table 32
indicates the number of takes by TTS that may be incurred by different
species from exposure to explosives. The TTS sustained by an animal is
primarily classified by three characteristics:
1. Frequency--Available data (of mid-frequency hearing specialists
exposed to mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall et al., 2007)
suggest that most TTS occurs in the frequency range of the source up to
one octave higher than the source (with the maximum TTS at one-half
octave above). TTS from explosives would be broadband.
2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how many dB the sensitivity of the
hearing is reduced)--Generally, both the degree of TTS and the duration
of TTS will be greater if the marine mammal is exposed to a higher
level of energy (which would occur when the peak dB level is higher or
the duration is longer). The threshold for the onset of TTS was
discussed previously in this proposed rule. An animal would have to
approach closer to the source or remain in the vicinity of the sound
source appreciably longer to increase the received SEL. The sound
resulting from an explosive detonation is considered an impulsive sound
and shares important qualities (i.e., short duration and fast rise
time) with other impulsive sounds such as those produced by air guns.
Given the anticipated duration and levels of sound exposure, we would
not expect marine mammals to incur more than relatively low levels of
TTS (i.e., single digits of sensitivity loss).
3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)--In the TTS laboratory studies
(as discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on
Marine Mammals and their Habitat section of the proposed rule), some
using exposures of almost an hour in duration or up to 217 SEL, almost
all individuals recovered within 1 day (or less, often in minutes),
although in one study (Finneran et al. 2007) recovery took 4 days. For
the same reasons discussed in the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible
Impact Determination - Diel Cycle section, and because of the short
distance animals would need to be from the sound source, it is unlikely
that animals would be exposed to the levels necessary to induce TTS in
subsequent time periods such that their recovery is impeded.
The TTS takes would be the result of exposure to explosive
detonations (broad-band). As described above, we expect the majority of
these takes to be in the form of mild (single-digit), short-term
(minutes to hours) TTS. This means that for one time a year, for
several minutes, a taken individual will have slightly diminished
hearing sensitivity (slightly more than natural variation, but nowhere
near total deafness). The expected results of any one of these small
number of mild TTS occurrences could be that (1) it does not overlap
signals that are pertinent to that animal in the given time period, (2)
it overlaps parts of signals that are important to the animal, but not
in a manner that impairs interpretation, or (3) it reduces
detectability of an important signal to a small degree for a short
amount of time--in which case the animal may be aware and be able to
compensate (but there may be slight energetic cost), or the animal may
have some reduced opportunities (e.g., to detect prey) or reduced
capabilities to react with maximum effectiveness (e.g., to detect a
predator or navigate optimally). However, given the small number of
times that any individual might incur TTS, the low degree of TTS and
the short anticipated duration, and the low likelihood that one of
these instances would occur across a time period in which the specific
TTS overlapped the entirety of a critical signal, it is unlikely that
TTS of the nature expected to result from the USAF's activities would
result in behavioral changes or other impacts that would impact any
such individual's reproduction or survival.
[[Page 8192]]
Auditory Masking
The ultimate potential impacts of masking on an individual (if it
were to occur) are similar to those discussed for TTS, but an important
difference is that masking only occurs during the time of the signal,
versus TTS, which continues beyond the duration of the signal.
Fundamentally, masking is referred to as a chronic effect because one
of the key potential harmful components of masking is its duration--the
fact that an animal would have reduced ability to hear or interpret
critical cues becomes much more likely to cause a problem the longer it
is occurring. Also inherent in the concept of masking is the fact that
the potential for the effect is only present during the times that the
animal and the source are in close enough proximity for the effect to
occur (and further, this time period would need to coincide with a time
that the animal was utilizing sounds at the masked frequency). As our
analysis has indicated, because of the sound sources primarily involved
in this rule, we do not expect the exposures with the potential for
masking to be of a long duration. Masking is fundamentally more of a
concern at lower frequencies, because low frequency signals propagate
significantly further than higher frequencies and because they are more
likely to overlap both the narrower low-frequency calls of mysticetes,
as well as many non-communication cues, such as sounds from fish and
invertebrate prey and geologic sounds that inform navigation. Masking
is also more of a concern from continuous (versus intermittent) sources
when there is no quiet time between a sound source within which
auditory signals can be detected and interpreted. Explosions introduce
low-frequency, broadband sounds into the environment, which could
momentarily mask hearing thresholds in animals that are nearby,
although sounds from missile and bomb explosions last for only a few
seconds. Sound from gunnery ammunition, however, can last up to 90
minutes, although a 30-minute duration is more typical. Masking due to
these relatively short duration detonations would not be significant.
Effects of masking are only present when the sound from the explosion
is present, and the effect is over the moment the sound is no longer
detectable. Therefore, short-term exposure to the predominantly
intermittent or single explosions are not expected to result in a
meaningful amount of masking. For the reasons described here, any
limited masking that could potentially occur from explosives would be
minor, short-term and intermittent. Long-term consequences from
physiological stress due to the sound of explosives would not be
expected. In conclusion, masking is more likely to occur in the
presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources, such as
from vessels; however, the duration of temporal and spatial overlap
with any individual animal would not be expected to result in more than
short-term, low impact masking that would not affect reproduction or
survival of individuals.
Auditory Injury (Permanent Threshold Shift)
Table 42 indicates the number of individuals of each species for
which Level A harassment in the form of PTS resulting from exposure to
or explosives is estimated to occur. The number of individuals to
potentially incur PTS annually from explosives for each species ranges
from 0 (Rice's whale) to 9 (bottlenose dolphin). As described
previously, no species are expected to incur non-auditory injury from
explosives.
As discussed previously, the USAF utilizes aerial, vessel and video
monitoring to detect marine mammals for mitigation implementation,
which is not taken into account when estimating take by PTS. Therefore,
NMFS expects that Level A harassment is unlikely to occur at the
authorized numbers. However, since it is difficult to quantify the
degree to which the mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of
animals that might incur Level A harassment, NMFS proposes to authorize
take by Level A harassment at the numbers derived from the exposure
model. These estimated Level A harassment take numbers represent the
maximum number of instances in which marine mammals would be reasonably
expected to incur PTS, and we have analyzed them accordingly. In
relation to TTS, the likely consequences to the health of an individual
that incurs PTS can range from mild to more serious depending upon the
degree of PTS and the frequency band. Any PTS accrued as a result of
exposure to USAF activities would be expected to be of a small amount
due to required monitoring and mitigation measures. Permanent loss of
some degree of hearing is a normal occurrence for older animals, and
many animals are able to compensate for the shift, both in old age or
at younger ages as the result of stressor exposure (Green et al. 1987;
Houser et al. 2008; Ketten 2012). While a small loss of hearing
sensitivity may include some degree of energetic costs for compensating
or may mean some small loss of opportunities or detection capabilities,
at the expected scale it would be unlikely to impact behaviors,
opportunities, or detection capabilities to a degree that would
interfere with reproductive success or survival of any individuals.
Physiological Stress Response
Some of the lower level physiological stress responses (e.g.,
orientation or startle response, change in respiration, change in heart
rate) discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on
Marine Mammals and their Habitat would 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. However, we would not expect the USAF's
generally short-term and intermittent activities to create conditions
of long-term, continuous noise leading to long-term physiological
stress responses in marine mammals that could affect reproduction or
survival.
Table 41--Annual Estimated Takes by Level A and Level B Harassment for Marine Mammals in the EGTTR and the Number Indicating the Instances of Total Take
as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed annual take by Level A and Level B
harassment Takes as a
Common name Stock/DPS ------------------------------------------------ Total take Abundance percentage of
Behavioral (2021 SARS) abundance
disturbance TTS PTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common bottlenose dolphin......... Northern Gulf of 817 319 9 1145 63,280 1.8
Mexico Continental
Shelf.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.......... Northern Gulf of 100 39 1 140 21,506 0.6
Mexico.
[[Page 8193]]
Rice's whale *.................... .................... 4 2 0 6 51 11.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ESA-listed species in EGTTR
Assessing the Number of Individuals Taken and the Likelihood of
Repeated Takes
The estimated takes by Level B harassment shown in Table 40
represent instances of take, not the number of individuals taken (the
much lower and less frequent takes by Level A harassment are far more
likely to be associated with separate individuals). As described
previously, USAF modeling uses the best available science to predict
the instances of exposure above certain acoustic thresholds, which are
quantified as harassment takes. However, these numbers from the model
do not identify whether and when the enumerated instances occur to the
same individual marine mammal on different days, or how any such
repeated takes may impact those individuals. One method that NMFS can
use to help better understand the overall scope of the impacts is to
compare the total instances of take against the abundance of that
species (or stock if applicable). For example, if there are 100
estimated harassment takes in a population of 100, one can assume
either that every individual will be exposed above acoustic thresholds
in no more than 1 day, or that some smaller number will be exposed in
one day but a few individuals will be exposed multiple days within a
year and a few not exposed at all. Abundance percentage comparisons are
less than 8 percent for all authorized species and stocks. This means
that: (1) not all of the individuals will be taken, and many will not
be taken at all; (2) barring specific circumstances suggesting repeated
takes of individuals, the average or expected number of days taken for
those individuals taken is one per year; and (3) we would not expect
any individuals to be taken more than a few times in a year. There are
often extended periods of days or even weeks between individual mission
days, although a small number of mission-days may occur consecutively.
Marine mammals proposed to be authorized for take in this area of the
Gulf of Mexico have expansive ranges and are unlikely to congregate in
a small area that would be subject to repeated mission-related
exposures for an extended time.
To assist in understanding what this analysis means, we clarify a
few issues related to estimated takes and the analysis here. An
individual that incurs PTS or TTS may sometimes, for example, also be
subject to direct behavioral disturbance at the same time. As described
above in this section, the degree of PTS, and the degree and duration
of TTS, expected to be incurred from the USAF's activities are not
expected to impact marine mammals such that their reproduction or
survival could be affected. Similarly, data do not suggest that a
single instance in which an animal incurs PTS or TTS and also has an
additional direct behavioral response would result in impacts to
reproduction or survival. Accordingly, in analyzing the numbers of
takes and the likelihood of repeated and sequential takes, we consider
all the types of take, so that individuals potentially experiencing
both threshold shift and direct behavioral responses are appropriately
considered. The number of Level A harassment takes by PTS are so low
for dolphin species (and zero for Rice's whale) compared to abundance
numbers that it is considered highly unlikely that any individual would
be taken at those levels more than once.
Occasional, milder behavioral reactions are unlikely to cause long-
term consequences for individual animals or populations, and even if
some smaller subset of the takes are in the form of longer (several
hours or a day) and more severe responses, if they are not expected to
be repeated over sequential days, impacts to individual fitness are not
anticipated. Nearly all studies and experts agree that infrequent
exposures of a single day or less are unlikely to impact an
individual's overall energy budget (Farmer et al. 2018; Harris et al.
2017; NAS 2017; New et al. 2014; Southall et al. 2007; Villegas-Amtmann
et al. 2015).
Impacts to Marine Mammal Habitat
Any impacts to marine mammal habitat are expected to be relatively
minor. Noise and pressure waves resulting from live weapon detonations
are not likely to result in long-term physical alterations of the water
column or ocean floor. These effects are not expected to substantially
affect prey availability, are of limited duration, and are
intermittent. Impacts to marine fish were analyzed in our Potential
Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat
section as well as in the 2002 (REA)(USAF 2022). In the REA, it was
determined that fish populations were unlikely to be affected and prey
availability for marine mammals would not be impaired. Other factors
related to EGTTR activities that could potentially affect marine mammal
habitat include the introduction of metals, explosives and explosion
by-products, other chemical materials, and debris into the water column
and substrate due to the use of munitions and target vessels. However,
the effects of each were analyzed in the REA and were determined to be
not significant.
Species/Stock-Specific Analyses
This section builds on the broader discussion above and brings
together the discussion of the different types and amounts of take that
different species are likely to incur, the applicable mitigation, and
the status of the species to support the negligible impact
determinations for each species. We have described (above in the
Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section) the
unlikelihood of any masking having effects that would impact the
reproduction or survival of any of the individual marine mammals
affected by the USAF's activities. We also described in the Potential
Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat
section of the proposed rule the unlikelihood of any habitat impacts
having effects that would impact the reproduction or survival of any of
the individual marine mammals affected by the USAF's activities. There
is no predicted non-auditory tissue damage from explosives for any
species, and limited takes of dolphin species by PTS are predicted.
Much of the discussion below focuses on the Level B harassment
(behavioral disturbance and TTS) and the mitigation measures that
[[Page 8194]]
reduce the probability or severity of effects. Because there are
species-specific considerations, these are discussed below where
necessary.
Rice's Whale
The Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale was listed as an endangered
subspecies under the ESA in 2019. NMFS revised the common and
scientific name of the listed animal in 2021 to Rice's whale and
classification to a separate species to reflect the new scientifically
accepted taxonomy and nomenclature. NMFS has identified the core
distribution area in the northern Gulf of Mexico where the Rice's whale
is primarily found and, further, LaBreque et al. (2015) identify the
area as a small and resident BIA. The Rice's whale has a very small
estimated population size (51, Hayes et al. 2021) with limited
distribution.
NMFS is proposing to allow for the authorization of two annual
takes of Rice's whale by Level B harassment in the form of TTS and four
annual takes by Level B harassment in the form of behavioral
disturbance. The implementation of the required mitigation is expected
to minimize the severity of any behavioral disturbance and TTS of
Rice's whales. When we look at the northern Gulf of Mexico where the
USAF has been intensively training and testing with explosives in the
EGTTR for a number of years, there are no data suggesting any long-term
consequences to reproduction or survival rates of Rice's whale from
explosives.
Rice's whale will benefit from the mitigation measures proposed to
limit impacts to the species. As a mitigation measure to prevent any
PTS and limit TTS and behavioral impacts to the Rice's whale, the USAF
will restrict the use of live munitions in the western part of each LIA
based on the setbacks from the 100-m isobath presented earlier. The
USAF will also prohibit the use of inert munitions in Rice's whale
habitat (100-400 m depth) throughout the EGTTR. The less impactful 105
mm Training Round must be used by the USAF for nighttime missions and
all gunnery missions must be conducted 500 m landward of the 100-m
isobath. Furthermore, depending on the mission category, vessel-based,
aerial, or video feed monitoring would be required. Noise from
explosions is broadband with most energy below a few hundred Hz;
therefore, any reduction in hearing sensitivity from exposure to
explosive sounds is likely to be broadband with effects predominantly
at lower frequencies. The limited number of Rice's whales, estimated to
be two animals, that do experience TTS from exposure to explosives may
have reduced ability to detect biologically important sounds (e.g.,
social vocalizations). However, any TTS that would occur would be of
short duration.
Research and observations show that if mysticetes are exposed to
impulsive sounds such as those from explosives, they may react in a
variety of ways, which may include alerting, startling, breaking off
feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, changing
vocalization, or showing no response at all (DOD 2017; Nowacek 2007;
Richardson 1995; Southall et al. 2007). Overall, and in consideration
of the context for an exposure, mysticetes have been observed to be
more reactive to acoustic disturbance when a noise source is located
directly in their path or the source is nearby (somewhat independent of
the sound level) (Dunlop et al. 2016; Dunlop et al. 2018; Ellison et
al. 2011; Friedlaender et al. 2016; Henderson et al. 2019; Malme et al.
1985; Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007a). Animals disturbed
while engaged in feeding or reproductive behaviors may be more likely
to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their natural
behavior patterns. Because noise from most activities using explosives
is short term and intermittent, and because detonations usually occur
within a small area (most of which are set back from the primary area
of Rice's whale use), behavioral reactions from Rice's whales, if they
occur at all, are likely to be short term and of little to no
significance.
As described, the anticipated and proposed take of Rice's whale is
of a low magnitude and severity that is not expected to impact the
reproduction or survival of any individuals, much less population rates
of recruitment or survival. Accordingly, we have found that the take
allowable and proposed for authorization under the rule will have a
negligible impact on Rice's whales.
Delphinids
Neither the common bottlenose dolphin (Northern Gulf of Mexico
continental shelf stock) or Atlantic spotted dolphin (Gulf of Mexico
stock) are listed as strategic or depleted under the MMPA, and no
active unusual mortality events (UME) have been declared. No mortality
or non-auditory injury is predicted or proposed for authorization for
either of these species. There are no areas of known biological
significance for dolphins in the EGTTR. Repeated takes of the same
individual animals would be unlikely. The number of PTS takes from the
proposed activities are low (one for Atlantic spotted dolphin; nine for
common bottlenose dolphin). Because of the low degree of PTS discussed
previously (i.e., low amount of hearing sensitivity loss), it is
unlikely to affect reproduction or survival of any individuals.
Regarding the severity of individual takes by Level B harassment by
behavioral disturbance, we have explained the duration of any exposure
is expected to be between seconds and minutes (i.e., relatively short
duration) and the severity of takes by TTS are expected to be low-
level, of short duration and not at a level that will impact
reproduction or survival.
As described, the anticipated and proposed take of dolphins is of a
low magnitude and severity such that it is not expected to impact the
reproduction or survival of any individuals, much less population rates
of recruitment or survival. Accordingly, we have found that the take
allowable and proposed for authorization under the rule will have a
negligible impact on common bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted
dolphins.
Determination
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, NMFS
preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the
specified activities will have a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species. In addition as described previously, the USAF's
proposed implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures would
further reduce impacts to marine mammals.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species 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 the species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency ensure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of LOAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species, in this case with the NMFS Office of
[[Page 8195]]
Protected Resources Interagency Cooperation Division.
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of the Rice's whale, which is
listed under the ESA. The Permits and Conservation Division has
requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the Interagency
Cooperation Division for the issuance of this proposed rule. NMFS will
conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination
regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
NMFS will work with NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to
fulfill our responsibilities under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
as warranted and will complete any NMSA requirements prior to a
determination on the issuance of the final rule and LOA.
Classification
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 Federal
agencies 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. The USAF is the sole entity
that would be affected by this rulemaking, and the USAF is not a small
governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as
defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by an LOA issued pursuant
to these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements
imposed by these regulations, would be applicable only to the USAF.
NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the
associated LOA to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to
the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect the
USAF and not a small entity, NMFS concludes that the action would not
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine
mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood,
Sonar, Transportation, USAF.
Dated: January 30, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 218 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 218--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE
MAMMALS
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. Revise subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Air Force's
Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR)
Sec.
218.60 Specified activity and geographical region.
218.61 Effective dates.
218.62 Permissible methods of taking.
218.63 Prohibitions.
218.64 Mitigation requirements.
218.65 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
218.66 Letters of Authorization.
218.67 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
218.68 [Reserved]
218.69 [Reserved]
Sec. 218.60 Specified activity and geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Air Force
(USAF) for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area
described in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental
to the activities listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the USAF under this subpart may
be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs
within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR). The EGTTR is
located adjacent to Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties and
includes property on Santa Rosa Island and Cape San Blas. The EGTTR is
the airspace controlled by Eglin AFB over the Gulf of Mexico, beginning
3 nautical miles (nmi) from shore, and the underlying Gulf of Mexico
waters. The EGTTR extends southward and westward off the coast of
Florida and encompasses approximately 102,000 square nautical miles
(nmi\2\). It is subdivided into blocks of airspace that consist of
Warning Areas W-155, W-151, W-470, W-168, and W-174 and Eglin Water
Test Areas 1 through 6. The two primary components of the EGTTR Complex
are Live Impact Area and East Live Impact Area.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by the USAF is only authorized if
it occurs incidental to the USAF conducting training and testing
activities, including air warfare and surface warfare training and
testing activities.
Sec. 218.61 Effective dates.
Regulations in this subpart are effective for seven years from the
date of issuance.
Sec. 218.62 Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under an LOA issued pursuant to Sec. 216.106 of this
subchapter and Sec. 218.66, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter
``USAF'') may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals
within the area described in Sec. 218.60(b) by Level A and Level B
harassment associated training and testing activities described in
Sec. 218.60(c) provided the activity is in compliance with all terms,
conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the
applicable LOA.
(b) The incidental take of marine mammals by the activities listed
in Sec. 218.60(c) is limited to the species and stocks listed in Table
1 of this section.
Table 1 to Sec. 218.62(b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin................. Stenella frontalis..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Common Bottlenose dolphin................ Tursiops truncatus..................... Northern Gulf of Mexico
Continental Shelf.
Rice's whale............................. Balaenoptera ricei..................... No Stock Designated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8196]]
Sec. 218.63 Prohibitions.
Except for permissible incidental take described in Sec. 218.62
and authorized by an LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of this section and
Sec. 218.66, no person in connection with the activities listed in
Sec. 218.66 may do any of the following in connection with activities
listed in Sec. 218.60(c):
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, or
requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of
this section and Sec. 218.66;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec. 218.62(b);
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec. 218.62(b) in any
manner other than as specified in the LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of
this subchapter and Sec. 218.66;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec. 218.62(b) after NMFS
determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the
species or stock of such marine mammal.
Sec. 218.64 Mitigation requirements.
When conducting the activities identified in Sec. 218.60(c), the
mitigation measures contained in this part and any LOA issued under
Sec. 216.106 of this subchapter and Sec. 218.66 must be implemented.
These mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
(a) Operational measures. Operational mitigation is mitigation that
the USAF must implement whenever and wherever an applicable training or
testing activity takes place within the EGTTR for each mission-day
category.
(1) Pre-mission Survey.
(i) All missions must occur during daylight hours with the
exception of gunnery training and Hypersonic Active Cruise Missile
(HACM) Tests, and other missions that can have nighttime monitoring
capabilities comparable to the nighttime monitoring capabilities of
gunnery aircraft.
(ii) USAF range-clearing vessels and protected species survey
vessels must be onsite 90 minutes before mission to clear prescribed
human safety zone and survey the mitigation zone for the given mission-
day category.
(iii) For all live missions except gunnery missions, USAF Protected
Species Observers (PSOs) must monitor the mitigation zones as defined
in Table 2 for the given mission-day category for a minimum of 30
minutes or until the entirety of the mitigation zone has been surveyed,
whichever comes first.
(A) The mitigation zone for live munitions must be defined by the
mission-day category that most closely corresponds to the actual
planned mission based on the predicted net explosive weight at impact
(NEWi) to be released, as shown in Table 2.
(B) The mitigation zone for inert munitions must be defined by the
energy class that most closely corresponds to the actual planned
mission, as shown in Table 3.
(C) The energy of the actual mission must be less than the energy
of the identified mission-day category in terms of total NEWi as well
as the largest single munition NEWi.
(D) For any inert mission other than gunnery missions PSOs must at
a minimum monitor out to the mitigation zone distances shown in Table 3
that applies for the corresponding energy class.
(E) Missions falling under mission-day categories A, B, C, and J,
and all other missions when practicable must allot time to provide PSOs
to vacate the human safety zone. While exiting, PSOs must observe the
monitoring zone out to corresponding mission-day category as shown in
Table 1 to Sec. 218.64(a)(1)(iv).
(iv) For all missions except gunnery missions, PSOs and vessels
must exit and remain outside the human safety zone designated by the
USAF at least thirty minutes prior to live weapon deployment.
Table 1 to Sec. 218.64(a)(1)(iv)--Pre-Mission Mitigation and
Monitoring Zones (in m) for Live Missions Impact Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring
Mission-day category Mitigation zone \5\
zone \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.......................................... 1,130 TBD
B.......................................... 1,170 TBD
C.......................................... 1,090 TBD
D.......................................... 950 TBD
E.......................................... 950 TBD
F.......................................... 710 TBD
G.......................................... \1\ 9,260 550
H.......................................... \2\ 9,260 450
I.......................................... 280 TBD
J.......................................... 1,360 TBD
K.......................................... 520 TBD
L.......................................... 700 TBD
M.......................................... 580 TBD
N.......................................... 500 TBD
O.......................................... 370 TBD
P.......................................... 410 TBD
Q.......................................... \3\ 9,260 490
R.......................................... \4\ 280 and TBD
9,260
S.......................................... 860 TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For G, double the Level A harassment threshold distance (PTS) is
0.548 km, but G is AC-130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5 nmi.
\2\ For H, double the Level A harassment threshold distance (PTS) is
0.450 km, but H is AC-130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5 nmi.
\3\ For Q, double the Level A harassment threshold distance (PTS) is
0.494 km, but Q is AC-130 gunnery mission with an inherent mitigation
zone of 9.260 km/5nmi.
\4\ R has components of both gunnery and inert small diameter bomb.
Double the Level A harassment threshold distance (PTS) is 0.278 km,
however, for gunnery component the inherent mitigation zone would be
9.260 km.
\5\ The Monitoring Zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between the
Mitigation Zone and the Human Safety Zone and is not standardized, as
the Human Safety Zone is not standardized. The Human Safety Zone is
determined per each mission by the Test Wing Safety Office based on
the munition and parameters of its release (to include altitude,
pitch, heading, and airspeed).
\6\ Based on the operational altitudes of gunnery firing, and the only
monitoring during mission coming from onboard the aircraft conducting
the firing, the Monitoring Zone for gunnery missions will be a smaller
area than the Mitigation Zone and be based on the field of view from
the aircraft. These observable areas will at least be double the Level
A harassment threshold distance (PTS) for the mission-day categories
G, H, and Q (gunnery-only mission-day categories).
Table 2 to Sec. 218.64(a)(1)(iv)--Pre-Mission Mitigation and
Monitoring Zones (in m) for Inert Missions Impact Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation Monitoring
Inert impact class (lb TNTeq) zone zone \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................. 160 TBD
1............................................. 126 TBD
0.5........................................... 100 TBD
0.15.......................................... 68 TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Monitoring Zone for non-gunnery missions is the area between the
Mitigation Zone and the Human Safety Zone and is not standardized, as
the Human Safety Zone is not standardized. HSZ is determined per each
mission by the Test Wing Safety Office based on the munition and
parameters of its release (to include altitude, pitch, heading, and
airspeed).
[[Page 8197]]
(v) Missions involving air-to-surface gunnery operations must
conduct aerial monitoring of the mitigation zones, as described in the
Table 4.
Table 3 to Sec. 218.64(a)(1)(v)--Aerial Monitoring Requirements for Air-to-Surface Gunnery Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Gunnery round Mitigation zone Monitoring altitude Operational altitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC-30 Gunship........... 30 mm; 105 mm (FU 5 nmi (9,260 m)..... 6,000 ft (1,828 m).. 15,000 ft (4,572 m)
and TR). to 20,000 ft (6,096
m).
CV-22 Osprey............ .50 caliber......... 3 nmi (5,556 m)..... 1,000 ft (3,280 m).. 1,000 ft (3,280 m).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FU = Full Up; TR = Training Round.
(2) Mission postponement, relocation, or cancellation.
(i) If marine mammals other than the two authorized dolphin species
for which take is authorized are observed in either the mitigation zone
or monitoring zone by PSOs, then mission activities must be cancelled
for the remainder of the day.
(ii) The mission must be postponed, relocated or cancelled if
either of the two authorized dolphin species are visually detected in
the mitigation zone during the pre-mission survey. Postponement must
continue until the animals are confirmed to be outside of the
mitigation zone and observed by a PSO to be heading away from the
mitigation zone or until the animals are not seen again for 30 minutes.
(iii) The mission must be postponed if marine mammal indicators
(i.e., large schools of fish or large flocks of birds) are observed
feeding at the surface within the mitigation zone. Postponement must
continue until these potential indicators are confirmed to be outside
the mitigation zone.
(iv) If either of the two authorized dolphin species are observed
in the monitoring zone by PSOs when observation vessels are exiting the
human safety zone, and if PSOs determine the marine mammals are heading
toward the mitigation zone, then missions must either be postponed,
relocated, or cancelled based on mission-specific test and
environmental parameters. Postponement must continue until the animals
are confirmed by a PSO to be heading away from the mitigation zone or
until the animals are not seen again for 30 minutes.
(v) Aerial-based PSOs must look for potential indicators of
protected species presence, such as large schools of fish and large,
active groups of birds.
(vi) If protected marine species or potential indicators are
detected in the monitoring area during pre-mission surveys or during
the mission by aerial-based or video-based PSOs, operations must be
immediately halted until the mitigation zone is clear of all marine
mammals, or the mission must be relocated to another target area.
(3) Vessel avoidance measures.
(i) Vessel operators must follow Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures.
(A) When a marine mammal protected species is sighted, vessels must
attempt to maintain a distance of at least 150 ft (46 m) away from
protected species and 300 ft (92 m) away from whales. Vessels must
reduce speed and avoid abrupt changes in direction until the animal(s)
has left the area.
(B) If a whale is sighted in a vessel's path or within 300 feet (92
m) from the vessel, the vessel speed must be reduced and the vessel's
engine must be shifted to neutral. The engines must not be engaged
until the animals are clear of the area.
(C) If a whale is sighted farther than 300 feet (92 m) from the
vessel, the vessel must maintain a distance of 300 feet greater between
the whale and the vessel's speed must be reduced to 10 knots or less.
(D) Vessels are required to stay 500 m away from the Rice's whale.
If a baleen whale cannot be positively identified to species level then
it must be assumed to be a Rice's whale and the 500 m separation
distance must be maintained.
(E) Vessels must avoid transit in the Core Distribution Area (CDA)
and within the 100-400 m isobath zone outside the CDA. If transit in
these areas is unavoidable, vessels must not exceed 10 knots and
transit at night is prohibited.
(F) An exception to any vessel strike avoidance measure is for
instances required for human safety, such as when members of the public
need to be intercepted to secure the human safety zone, or when the
safety of a vessel operations crew could be compromised.
(4) Gunnery-specific Mitigation.
(A) 105-mm training rounds (TR) must be used during nighttime
gunnery missions.
(B) Ramp-up procedures. Within a mission, firing must start with
use of the lowest caliber munition and proceed to increasingly larger
rounds.
(C) Any pause in live fire activities greater than 10 minutes must
be followed by the re-initiation of protected species surveys.
(b) Geographic mitigation measures.
(1) Use of live munitions is restricted in the western part of the
existing LIA and proposed East LIA such that activities may not occur
seaward of the setbacks from the 100 m-isobath shown in Table 5.
Table 4 to Sec. 218.64(b)(1)--Setback Distances To Prevent Permanent Threshold Shift Impacts to the Rice's
Whale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setback from
User group Mission-day category NEWi (lb) 100-meter
isobath (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 WEG....................................... A 2,413.6 7.323
B 2,029.9 6.659
C 1,376.2 5.277
D 836.22 3.557
E 934.9 3.192
AFSOC........................................ F 584.6 3.169
I 29.6 0.394
96 OG........................................ J 946.8 5.188
K 350 1.338
[[Page 8198]]
L 627.1 3.315
M 324.9 2.017
N 238.1 1.815
O 104.6 0.734
P 130.8 0.787
Q 94.4 0.667
R 37.1 0.368
NAVSCOLEOD................................... S 130 1.042
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) All gunnery missions must be conducted at least 500 meters
landward of the 100-m isobath.
(3) Use of live munitions must be restricted to the LIA and East
LIA and is prohibited from the area between the 100-m and 400-m
isobaths.
(4) Use of inert munitions is prohibited between the 100-m and 400-
m isobaths throughout the EGTTR.
(5) Live Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missiles (HACMs) must be fired
into the EGTTR inside of the LIAs and outside of the area between 100-m
to 400-m isobaths
(6) Live HACMs (Mission-day category K) must have a setback of
1.338 km from the 100-m isobath.
(7) Inert HACMs may be fired into portions of the EGTTR outside the
LIAs but must be outside the area between the 100-m and 400-m isobaths.
(4) Environmental mitigation.
(i) Sea state conditions--Missions must be postponed or rescheduled
if conditions exceed Beaufort sea state 4, which is defined as moderate
breeze, breaking crests, numerous white caps, wind speed of 11 to 16
knots, and wave height of 3.3 to 6 feet.
(ii) Daylight Restrictions--All live missions except for nighttime
gunnery and hypersonic weapon missions will occur no earlier than 2
hours after sunrise and no later than 2 hours before sunset.
Sec. 218.65 Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
(a) PSO Training. All personnel who conduct protected species
monitoring must complete Eglin Air Force Base's (AFB) Marine Species
Observer Training Course.
(1) Any person who will serve as a PSO for a particular mission
must have completed the training within a year prior to the mission.
(2) For missions that require multiple survey platforms to cover a
large area, a Lead Biologist must be designated to lead the monitoring
and coordinate sighting information with the Test Director or Safety
Officer.
(b) Vessel-based Monitoring.
(1) Survey vessels must run predetermined line transects, or survey
routes that will provide sufficient coverage of the survey area.
(2) Monitoring must be conducted from the highest point feasible on
the vessels.
(3) There must be at least two PSOs on each survey vessel.
(4) For missions that require multiple vessels to cover a large
survey area, a Lead Biologist must be designated.
(i) The Lead Biologist must coordinate all survey efforts.
(ii) The Lead Biologist must compile sightings information from
other vessels.
(iii) The Lead Biologist must inform Tower Control if the
mitigation and monitoring zones are clear or not clear of protected
species.
(iv) If the area is not clear, the Lead Biologist must provide
recommendations on whether the mission should be postponed or canceled.
(v) Tower Control must relay the Lead Biologist's recommendation to
the Safety Officer. The Safety Officer and Test Director must
collaborate regarding range conditions based on the information
provided.
(vi) The Safety Officer must have the final authority on decisions
regarding postponements and cancellations of missions.
(c) Aerial-based monitoring.
(1) All mission-day categories require aerial-based monitoring,
assuming assets are available and when such monitoring does not
interfere with testing and training parameters required by mission
proponents.
(2) Gunnery mission aircraft must also serve as aerial-based
monitoring platforms.
(3) Aerial survey teams must consist of Eglin Natural Resources
Office personnel or their designees aboard a non-mission aircraft or
the mission aircrew.
(4) All aircraft personnel on non-mission and mission aircraft who
are acting in the role of a PSO must have completed Eglin AFB's Marine
Species Observer Training course.
(5) One trained PSO in the aircraft must record data and relay
information on species sightings, including the species (if possible),
location, direction of movement, and number of animals, to the Lead
Biologist.
(6) For gunnery missions, after arriving at the mission site and
before initiating gun firing, the aircraft must fly at least two
complete orbits around the target area out to the applicable monitoring
zone at a minimum safe airspeed and appropriate monitoring altitude.
(7) Aerial monitoring by aircraft must maintain a minimum ceiling
of 305 m (1,000 feet) and visibility of 5.6 km (3 nmi) for effective
monitoring efforts and flight safety as show in Table 5.
(8) Pre-mission aerial surveys conducted by gunnery aircrews in AC-
130s must extend out 5 nmi (9,260 m) from the target location while
aerial surveys in CV-22 aircraft must extend out from the target
location to a range of 3 nmi (5,556 m) as shown in Table 4.
(9) If the mission is relocated, the pre-mission survey procedures
must be repeated in the new area.
(10) If multiple gunnery missions are conducted during the same
flight, marine species monitoring must be conducted separately for each
mission;
(11) During nighttime missions, night-vision goggles must be used.
(12) During nighttime missions, low-light electro-optical and
infrared sensor systems on board the aircraft must be used for
protected species monitoring.
(13) HACM tests and any other missions that are conducted at
nighttime must be supported by AC-130 aircraft with night-vision
instrumentation or other platforms with
[[Page 8199]]
comparable nighttime monitoring capabilities.
(14) For HACM missions, the pre-mission survey area must extend out
to, at a minimum, double the Level A harassment (PTS) threshold
distance for delphinids (0.52 km). A HACM test would correspond to
mission-day category K, which is estimated to have a PTS threshold
distance of 0.26 km.
(d) Video-based monitoring.
(1) All mission-day categories require video-based monitoring when
practicable except for gunnery missions.
(2) A trained PSO (the video camera PSO) must monitor the live
video feeds from the Gulf Range Armament Test Vessel (GRATV)
transmitted to the Central Control Facility (CCF).
(3) The video camera PSO must report any protected marine species
sightings to the Safety Officer, who will also be at the CCF.
(4) The video camera PSO must have open lines of communication with
the PSOs on vessels to facilitate real-time reporting of marine species
sightings.
(5) Direct radio communication must be maintained between vessels,
GRATV personnel, and Tower Control throughout the mission.
(6) If a protected marine species is detected on the live video by
a PSO prior to weapon release, the mission must be stopped immediately
by the Safety Officer.
(7) Supplemental video monitoring by additional aerial assets must
be used when practicable (e.g., balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles).
(e) Post-mission monitoring.
(1) All marine mammal sightings must be documented on report forms
that are submitted to the Eglin Natural Resources Office after the
mission.
(2) For gunnery missions, following each mission, aircrews must
conduct a post-mission survey beginning at the operational altitude and
continuing through an orbiting descent to the designated monitoring
altitude. The post-mission survey area will be the area covered in 30
minutes of observation in a direction down-current from the impact site
or the actual pre-mission survey area, whichever is reached first.
(3) During post-mission monitoring, PSOs must survey the mission
site for any dead or injured marine mammals. The post-mission survey
area will be the area covered in 30 minutes of observation in a
direction down-current from the impact site or the actual pre-mission
survey area, whichever is reached first.
(f) The USAF must submit an annual draft monitoring report to NMFS
within 90 working days of the completion of each year's activities
authorized by the LOA as well as a comprehensive summary report at the
end of the project. The annual reports and final comprehensive report
must be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of
any NMFS comments on the draft report. If no comments are received from
NMFS within 30 days of receipt of the draft report, the report will be
considered final. If comments are received, a final report addressing
NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of
comments. The annual reports must contain the informational elements
described below, at a minimum. The comprehensive 7-year report must
include a summary of the monitoring information collected over the 7-
year period (including summary tables), along with a discussion of the
practicability and effectiveness of the mitigation and monitoring and
any other important observations or discoveries.
(1) Dates and times (begin and end) of each EGTTR mission;
(2) Complete description of mission activities;
(3) Complete description of pre-and post-monitoring activities
occurring during each mission;
(4) Environmental conditions during monitoring periods including
Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions such as
cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and
estimated observable distance;
(5) Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information
should be collected:
(i) Observer who sighted the animal and observer location and
activity at time of sighting;
(ii) Time of sighting;
(iii) Identification of the animal (e.g., genus/species, lowest
possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), observer confidence in
identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of
species;
(iv) Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed in
relation to the target site;
(v) Estimated number of animals including the minimum number,
maximum number, and best estimate);
(vi) Estimated number of animals by cohort (e.g., adults,
juveniles, neonates, group composition etc.);
(vii) Estimated time that the animal(s) spent within the mitigation
and monitoring zones;
(viii) Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations
(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling);
(ix) Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation
(e.g., postponements, relocations and cancellations), and
(x) All PSO datasheets and/or raw sightings data.
(6) The final comprehensive report must include a summary of data
collected as part of the annual reports.
(g) In the event that personnel involved in the monitoring
activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the USAF must
report the incident to NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), and to
the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network Coordinator,
as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was likely caused by the
USAF's activity, the USAF must immediately cease the specified
activities until NMFS OPR is able to review the circumstances of the
incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are
appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of this rule and the
LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of this subchapter and Sec. 218.66.
(1) The USAF will not resume their activities until notified by
NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
(ii) Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
(iii) Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
(iv) Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
(v) If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s);
and
(vi) General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 218.66 Letters of Authorization.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations
in this subpart, the USAF must apply for and obtain an LOA in
accordance with Sec. 216.106 of this section.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective seven
years from the date of issuance.
(c) Except for changes made pursuant to the adaptive management
provision of Sec. 218.67(b)(1), in the event of projected changes to
the activity or to mitigation, monitoring, or reporting required by an
LOA issued under this subpart, the USAF must apply for and obtain a
modification of the LOA as described in Sec. 218.67.
(d) Each LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
[[Page 8200]]
(2) Geographic areas for incidental taking;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species or stocks of marine mammals and their
habitat; and
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(e) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be based on a determination that
the level of taking is consistent with the findings made for the total
taking allowable under the regulations in this subpart.
(f) Notice of issuance or denial of the LOA(s) will be published in
the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.
Sec. 218.67 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
(a) An LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of this subchapter and Sec.
218.66 for the activity identified in Sec. 218.60(c) may be modified
upon request by the applicant, consistent with paragraph (b), provided
that any requested changes to the activity or to the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures (excluding changes made pursuant to
the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section)
do not change the underlying findings made for the regulations and do
not result in 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 of the change, and solicit public comment before issuing the
LOA.
(b) An LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 of this section and Sec.
218.66 may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. After consulting with the USAF regarding
the practicability of the modifications, NMFS may modify (including
adding or removing measures) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting measures if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA
include:
(A) Results from USAF's annual monitoring report and annual
exercise report from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or
studies;
(C) Results from specific stranding investigations; or
(D) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by the regulations in
this subpart 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 a new 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 of marine
mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. 216.106 of this
section and Sec. 218.66, an LOA may be modified without prior public
notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice will be published in
the Federal Register within thirty days of the action.
Sec. 218.68 [Reserved]
Sec. 218.69 [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2023-02242 Filed 2-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
