[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7307-7319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02801]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XE343


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force Conducting 
Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program Operational Testing Within 
the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
implementing regulations, NMFS, we, hereby give notice that we have 
issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (Authorization) to the 
U.S. Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB), to take two species 
of marine mammals, the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 
and Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), by harassment, 
incidental to a Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program (Maritime 
WSEP) within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in the Gulf of 
Mexico from February 4, 2016 through February 3, 2017. Eglin AFB's 
activities are military readiness activities per the MMPA, as amended 
by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2004.

DATES: Effective February 4, 2016, through February 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the final Authorization, Eglin AFB's 
application and their final Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, 
``Maritime Weapons System Evaluation Program are available by writing 
to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; by telephoning the contacts listed 
here, or by visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary 
of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not 
intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or 
population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if, after NMFS provides a notice of a proposed authorization to the 
public for review and comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) 
the taking is limited to harassment.
    An Authorization for incidental takings for marine mammals shall be 
granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on 
the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such taking 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA; Pub. L. 108-
136) removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographical 
region'' limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of 
harassment as it applies to a ``military readiness activity'' to read 
as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or 
has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine 
mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that 
disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock 
in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are 
abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].

Summary of Request

    On February 5, 2015, we issued an Authorization to Eglin AFB to 
take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a Maritime Weapon 
Systems Evaluation Program (Maritime WSEP) within the Eglin Gulf Test 
and Training Range (EGTTR) in the Gulf of Mexico from February through 
April 2015 (see 80 FR 17394, April 1, 2015). Eglin AFB conducted the 
Maritime WSEP training activities between February 9-12, and March 16-
19, 2015. However, due to unavailability of some of the live munitions, 
Eglin AFB released only 1.05 percent of the munitions proposed for the 
2015 military readiness activities. On May 28, 2015, we received a 
renewal request for an Authorization from Eglin AFB to complete the 
missions authorized in 2015. Following the initial application 
submission, Eglin AFB submitted a revised version of the renewal 
request on December 3, 2015. We considered the revised renewal request 
as adequate and complete on December 10, 2015 and published a notice of 
proposed Authorization on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79843). The notice 
afforded the public a 30-day comment period on the proposed MMPA 
Authorization.
    Eglin AFB proposes to conduct Maritime WESP missions within the 
EGTTR airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, specifically within Warning 
Area 151 (W-151). The proposed Maritime WSEP training activities would 
occur February through April (spring) in the daytime; however, the 
activities could occur between February 2016 and February 2017.
    Eglin AFB proposes to use multiple types of live munitions (e.g., 
gunnery rounds, rockets, missiles, and bombs) against small boat 
targets in the EGTTR. These activities qualify as a military readiness 
activities under the MMPA and NDAA.

[[Page 7308]]

    The following aspects of the proposed Maritime WSEP training 
activities have the potential to take marine mammals: exposure to 
impulsive noise and pressure waves generated by live ordnance 
detonation at or near the surface of the water. Take, by Level B 
harassment of individuals of common bottlenose dolphin or Atlantic 
spotted dolphin could potentially result from the specified activity. 
Additionally, although NMFS does not expect it to occur, Eglin AFB has 
also requested authorization for Level A Harassment of a small number 
of individuals of either common bottlenose dolphins or Atlantic spotted 
dolphins. Therefore, Eglin AFB has requested authorization to take 
individuals of two cetacean species by Level A and Level B harassment.
    Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP training activities may potentially 
impact marine mammals at or near the water surface in the absence of 
mitigation. Marine mammals could potentially be harassed, injured, or 
killed by exploding projectiles. However, based on analyses provided in 
Eglin AFB's 2015 Authorization renewal request; 2014 application; 2015 
Environmental Assessment (EA); the 2015 monitoring report for the 
authorized activities conducted in February and March 2015; and for 
reasons discussed later in this document, we do not anticipate that 
Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP activities would result in any serious injury 
or mortality to marine mammals.
    For Eglin AFB, this would be the second issued Authorization 
following the Authorization issued effective from February through 
April 2015 (80 FR 17394, April 1, 2015). The monitoring report 
associated with the 2015 Authorization is available at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm and provides 
additional environmental information related to proposed issuance of 
this Authorization for public review and comment.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    Eglin AFB proposes to conduct live ordnance testing and training in 
the Gulf of Mexico as part of the Maritime WSEP operational testing 
missions. The Maritime WSEP test objectives are to evaluate maritime 
deployment data, evaluate tactics, techniques and procedures, and to 
determine the impact of techniques and procedures on combat Air Force 
training. The need to conduct this type of testing has developed in 
response to increasing threats at sea posed by operations conducted 
from small boats which can carry a variety of weapons; can form in 
large or small numbers; and may be difficult to locate, track, and 
engage in the marine environment. Because of limited Air Force aircraft 
and munitions testing on engaging and defeating small boat threats, 
Eglin AFB proposes to employ live munitions against boat targets in the 
EGTTR in order to continue development of techniques and procedures to 
train Air Force strike aircraft to counter small maneuvering surface 
vessels. Thus, the Department of Defense considers the Maritime WSEP 
training activities as a high priority for national security.

Dates and Duration

    Eglin AFB proposes to schedule the Maritime WSEP training missions 
over an approximate three-week period that would begin in early 
February 2016. The proposed missions would occur in the spring, on 
weekdays, during daytime hours only, with one or two missions occurring 
per day. Some minor deviation from Eglin AFB's requested dates is 
possible and the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be effective 
from February 4, 2016 through February 3, 2017.

Specified Geographic Region

    The specific planned mission location is approximately 17 miles 
(mi) (27.3 kilometers [km]) offshore from Santa Rosa Island, Florida, 
in nearshore waters of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. All 
activities would take place within the EGTTR, defined as the airspace 
over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point 
three nautical miles (nmi) (3.5 miles [mi]; 5.5 kilometers [km]) from 
shore. The EGTTR consists of subdivided blocks including Warning Area 
151 (W-151) where the proposed activities would occur, specifically in 
sub-area W-151A.
    NMFS provided detailed descriptions of the activity area in a 
previous notice for the proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 
23, 2015). The information has not changed between the notice of 
proposed Authorization and this final notice announcing the issuance of 
the Authorization.

Detailed Description of Activities

    The Maritime WSEP training missions, classified as military 
readiness activities, include the release of multiple types of inert 
and live munitions from fighter and bomber aircraft, unmanned aerial 
vehicles, and gunships against small, static, towed, and remotely-
controlled boat targets. Munition types include bombs, missiles, 
rockets, and gunnery rounds (Table 1).

                                      Table 1--Live Munitions and Aircraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Munitions                            Aircraft  (not associated with specific munitions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 laser-guided Mk-84 bomb.............  F-16C fighter aircraft.
GBU-24 laser-guided Mk-84 bomb.............  F-16C+ fighter aircraft.
GBU-12 laser-guided Mk-82 bomb.............  F-15E fighter aircraft.
GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition    A-10 fighter aircraft.
 (LJDAM), laser-guided Mk-82 bomb.
CBU-105 (WCMD) (inert).....................  B-1B bomber aircraft.
AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile.....  B-52H bomber aircraft.
GBU-38 Small Diameter Bomb II (Laser SDB)..  MQ-1/9 unmanned aerial vehicle.
AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile....  AC-130 gunship.
AGM-176 Griffin air-to-surface missile.....
2.75 Rockets...............................
PGU-13/B high explosive incendiary 30 mm
 rounds.
7.62 mm/.50 Cal (inert)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: AGM = air-to-ground missile; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct
  Attack Munition; Laser SDB = Laser Small Diameter Bomb; mm = millimeters; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; WCMD =
  wind corrected munition dispenser.

    The proposed Maritime WSEP training activities involve detonations 
above the water, near the water surface, and under water within the 
EGTTR. However, because the tests will focus on weapons/target 
interaction, Eglin AFB

[[Page 7309]]

will not specify a particular aircraft for a given test as long as it 
meets the delivery parameters.
    Eglin AFB would deploy the munitions against static, towed, and 
remotely-controlled boat targets within the W-151A. Eglin AFB would 
operate the remote-controlled boats from an instrumentation barge 
(i.e., the Gulf Range Armament Test Vessel; GRATV) anchored on site 
within the test area. The GRATV would provide a platform for video 
cameras and weapons-tracking equipment. Eglin AFB would position the 
target boats approximately 182.8 m (600 ft) from the GRATV, depending 
on the munition type.
    Table 2 lists the number, height, or depth of detonation, explosive 
material, and net explosive weight (NEW) in pounds (lbs) of each 
munition proposed for use during the Maritime WSEP activities.

                    Table 2--Maritime WSEP Munitions Proposed for use in the W-151A Test Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total # of                           Warhead--explosive       Net explosive
       Type of munition         live munitions     Detonation type          material        weight per  munition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24..............               2  Surface.............  MK-84--Tritonal.....  945 lbs.
GBU-12 or GBU-54 (LJDAM)......               6  Surface.............  MK-82--Tritonal.....  192 lbs.
AGM-65 (Maverick).............               6  Surface.............  WDU-24/B penetrating  86 lbs.
                                                                       blast-fragmentation
                                                                       warhead.
CBU-105 (WCMD)................               4  Airburst............  10 BLU-108 sub-       Inert.
                                                                       munitions each
                                                                       containing 4
                                                                       projectiles
                                                                       parachute, rocket
                                                                       motor and altimeter.
GBU-38 (Laser Small Diameter                 4  Surface.............  AFX-757 (Insensitive  37 lbs.
 Bomb).                                                                munition).
AGM-114 (Hellfire)............              15  Subsurface (10 msec   High Explosive Anti-  20 lbs.
                                                 delay).               Tank (HEAT) tandem
                                                                       anti-armor metal
                                                                       augmented charge.
AGM-176 (Griffin).............              10  Surface.............  Blast fragmentation.  13 lbs.
2.75 Rockets..................             100  Surface.............  Comp B-4 HEI........  Up to 12 lbs.
PGU-12 HEI 30 mm..............           1,000  Surface.............  30 x 173 mm caliber   0.1 lbs.
                                                                       with aluminized RDX
                                                                       explosive. Designed
                                                                       for GAU-8/A Gun
                                                                       System.
7.62 mm/.50 cal...............           5,000  Surface.............  N/A.................  Inert.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: AGL = above ground level; AGM = air-to-ground missile; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit;
  JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition; mm = millimeters; msec =
  millisecond; lbs = pounds; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary.

    At least two ordnance delivery aircraft will participate in each 
live weapons release training mission which lasts approximately four 
hours. Before delivering the ordnance, mission aircraft would make a 
dry run over the target area to ensure that it is clear of commercial 
and recreational boats. Jets will fly at a minimum air speed of 300 
knots (approximately 345 miles per hour, depending on atmospheric 
conditions) and at a minimum altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft). Due to the 
limited flyover duration and potentially high speed and altitude, the 
pilots would not participate in visual surveys for protected species.
    NMFS provided detailed descriptions of the WSEP training operations 
in a previous notice for the proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, 
December 23, 2015). This information has not changed between the notice 
of proposed Authorization and this final notice announcing the issuance 
of the Authorization.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's application and NMFS' proposal 
to issue an Authorization to the USAF, Eglin AFB, published in the 
Federal Register on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 7984). During the 30-day 
public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal 
Commission (Commission) only. Following are the comments from the 
Commission and NMFS' responses.
    Comment 1: The Commission notes that Eglin AFB has applied for MMPA 
authorizations to take marine mammals on an activity-by-activity basis 
(e.g., naval explosive ordnance disposal school, precision strike 
weapon, air-to-surface gunnery, and maritime strike operations) rather 
than through a programmatic basis. The Commission believes that the 
agencies should evaluate the impacts of all training and testing 
activities under a single letter of authorization application and 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document rather than 
segmenting the analyses based on specific types of missions under 
various authorizations.
    Response: Both Eglin AFB and NMFS concur with the Commission's 
recommendation to streamline the rulemaking process for future 
activities conducted within the EGGTR. In 2015, Eglin AFB developed a 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment as for all testing and training 
activities that would occur in the EGGTR over the next five years. 
Eglin AFB has also developed and submitted a request for a Letter of 
Authorization under the MMPA to NMFS for all testing and training 
activities that would also occur in the EGGTR over the same five year 
period. Both of these efforts will facilitate a more comprehensive 
review of actions occurring within the EGGTR that have the potential to 
take marine mammals incidental to military readiness activities and 
NMFS will be able to evaluate the impacts of all training and testing 
activities under a single letter of authorization application rather 
than segmenting our analyses based on specific types of missions under 
separate authorizations.
    Comment 2: The Commission states that Eglin AFB overestimated 
marine mammal take because they based estimates on a single detonation 
event of each munition type which multiplied the number of animals 
estimated to be taken by a single detonation event for each munition 
type by the total number of munitions that would be detonated, 
irrespective of when those detonations would occur. The Commission 
states that this method does not consider the accumulation of energy in 
a 24-hour period which would more accurately correspond to zones of 
exposure for the representative scenario and serve as more a realistic 
estimate of the numbers of animals that Eglin AFB could potentially 
take during the WSEP

[[Page 7310]]

activities. In estimating take, the Commission commented Eglin AFB's 
model approach was an additive process for estimating each zone of 
exposure, and thus the associated takes. Effectively, The Commission 
states that Eglin AFB overestimated the number of take but is unsure to 
what degree. Further, the Commission recommends that Eglin AFB and NMFS 
should treat fractions of estimated take appropriately, that is 
generally, round down if less than 0.50 and round up if greater than or 
equal to 0.50 before summing the estimates for each species.
    Response: NMFS and Eglin AFB acknowledge that this approach 
contributes to the overestimation of take estimates. Eglin AFB's 
modeling approach for take estimates treated each munition detonation 
as a separate event impacting a new set of animals which results in a 
worst case scenario of potential take and is an overestimate of 
potential harassment.
    NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendations and has 
recalculated the takes by accounting for the accumulation of energy in 
a 24-hour period and by eliminating the double counting of the 
estimated take for each species and appropriately rounding take 
estimates before summing the total take. Table 8 in this notice 
provides the revised number of marine mammals, by species, that Eglin 
AFB could potentially take incidental to the conduct of Maritime WSEP 
operations. The re-calculation results in zero take by mortality, zero 
take by slight lung injury, and zero take by gastrointestinal tract 
injury. Compared to the take levels that NMFS previously presented in 
the notice for the proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 23, 
2015), our re-estimation has reduced take estimates for Level A 
harassment (PTS) from 38 to 14 marine mammals. Based on the remodeling 
of the number of marine mammals potentially affected by the Maritime 
WSEP missions, NMFS would authorize take for Level A and Level B 
harassment presented in Table 8 of this notice.
    Comment 3: The Commission states that Eglin AFB proposes to use 
live-feed video cameras to supplement its effectiveness in detecting 
marine mammals when implementing mitigation measures. However, the 
Commission is not convinced that those measures are sufficient to 
effectively monitor for marine mammals entering the training areas 
during the 30 minute timeframe prior to detonation. In addition, the 
Commission states that it does not believe that Eglin AFB cannot deem 
the Level A harassment zone clear of marine mammals when using only 
three video cameras for monitoring. Thus, the Commission recommends 
that NMFS require Eglin AFB to supplement its mitigation measures with 
passive acoustic monitoring and determine the effectiveness of its 
suite of mitigation measures for activities at Eglin prior to 
incorporating presumed mitigation effectiveness into its take 
estimation analyses or negligible impact determinations.
    Response: NMFS has worked closely with Eglin AFB over the past 
several Authorization cycles to develop proper mitigation, monitoring, 
and reporting requirements designed to minimize and detect impacts from 
the specified activities and ensure that NMFS can make the findings 
necessary for issuance of an Authorization.
    Monitoring also includes vessel-based observers for marine species 
up to 30 minutes prior to deploying live munitions in the area. Eglin 
AFB has submitted annual reports to NMFS every year that describes all 
activities that occur in the EGTTR. In addition, Eglin AFB submitted 
annual reports to NMFS at the conclusion of the Maritime Strike 
Operations These missions are similar in nature to the proposed 
maritime WSEP operations and the Eglin AFB provided information on 
sighting information and results from post-mission survey observations. 
Based on those results, NMFS determined that the mitigation measures 
ensured the least practicable adverse impact to marine mammals. There 
were no observations of injured marine mammals and no reports of marine 
mammal mortality during the Maritime Strike Operation activities. The 
measures proposed for Maritime WSEP are similar, except they will 
include larger survey areas based on updated acoustic analysis and 
previous discussions with the Commission and NMFS.
    Eglin AFB will continue to research the feasibility of 
supplementing existing monitoring efforts with passive acoustic 
monitoring devices for future missions and is in the process of 
discussing alternatives with the Commission and NMFS during the review 
of the environmental planning efforts discussed earlier in Comment 1.
    Comment 4: The MMC expressed their belief that all permanent 
hearing loss should be considered a serious injury and recommends that 
NMFS propose to issue regulations under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 
MMPA and a letter of authorization, rather than an incidental 
harassment authorization, for any proposed activities expected to cause 
a permanent threshold shift (PTS).
    Response: NMFS considers PTS to fall under the injury category 
(Level A Harassment). However, an animal would need to stay very close 
to the sound source for an extended amount of time to incur a serious 
degree of PTS, which could increase the probability of mortality. In 
this case, it would be highly unlikely for this scenario to unfold 
given the nature of any anticipated acoustic exposures that could 
potentially result from a mobile marine mammal that NMFS generally 
expects to exhibit avoidance behavior to loud sounds within the EGTTR.
    NMFS has recalculated the takes presented in the notice for the 
proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 23, 2015) and the results 
of the recalculation show zero takes for mortality, zero takes by 
slight lung injury, and zero takes by gastrointestinal tract injury. 
Further, the re-estimation has reduced the number of take by Level A 
harassment (from PTS) from 38 to 14. Based on this re-estimation, NMFS 
does not believe that serious injury will result from this activity and 
that therefore it is not necessary to issue regulations through section 
101(a)(5)(A), rather, an Incidental Harassment Authorization may be 
issued.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Table 3 lists marine mammal species with potential or confirmed 
occurrence in the proposed activity area during the project timeframe 
and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. 
Please see NMFS' draft 2015 and 2014 Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), 
available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars and Garrison et al., 2008; Navy, 
2007; Davis et al., 2000 for more detailed accounts of these stocks' 
status and abundance.

[[Page 7311]]



                     Table 3--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the Proposed Activity Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Regulatory                                     Relative
           Species                Stock name      status \1\ \2\      Estimated abundance      occurrence in W-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------151-------
Common bottlenose dolphin....  Choctawatchee     MMPA--S, ESA--   179, CV = 0.04 \3\........  Uncommon.
                                Bay.              NL.
                               Pensacola/East    MMPA--S, ESA--   33, CV = 0.80 \4\.........  Uncommon.
                                Bay.              NL.
                               St. Andrew Bay..  MMPA--S, ESA--   124, CV = 0.57 \4\........  Uncommon.
                                                  NL.
                               Gulf of Mexico    MMPA--S, ESA--   7,185, CV = 0.21 \3\......  Common.
                                Northern          NL.
                                Coastal.
                               Northern Gulf of  MMPA--NC, ESA--  51,192, CV = 0.10 \3\.....  Uncommon.
                                Mexico            NL.
                                Continental
                                Shelf.
                               Northern Gulf of  MMPA--NC, ESA--  5,806, CV = 0.39 \4\......  Uncommon.
                                Mexico Oceanic.   NL.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.....  Northern Gulf of  MMPA--NC, ESA--  37,611 \4\, CV = 0.28.....  Common.
                                Mexico.           NL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified.
\2\ ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed.
\3\ NMFS Draft 2015 SAR (Waring et al., 2015).
\4\ NMFS 2014 SAR (Waring et al., 2014).

    An additional 19 cetacean species could occur within the 
northeastern Gulf of Mexico, mainly occurring at or beyond the shelf 
break (i.e., water depth of approximately 200 m (656.2 ft)) located 
beyond the W-151A test area. NMFS and Eglin AFB consider these 19 
species to be rare or extralimital within the W-151A test location 
area. These species are the Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni), sperm 
whale (Physeter macrocephalus), dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima), pygmy 
sperm whale (K. breviceps), pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella 
atenuarta), Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), 
Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Gervais' beaked whale (M. 
europaeus), Clymene dolphin (S. clymene), spinner dolphin (S. 
longirostris), striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba), killer whale (Orcinus 
orca), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), pygmy killer whale 
(Feresa attenuata), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), Fraser's dolphin 
(Lagenodelphis hosei), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra), 
rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), and short-finned pilot whale 
(Globicephala macrorhynchus).
    Of these species, only the sperm whale is listed as endangered 
under the ESA and as depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. 
Sperm whale occurrence within W-151A is unlikely because almost all 
reported sightings have occurred in water depths greater than 200 m 
(656.2 ft).
    Because these species are unlikely to occur within the W-151A area, 
Eglin AFB has not requested and NMFS has not issued take authorizations 
for them. Thus, NMFS does not consider these species further in this 
notice.

Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed Action Area

    The endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) rarely 
occurs in the area (USAF, 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
jurisdiction over the manatee; therefore, we would not include a 
proposed Authorization to harass manatees and do not discuss this 
species further in this notice.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section of the notice of the proposed Authorization (80 FR 
7984, December 23, 2015) included a summary and discussion of the ways 
that components (e.g., exposure to impulsive noise and pressure waves 
generated by live ordnance detonation at or near the surface of the 
water) of the specified activity, including mitigation may impact 
marine mammals and their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section later in this document will include a quantitative 
analysis of the number of individuals that we expect Eglin AFB to take 
during this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will 
include the analysis of how this specific activity would impact marine 
mammals. We will consider the content of the following sections: 
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' and ``Proposed Mitigation'' 
to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on 
the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals--and from that 
consideration--the likely impacts of this activity on the affected 
marine mammal populations or stocks.
    In summary, the Maritime WSEP training exercises proposed for 
taking of marine mammals under an Authorization have the potential to 
take marine mammals by exposing them to impulsive noise and pressure 
waves generated by live ordnance detonation at or near the surface of 
the water. Exposure to energy or pressure resulting from these 
detonations could result in Level A harassment (PTS) and by Level B 
harassment (TTS and behavioral). In addition, NMFS also considered the 
potential for harassment from vessel operations.
    The potential effects of impulsive sound sources (underwater 
detonations) from the proposed training activities may include one or 
more of the following: Tolerance, masking, disturbance, hearing 
threshold shift, stress response, and mortality. NMFS provided detailed 
information on these potential effects in the notice of the proposed 
Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 23, 2015). The information 
presented in that notice has not changed.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    Detonations of live ordnance would result in temporary changes to 
the water environment. Munitions could hit the targets and not explode 
in the water. However, because the targets are located over the water, 
in water explosions could occur. An underwater explosion from these 
weapons could send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, 
release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a 
plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. However, these 
effects would be temporary and not expected to last more than a few 
seconds.
    Similarly, Eglin AFB does not expect any long-term impacts with 
regard to hazardous constituents to occur. Eglin AFB considered the 
introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical materials into the 
water column within its EA and determined the potential effects of each 
to be insignificant. Eglin AFB analyzed the potential effects of each 
in their EA and determined them

[[Page 7312]]

to be insignificant. NMFS provided a summary of the analyses in the 
notice for the proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 23, 2015). 
The information presented in that notice has not changed.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods 
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or 
stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
    The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-
readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such 
that ``least practicable adverse impact'' shall include consideration 
of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    NMFS and Eglin AFB have worked to identify potential practicable 
and effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of 
the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with 
the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of 
implementation, and impact on the ``military-readiness activity.'' We 
refer the reader to Section 11 of Eglin AFB's application for more 
detailed information on the proposed mitigation measures which include 
the following:
    Vessel-Based Monitoring: Eglin AFB would station a large number of 
range clearing boats (approximately 20 to 25) around the test site to 
prevent non-participating vessels from entering the human safety zone. 
Based on the composite footprint, range clearing boats will be located 
approximately (see Figure 11-1 in Eglin AFB's application). However, 
the actual distance will vary based on the size of the munition being 
deployed.
    Trained protected species observers would be aboard five of these 
boats and will conduct protected species surveys before and after each 
test. The protected species survey vessels will be dedicated solely to 
observing for marine species during the pre-mission surveys while the 
remaining safety boats clear the area of non-authorized vessels. The 
protected species survey vessels will begin surveying the area at 
sunrise. The area to be surveyed will encompass the zone of influence 
(ZOI), which is 5 km (3.1 mi). Animals that may enter the area after 
Eglin AFB has completed the pre-mission surveys and prior to detonation 
would not reach the predicted smaller slight lung injury and/or 
mortality zones.
    Because of human safety issues, observers will be required to leave 
the test area at least 30 minutes in advance of live weapon deployment 
and move to a position on the safety zone periphery, approximately 
15.28 km (9.5 mi) from the detonation point. Observers will continue to 
scan for marine mammals from the periphery.

Determination of the Zone of Influence

    Eglin AFB has created a sample day reflecting the maximum number of 
munitions that could be released and resulting in the greatest impact 
in a single mission day. However, this scenario is only a 
representation and may not accurately reflect how Eglin AFB may conduct 
actual operations. However, NMFS and Eglin AFB are considering this 
conservative assumption to calculate the impact range for mitigation 
monitoring measures. Thus, Eglin AFB has modeled, combined, and 
compared the sum of all energies from these detonations against 
thresholds with energy metric criteria to generate the accumulated 
energy ranges for this scenario. Table 4 lists these ranges which form 
the basis of the mitigation monitoring.

                                       Table 4--Distances (m) to Harassment Thresholds for an Example Mission Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Level A           Level B  harassment
                                                                                                            harassment   -------------------------------
                 Munition                      NEW (lbs)      Total # per        Detonation scenario     ----------------       TTS         Behavioral
                                                                  day                                                    -------------------------------
                                                                                                          PTS 187 dB SEL    172 dB SEL      167 dB SEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24..........................             945               1  Surface.....................           5,120          12,384          15,960
GBU-12 or GBU-54..........................             192               1  Surface.....................
AGM-65 (Maverick).........................              86               1  Surface.....................
GBU-39 (LSDB).............................              37               1  Surface.....................
AGM-114 (Hellfire)........................              20               3  (10 ft depth)...............
AGM-175 (Griffin).........................              13               2  Surface.....................
2.75 Rockets..............................              12              12  Surface.....................
PGU-13 HEI 30 mm..........................             0.1             125  Surface.....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; cal = caliber; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; ft = feet; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary; lbs = pounds;
  mm = millimeters; N/A = not applicable; NEW = net explosive weight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = small diameter bomb; PTS = permanent threshold
  shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift; WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser.

    Based on the ranges presented in Table 4 and factoring operational 
limitations associated with survey-based vessel support for the 
missions, Eglin AFB estimates that during pre-mission surveys, the 
proposed monitoring area would be approximately 5 km (3.1 miles) from 
the target area, which corresponds to the Level A harassment threshold 
range. Eglin AFB proposes to survey the same-sized area for each 
mission day, regardless of the planned munition expenditures. By 
clearing the Level A harassment threshold range of protected species, 
animals that may enter the area after the completed pre-mission surveys 
but prior to detonation would not reach the smaller slight lung injury 
or mortality zones (presented in Table 6 later in this document). 
Because of human safety issues, Eglin AFB would require observers to 
leave the test area at least 30 minutes in advance of live weapon 
deployment and move to a position on the safety zone periphery, 
approximately 15 km (9.5 miles) from the detonation point. Observers 
would continue to scan for marine mammals from the periphery, but 
effectiveness would be limited as the boat would remain at a designated 
station.
    Video Monitoring: In addition to vessel-based monitoring, Eglin AFB

[[Page 7313]]

would position three high-definition video cameras on the GRATV 
anchored on-site, as described earlier, to allow for real-time 
monitoring for the duration of the mission. The camera configuration 
and actual number of cameras used would depend on specific mission 
requirements. In addition to monitoring the area for mission objective 
issues, the camera(s) would also monitor for the presence of protected 
species. A trained marine species observer from Eglin Natural Resources 
would be located in Eglin AFB's Central Control Facility, along with 
mission personnel, to view the video feed before and during test 
activities. The distance to which objects can be detected at the water 
surface by use of the cameras is considered generally comparable to 
that of the human eye.
    The GRATV will be located about 183 m (600 ft) from the target. The 
larger mortality threshold ranges correspond to the modified Goertner 
model adjusted for the weight of an Atlantic spotted dolphin calf, and 
extend from 0 to 237 m (0 to 778 ft) from the target, depending on the 
ordnance, and the Level A ranges for both common bottlenose and 
Atlantic spotted dolphins extend from 7 to 965 m (23 to 3,166 ft) from 
the target, depending on the ordnance and harassment criterion. Given 
these distances, observers could reasonably be expected to view a 
substantial portion of the mortality zone in front of the camera, 
although a small portion would be behind or to the side of the camera 
view. Based on previous monitoring reports for this activity, the pre-
training surveys for delphinids and other protected species within the 
mission area are effective. Observers can view some portion of the 
Level A harassment zone, although the view window would be less than 
that of the mortality zone (a large percentage would be behind or to 
the side of the camera view).
    If the high-definition video cameras are not operational for any 
reason, Eglin AFB will not conduct Maritime WSEP missions.
    In addition to the two types of visual monitoring discussed earlier 
in this section, Eglin AFB personnel are present within the mission 
area (on boats and the GRATV) on each day of testing well in advance of 
weapon deployment, typically near sunrise. They will perform a variety 
of tasks including target preparation, equipment checks, etc., and will 
opportunistically observe for marine mammals and indicators as feasible 
throughout test preparation. However, we consider these observations as 
supplemental to the proposed mitigation monitoring and would only occur 
as time and schedule permits. Eglin AFB personnel would relay 
information on these types of sightings to the Lead Biologist, as 
described in the following mitigation sections.

Pre-Mission Monitoring

    The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to: (1) Evaluate the 
mission site for environmental suitability, and (2) verify that the ZOI 
(in this case, 5 km [3.1 mi]) is free of visually detectable marine 
mammals, as well as potential indicators of these species. On the 
morning of the mission, the Test Director and Safety Officer will 
confirm that there are no issues that would preclude mission execution 
and that weather is adequate to support mitigation measures.

Sunrise or Two Hours Prior to Mission

    Eglin AFB range clearing vessels and protected species survey 
vessels will be on site at least two hours prior to the mission. The 
Lead Biologist on board one survey vessel will assess the overall 
suitability of the mission site based on environmental conditions (sea 
state) and presence/absence of marine mammal indicators. Eglin AFB 
personnel will communicate this information to Tower Control and 
personnel will relay the information to the Safety Officer in Central 
Control Facility.

One and One-Half Hours Prior to Mission

    Vessel-based surveys will begin approximately one and one-half 
hours prior to live weapons deployment. Surface vessel observers will 
survey the ZOI (in this case, 5 km [3.1 mi]) and relay all marine 
species and indicator sightings, including the time of sighting, GPS 
location, and direction of travel, if known, to the Lead Biologist. The 
lead biologist will document all sighting information on report forms 
which he/she will submit to Eglin Natural Resources after each mission. 
Surveys would continue for approximately one hour. During this time, 
Eglin AFB personnel in the mission area will also observe for marine 
species as feasible. If marine mammals or indicators are observed 
within the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]), the range will be declared ``fouled,'' 
a term that signifies to mission personnel that conditions are such 
that a live ordnance drop cannot occur (e.g., protected species or 
civilian vessels are in the mission area). If there are no observations 
of marine mammals or indicators of marine mammals, Eglin AFB would 
declare the range clear of protected species.

One-Half Hour Prior to Mission

    At approximately 30 minutes to one hour prior to live weapon 
deployment, marine species observers will be instructed to leave the 
mission site and remain outside the safety zone, which on average will 
be 15.28 km (9.5 mi) from the detonation point. The actual size is 
determined by weapon net explosive weight and method of delivery. The 
survey team will continue to monitor for protected species while 
leaving the area. As the survey vessels leave the area, marine species 
monitoring of the immediate target areas will continue at the Central 
Control Facility through the live video feed received from the high 
definition cameras on the GRATV. Once the survey vessels have arrived 
at the perimeter of the safety zone (approximately 30 minutes after 
leaving the area per instructions from Eglin AFB, depending on actual 
travel time), Eglin AFB will declare the range as ``green'' and the 
mission will proceed, assuming all non-participating vessels have left 
the safety zone as well.

Execution of Mission

    Immediately prior to live weapons drop, the Test Director and 
Safety Officer will communicate to confirm the results of marine mammal 
surveys and the appropriateness of proceeding with the mission. The 
Safety Officer will have final authority to proceed with, postpone, or 
cancel the mission. Eglin AFB would postpone the mission if:
     Any of the high-definition video cameras are not 
operational for any reason;
     Any marine mammal is visually detected within the ZOI (5 
km [3.1 mi]). Postponement would continue until the animal(s) that 
caused the postponement is: (1) confirmed to be outside of the ZOI (5 
km [3.1 mi]) on a heading away from the targets; or (2) not seen again 
for 30 minutes and presumed to be outside the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]) due 
to the animal swimming out of the range;
     Any large schools of fish or large flocks of birds feeding 
at the surface are within the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]). Postponement would 
continue until Eglin AFB personnel confirm that these potential 
indicators are outside the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]):
     Any technical or mechanical issues related to the aircraft 
or target boats; or
     Any non-participating vessel enters the human safety zone 
prior to weapon release.
    In the event of a postponement, protected species monitoring would 
continue from the Central Control Facility through the live video feed.

[[Page 7314]]

Post-Mission Monitoring

    Post-mission monitoring determines the effectiveness of pre-mission 
mitigation by reporting sightings of any marine mammals. Post-
detonation monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has ended 
or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area safe. 
Vessels will move into the survey area from outside the safety zone and 
monitor for at least 30 minutes, concentrating on the area down-current 
of the test site. This area is easily identifiable because of the 
floating debris in the water from impacted targets. Up to 10 Eglin AFB 
support vessels will be cleaning debris and collecting damaged targets 
from this area thus spending several hours in the area once Eglin AFB 
completes the mission. Observers will document and report any marine 
mammal species, number, location, and behavior of any animals observed 
to Eglin Natural Resources.

Mission Delays Due to Weather

    Eglin AFB would delay or reschedule Maritime WSEP missions if the 
Beaufort sea state is greater than number 4 at the time of the testing 
activities. The Lead Biologist aboard one of the survey vessels will 
make the final determination of whether conditions are conducive for 
sighting protected species or not.
    We have carefully evaluated Eglin AFB's proposed mitigation 
measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal 
species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential 
measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to 
one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed here:
    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or 
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to stimuli 
expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, 
above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to stimuli that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this 
goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number 
or number at biologically important time or location) to training 
exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this 
goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of 
harassment takes only).
    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that 
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance 
of habitat during a biologically important time.
    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of Eglin AFB's proposed measures, as well 
as other measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we 
have determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means 
of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. while also 
considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and the 
impact of effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an Authorization for an activity, section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that we must set forth ``requirements 
pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 
requests for an authorization must include the suggested means of 
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result 
in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level 
of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the 
proposed action area.
    Eglin AFB submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in their 
Authorization application. We have not modified or supplemented the 
plan based on comments or new information received from the public 
during the public comment period. Any monitoring requirement we 
prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the 
following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g., 
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
     Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of 
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, 
species, or stock.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to 
marine mammals.
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    The Authorization for Maritime WSEP operations will require the 
following measures. They are:
    (1) Eglin AFB will track the use of the EGTTR for test firing 
missions and protected species observations, through the use of mission 
reporting forms.
    (2) Eglin AFB will submit a summary report of marine mammal 
observations and Maritime WSEP activities to the NMFS Southeast 
Regional Office (SERO) and the Office of Protected Resources 90 days 
after expiration of the current Authorization. This report must include 
the following information: (i) Date and time of each Maritime WSEP 
exercise; (ii) a complete description of the pre-exercise and post-
exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of 
Maritime WSEP exercises on marine mammal populations; and (iii) results 
of the Maritime WSEP exercise monitoring, including number of marine 
mammals (by species) that may have been harassed due to presence within 
the activity zone.
    (3) Eglin AFB will monitor for marine mammals in the proposed 
action area. If Eglin AFB personnel observe or detect

[[Page 7315]]

any dead or injured marine mammals prior to testing, or detects any 
injured or dead marine mammal during live fire exercises, Eglin AFB 
must cease operations and submit a report to NMFS within 24 hours.
    (4) Eglin AFB must immediately report any unauthorized takes of 
marine mammals (i.e., serious injury or mortality) to NMFS and to the 
respective Southeast Region stranding network representative. Eglin AFB 
must cease operations and submit a report to NMFS within 24 hours.

Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities

    Eglin AFB complied with the mitigation and monitoring required 
under the previous Authorization for 2015 WSEP activities. Marine 
mammal monitoring occurred before, during, and after each Maritime WSEP 
mission. During the course of these activities, Eglin AFB's monitoring 
did not suggest that they had exceeded the take levels authorized under 
Authorization. In accordance with the 2015 Authorization, Eglin AFB 
submitted a monitoring report (available at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm).
    Under the 2015 Authorization, Eglin AFB anticipated conducting 
Maritime WSEP training missions over approximately two to three weeks, 
but actually conducted a total of eight mission days: four days 
(February 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2015) associated with inert ordnance 
delivery and four days (March 16, 17, 18, and 19, 2015) associated with 
live ordnance delivery.
    During the February 2015 missions, Eglin AFB released two inert 
CBU-105s in air which resulted in no acoustic impacts to marine 
mammals. The CBU-105 is a cluster bomb unit that detonates in air 
(airburst), contains 10 submunition cylinders with each cylinder 
containing four sub-submunitions (skeets) which fire inert projectiles.
    During the March 2015 live fire missions, Eglin AFB expended four 
AGM-65 Mavericks and six AGM-114 Hellfire missiles against remotely-
controlled boats approximately 27 km (17 mi) offshore Santa Rosa 
Island, FL. Net explosive weights of the munitions that detonated at 
the water surface or up to 3 m (10 ft) below the surface are 86 lbs for 
the AGM-65 Maverick missiles and 13 pounds for the AGM-114 Hellfire 
missiles. Eglin AFB conducted the required monitoring for marine 
mammals or indicators of marine mammals (e.g., flocks of birds, 
baitfish schools, or large fish schools) before, during, and after each 
mission and observed only two species of marine mammals: the common 
bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin. Total protected 
species observed during pre-mission surveys ranged between 149 and 156 
individuals and Eglin AFB confirmed that marine mammals were outside of 
the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]) at the conclusion of each pre-mission survey.
    For one mission day (March 17, 2015), Eglin AFB personnel extended 
the duration of the pre-mission surveys to continue to monitoring a pod 
of 10 bottlenose dolphins until the vessel captain could confirm that 
the pod remained outside the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]) and did not change 
travel direction. Eglin AFB delayed weapons delivery as required by the 
Authorization. Eglin AFB continued with their mission activities after 
all animals cleared the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]).
    After each mission, Eglin AFB re-entered the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]) to 
begin post-mission surveys for marine mammals and debris-clean-up 
operations. Eglin AFB personnel did not observe reactions indicative of 
disturbance during the pre-mission surveys and did not observe any 
marine mammals during the post-mission surveys. In summary, Eglin AFB 
reports that no observable instances of take of marine mammals occurred 
incidental to the Maritime WSEP training activities under the 2015 
Authorization.

Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Taken by Harassment

    The NDAA amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a 
``military readiness activity'' to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of 
the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to 
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A 
Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption 
of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 
point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly 
altered [Level B Harassment].
    NMFS' analysis identified the physiological responses, and 
behavioral responses that could potentially result from exposure to 
underwater explosive detonations. In this section, we will relate the 
potential effects to marine mammals from underwater detonation of 
explosives to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B 
harassment. This section will also quantify the effects that might 
occur from the proposed military readiness activities in W-151.
    At NMFS' recommendation, Eglin AFB updated the thresholds used for 
onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS; Level B Harassment) and onset 
of permanent threshold shift (PTS; Level A Harassment) to be consistent 
with the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report titled, ``Criteria 
and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis 
Technical Report,'' which the Navy coordinated with NMFS. NMFS believes 
that the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report represent the best 
available science. The report is available on the Internet at: http://aftteis.com/Portals/4/aftteis/Supporting%20Technical%20Documents/Criteria_and_Thresholds_for_US_Navy_Acoustic_and_Explosive_Effects_Analysis-Apr_2012.pdf.

Level B Harassment

    Of the potential effects described earlier in this document, the 
following are the types of effects that fall into the Level B 
harassment category:
    Behavioral Harassment--Behavioral disturbance that rises to the 
level described in the above definition, when resulting from exposures 
to non-impulsive or impulsive sound, is Level B harassment. Some of the 
lower level physiological stress responses discussed earlier would also 
likely co-occur with the predicted harassments, although these 
responses are more difficult to detect and fewer data exist relating 
these responses to specific received levels of sound. When predicting 
Level B harassment based on estimated behavioral responses, those takes 
may have a stress-related physiological component.
    Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--As discussed previously, TTS can 
affect how an animal behaves in response to the environment, including 
conspecifics, predators, and prey. NMFS classifies TTS (when resulting 
from exposure to explosives and other impulsive sources) as Level B 
harassment, not Level A harassment (injury).

Level A Harassment

    Of the potential effects that were described earlier, the following 
are the types of effects that fall into the Level A Harassment 
category:
    Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--PTS (resulting either from 
exposure to explosive detonations) is irreversible and NMFS considers 
this to be an injury.
    Table 5 in this document outlines the acoustic thresholds used by 
NMFS for this Authorization when addressing noise impacts from 
explosives.

[[Page 7316]]



                        Table 5--Impulsive Sound Explosive Thresholds Used by Eglin AFB in its Current Acoustics Impacts Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Behavior                                       Slight injury
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Group                                                                            Gastro-                                    Mortality
                                    Behavioral            TTS                PTS         Intestinal  Tract           Lung
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-frequency Cetaceans.......  167 dB SEL.......  172 dB SEL or 23   187 dB SEL or      104 psi..........  39.1 M1/3 (1+[DRm/     91.4 M1/3 (1+DRm/
                                                    psi.               45.86 psi.                            10.081])1/2 Pa-sec     10.081])1/2 Pa-sec
                                                                                                             Where: M = mass of     Where: M = mass of
                                                                                                             the animals in kg      the animals in kg
                                                                                                             DRm = depth of the     DRm = depth of the
                                                                                                             receiver (animal) in   receiver (animal) in
                                                                                                             meters.                meters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eglin AFB modeled that all explosives would detonate at a 1.2 m 
(3.9 ft) water depth despite the training goal of hitting the target, 
resulting in an above water or on land explosion. For sources detonated 
at shallow depths, it is frequently the case that the explosion may 
breech the surface with some of the acoustic energy escaping the water 
column. Table 6 provides the estimated maximum range or radius, from 
the detonation point to the various thresholds described in Table 5.

                                                       Table 6--Distances (m) to Harassment Thresholds From Eglin AFB's Explosive Ordnance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Mortality              Level A harassment                     Level B harassment
                                                                                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Slight   GI Track           PTS                   TTS           Behavioral
                                                                                                                       Lung     Injury  --------------------------------------------------------
                   Munition                        NEW     Total #          Detonation scenario           Modified    Injury  ----------
                                                  (lbs)                                                   Goertner -----------
                                                                                                          Model 1    Modified   237 dB     187 dB     230 dB     172 dB     224 dB    167 dB SEL
                                                                                                                     Goertner    SPL        SEL     peak  SPL     SEL      peak SPL
                                                                                                                     Model 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Bottlenose Dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24..............................       945         2  Surface............................        199        350       340        965        698      1,582      1,280        2,549
GBU-12 or GBU-54..............................       192         6  Surface............................        111        233       198        726        409      2,027        752        2,023
AGM-65 (Maverick).............................        86         6  Surface............................         82        177       150        610        312      1,414        575        1,874
GBU-39 (LSDB).................................        37         4  Surface............................         59        128       112        479        234      1,212        433        1,543
AGM-114 (Hellfire)............................        20        15  (10 ft depth)......................        110        229        95        378        193      2,070        354        3,096
AGM-175 (Griffin).............................        13        10  Surface............................         38         83        79        307        165      1,020        305        1,343
2.75 Rockets..................................        12       100  Surface............................         36         81        77        281        161      1,010        296        1,339
PGU-13 HEI 30 mm..............................       0.1     1,000  Surface............................          0          7        16         24         33        247         60          492
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Atlantic Spotted Dolphin and Unidentified Dolphin \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24..............................       945         2  Surface............................        237        400       340        965        698      1,582      1,280        2,549
GBU-12 or GBU-54..............................       192         6  Surface............................        138        274       198        726        409      2,027        752        2,023
AGM-65 (Maverick).............................        86         6  Surface............................        101        216       150        610        312      1,414        575        1,874
GBU-39 (LSDB).................................        37         4  Surface............................         73        158       112        479        234      1,212        433        1,543
AGM-114 (Hellfire)............................        20        15  (10 ft depth)......................        135        277        95        378        193      2,070        354        3,096
AGM-175 (Griffin).............................        13        10  Surface............................         47        104        79        307        165      1,020        305        1,343
2.75 Rockets..................................        12       100  Surface............................         45        100        77        281        161      1,010        296        1,339
PGU-13 HEI 30 mm..............................       0.1     1,000  Surface............................          0          9        16         24         33        247         60          492
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; cal = caliber; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; ft = feet; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary; lbs = pounds; mm = millimeters; N/A = not applicable;
  NEW = net explosive weight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = small diameter bomb; PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift; WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser.
\1\ Unidentified dolphin can be either bottlenose or Atlantic spotted dolphin. Eglin AFB based the mortality and slight lung injury criteria on the mass of a newborn Atlantic spotted dolphin.

    Eglin AFB uses the distance information shown in Table 6 to 
calculate the radius of impact for a given threshold from a single 
detonation of each munition/detonation scenario, then combine the 
calculated impact radii with density estimates (adjusted for depth 
distribution) and the number of live munitions to provide an estimate 
of the number of marine mammals potentially exposed to the various 
impact thresholds. The ranges presented in Table 6 represent a radius 
of impact for a given threshold from a single detonation of each 
munition/detonation scenario. They do not consider accumulated energies 
from multiple detonation occurring within the same 24-hour time period.

Density Estimation

    Density estimates for bottlenose dolphin and spotted dolphin were 
derived from two sources (see Table 7). NMFS provided detailed 
information on Eglin AFB's derivation of density estimates for the 
common bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins in a previous Federal 
Register notice for a proposed Authorization to Eglin AFB for the same 
activities (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). The information presented 
in that notice has not changed and NMFS refers the reader to Section 3 
of Eglin AFB's application for detailed information on all equations 
used to calculate densities presented in Table 7.

    Table 7--Marine Mammal Density Estimates Within Eglin AFB's EGTTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Density
                         Species                             (animals/
                                                              km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin \1\..................................           1.194
Atlantic spotted dolphin \2\............................           0.265

[[Page 7317]]

 
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic spotted dolphin           0.009
 \2\....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Garrison, 2008; adjusted for observer and availability bias
  by the author.
\2\ Source: Fulling et al., 2003; adjusted for negative bias based on
  information provided by Barlow (2003; 2006).

Take Estimation

    NMFS recalculated the takes proposed in previous notice for the 
proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 23, 2015) based upon the 
Commission's recommendations to eliminate the double counting of the 
estimated take for each species and appropriately rounding take 
estimates before summing the total take. Table 8 indicates the modeled 
potential for lethality, injury, and non-injurious harassment 
(including behavioral harassment) to marine mammals in the absence of 
mitigation measures. Eglin AFB and NMFS estimate that approximately 14 
marine mammals could be exposed to injurious Level A harassment noise 
levels (187 dB SEL) and approximately 671 animals could be exposed to 
Level B harassment (TTS and Behavioral) noise levels in the absence of 
mitigation measures.

           Table 8--Modeled Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by Maritime WSEP Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Level A         Level B         Level B
                     Species                         Mortality      Harassment      Harassment      Harassment
                                                                    (PTS only)         (TTS)       (Behavioral)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin..............................               0              14             255             353
Atlantic spotted dolphin........................               0               0              23              40
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic spotted               0               0               0               0
 dolphin........................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................               0              14             278             393
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the mortality exposure estimates calculated by the 
acoustic model, zero marine mammals are expected to be affected by 
pressure levels associated with mortality or serious injury. Zero 
marine mammals are expected to be exposed to pressure levels associated 
with slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract injury.
    NMFS generally considers PTS to fall under the injury category 
(Level A Harassment). An animal would need to stay very close to the 
sound source for an extended amount of time to incur a serious degree 
of PTS, which could increase the probability of mortality. In this 
case, it would be highly unlikely for this scenario to unfold given the 
nature of any anticipated acoustic exposures that could potentially 
result from a mobile marine mammal that NMFS generally expects to 
exhibit avoidance behavior to loud sounds within the EGTTR.
    NMFS has relied on the best available scientific information to 
support the issuance of Eglin AFB's authorization. In the case of 
authorizing Level A harassment, NMFS has estimated that no more than 14 
bottlenose dolphins and no Atlantic spotted dolphins could, although 
unlikely, experience minor permanent threshold shifts of hearing 
sensitivity (PTS). The available data and analyses, as described more 
fully in a previous notice for a proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, 
December 23, 2015) and this notice include extrapolation results of 
many studies on marine mammal noise-induced temporary threshold shifts 
of hearing sensitivities. An extensive review of TTS studies and 
experiments prompted NMFS to conclude that possibility of minor PTS in 
the form of slight upward shift of hearing threshold at certain 
frequency bands by a few individuals of marine mammals is extremely 
low, but not unlikely.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determinations

    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . . 
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the 
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of 
Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to 
base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of 
the number of marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral 
harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses 
(e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as 
the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number 
of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
    To avoid repetition, the discussion below applies to all the 
species listed in Table 8 for which we propose to authorize incidental 
take for Eglin AFB's activities.
    In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:
     The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or 
mortalities;
     The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B 
harassment;
     The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to 
areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative 
impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions 
when added to baseline data);
     The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., 
depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative 
to the size of the population);
     Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/
survival; and
     The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to 
reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
    For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the 
following factors, Eglin AFB's specified activities are not likely to 
cause long-term behavioral disturbance, serious injury, or death.
    The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential 
behavioral disturbance and TTS. The takes from Level A harassment would 
be due to some form of PTS. Activities would only occur over a 
timeframe of two to three weeks in beginning in February 2016, with one 
or two missions occurring per day. It is possible that some individuals 
may be taken more than once if those individuals are located in the 
exercise area on two different days when exercises are occurring.

[[Page 7318]]

    Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, which includes PTS) are defined 
as increases in the threshold of audibility (i.e., the sound has to be 
louder to be detected) of the ear at a certain frequency or range of 
frequencies (ANSI 1995; Yost 2000). Several important factors relate to 
the magnitude of TS, such as level, duration, spectral content 
(frequency range), and temporal pattern (continuous, intermittent) of 
exposure (Yost 2000; Henderson et al. 2008). TS occurs in terms of 
frequency range (Hz or kHz), hearing threshold level (dB), or both 
frequency and hearing threshold level (CDC, 2004).
    In addition, there are different degrees of PTS: ranging from 
slight/mild to moderate and from severe to profound (Clark, 1981). 
Profound PTS or the complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both 
ears is commonly referred to as deafness (CDC, 2004; WHO, 2006). High-
frequency PTS, presumably as a normal process of aging that occurs in 
humans and other terrestrial mammals, has also been demonstrated in 
captive cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder, 1997; Yuen et al. 2005; Finneran 
et al., 2005; Houser and Finneran, 2006; Finneran et al. 2007; Schlundt 
et al., 2011) and in stranded individuals (Mann et al., 2010).
    In terms of what is analyzed for the potential PTS (Level A 
harassment) in marine mammals as a result of Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP 
operations, if it occurs, NMFS has determined that the levels would be 
slight/mild because research shows that most cetaceans show relatively 
high levels of avoidance. Further, it is uncommon to sight marine 
mammals within the target area, especially for prolonged durations. 
Results from monitoring programs associated other Eglin AFB activities 
and for Eglin AFB's 2015 Maritime WSEP activities have shown the 
absence of marine mammals within the EGTTR during and after maritime 
operations. Avoidance varies among individuals and depends on their 
activities or reasons for being in the area.
    NMFS' predicted estimates for Level A harassment take are likely 
overestimates of the likely injury that will occur. NMFS expects that 
successful implementation of the required vessel-based and video-based 
mitigation measures would avoid Level A take in some instances. Also, 
NMFS expects that some individuals would avoid the source at levels 
expected to result in injury. Nonetheless, although NMFS expects that 
Level A harassment is unlikely to occur at the numbers proposed to be 
authorized, because it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the 
mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of animals that might 
incur PTS, we are proposing to authorize (and analyze) the modeled 
number of Level A takes (14), which does not take the mitigation or 
avoidance into consideration. However, we anticipate that any PTS 
incurred because of mitigation and the likely short duration of 
exposures, would be in the form of only a small degree of permanent 
threshold shift and not total deafness.
    While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the 
activity, because of the short duration of the actual individual 
explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) 
combined with the short duration of the Maritime WSEP operations, NMFS 
has determined that there will not be a substantial impact on marine 
mammals or on the normal functioning of the nearshore or offshore Gulf 
of Mexico ecosystems. We do not expect that the proposed activity would 
impact rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals since we do 
not expect mortality (which would remove individuals from the 
population) or serious injury to occur. In addition, the proposed 
activity would not occur in areas (and/or times) of significance for 
the marine mammal populations potentially affected by the exercises 
(e.g., feeding or resting areas, reproductive areas), and the 
activities would only occur in a small part of their overall range, so 
the impact of any potential temporary displacement would be negligible 
and animals would be expected to return to the area after the 
cessations of activities. Although the proposed activity could result 
in Level A (PTS only, not slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract 
injury) and Level B (behavioral disturbance and TTS) harassment of 
marine mammals, the level of harassment is not anticipated to impact 
rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals because the number 
of exposed animals is expected to be low due to the short-term (i.e., 
four hours a day or less) and site-specific nature of the activity. We 
do not anticipate that the effects would be detrimental to rates of 
recruitment and survival because we do not expect serious of extended 
behavioral responses that would result in energetic effects at the 
level to impact fitness.
    Moreover, the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed for the 
Authorization (described earlier in this document) are expected to 
further minimize the potential for harassment. The protected species 
surveys would require Eglin AFB to search the area for marine mammals, 
and if any are found in the live fire area, then the exercise would be 
suspended until the animal(s) has left the area or relocated. Moreover, 
marine species observers located in the Eglin control tower would 
monitor the high-definition video feed from cameras located on the 
instrument barge anchored on-site for the presence of protected 
species. Furthermore, Maritime WSEP missions would be delayed or 
rescheduled if the sea state is greater than a 4 on the Beaufort Scale 
at the time of the test. In addition, Maritime WSEP missions would 
occur no earlier than two hours after sunrise and no later than two 
hours prior to sunset to ensure adequate daylight for pre- and post-
mission monitoring.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS finds that Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP operations will 
result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B 
harassment only, and that the taking from the Maritime WSEP exercises 
will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for 
Subsistence Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of 
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for 
subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Due to the location of the activity, no ESA-listed marine mammal 
species are likely to be affected; therefore, NMFS has determined that 
this proposed Authorization would have no effect on ESA-listed species. 
Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the 
ESA is not required for the issuance of an MMPA Authorization to Eglin 
AFB.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In 2015, Eglin AFB provided NMFS with an EA titled, Maritime Weapon 
Systems Evaluation Program (WSEP) Operational Testing in the Eglin Gulf 
Testing and Training Range (EGTTR), Florida. The EA analyzed the 
direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the specified 
activities on marine mammals. NMFS, after review and evaluation of the 
Eglin AFB EA for consistency with the regulations published by the 
Council of

[[Page 7319]]

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, 
Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, adopted the EA. After considering the EA, the 
information in the 2014 IHA application, and the Federal Register 
notice, as well as public comments, NMFS has determined that the 
issuance of the 2015 Authorization was not likely to result in 
significant impacts on the human environment; adopted Eglin AFB's EA 
under 40 CFR 1506.3; and issued a FONSI statement on issuance of an 
Authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA.
    In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental 
Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act, May 20, 1999), NMFS will again review the information contained in 
Eglin AFB's EA and determine whether the EA accurately and completely 
describes the preferred action alternative and the potential impacts on 
marine mammals. Based on this review and analysis, NMFS has reaffirmed 
the 2015 FONSI statement on issuance of an annual authorization under 
section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA or supplement the EA if necessary.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an Incidental 
Harassment Authorization to Eglin AFB for conducting Maritime WSEP 
activities, for a period of one year from the date of issuance, 
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: February 8, 2016.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-02801 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P