Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/Training and Amphibious Vehicle Training and Weapons Testing

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: December 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 76989-76997]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22de06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 092806A]

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/Training and Amphibious Vehicle
Training and Weapons Testing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment,
incidental to conducting surf zone testing/training and amphibious
vehicle training and weapons testing off the coast of Santa Rosa Island
(SRI) has been issued to the U.S. Air Force Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin
AFB) for a period of 1 year. NMFS may propose regulations at a later
date that would govern these incidental takes under a Letter of
Authorization (LOA) issued to Eglin for a period of up to 5 years after
the 1-year IHA expires.

DATES: This authorization is effective from December 11, 2006 until
December 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, the Santa Rosa Island
Mission Utilization Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SRI
Mission PEA), and/or a list of references used in this document may be
obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation
and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-
3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The application and the SRI Mission PEA
is also available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 137.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional taking 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 regulations are issued or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided
to the public for review.
An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking
will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species
or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of
taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and
reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``...an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock

[[Page 76990]]

through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited
process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an
authorization to incidentally take marine mammals by harassment. With
respect to ``military readiness activities,'' the MMPA defines
``harassment'' as follows:
(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A
harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

On November 21, 2005, Eglin AFB petitioned NMFS for an
authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for the taking, by
harassment, of marine mammals incidental to programmatic mission
activities on Eglin's SRI property, including the shoreline of the Gulf
of Mexico (Gulf or GOM) to a depth of 30 feet (9.1 meters). The
distance from the island shoreline that corresponds to this depth
varies from approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) at the western side of the
Air Force property to 1.5 miles (2.4 km) at the eastern side, extending
out into the inner continental shelf.
Activities conducted within the action area are addressed in the
Estuarine and Riverine Areas Programmatic Environmental Assessment
(U.S. Air Force, 2003a). The proposed action is for the 46th Test Wing
Commander to establish a mission utilization plan for SRI based on
historical and anticipated future use. Current and future operations
are categorized as either testing or training and include: 1) Surf Zone
Testing/Training; 2) Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) Training and Weapons
Testing; 3) Amphibious Assaults; and 4) Special Operations Training.

Description of Activities

The activities proposed by Eglin AFB include surf zone testing/
training and amphibious vehicle training and weapon testing. A detailed
description of these activities was published in the Federal Register
on June 22, 2006 (71 FR 35870). No change was made to these proposed
activities.
Surf zone testing/training activities and amphibious vehicle
testing/training activities would be intermittent yet ongoing, and
therefore Eglin AFB has also made a request for a take authorization
under section 10(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for a time period of five years.
These activities would occur within the proposed action area, which
includes the Gulf-side shoreline of SRI seaward to a depth of 30 feet
(91 m). The distance from the shoreline that corresponds to this depth
varies from approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) at the western side of the
Air Force property to 1.5 miles (2.4 km) at the eastern side, extending
into the inner continental shelf.
Training involving live fire exercises would be carried out a
maximum twice per year (one during daytime and/or one at night). These
missions would involve special operations personnel, an LCAC, or an AAV
on the north shore of the island or in Santa Rosa Sound firing at a
target located on SRI. The target would be a hardended structure of
steel or wood. The angle of firing would be toward the ground and
ricocheting would be minimal due to the sandy substrate. The NSWCPC
would use low-range, high-fragmentation munitions at the maneuver areas
to allow for more realistic training scenarios. The NSWCPC would direct
live fire toward the Gulf.

Comments and Responses

A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the
application and proposed authorization was published on June 22, 2006
(71 FR 35870). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received
the following comments from the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS) and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
Comment 1: The HSUS stated that the bottlenose dolphin stocks in
the area are likely declining as a result of recent die-offs and can
ill afford additional impacts. The HSUS argues that the population
estimates were outdated and the relatively high number of bottlenose
dolphin deaths that have occurred since 1990 raises the concern that
not only are some of the stocks ``stressed,'' but they may even be in
decline. HSUS further suggested that dolphins near Santa Rosa were also
affected in the 1999 mass stranding event near St. Joseph Bay.
Therefore, HSUS argues that the estimated impacts of bottlenose
dolphins cannot be assumed to apply merely to those animals sighted in
the Santa Rosa area.
Response: In NMFS' 2006 stock assessment report, NMFS stated that
there is not sufficient data to determine population trends for all the
Gulf of Mexico bay, sound and estuary bottlenose dolphin communities
(Waring et al., 2006). NMFS acknowledges that the relatively high
number of bottlenose dolphin deaths which occurred during the mortality
events since 1990 and agrees that some of these stocks may be stressed.
However, this is not relevant to the issuance of the IHA, since Eglin
AFB's surf zone activities will take place a maximum of only once a
year for surf zone testing/training mission and a maximum of a couple
of times per year for live fire operations, with no serious injury or
mortality expected. NMFS believes that Eglin's activities are unlikely
to add to existing mortality levels. As a result, NMFS does not believe
that authorizing the taking of bottlenose dolphins by Level B
harassment will have more than a negligible impact on the affected
dolphin stocks. Additionally, NMFS will require mitigation and
monitoring measures to further reduce potential impacts to these marine
mammal species and stocks. Although it is difficult to interpret these
mass stranding events, bottlenose dolphins are known to become
entangled in recreational and commercial fishing gear (Wells and Scott,
1994; Wells et al., 1998; Gorzelany, 1998) and some are struck by
recreational and commercial vessels (Wells and Scott, 1997). Waring et
al. (2006) estimated that as many as 172 bottlenose dolphins could have
been taken in the GOM menhaden fishery alone between 1992 and 1995.
Comment 2: The HSUS is concerned that the density for bottlenose
dolphins and spotted dolphins are based on outdated data. The HSUS
believes that the population estimates for the various stocks of these
species are substantially lower and the stocks thus more vulnerable to
adverse impacts. The HSUS stated that it is reasonable to presume that
there has been some redistribution of animals, which further
complicates understanding of distribution and density and calls into
question the density estimates used in this application to calculate risk.
Response: The combined estimated abundance for the Atlantic spotted
dolphin in the northern GOM, pooled from 1998 through 2001, for the
outer continental shelf shipboard surveys was 30,772 (Fulling et al.,
2003). NMFS has relied upon the best scientific information available
and does not believe these five-year old data are outdated.
The population survey of the three GOM bay, sound, and estuarine
bottlenose dolphin stocks were last conducted more than 8 years ago.
While the data relied upon were developed in 1998, NMFS continuous to
believe that

[[Page 76991]]

these data sets comprise the best available information. The abundance
for the northern coastal, the Pensacola Bay/East Bay, and the
Choctawhatchee Bay bottlenose dolphins stocks were estimated at 9,912,
33, and 242 animals, respectively (Waring et al., 2006). NMFS
scientists in the Southeast Region have confirmed that this is the best
available information to date.
Comment 3: The HSUS questions the methodology that used 30 percent
of the time dolphin spent at the surface to calculate the density
estimate. The HSUS stated that according to Dr. Randall Wells, a more
appropriate estimate would be 5 percent of the time being spent at the
surface. The HSUS also is concerned that since bottlenose dolphins
rarely travel as singles, the impacts will likely be on groups of
animals rather than on individuals.
Response: NMFS agrees with HSUS' assessment that bottlenose
dolphins may spend up to 95 percent of their time under the sea
surface, though one study conducted on a single adult female bottlenose
dolphin showed that this individual spent approximately 87.1 < plus-
minus> 0.6 percent of its time submerged (Mate et al., 1995). However,
the 30 percent dive profile used by Eglin AFB to calculate bottlenose
dolphin density is to compensate for the presence of submerged and
uncounted animals. As mentioned in the Federal Register notice (71 FR
35870, June 22, 2006), the water clarity in the northeastern GOM is
typically very high, and it is often possible to view the entire water
column in the water depth that defines the action area (30 ft or 9.1
m). Research on inshore bottlenose dolphin behavior off the western
coast of Florida showed that dolphins were sighted 92 percent time in
the water column in 4.5 m (14.8 ft) or less (Shane, 1990). Therefore,
NMFS believes it is likely that all animals will be detected during the
marine mammal monitoring, regardless whether the animals are at the
surface or submerged.
NMFS does not agree with HSUS' assessment that since dolphins
rarely travel as singles, the impacts will likely be on groups of
animals rather than on individuals. As noted in the Federal Register
notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006), since dolphins tend to stay in
groups, it makes much easier to detect animals in the field as
different individuals don't always surface at the same time. The
mitigation measures require that no activities be carried out when an
animal is detected within the safety zone. NMFS believes that no
animals, either in groups or solitary, will likely to be impacted by
more than Level B harassment. Because activities would be halted if
there is a sighting of individual animals or a group.
Comment 4: The HSUS is concerned that the estimation of the number
of animals affected by blast trauma seems low, in regards to HSUS'
density estimates for marine mammals and the likelihood of detecting
animals that spend little time at the surface. The HSUS also questioned
NMFS' determination that no animals will be injured or killed by
detonation and live fire operations.
Response: If the HSUS' statement in Comment 2 that the population
estimates for the various stocks of these dolphin species are
substantially lower is true, then the number of animals affected by
blast trauma would be even lower than NMFS' assessment. As stated in
the Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006), the estimated
number of mammal takes is carefully calculated by applying marine
mammal density to the zone of influence (ZOI) for each detonation type.
Live-fire operations will use small caliber weapons between 5.56 mm and
.50 caliber with low-range munitions, and will be conducted on SRI in
an area of less than 1 km (0.62 mile) wide. Live-fire exercise involves
firing at a hardened structure of steel or wood, and angle of firing
would be toward the ground and ricocheting would be minimal due to
sandy substrate on SRI. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that a
dolphin would be hit by a stray projectile that misses the target and
passes the firing range on SRI into the GOM. Species density is based
on adjusted GulfCet II aerial survey data, which is the best available
data to date.
Comment 5: The HSUS noted that the calculation of noise impacts
from the proposed activities is based on spherical propagation of sound
in deep water. The HSUS thinks that shallow water reflection of
pressure waves off the bottom can result in both pressure wave impacts
and acoustic impacts well beyond a radius predicted by spherical
spreading, as the HSUS cited NMFS' assessment on the onset of slight
lung injury by precision strike weapons using Goertner model (70 FR 48675).
Response: One should not be confused by the difference between the
overpressures and acoustics impacts upon marine mammals. The former is
a wave of pressure in the water column caused by underwater explosions,
and the latter is the noise generated by the explosions. Injury ranges
determined by the Goertner (1982) model are most appropriate for use in
regions close to the explosive charge, while the proposed surf zone
detonation will ensure that no marine mammals as present in the area
where Level A harassment could occur. It is correct that calculation
based on spherical propagation of noise impacts does not precisely fit
the proposed activity. It is also true that shallow-water mine-clearing
systems are comprised of lines or multiple blocks of explosive and
would typically produce non-spherical zones of influence, therefore,
all NET explosive weights in the systems analyzed by Eglin AFB were
totaled and a single point of detonation assumed for each system. This
approach provides a simplified but conservative analysis. In addition,
bottom absorption is likely to reduce much of the acoustic energy that
is reflected back into water column.
Comment 6: The HSUS is concerned that the noise effects from
activities involving amphibious vehicles would not be negligible. The
HSUS states that noise penetrates the surface of the water when the
surface is disrupted by waves and chop. The HSUS is also concerned that
dolphins will be able to hear the noise and be disturbed when they are
at surface.
Response: NMFS agrees that some noise from the landing craft could
penetrate into the water column when the surface is disrupted by wind
and wave, however, much of the acoustic energy will be reflected at the
surface due to different acoustic impedance between air and water. In
addition, there is no evidence that the maximum noise level (98 dBA)
from the LCAC's engine in air will cause more than a momentary
disturbance in dolphins. If the noise level is high enough to cause
disturbances to marine mammals, it is most likely that marine mammals
in the vicinity will move away from the noise source quickly.
Comment 7: The HSUS argues that the ZOI for this type of activity
would be far greater than 2 km (1.24 miles) and thus far more than 68
dolphins without mitigation measures (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006) would
be harassed. The HSUS states that it is difficult to conceive only a
few dozen dolphins would hear and be disturbed by the noise. The HSUS
also states that it seems far more likely that every dolphin within a
several-mile radius will hear the explosions, rumbles, and rockets and
will at the least temporarily abandon their activities and move away
from the noise.
Response: The Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006)
provided detailed description and analyses on the calculation of ZOI
relative to different munitions and are not repeated here. The results
of these analyses point out that the radii of safety zones and the
estimated number of takes that could

[[Page 76992]]

occur are scientifically sound and are supported by the Committee of
Scientific Advisors of the Commission. There is no evidence that the
ZOI for this type of activity would be far greater than 2 km (1.24
miles) and more than 68 dolphins without mitigation measures (71 FR
35870, June 22, 2006) would be harassed. While it is possible that
dolphins within a several-mile radius of the action area could detect
explosions, these noises would be so low at these distances and would
most likely be masked by the prevailing ambient noise from waves, surf,
vessels, and bubbles. Therefore, NMFS believes it is highly unlikely
that marine mammals outside the safety zone will abandon their
activities and move away.
Comment 8: The HSUS is concerned about the effectiveness of
mitigation and monitoring measures that rely on clarity of water, the
Beaufort sea state, and the visibility of bottlenose dolphins surface
activity.
Response: Clarity of water, Beaufort sea state under 3, and using
trained marine mammal observers to monitor the action area prior to
proposed activity are only three of the several requirements in the
IHA. Other mitigation and monitoring measures that are required for the
proposed activity, include: (1) limiting surf zone testing/training
missions under daylight conditions; and (2) limiting surf zone testing
between November 1 and March 1 to avoid takes of manatees and sea
turtles. NMFS scientists believe that these mitigation and monitoring
measures are effective for the proposed activity and would result in
the least practicable adverse impact, and this determination is
supported by the Committee of Scientific Advisors of the Commission.
Comment 9: The HSUS stated that vessels on the water have a more
limited field of view than helicopters. The HSUS questions the
justification for use of one type of monitoring platform and not the
other in various activities, and requests that Eglin AFB be required to
use the most effective (as opposed to the most expedient) platform for
detecting dolphins, manatees and turtles in the area for all activities.
Response: The effectiveness of platforms used in detecting marine
mammals depends on a number of conditions, such as the size of the
monitored area and the height of the platform above the water. For
monitoring activities during surf zone detonation, the area could reach
a 2.3 km (1.4 mile) radius, therefore, a helicopter is believed to be
more effective in monitoring this area. However, the live-fire
operations are conducted in a much smaller area of the SRI beach, and
monitoring would only focus on this limited zone. NMFS believes that
small vessels can provide more effective monitoring of this area.
Comment 10: The HSUS questions the speed of helicopters as it
stated that ``the speed of the aircraft has a significant effect on the
observer's ability to detect animals.'' The HSUS also stated that the
expertise of personnel is crucial to the effectiveness of this
mitigation measure.
Response: Eglin AFB has not identified a need to specify a maximum
or minimum speed at which survey helicopters may operate. All NMFS-
approved MMOs are qualified aerial surveyors and are familiar with area
of operations as well as the protected species that occur in the
region. MMOs are aware of the effect of helicopter speed on survey
effectiveness and operate at speeds that maximize the likelihood of
animal detection.
Comment 11: The HSUS is concerned that mitigation will not be
possible when live-fire exercises are conducted at night. The HSUS
requests that mitigation be required during night-time exercise, and if
not, night-time activity should not be permitted.
Response: The proposed live fire exercise that might occur at night
would be conducted on the firing range on SRI. Eglin's proposal was
developed to take into account potential impacts to marine mammals. As
part of this proposed action, Eglin will require the following measures
that are designed to lessen impacts. These include: (1) firing at a
hardened structure of steel or wood so the bullets do not penetrate the
target and continue into the GOM; (2) firing at an angle toward the
ground so ricocheting would be minimal due to sandy substrate on SRI;
and (3) using small caliber weapons between 5.56 mm and .50 caliber
with low-range munitions. In addition, there will be a maximum of 1
live-fire night-time exercise per year. Therefore, it is extremely
unlikely that a dolphin would be hit by a stray bullet.
Comment 12: The HSUS noted that the permit application stated that
the activity being conducted could require closure to vessels of some
areas of the GOM to accommodate a 2.5 mile (4.0 km), 110-degree safety
fan (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006, page 35871). The HSUS also noted that
the risk analysis presumed for dolphins stated the risk is largely in a
range that does not exceed 1 km (0.62 mile) (71 FR 35870, June 22,
2006, page 35874). The HSUS requests a greater degree of precaution for
dolphins.
Response: The 2.5-mile (4.0 km), 110-degree safety fan refers
specifically to the cleared water surface area that is associated with
SABRE system testing. This safety fan does not apply to other
activities. SABRE system testing involves a rocket-propelled launch of
a line of explosives into the air. If conducted at the eastern end of
Eglin's SRI property, which is in close proximity to a large civilian
population (both residents and tourists), human safety would be a
concern. Therefore, a relatively large area of the water surface would
be closed to non-military vessels during testing. Safety considerations
in this case result from potential above-water impacts due to rocket
motor, charge line, or shrapnel/debris strikes.
Conversely, the potential risk to dolphins results from underwater
impacts, primarily underwater noise produced by detonations. Table 1 of
the Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006, page 35873)
provides the range of various types of impacts due to underwater noise.
These distances range from 42 m (138 ft) to 1.8 km (5906 ft), depending
on the threshold evaluated and the net explosive weight used. Above-
water human safety zones and in-water noise impact zones are not
directly comparable.
Comment 13: The HSUS noted that post-activity monitoring was only
specified for detonation activity, but not other activity. The HSUS is
also concerned that a 15-minute helicopter post-activity monitoring is
insufficient because any animal that is injured but does not
immediately die and float to the surface will be undetected.
Response: Post-activity monitoring measures are required for all
activities under this IHA. Due to the small size of the impact area
(maximum radius of 2.3 km, or 1.4 miles for surf zone detonation), NMFS
believes that 15 minutes is sufficient to detect any marine mammals
within the area immediately following each detonation. Post-activity
for actions other than surf zone detonation will be conducted by boats.
In addition, due to mitigation and monitoring required by the IHA, no
marine mammals are expected to be killed or injured by the proposed
activities on SRI.
Comment 14: The HSUS questions the monitoring measure that includes
coordination with marine mammal stranding networks because the
stranding networks do not regularly survey the coastline for carcasses
and, when discovered in the Florida Panhandle, they are often in a
state of decomposition such that cause of death is not readily
ascertained. The HSUS is also concerned that because this area

[[Page 76993]]

has recently been subject to mortality events, carcasses seen along
beaches may not necessarily be linked to the Naval activity unless
pointed necropsies are done. The HSUS states that this is something
that will not be possible for most carcasses, therefore, even if the
cause of death is related to Naval activities, it may remain undetected.
Response: The Eglin AFB is required to monitor the target area
prior to, during, and immediately after the proposed activity, and is
required to contact the marine mammal stranding networks for any
beached animals within the Eglin AFB property. The concern regarding
the recent dolphin mortality events and whether the death of dolphins
results from Naval activities is not relevant to the issuance of this
IHA. As stated previously and concurred by the scientists of the
Commission, the proposed activities are expected to result in no more
than the incidental taking by Level B harassment of marine mammals.
Comment 15: The HSUS argues that the Federal Register notice (71 FR
35870, June 22, 2006) does not appear to be in compliance with NEPA
requirements. The HSUS stated that NMFS must study, develop, and
describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action, and
discuss alternatives it has considered. The HSUS is concerned that
under the proposed scheme, stakeholders and the public were not
provided an opportunity to comment on a NMFS ``NEPA document'' that
might be prepared after the close of this comment period and associated
with issuance of an IHA.
Response: NMFS does not agree with HSUS's comment. As described in
the Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006), the USAF
prepared the SRI Mission PEA. The SRI Mission PEA was available for
public review during the 30-day comment period and is available upon
written request to NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), or by
downloading from OPR's website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/pdfs/permits/sri_iha_ea.pdf. NMFS staff reviewed Eglin's PEA and
determined that it meets the standards under the NMFS regulations and
NOAA's Administrator Order 216-6 for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS
believes this is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA.
NMFS has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact statement.
Comment 16: The Commission requests that NMFS assess the likelihood
of detecting marine mammals at or below the water surface within zones
of potential impacts, particularly when operations are conducted at night.
Response: As described in the Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870,
June 22, 2006), marine mammal detection within zones of potential
impacts will be conducted prior to planned mission activities. After
reviewing the Eglin AFB's marine mammal monitoring protocols, NMFS
determined that monitoring measures developed by Eglin AFB are highly
effective in detecting marine mammals at or below the water surface
within zones of potential impacts during daylight hours. However, since
no mitigation measures for marine mammals would be feasible for night-
time missions, night-time operations will not be monitored, as they are
only associated with live-fire exercises conducted on designated on-
shore firing ranges on SRI.
Comment 17: The Commission requests that operations be suspended
immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is found in
the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could have
occurred incidental to the proposed activities.
Response: NMFS agrees, and the IHA will specify that operations be
suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is
found in the vicinity of the operations potentially linked to Eglin's
activity.
Comment 18: The Commission requests that NMFS revises its
interpretation of temporary threshold shift (TTS) to indicate that it
has the potential to injure marine mammals (and in the case of military
readiness activities has a significant potential to injure marine
mammals) and therefore constitutes Level A harassment due to the
foreseeable secondary effects of temporary hearing loss.
Response: NMFS stated in a previous Federal Register notice (68 FR
64595, November 14, 2003) that the reclassification of TTS from Level B
to Level A harassment requires support and scientific documentation,
and not be based on speculation that TTS might result in increased
predation, for example. In addition, it is irrelevant for this IHA,
because sound levels will not be high since mitigation and monitoring
requirements under the IHA is expected to prevent TTS. Also, while
there has been discussion among scientists regarding whether a
permanent shift in hearing threshold (PTS) can occur with repeated
exposures of TTS, at least one study showed that long-term (4 - 7
years) noise exposure on three experimental pinniped species had caused
no change on their underwater hearing thresholds at frequencies of 0.2
- 6.4 kHz (Southall et al., 2005).
Comment 19: The Commission requests that NMFS advise the Air Force,
if it has not already done so, of the need to consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to confirm that manatees are not likely
to occur in or near the vicinity of the test site at the time the tests
are scheduled to be conducted.
Response: Eglin AFB has consulted with the FWS on the proposed
mission activities in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA,
16 USC 1531 et seq.). The FWS issued a Biological Opinion on December
1, 2005, and concluded that the proposed action is not likely to
adversely affect West Indian manatees based on Eglin's commitment to
incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the species.

Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

Marine mammal species potentially occurring within the proposed
action area include the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus), the Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), and the
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). General information
on these species and stocks are provided in the June 22, 2006, Federal
Register (71 FR 35870). Therefore, it is not repeated here. More
detailed information on Florida manatee can be found in the Florida
Manatee Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). More
detailed information on the Atlantic bottlenose and spotted dolphins
can be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.

Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals

Marine mammals may be impacted by underwater noise and direct
physical impacts (DPI). Noise is produced by underwater detonations in
the surf zone and by the operation of amphibious vehicles. DPI could
result from collisions with amphibious vehicles and from ordnance live
fire. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed
throughout this document, impacts to marine mammals are anticipated to
be no more than negligible.
Explosive criteria and thresholds for assessing impacts of
explosions on marine mammals were discussed by NMFS in detail in its
issuance of an IHA for Eglin's Precision Strike Weapon testing activity
(70 FR 48675, August 19, 2005) and are not repeated here. Please

[[Page 76994]]

refer to that document for this background information.

Estimation of Take and Impact

Surf Zone Detonation

Surf zone detonation noise impacts are considered within two
categories: overpressure and acoustics. Underwater explosive
detonations produce a wave of pressure in the water column. This
pressure wave potentially has lethal and injurious impacts, depending
on the proximity to the source detonation. Humans and animals receive
the acoustic signature of noise as sound. Beyond the physical impacts,
acoustics may cause annoyance and behavior modifications (Goertner, 1982).
Impacts to marine mammals from underwater detonations were
discussed by NMFS in detail in its notice of receipt of application for
an IHA for Eglin's Air-to-Surface Gunnery mission in the Gulf (71 FR
3474, January 23, 2006) and is not repeated here. Please refer to that
document for this background information.
A maximum of one surf zone testing/training mission would be
completed per year. The impact areas of the proposed action are derived
from mathematical calculations and models that predict the distances to
which threshold noise levels would travel. The equations for the models
consider the amount of net explosive, the properties of detonations
under water, and environmental factors such as depth of the explosion,
overall water depth, water temperature, and bottom type.
The end result of the analysis is an area known as the Zone of
Influence (ZOI). A ZOI is based on an outward radial distance from the
point of detonation, extending to the limit of a particular threshold
level in a 360-degree area. Thus, there are separate ZOIs for
mortality, injury (hearing-related injury and slight, non-fatal lung
injury), and harassment (temporary threshold shift, or TTS, and sub-
TTS). Given the radius, and assuming noise spreads outward in a
spherical manner, the entire area ensonified (i.e., exposed to the
specific noise level being analyzed) is estimated.
The radius of each threshold is shown for each shallow water surf
zone mine clearing system in Table 1. The radius is assumed to extend
from the point of detonation in all directions, allowing calculation of
the affected area.
The number of takes is calculated by applying marine mammal density
to the ZOI (area) for each detonation type. Species density for most
cetaceans is based on adjusted GulfCet II aerial survey data, which is
shown in Table 2. GulfCet II data were conservatively adjusted upward
to approximately two standard deviations to obtain 99 percent
confidence, and a submergence correction factor was applied to account
for the presence of submerged, uncounted animals. However, the actual
number of marine mammal takes would be even smaller, since up to half
of the ZOI would be over land and very shallow surf, which is not
considered marine mammal habitat.

Table 1. Zones of Impact for Underwater Explosive from Four Mine Clearing Systems (Acoustic units are re 1
microPa\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZOI Radius (m)
-------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Criteria SABRE 232 MK-5 MCS MK-82 ARRAY
lb NEW 1,750 lb NEW DET 130 lb 1,372 lb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
176 dB \1/3\ Octave SEL\*\ Level B Behavior 1,440 2,299 1,252 2,207
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
182 dB \1/3\ Octave SEL Level B TTS Dual 961 1,658 796 1,544
Criterion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
205 dB SEL Level A PTS 200 478 155 436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 psi Level B Dual Criteria 857 1,788 761 1,557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 psi-msec Level A Injury 60 100 58 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.5 psi-msec Mortality 45 68 42 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\SEL - Sound energy level

Table 2. Cetacean Densities for Gulf of Mexico Shelf Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted density
Species Individuals/km\2\ Dive profile - (Individuals/
% at surface km\2\)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin 0.148 30 0.810
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted 0.089 30 0.677
dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose or 0.007 30 0.053
Atlantic spotted
dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.244 .............. 1.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\Adjusted for undetected submerged animals to approximately two
standard deviations.

[[Page 76995]]

Table 3. Preferred Alternative Take Estimates from Noise Impacts to Dolphins (Acoustic units are re 1
microPa\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MK-5 MK-82 Total
Threshold Criteria SABRE MCS DET Array Takes\*\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
176 dB \1/3\ Sub-TTS 10 26 8 24 68
Octave SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
182 dB \1/3\ Level B Harassment 5 13 3 12 33
Octave SEL TTS (dual
criterion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 psi Level B TTS (dual 4 15 3 12 34
criterion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
205 dB Level A PTS 0 1 0 1 2
Total SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 psi-msec Level A Non-lethal 0 0 0 0 0
Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.5 psi-msec Mortality 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\Estimated exposure with no mitigation measures in place.

Table 3 lists the noise-related dolphin take estimates resulting
from surf zone detonations associated with the Perferred Alternative of
the PEA. The take numbers represent the combined total of Atlantic
bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and do not consider any
mitigation measures. Implementation of mitigation measures discussed
below could significantly decrease the number of takes. Discussion of
the amount of take reduction is provided below.

Noise from LCAC

Noise resulting from LCAC operations was considered under a transit
mode of operation. The LCAC uses rotary air screw technology to power
the craft over the water, therefore, noise from the engine is not
emitted directly into the water. The Navy's acoustic in-water noise
characterization studies show the noise emitted from the LCAC into the
water is very similar to that of the MH-53 helicopter operating at low
altitudes. Based on the Air Force's Excess Sound Attenuation Model for
the LCAC's engines under ground runup condition, the data estimate that
the maximum noise level (98 dBA) is at a point 45 degrees from the bow
of the craft at a distance of 61 m (200 ft) in air. Maximum noise
levels fall below 90 dBA at a point less than 122 meters (400 ft) from
the craft in air (U.S. Air Force, 1999).
Due to the large difference of acoustic impedance between air and
water, much of the acoustic energy would be reflected at the surface.
Therefore, the effects of noise from LCAC to marine mammals would be
negligible.

Collision with Vessels

During the time that amphibious vehicles are operating in (or, in
the case of LCACs, just above) the water, encounters with marine
mammals are possible. A slight possibility exists that such encounters
could result in a vessel physically striking an animal. However, this
scenario is considered very unlikely. Dolphins are extremely mobile and
have keen hearing and would likely leave the vicinity of any vehicle
traffic. The largest vehicles that would be moving are LCACs, and their
beam measurement can be used for conservative impact analyses. The
operation which potentially uses the largest number of LCACs is
Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) training.
Based on analysis in the ARG/MEU Readiness Training Environmental
Assessment (U.S. Air Force, 2003b), LCAC activities (over 10 days)
could potentially impact 22.25 square miles of the total water surface
area. The estimated number of bottlenose dolphins in this area is 6.9,
with an approximately equal number of Atlantic spotted dolphins. These
species would easily avoid collision because the LCACs produce noise
that would be detected some distance away, and therefore would be
avoided as any other boat in the Gulf. In addition, AAVs move very
slowly and would be easily avoided. The potential for amphibious craft
colliding with marine mammals and causing injury or death is therefore
considered remote.

Live Fire Operations

Live-fire operations with munitions directed towards the Gulf have
the potential to impact marine mammals (primarily bottlenose and
Atlantic spotted dolphins). Cetacean abundance estimates for the study
area are derived from GulfCet II aerial surveys in the eastern Gulf
waters (Davis et al., 2000). To provide a more conservative impact
analysis, density estimates have been adjusted to account for submerged
individuals. The percent of time that an animal is submerged versus at
the surface was obtained from Moore and Clarke (1998), and used to
determine an adjusted density for each species. The result shows an
estimated animal density of 1.54 animals/km\2\ (Table 2).
A maximum of two live-fire operations would be conducted in a year,
and are associated with expanded Special Operations training on SRI.
Small caliber weapons between 5.56 mm and .50 caliber with low-range
munitions would be allowed only within designated live-fire areas. The
average range of the munitions is approximately 1 km (0.54 nm). If a
given live-fire area was 1 km (0.54 nm) wide, then approximately 1.5
dolphins could be vulnerable to a munitions strike. However, even the
largest live-fire area on SRI is considerably less than 1 km (0.54 nm)
wide. If live fire is conservatively estimated to originate from a
section of beach 0.2 km (0.11 nm) wide, only 0.3 dolphins would be
within the area of potential DPI. Moreover, the mitigation measures
discussed below would further reduce the likelihood of direct impacts
to marine mammals due to live-fire operations.
Therefore, given the infrequency of the surf-zone detonation
(maximum of once per year), amphibious vehicle testing, and live-fire
weapons testing (maximum of twice per year), NMFS believes there is no
potential for long-term displacement or behavioral impacts of marine
mammals within the proposed action area.

Mitigation

Eglin AFB would employ a number of mitigation measures in order to

[[Page 76996]]

substantially decrease the number of marine mammals potentially
affected. Visual monitoring of the operational area can be a very
effective means of detecting the presence of marine mammals. This is
particularly true of the two species most likely to be present
(bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins) due to their tendency to
occur in groups, their relatively short dive time, and their relatively
high level of surface activity. In addition, the water clarity in the
northeastern GOM is typically very high. It is often possible to view
the entire water column in the water depth that defines the study area
(30 feet or 9.1 m).
For the surf zone testing/training, missions would only be
conducted under daylight conditions of suitable visibility and Beaufort
sea state three or less. Prior to the mission, a trained MMO aboard a
helicopter would survey (visually monitor) the test area, which is a
very effective method for detecting sea turtles and cetaceans. In
addition, shipboard personnel would provide supplemental observations
when available. The size of the area to be surveyed would depend on the
specific test system, but it would correspond to the ZOI for Level B
behavior harassment (176 dB \1/3\ octave SEL) listed in Table 1. The
survey would be conducted approximately 250 feet (76 m) above the sea
surface to allow observers to scan a large distance. If a marine mammal
is sighted within the ZOI, the mission would be suspended until the
animal is clear of this area. In addition, to reduce the potential
impacts to sea turtles and manatees, surf zone testing would be
conducted between 1 November and 1 March whenever possible.
Navy personnel (NSWCPC) would only conduct live-fire testing with
Beaufort sea surface conditions of 3 or less, which is when there is
about 33 - 50 percent of surface whitecaps with 0.6 - 0.9 m (2 - 3 ft)
waves. During daytime missions, small boats would be used to survey for
marine mammals in the proposed action area before and after the
operations. If a marine mammal is sighted within the target or closely
adjacent areas, the mission would be suspended until the area is clear.
No mitigation for marine mammals would be feasible for nighttime
mission, however, given the remoteness of impact, however, the
potential that a marine mammal is injured or killed is unlikely and
will not be authorized.

Monitoring and Reporting

The Eglin AFB will train personnel to conduct aerial surveys for
protected species. The aerial survey/monitoring team would consist of
an observer and a pilot familiar with flying transect patterns. A
helicopter provides a preferable viewing platform for detection of
protected marine species. The aerial observer must be experienced in
marine mammal surveying and be familiar with species that may occur in
the area. The observer would be responsible for relaying the location
(latitude and longitude), the species if known, and the number of
animals sighted. The aerial team would also identify large schools of
fish, jellyfish aggregations, and any large accumulation of Sargassum
that could potentially drift into the ZOI. Standard line-transect
aerial surveying methods would be used. Observed marine mammals and sea
turtles would be identified to species or the lowest possible taxonomic
level possible.
The aerial and (potential) shipboard monitoring teams would have
proper lines of communication to avoid communication deficiencies.
Observers would have direct communication via radio with the Lead
Scientist. The Lead Scientist reviews the range conditions and
recommends a Go/No-Go decision to the Officer in Tactical Command, who
makes the final Go/No-Go decision.
Stepwise mitigation procedures for SRI surf zone missions are
outlined below. All zones (mortality, injury, TTS) would be monitored.

Pre-mission Monitoring:

The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) evaluate the test
site for environmental suitability of the mission (e.g., relatively low
numbers of marine mammals and turtles, few or no patches of Sargassum,
etc.) and (2) verify that the ZOI is free of visually detectable marine
mammals, sea turtles, large schools of fish, large flocks of birds,
large Sargassum mats, and large concentrations of jellyfish (the latter
two are possible indicators of turtle presence). On the morning of the
test, the lead scientist would confirm that the test site can support
the mission and that the weather is adequate to support observations.
(1) One Hour Prior to Mission
Approximately one hour prior to the mission, or at daybreak, the
appropriate vessel(s) would be on-site near the location of the
earliest planned mission point. Personnel onboard the vessel would
assess the suitability of the test site, based on visual observation of
marine mammals and sea turtles. This information would be relayed to
the Lead Scientist.
(2) Fifteen Minutes Prior to Mission
Aerial monitoring would commence at the test site 15 minutes prior
to the start of the mission. The entire ZOI would be surveyed by flying
transects through the area. Shipboard personnel would also monitor the
area as available. All marine mammal sightings would be reported to the
Lead Scientist, who would enter all pertinent data into a sighting database.
(3) Go/No-Go Decision Process
The Lead Scientist would record sightings and bearing for all
protected species detected. This would depict animal sightings relative
to the mission area. The Lead Scientist would have the authority to
declare the range fouled and recommend a hold until monitoring
indicates that the ZOI is and will remain clear of detectable animals.
The mission would be postponed if any marine mammal or sea turtle
is visually detected within the ZOI for Level B behavioral harassment.
The delay would continue until the marine mammal or sea turtle is
confirmed to be outside the ZOI for Level B behavioral harassment.
In the event of a postponement, pre-mission monitoring would
continue as long as weather and daylight hours allow. Aerial monitoring
is limited by fuel and the on-station time of the monitoring aircraft.

Post-mission monitoring:

Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness
of pre-mission mitigation by reporting any sightings of dead or injured
marine mammals or sea turtles. Post-detonation monitoring would
commence immediately following each detonation and continue for 15
minutes. The helicopter would resume transects in the area of the
detonation, concentrating on the area down current of the test site.
The monitoring team would attempt to document any marine mammals or
turtles that were found dead or injured after the detonation, and, if
practicable, recover and examine any dead animals. The species, number,
location, and behavior of any animals observed by the observation teams
would be documented and reported to the Lead Scientist.
Post-mission monitoring activities would also include coordination
with marine animal stranding networks. The NMFS maintains stranding
networks along coasts to collect and circulate information about marine
mammal and sea turtle standings.
In addition, NMFS will require Eglin to monitor the target area for
impacts to marine mammals and to report its activities on an annual
basis. Accordingly, NMFS' Biological Opinion on this action has
recommended certain monitoring measures to protect marine life. NMFS
will require the same

[[Page 76997]]

requirements under an IHA in order to conclude that this activity will
result in no more than a negligible impacts on species and stocks of
marine mammals:
(1) Eglin is working with NMFS to develop and implement a marine
species observer-training program. This program will provide expertise
to Eglin's testing and training community in the identification of
protected marine species during surface and aerial mission activities
in the GOM. Additionally, personnel involved in the surf zone and
amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training would participate in the
proposed species observation training. Observers would receive training
in protected species survey and identification techniques through a
NMFS-approved training program.
(2) Eglin will track their use of the surf zone and amphibious
vehicle and weapon testing/training for test firing missions and
protected resources (marine mammal/sea turtle) observations, through
the use of an observer training sheet.
(3) A summary annual report of marine mammal/sea turtle
observations and surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/
training activities would be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional
Office and the Office of Protected Resources within 90 days of the
expiration of this IHA.
(4) If any marine mammal or sea turtle is observed or detected to
be deceased prior to testing, or injured or killed during live fire, a
report must be made to the NMFS by the following business day.
(5) Any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious injury
or mortality) must be reported immediately to the NMFS representative
and to the respective stranding network representative.

ESA

On March 18, 2005, NMFS Southeast Regional Office received a letter
from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Eglin AFB, requesting initiation of
formal consultation on all potential environmental impacts to ESA-
listed species from all Eglin AFB mission activities on SRI and within
the surf zone near SRI. These missions include the surf zone detonation
and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training. On October 12,
2005, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion, concluding that the surf zone
and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training are unlikely to
jeopardize the continued existence of species listed under the ESA that
are within the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. In addition, on March 18, 2005, Eglin AFB provided
the FWS with a request for formal section 7 consultation for the SRI
programmatic program regarding ESA-listed species and critical habitat
under FWS jurisdiction. On December 1, 2005, FWS issued a Biological
Opinion and concluded that the proposed mission activities are not
likely to adversely affect these ESA-listed species based on Eglin's
commitment to incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to
these species.

NEPA

In March, 2005, the USAF prepared the Santa Rosa Island Mission
Utilization Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SRI Mission
PEA). NMFS reviewed this PEA and determined that it satisfies, in large
part, the standards for an adequate statement under the NMFS
regulations and is consistent with the Council on Environmental
Quality's regulations and NOAA's Administrators Order 216-6 for
implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR 1508.3).
NMFS supplemented the PEA with our own cumulative impacts analysis to
better ascertain the cumulative effects of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable activities conducted within and around Santa
Rosa Island. Therefore, NMFS decided to adopt this PEA with the
supplemental cumulative impacts analysis for the issuance of the IHA
and has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact statement.

Determinations

NMFS has determined that the surf zone and amphibious vehicle and
weapon testing/training that are proposed by Eglin AFB off the coast of
SRI, is unlikely to result in the mortality or serious injury of marine
mammals (see Tables 2 and 3) and, would result in, at worst, a
temporary modification in behavior by marine mammals. While behavioral
modifications may be made by these species as a result of the surf zone
detonation and amphibious vehicle training activities, any behavioral
change is expected to have a negligible impact on the affected species
or stocks. Also, given the infrequency of the testing/training missions
(maximum of once per year for surf zone detonation and maximum of twice
per year for amphibious assault training involving live fire), there is
no potential for long-term displacement or long-lasting behavioral
impacts of marine mammals within the proposed action area. In addition,
the potential for temporary hearing impairment is very low and would be
mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the incorporation of
the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. There is no
subsistence use of these marine mammal species in the action area.

Authorization

NMFS has issued an IHA, pursuant to MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D), to
Eglin AFB for conducting surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon
testing/training off the coast of SRI in the northern GOM provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are implemented.

Dated: December 18, 2006.
Donna Wieting
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6-21979 Filed 12-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/Training and Amphibious Vehicle Training and Weapons Testing

Local Navigation