[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61372-61409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27580]



[[Page 61371]]

Vol. 82

Wednesday,

No. 247

December 27, 2017

Part II





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 218





Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental 
to Testing and Training Activities Conducted in the Eglin Gulf Test and 
Training Range in the Gulf of Mexico; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 61372]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 218

[Docket No. 170831846-7846-01]
RIN 0648-BH21


Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 
Incidental to Testing and Training Activities Conducted in the Eglin 
Gulf Test and Training Range in the Gulf of Mexico

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

ACTION: Proposed rule: request for comments

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the United States Air Force 
(USAF), 96th Civil Engineer Group/Environmental Planning Office (96 
CEG/CEIEA) at Eglin Air Force Base (hereafter referred to as Eglin AFB) 
for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting 
testing and training activities in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training 
Range (EGTTR) in the Gulf of Mexico over the course of five years, from 
February 4, 2018 to February 3, 2023. Pursuant to regulations 
implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing 
regulations to govern that take, and requests comments on the proposed 
regulations.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January 
26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: 
    You may submit comments on this document by either of the following 
methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov, 
enter 0648-BH21 in the ``Search'' box, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, 
Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Attachments to electronic comments will be 
accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. To 
help NMFS process and review comments more efficiently, please use only 
one method to submit comments. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted on www.regulations.gov 
without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, 
address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8408. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, 
please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Regulatory Action

    This proposed rule, to be issued under the authority of the MMPA, 
would establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals 
incidental to military aircraft testing and training activities at 
EGTTR. We received an application from Eglin AFB requesting 5-year 
regulations and authorization for the take by Level A and Level B 
harassment of two marine mammal species. The regulations would be valid 
from February 4, 2018, through February 3, 2023. Please see Background 
below for definitions of Level A and Level B harassment.

Legal Authority for the Proposed Action

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) directs 
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but 
not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years 
if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings 
and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking 
pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting 
requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for 
issuing this proposed rule containing five-year regulations, and for 
any subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to those 
regulations. As directed by this legal authority, this proposed rule 
contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 
(Section 319, Public Law 108-136, November 24, 2003) (NDAA of 2004) 
removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographical region'' 
limitations and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a 
``military readiness activity'' to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of 
the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): (i) Any act that injures or has the 
significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock 
in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is 
likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by 
causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or 
significantly altered (Level B Harassment).

Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Rule

    Following is a summary of some of the major provisions in this 
proposed rule for Eglin AFB's proposed EGTTR activities. We have 
preliminarily determined that Eglin AFB's adherence to the proposed 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures listed below would 
achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine 
mammals. They include:
     Monitoring will be conducted by personnel who have 
completed Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training Course, which was 
developed in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service;
     For each live mission, at a minimum, pre- and post-mission 
monitoring will be required. Monitoring will be conducted from a given 
platform depending on the specific mission. The purposes of pre-mission 
monitoring are to (1) evaluate the mission site for environmental 
suitability and (2) verify that the zone of influence (ZOI) is free of 
visually detectable marine mammals and potential marine mammal 
indicators. Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the 
effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any 
dead or injured marine mammals;
     Mission delay will be implemented during live ordnance 
mission activities if protected species, large schools of fish, or 
large flocks of birds are observed feeding at the surface within the 
ZOI. Mission activities may not resume until

[[Page 61373]]

the animals are observed moving away from the ZOI or 30 minutes have 
passed;
     Mission delay will be implemented if daytime weather and/
or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine 
mammals and other marine life. EGTTR missions may not resume until 
adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring;
     If unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious 
injury or mortality) occur, ceasing operations and reporting to NMFS 
immediately and submitting a report to NMFS within 24 hours;
     Use of aerial-based monitoring which provides an excellent 
viewing platform for detection of marine mammals at or near the 
surface;
     Use of video-based monitoring via live high-definition 
video feed. Video monitoring typically facilitates data collection for 
the mission but can also allow remote viewing of the area for 
determination of environmental conditions and the presence of marine 
species up to the release time of live munitions;
     Use of vessel-based monitoring; and
     Ramp-up procedures for gunnery operations.

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed 
authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization 
for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking 
will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have 
an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible 
methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has 
defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting 
from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and 
is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts 
on the human environment.
    The U.S. Air Force developed an EA in 2015 titled Eglin Gulf Test 
and Training Range Environmental Assessment (Navy 2015). NMFS will 
review and evaluate the EA for consistency with the regulations 
published by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NOAA 
Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for 
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, and determine 
whether or not to adopt the EA. Information in Eglin AFB's application, 
the EA, and this notice collectively provide the environmental 
information related to proposed issuance of the regulations for public 
review and comment. We will review all comments submitted in response 
to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, including the decision 
of whether to sign a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to 
a final decision on the LOA request. The NEPA documents are available 
for review at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.html.

Summary of Request

    On September 16, 2015, NMFS received a request for regulations from 
Eglin AFB for the taking of marine mammals incidental to testing and 
training activities in the EGTTR (defined as the area and airspace over 
the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point three 
nautical miles (NM) off the coast of Florida) for a period of five 
years. Eglin AFB worked with NMFS to revise the model used to calculate 
take estimates and submitted a revised application on April 15, 2017.
    On August 24, 2017, we published a notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's 
application in the Federal Register (82 FR 40141), requesting comments 
and information for thirty days related to Eglin AFB's request. We did 
not receive any comments from the public. The application was 
considered adequate and complete on September 29, 2017.
    Eglin AFB proposes taking marine mammals incidental to EGTTR 
activities by Level A and Level B harassment of Atlantic bottlenose 
dolphins (Tursiops truncates) and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella 
frontalis). On April 23, 2012, NMFS promulgated rulemaking and issued 
an LOA for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Naval 
Explosive Ordnance Disposal School (NEODS) training operations at Eglin 
AFB. This rule expired on April 24, 2017 (77 FR 16718, March 22, 2012). 
On March 5, 2014, NMFS promulgated rulemaking and issued an LOA for 
takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Air Force Special 
Operations Command (AFSOC) precision strike weapons (PSW) and air-to-
surface (AS) gunnery activities in the EGTTR, which is valid through 
March 4, 2019 (79 FR 13568, March 11, 2014). In addition to these rules 
and LOAs, NMFS has issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA) 
for take of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Maritime Strike 
Operations (78 FR 52135, August 22, 2013; valid August 19, 2013 through 
August 18, 2014) and Maritime Weapons Systems Evaluations Program 
(WSEP) annually in 2015 (80 FR 17394), 2016 (81 FR 7307), and 2017 (82 
FR 10747) which currently expires on February 3, 2018. Eglin AFB 
complied with all conditions of the LOAs and IHAs issued, including 
submission of final reports. Based on these reports, NMFS has 
determined that impacts to marine mammals were not beyond those 
anticipated. Eglin AFB's current rulemaking/LOA application would 
supersede the existing PSW and AS gunnery rule that is in effect until 
March 4, 2019, and would include all of Eglin AFB's testing and 
training activities, including WSEP activities, into one new rule with 
the exception of NEODS training activities. Eglin AFB has never 
conducted any NEODS training activities and is not including these 
activities as part of the new rulemaking. The regulations proposed in 
this action, if issued, would be effective from February 4, 2018, 
through February 3, 2023.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    Eglin AFB proposes to conduct military aircraft missions within the 
EGTTR that involve the employment of multiple types of live (explosive) 
and inert (non-explosive) munitions against various surface targets. 
Munitions may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft including, but 
not limited to, fighter jets, bombers, and gunships. Munitions consist 
of bombs, missiles, rockets, and gunnery rounds. The targets may vary, 
but primarily consist of stationary, towed, or remotely controlled 
boats, inflatable targets, or marking flares. Detonations may occur in 
the air, at the water surface, or approximately 10 feet (ft) below the 
surface. Mission activities proposed in the EGTTR have the potential to 
expose cetaceans to sound or pressure levels

[[Page 61374]]

currently associated with mortality, Level A harassment, and Level B 
harassment, as defined by the MMPA.
    Testing and training missions would be conducted during any time of 
the year. Missions that involve inert munitions and in-air detonations 
may occur anywhere in the EGTTR. Aside from gunnery operations, mission 
activities that release live ordnance resulting in surface or 
subsurface detonations would be conducted at a pre-determined location 
approximately 17 miles offshore of Santa Rosa Island, in a water depth 
of about 35 meters (m) (115 ft).

Dates and Duration

    Due to the total number and variability in types of air-to-surface 
test and training missions included in this LOA request, missions may 
occur during any season or month. Missions involving the use of live 
bombs, missiles, and rockets will occur during daylight hours. However, 
some activities, such as gunnery training, may occur during day or 
night. Missions are typically conducted on weekdays, with multiple 
weapons releases typically occurring per day. The LOA would be valid 
from February 4, 2018 through February 3, 2023.

Specific Geographic Region

    All activities will take place within the EGTTR, which is defined 
as the airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, 
beginning at a point 3 NM from shore. This airspace is controlled by 
the Federal Aviation Administration, but scheduled by Eglin AFB. The 
EGTTR is subdivided into blocks consisting of Warning Areas W-155, W-
151, W-470, W-168, and W-174, as well as Eglin Water Test Areas 1 
through 6 (See Figure 1-2 in Application). Most of the blocks are 
further sub-divided into smaller airspace units for scheduling purposes 
(for example, W-151A, B, C, and D). Warning Area W-155 is controlled by 
the U.S. Navy but is used occasionally to support missions scheduled 
through Eglin. Over 102,000 square nautical miles (nmi\2\) of Gulf of 
Mexico surface waters occur under the EGTTR airspace. However, most of 
the activities described in this document will occur in W-151, and the 
great majority will occur specifically in sub-area W-151A due to its 
proximity to shore (Figure 1-3 in Application). Descriptive information 
for all of W-151 and for W-151A specifically is provided below.
    The inshore and offshore boundaries of W-151 are roughly parallel 
to the shoreline contour. The shoreward boundary is 3 nmi from shore, 
while the seaward boundary extends approximately 85 to 100 nmi 
offshore, depending on the specific location. W-151 covers a surface 
area of approximately 10,247 nmi\2\ (35,145 square kilometers (km\2\), 
and includes water depths ranging from about 20 to 700 m (66 to 2,297 
ft). This range of depth includes continental shelf and slope waters. 
Approximately half of W-151 lies over the shelf.
    W-151A, which occurs directly south of Eglin AFB, extends 
approximately 60 nmi offshore and has a surface area of 2,565 nmi\2\ 
(8,797 km\2\). Water depths range from about 30 to 350 m (98 to 1,148 
ft) and include continental shelf and slope zones. However, most of W-
151A occurs over the continental shelf, in water depths less than 250 m 
(820 ft). Most of the air-to-surface missions occur in the shallower, 
northern inshore portion of the sub-area (Maritime WSEP test site), in 
a water depth of about 35 m (115 ft).

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    Eglin AFB proposes to conduct the following actions in the EGTTR: 
(1) 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) Maritime Weapons System 
Evaluation Program (WSEP) test missions that involve the use of 
multiple types of live and inert munitions (bombs and missiles) 
detonated above, at, or slightly below the water surface; (2) Advanced 
Systems Employment Project actions that involve deployment of a variety 
of pods, air-to-air missiles, bombs, and other munitions (all inert 
ordnances in relation to EGTTR); (3) Air Force Special Operations 
Command (AFSOC) training, including air-to-surface gunnery missions 
involving firing live gunnery rounds at targets on the water surface in 
EGTTR, small diameter bomb (SDB) and Griffin/Hellfire missile training 
involving the use of live missiles and SDBs in the EGTTR against small 
towed boats, and CV-22 tiltrotor aircraft training involving the firing 
of 0.50 caliber (cal.)/7.62 mm ammunition at flares floating on the 
EGTTR water surface; (4) 413th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) Precision 
Strike Program (PSP) activities involving firing munitions at flare 
targets on the EGTTR water surface and Stand-Off Precision Guided 
Munitions (SOPGM) testing involving captive-carry, store separation, 
and weapon employment tests; (5) 780th Test Squadron (TS) activities 
involving precision strike weapon (PSW) test missions (launch of 
munitions against targets in the EGTTR) and Longbow Littoral Testing 
(data collection on tracking and impact ability of the Longbow missile 
on small boats); (6) 96th Test Wing Inert Missions (developmental 
testing and evaluation for wide variety of air-delivered weapons and 
other systems using inert bombs); and (7) 96 Operations Group (OG) 
missions, which involve the support of air-to-surface missions for 
several user groups within EGTTR.
    During these activities, ordnances may be delivered by multiple 
types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter aircraft. The actions 
include air-to-ground missiles (AGM); air intercept missiles (AIM); 
bomb dummy units (BDU); guided bomb units (GBU); projectile gun units 
(PGU); cluster bomb units (CBU); wind-corrected munitions dispensers 
(WCMD); small-diameter bombs (SDB) and laser small diameter bombs 
(LSDB); high explosive incendiary units (HEI); joint direct attack 
munitions (JDAM) and laser joint direct attack munitions (LJDAM); 
research department explosives (RDX); joint air-to-surface stand-off 
missiles (JASSM); high altitude anti-submarine warfare weapons (inert); 
high-speed maneuverable surface targets; and gunnery rounds. Net 
explosive weight (NEW) of the live munitions ranges from 0.1 to 945 
pounds (lb).
    The EGTTR testing and training missions are classified as military 
readiness activities and involve the firing or dropping of air-to-
surface weapons. Depending on the requirements of a given mission, 
munitions may be inert (contain no or very little explosive charges) or 
live (contain explosive charges). Live munitions may detonate above, 
at, or slightly below the water surface. In most cases, missions 
consisting of live bombs, missiles, and rockets that detonate at or 
below the water surface will occur at a site in W-151A that has been 
designated specifically for these types of activities. Typically, test 
data collection is conducted from an instrumentation barge known as the 
Gulf Range Armament Test Vessel (GRATV) anchored on-site, which 
provides a platform for cameras and weapon-tracking equipment. 
Therefore, the mission area is referred to as the GRATV target 
location. Alternative site locations may be selected, if necessary, 
within a 5-mile radius around the GRATV point. Missions that involve 
inert munitions and in-air detonations may occur anywhere in the EGTTR 
but are typically conducted in W-151.
    For this LOA request, descriptions of mission activities that 
involve in-water detonations include a section called Mission-Day 
Categorization. This subsection describes the mission-day scenario used 
for acoustic modeling and is based on the estimated number of weapons 
released per day. This

[[Page 61375]]

approach is meant to satisfy NMFS' requests to analyze and assess 
acoustic impacts associated with accumulated energy from multiple 
detonations occurring over a 24-hour timeframe. Eglin AFB used all 
available information to develop each mission-day scenario, including 
historical release records; however, these scenarios may not represent 
exact weapon releases because military needs and requirements are in a 
constant state of flux. The mission-day categorizations provide high-, 
medium-, and low-intensity mission-day scenarios for some groups and an 
average scenario for other groups. Mission-day scenarios vary for each 
user group and are described in the following sections.
    Note that additional testing and training activities are planned 
for the EGTTR that will not result in any acoustic impacts to marine 
mammals and, therefore, not require any acoustic analyses. Examples 
include the firing of 0.50 caliber and 7.62 gunnery rounds that do not 
contain explosives, use of airburst-only detonations, and operations 
involving simulated weapons delivery. Those activities are described in 
detail in the Application but are not discussed here.

86th Fighter Weapons Squadron Maritime Weapons System Evaluation 
Program

    The 86 FWS would continue to use multiple types of live and inert 
munitions in the EGTTR against small boat targets for the Maritime WSEP 
Operational Testing Program. The purpose of the testing is to continue 
the development of tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) for USAF 
strike aircraft to counter small maneuvering surface vessels in order 
to better protect vessels or other assets from small boat threats. 
Damage effects of these munitions must be known to generate TTPs to 
engage small moving boats. The test objectives are to (1) develop TTPs 
to engage small boats in all weather and (2) determine the impact of 
TTPs on Combat Air Force training. The test results would be used to 
develop publishable TTPs for inclusion in Air Force TTP 3-1 series 
manuals. Maritime WSEP testing is considered a high national defense 
priority. Incidental Harassment Authorizations have been issued for 
2015 (80 FR 17394, April 1, 2015), 2016 (81 FR 7307, February 11, 2016) 
and 2017 (82 FR 10747, February 15, 2017) Maritime WSEP activities, but 
these activities will now be part of this new rulemaking to avoid 
annual IHAs.
    Proposed aircraft and munitions associated with Maritime WSEP 
activities are shown in Table 1. Because the focus of the tests would 
be weapon/target interaction, no particular aircraft would be specified 
for a given test as long as it met the delivery requirements. Various 
USAF active duty units, National Guard, Navy, and USAF reserve units 
would participate as interceptors and weapons release aircrews, with 
multiple types of aircraft typically operating within the same 
airspace.

          Table 1--Maritime WSEP Munitions and Example Aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Munitions                            Aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM-114 (Hellfire)........................  F-15 fighter aircraft.
AGM-176 (Griffin).........................  F-16 fighter aircraft.
AGM-65 (Mavericks)........................  F-18 fighter aircraft.
AIM-9X....................................  F-22 fighter aircraft.
BDU-56....................................  F-35 fighter aircraft.
CBU-105 (WCMD)............................  AC-130 gunship.
GBU-12/GBU-54.............................  A-10 fighter aircraft.
GBU-10/GBU-24.............................  B-1 bomber aircraft.
GBU-31....................................  B-52 bomber aircraft.
GBU-38....................................  B-2 bomber aircraft.
PGU-13/B..................................  MQ-1.
PGU-27....................................  MQ-9.
2.75 in Rockets.
7.62mm/50 Cal.
GBU-39 (Laser SDB).
GBU-53 (SDB II).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; AIM = air intercept missile; BDU = Bomb,
  Dummy Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; CBU =
  Cluster Bomb Unit; WCMD = Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser; mm =
  millimeters; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

    Tests would be conducted at the GRATV target location in various 
sea states and weather conditions, up to a wave height of 4 ft. Live 
munitions would be deployed against static (anchored), towed, and 
remotely controlled boat targets. Static and controlled targets would 
consist of stripped boat hulls with plywood simulated systems and, in 
some cases, heat sources. Moving targets would be towed by remotely 
controlled High Speed Maneuverable Surface Target (HSMST) boats. 
Damaged boats would be recovered for data collection. Test data 
collection would be conducted from the GRATV. HSMST boats would be 
remotely controlled from a facility on Eglin main base and would follow 
set track lines with specific waypoints at least 2 to 3 nautical miles 
(NM) away from the GRATV. Additional air assets such as chase aircraft 
or unmanned aerial vehicles would transit to the target area and set up 
flight orbits to provide aerial video of the mission site including 
weapon impacts on boat targets and assisting with range clearing 
activities. Missions would be controlled and monitored from the Eglin 
Central Control Facility (CCF) on the main base.
    Live munitions would be set to detonate either in the air, 
instantaneously upon contact with a target boat, or after a slight 
delay (up to 10 millisecond) after impact, which would correspond to a 
water depth of about 5 to 10 ft. The annual number, height or depth of 
detonation, explosive material, and net explosive weight (NEW) of each 
live munition associated with Maritime WSEP is provided in Table 2. The 
quantity of live munitions tested is considered necessary to provide 
the intended level of tactics and weapons evaluation, including a 
number of replicate tests sufficient for an acceptable confidence level 
regarding munitions capabilities.
    In addition to the live munitions described above, 86 FWS also 
proposes to expend inert munitions in W-151. The expected number of 
each munition type expended during a typical year is included in Table 
2. Use of inert munitions was analyzed in the 2002 Eglin Gulf Test and 
Training Range (EGTTR) Programmatic Environmental Assessment (2002 PEA) 
and found to have no significant environmental impact (U.S. Air Force, 
2002). The 2002 PEA estimated that a maximum of 0.2 marine mammals 
could potentially be struck by projectiles, falling debris, and inert 
munitions each year. This calculation assumed there would be over 600 
events conducted per year which accounted for the maximum annual number 
of expendables over a five-year period (1995-1999), totaling over 
626,000 inert items. Live gunnery rounds (e.g., 25-mm, 40-mm, 105-mm) 
were not included in the direct physical impact analysis since the 
acoustic analyses constituted a more conservative assessment for 
exploding rounds. Since 1999, Range Utilization Reports have shown 
through 2010 the annual average number of inert expendables has 
decreased to approximately 311,000 items, about 50 percent of the 
maximum annual number used for calculations for the 2002 PEA. The 
additional use of inert munitions under the Proposed Action for the 
2015 EGTTR Programmatic EA would add another 76,000 items, resulting in 
a 19 percent increase in inert expendables, based on the annual average 
from 1999 through 2010. This proposed increase compared to historic use 
is still less than the maximum baseline levels analyzed in 2002. The 
estimated abundance of local stocks of bottlenose and Atlantic spotted 
dolphins has likely increased since the 2002 PEA according to NMFS 
stock assessment reports. For example, the northern Gulf of Mexico 
continental shelf stock of bottlenose dolphin increased from 21,531 in 
1991-2001 to 51,192 in 2011-2012, which is the most recent available 
data. Even

[[Page 61376]]

with these estimated increases in abundance, the Navy and NMFS believe 
that the potential for direct physical impacts remains nominal and can 
be considered discountable. Actual numbers of inert releases may vary 
somewhat from those shown in the table. However, the items are included 
in this LOA in order to document the programmatic use of the EGTTR.

                                Table 2--Maritime WSEP Munitions Use in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Number of        Detonations         Warhead--explosive
         Type of munition             munitions          scenario               material             NEW (lbs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24.................               2  Surface or           MK-84--Tritonal.........             945
                                                    Subsurface.
GBU-49...........................               4  Surface............  Tritonal................             300
JASSM............................               4  Surface............  Tritonal................             240
GBU-12/-54 (LJDAM)/-38/-32 (JDAM)              10  Surface or           MK-82--Tritonal.........             192
                                                    Subsurface.
AGM-65 (Maverick)................               8  Surface............  WDU-24/B penetrating                  86
                                                                         blast-fragmentation
                                                                         warhead.
CBU-105..........................               4  Airburst...........  10 BLU-108 submunitions           107.63
                                                                         with 4 projectiles,
                                                                         parachute, rocket motor
                                                                         & altimeter. 10.69 lbs
                                                                         NEW/submunition
                                                                         (includes 2.15 lbs/
                                                                         projectile).
GBU-39 (LSDB)....................               4  Airburst, Surface,   AFX-757 (Insensitive                  37
                                                    or Subsurface.       munition).
AGM-114 (Hellfire)...............              30  Airburst or          High Explosive Anti-Tank              29
                                                    Surface,             (HEAT) tandem anti-
                                                    Subsurface.          armor metal augmented
                                                                         charge.
GBU-53 (SDB II)..................               4  Airburst, Surface    PBX-N-109 Aluminized               22.84
                                                    or Subsurface.       Enhanced Blast, Scored
                                                                         Frag Case, Copper Shape
                                                                         Charge.
AIM-9X...........................               2  Surface............  PBXN-3..................             7.9
AGM-176 (Griffin)................              10  Airburst or Surface  Blast fragmentation.....            4.58
Rockets (including APKWS)........             100  Surface............  Comp B-4 HEI............              10
PGU-13 HEI 30 mm.................           1,000  Surface............  30 x 173 mm caliber with             0.1
                                                                         aluminized RDX
                                                                         explosive. Designed for
                                                                         GAU-8/A Gun System.
GBU-10...........................              21  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
GBU-12...........................              27  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
GBU-24...........................              17  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
GBU-31...........................               6  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
GBU-38...........................               3  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
GBU-54...........................              16  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
BDU-56...........................              13  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
AIM-9X...........................               3  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
PGU-27...........................          46,000  Inert..............  N/A.....................             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; AIM = air intercept missile; BDU = Bomb, Dummy Unit; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU =
  Guided Bomb Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary; lbs = pounds; LJDAM = laser joint direct attack munition;
  LSDB = Laser Small Diameter Bombs; MK = mark; mm = millimeters; NEW = Net Explosive Weight; PGU = Projectile
  Gun Unit; RDX = research department explosive; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

    Mission-day categorizations of weapon releases listed in Table 3 
were developed based on historical mission data, project engineer 
input, and future Maritime WSEP requirements. Categories of missions 
were grouped first using historical weapon releases per day (refer to 
Maritime Strike and Maritime WSEP annual reports for 2015 and 2016). 
Next, the most recent weapons evaluation needs and requirements were 
considered to develop three different scenarios: Categories A, B, and 
C. Mission-day Category A represents munitions with larger NEW (192 to 
945 pounds) with both surface and subsurface detonations. This category 
includes future requirements and provides flexibility for the military 
mission. To date, Category A levels of activity have not been conducted 
under the 86 FWS Maritime WSEP missions and is considered a worst-case 
scenario. Category B represents munitions with medium levels of NEW (20 
to 86 pounds) including surface and subsurface detonations. Category B 
was developed using actual levels of weapon releases during Maritime 
WSEP missions (refer to Maritime WSEP annual reports for 2015 and 
2016). Category C represents munitions with smaller NEW (0.1 to 13 
pounds) and includes surface detonations only.

                   Table 3--Maritime WSEP Munitions Categorized as Representative Mission Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Total
 Mission category         Munition        NEW (lbs)     Detonation type     Munitions     Mission     munitions/
                                                                             per day     days/year       year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................  GBU-10/-24/-31.....          945  Subsurface (10-ft              1            2            2
                                                       depth).
                    GBU-49.............          300  Surface............            2  ...........            4
                    JASSM..............          240  Surface............            2  ...........            4
                    GBU-12/-54 (LJDAM)/-         192  Subsurface (10-ft              5  ...........           10
                     38/-32 (JDAM).                    depth).
B.................  AGM-65 (Maverick)..           86  Surface............            2            4            8
                    GBU-39 (SDB).......           37  Surface............            1  ...........            4
                    AGM-114 (Hellfire).           20  Subsurface (10-ft              5  ...........           20
                                                       depth).

[[Page 61377]]

 
C.................  AGM-176 (Griffin)..           13  Surface............            5            2           10
                    2.75 rockets.......           12  Surface............           50  ...........          100
                    AIM-9X.............          7.9  Surface............            1  ...........            2
                    PGU-12 HEI 30 mm...          0.1  Surface............          500  ...........        1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary;
  JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition; lbs = pounds; NEW = net
  explosive weight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; mm = millimeter; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

    A human safety zone will be established around the test area prior 
to each mission and will be enforced by up to 25 safety boats. The size 
of this zone may vary, depending upon the particular munition and 
delivery method used in a given test. A composite safety footprint has 
been developed for previous tests using live munitions. This composite 
safety footprint consisted of a circle with a 29 mile-wide diameter 
circle (14.5 mile-wide radius), which was converted to an octagon shape 
for ease of support vessel placement and range clearance.
    Potential post-test activities consist of Air Force Explosive 
Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel detonating in place any munitions 
components or items remaining on the target boats that would be 
considered unexploded ordnance (UXO), debris retrieval, and post-
mission protected species surveys. Unexploded bombs, missiles, or other 
similarly large items would sink to the seafloor and would not be 
recovered or detonated. However, smaller unexploded items such as 
cluster bomb submunitions could remain intact on target boats. Once the 
area has been cleared by the Eglin EOD team, the range will be re-
opened for the debris clean-up team and the protected species survey 
vessels (when live munitions are used). Depending on the specific 
weapon system used and the location or position of the UXO, the test 
area could be closed for an extended period of time.

Advanced Systems Employment Project

    The proposed Advanced Systems Employment Project (ASEP) action 
includes evaluating upgrades to numerous research and development, as 
well as Air Force hardware and software, initiatives. F16, F15E, and 
BAC1-11 aircraft would be used to deploy a variety of pods, air-to-air 
missiles, bombs, and other munitions. Many of the missions are 
conducted over Eglin land ranges. However, inert instrumented MK-84 
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs would be expended in W-151 
under the Proposed Action. Bombs would be dropped on target boats 
located 20 to 25 miles offshore. A maximum of 12 over-water missions 
could be conducted annually, although the number could be as low as 4. 
There would be no live ordnance associated with ASEP actions in the 
EGTTR.

Air Force Special Operations Command Training

    The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) conducts various 
training activities with multiple types of munitions in nearshore 
waters of the EGTTR (W-151). Training activities include air-to-surface 
gunnery and small diameter bomb/Griffin/Hellfire missile proficiency 
training. The following subsections describe the proposed actions 
included in Eglin AFB's LOA request.
    Air-to-surface gunnery missions involve firing of live gunnery 
rounds from the AC-130 aircraft at targets on the water surface in the 
EGTTR. Ordnance used in this training includes 25 mm high explosive 
incendiary (HEI), 30 mm HEI, 40 mm HEI, and 105 mm HEI rounds. NEW 
ranges from about 0.07 to 4.7 pounds. The Air Force has developed a 105 
mm training round (TR) that contains less than 10 percent of the amount 
of explosive material contained in the 105 mm full up (FU) round. The 
TR variant was developed as a means to mitigate acoustic impacts on 
marine mammals that could not be adequately surveyed at night by 
aircraft sensors. Today's AC-130 sensors allow for effective nighttime 
visual surveys but with reduced explosive material the TR rounds remain 
a valuable mitigation for reducing acoustic impacts.
    Water ranges within the EGTTR that are typically used for gunnery 
operations include W-151A, W-151B, W-151C, and W-151D. However, W-151A 
is the most frequently used water range due to its proximity to 
Hurlburt Field (where the gunnery flights originate). AC-130s normally 
transit from Hurlburt Field to the water ranges at a minimum of 4,000 
ft above surface level. Potential target sites are typically 
established at least 15 miles from the coast (beyond the 12 nmi 
territorial sea boundary). Such a location places most mission 
activities over shallower continental shelf waters where marine mammal 
densities are typically lower and thus avoids the slope waters where 
more sensitive species (e.g., Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed sperm 
whale) generally reside. Targets consist of either an MK-25 floating 
flare or an inflatable target. For missions where flares are used, the 
aircrew scans a 5-NM radius around the potential target area to ensure 
it is clear of surface craft, protected species, and other objects that 
would make the site unsuitable. Scanning is accomplished using radar, 
Electro Optical (EO), infrared (IR) sensors, and visual means. An 
alternative area is selected if any non-mission vessels or protected 
marine species are detected within the 5 nmi search area. Once the scan 
is completed, the marking flare is dropped onto the water surface. The 
flare's burn time is typically 10 to 20 minutes but could be less if 
actually hit by one of the rounds. However, flares may burn as long as 
40 minutes.
    Missions using an inflatable target proceed under the same general 
protocol. A tow boat transits to a potential target site located at 
least 15 miles from the coast. The AC-130 then arrives at the site and, 
as with missions using flares, the aircrew scans an appropriate area 
around the potential target area (5 nmi radius for non-mission vessels 
and protected species) using visual observation and the aircraft's 
sensors. An alternative area would be selected if any protected marine 
species or non-mission vessels were detected within the search area. 
Once the scan is complete, the 20-foot target is inflated and deployed 
into the water. The tow boat then proceeds to pull the target, which is 
attached to a 2,200-foot cable. The target continues to float even when 
struck by ordnance and deflated. After the mission, the tow boat 
recovers any debris produced by rounds

[[Page 61378]]

striking the target, although little debris is expected.
    After target deployment, the firing sequence is initiated. A 
typical gunship mission lasts approximately five hours without air-to-
air refueling, and six hours when refueling is accomplished. A typical 
mission includes 1.5 to 2 hours of live fire. This time includes 
clearing the area and transiting to and from the range. Actual firing 
activities typically do not exceed 30 minutes. The number and type of 
munitions deployed during a mission varies with each type of mission 
flown. The 105-mm TR variants are used during nighttime training. Live 
fire events are continuous, with pauses during the firing usually well 
under a minute and rarely from two to five minutes.
    Gunnery missions could occur any season of year, during daytime or 
nighttime hours. The quantity of live rounds expended is based on 
estimates provided by AFSOC regarding the annual number of missions and 
number of rounds per mission. The 105 mm FU rounds would typically be 
used during daytime missions, while the 105 mm TR variants would be 
used at night.
    On March 5, 2014, NMFS issued a 5-year LOA in accordance with the 
MMPA for AFSOC's air-to-surface gunnery activities which is currently 
valid through March 4, 2019. This LOA request would supersede that 
authorization for AC-130 air-to-surface gunnery activities for another 
five years (2018-2023); it incorporates the updated approach to 
analysis requested by NMFS. No significant changes to these mission 
activities are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Table 4 shows the 
annual number of missions and gunnery rounds currently authorized under 
the existing LOA which will be carried forward for this LOA request.

                           Table 4--Summary of Annual AFSOC AC-130 Gunnery Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total         Number of       Number of
                    Munition                         NEW (lbs)      munitions/        daytime      LI>nighttime
                                                                       year          missions        missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
105 mm HE (FU)..................................             4.7             750              25              45
105 mm HE (TR)..................................            0.35           1,350  ..............  ..............
40 mm HE........................................            0.87           4,480  ..............  ..............
30 mm HE........................................             0.1          35,000  ..............  ..............
25 mm HE........................................           0.067          39,200  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............          80,780  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HE = High Explosive; lbs = pounds; mm = millimeter; NEW = net explosive weight; TR = Training Round; FU = Full
  Up.

    Two mission-day scenarios were developed to represent the average 
number of gunnery rounds expended during daytime and nighttime AC-130 
air-to-surface gunnery missions; category D for daytime missions and 
category E for nighttime missions. Eglin AFB coordinated with the AFSOC 
Planning Office to confirm that annual allotments provided in Table 5 
would still meet their training needs and averaged the annual number of 
each gunnery round with the annual number of mission days proposed for 
daytime and nighttime. The mission-day scenarios developed for AC-130 
air-to-surface gunnery missions are shown in Table 5.

                                      Table 5--AC-130 Gunnery Operations Categorized as Representative Mission Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Total
       Mission category                  Munition               NEW (lbs)          Detonation type         Munitions per   Mission days/    munitions/
                                                                                                                day            year            year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D............................  105 mm HE (FU)..............             4.7  Surface....................              30              25             750
                               40 mm HE....................            0.87  Surface....................              64  ..............           1,600
                               30 mm HE....................             0.1  Surface....................             500  ..............          12,500
                               25 mm HE....................           0.067  Surface....................             560  ..............          14,000
E............................  105 mm HE (TR)..............            0.35  Surface....................              30              45           1,350
                               40 mm HE....................            0.87  Surface....................              64  ..............           2,880
                               30 mm HE....................             0.1  Surface....................             500  ..............          22,500
                               25 mm HE....................           0.067  Surface....................             560  ..............          25,200
                                                            ----------------                             -----------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ............................  ..............  ...........................  ..............              70          80,780
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HE = High Explosive; lbs = pounds; mm = millimeter; NEW = net explosive weight; TR = Training Round; FU = Full Up.

413th Flight Test Squadron

    The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has requested 
the 413th Flight Test Squadron (413 FLTS) to demonstrate the 
feasibility and capability of the Precision Strike Package and the 
Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM) missile system on the AC-
130 aircraft. SOCOM, in conjunction with A3 Operations at Wright-
Patterson AFB, is fielding the new AC-130J for flight characterization, 
as well as testing and evaluation. AFSOC is integrating some of the 
same weapons on the AC-130W. Therefore, the activities described below 
for the 413 FLTS may involve either of these aircraft variants.
    The proposed AC-130J gunnery testing associated with the 413 FLTS's 
Precision Strike Package would be similar to that described above for 
AFSOC AC-130 gunnery training in terms of location and general 
procedures. Testing would occur in W-151A and would involve firing 
either (1) PGU-44/B (105 mm HE] with FMU-153/B point detonation/delay 
fuse) or PGU-43B Target Practice (TP) rounds (105 mm TR) from a 105 mm 
M102 (U.S. Air Force designation M137A1) light-weight Howitzer cannon, 
or (2) PGU-13 HEI, PGU-46 HEI rounds, or PGU-15 TP rounds (inert) from 
a 30 mm GAU-23/A gun system. A MK-25 flare would be dropped prior to 
firing and used as a

[[Page 61379]]

target. Management measures would be the same as those described for 
AFSOC's AC-130 gunnery missions.
    413 FLTS mission day scenarios were developed based on the number 
of mission days planned annually. Up to eleven mission days are planned 
for 413 FLTS operations annually. The total number of munitions were 
averaged over each day and are shown in Table 6. All missions would be 
conducted shoreward of the continental shelf break/200 m isobath as 
shown in Figure 1-7 in the Application).

                          Table 6--413 FLTS Precision Strike Package Gunnery Testing Categorized as Representative Mission Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Total
       Mission category                  Munition               NEW (lbs)          Detonation type         Munitions per   Mission days/    munitions/
                                                                                                                day            year            year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F............................  30 mm.......................             0.1  Surface....................              33               3              99
G............................  105 mm FU...................             4.7  Surface....................              15               4              60
H............................  105 mm TR...................            0.35  Surface....................              15               4              60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FU = full up; lbs = pounds; mm = millimeter; NEW = net explosive weight; TR = Training Round.

    Stand off precision guided missiles (SOPGMs) are proposed for use 
in testing feasibility of these missiles on AC-130 aircraft. Weapons 
include AGM-176 Griffin missiles, AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, GBU-39/B 
SDBs, and GBU-39B/B Laser Small Diameter Bombs (LSDBs). Initial actions 
would consist of various ground tests. After ground testing is 
completed, captive carry, store separation, and weapon employment tests 
would be conducted. Captive-carry missions would be conducted with an 
Instrumented Measurement Vehicle (IMV) to collect environmental data or 
an inert telemetry (TM) missile in order to evaluate the integration of 
the SOPGM with the AC-130J. Store separation missions would require a 
TM missile with an inert warhead and a live motor, if applicable, to 
verify that the weapon can be employed without significant risk to the 
aircraft.
    Weapon employment missions would be flown using any combination of 
inert and/or live weapons for a final end-to-end check of the system. 
Missions could be conducted over land or water ranges, with water 
ranges used for SDB/LSDB and Griffin missile tests. It is expected that 
over-water testing would be conducted at the GRATV target location. 
Similar to preceding mission descriptions, pre- and post-test surveys 
will be conducted within the applicable human and protected species 
safety zones.
    Table 7 shows the mission-day scenarios and annual number of 
munitions expended annually for SOPGM testing. The 413 FLTS provided 
the number of munitions required over a span of four years. The numbers 
in the table represent the average per year (total number of munitions 
divided by four).

                                    Table 7--413 FLTS SOPGM Annual Testing Categorized as Representative Mission Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Total
       Mission category                  Munition               NEW (lbs)          Detonation type         Munitions per   Mission days/    munitions/
                                                                                                                day            year            year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............................  AGM-176 (Griffin)...........            4.58  Surface....................               5               2              10
J............................  AGM-114 (Hellfire)..........              29  Surface....................               5               2              10
K............................  GBU-39 (SDB I)..............              36  Surface....................               3               2               6
L............................  GBU-39 (LSDB)...............              36  Surface....................               5               2              10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = Air-To-Ground Missile; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; lbs = pounds; LSDB = Laser Small Diameter Bomb; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

780th Test Squadron

    Testing activities conducted by the 780th Test Squadron (780 TS) 
include Precision Strike Weapon, Longbow missile littoral testing, and 
several other various future actions.
    The U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and U.S. Navy, in 
cooperation with the 780 TS, conducts Precision Strike Weapon (PSW) 
test missions utilizing resources within the Eglin Military Complex, 
including sites in the EGTTR. The weapons used in testing are the AGM-
158 A and B (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), and the 
GBU-39/B (SDB I).
    The JASSM is a precision cruise missile designed for launch from 
outside area defenses against hardened, medium-hardened, soft, and area 
type targets. The JASSM has a range of more than 200 nmi and carries a 
1,000-pound warhead. The JASSM has approximately 240 pounds of 2,4,6-
trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent NEW. The specific explosive used is 
AFX-757, a type of plastic bonded explosive (PBX). The JASSM would be 
launched more than 200 nmi from the target location. Platforms for the 
launch would include B-1, B-2, B-52, F-16, F-18, and F-15E aircraft. 
Launch from the aircraft would occur at altitudes greater than 25,000 
ft. The JASSM would cruise at altitudes greater than 12,000 ft for the 
majority of the flight profile until making the terminal maneuver 
toward the target.
    The SDB is a guided bomb that is an important element of the Air 
Force's Global Strike Task Force. The SDB I carries a 217-pound warhead 
with approximately 37 pounds NEW. The explosive used is AFX-757. The 
SDB I may be launched from over 50 nmi away from the target location. 
Platforms for the launch include F-15E, F-16, and AC-130W aircraft. 
Launch from the aircraft occurs at altitudes greater than 5,000 ft 
above ground level (AGL). The SDB I then commences a non-powered glide 
to the intended target.
    Up to two live and four inert JASSM missiles per year may be 
launched to impact a target at the GRATV target location. The JASSM 
missile would detonate upon impact with the target. Although impact 
would typically occur about 5 ft (1.5 m) above the water surface, 
detonations are assumed to occur at the water surface for purposes of 
impacts analysis.
    Additionally, up to 6 live and 12 inert SDBs could also be deployed 
against targets in the same target area. Two SDB-Is could be launched 
simultaneously during two of the live

[[Page 61380]]

missions and four of the inert missions. Detonation of the SDBs would 
occur under one of two scenarios:
     Detonation upon impact with the target.
     Height of burst (HOB) test, which involves detonation 7 to 
14 ft (2.2 to 4.5 m) in the air above the surface target.
    There would generally be only one detonation per test event and 
thus no more than one detonation in any 24-hour period. In instances of 
a simultaneous SDB launch scenario, two bombs are deployed from the 
same aircraft at nearly the same time to strike the same target. It is 
expected that the bombs would strike the target within five seconds or 
less of each another. Under this scenario, the detonations are 
considered a single event (NEW is doubled) for the purpose of acoustic 
modeling and marine species impacts analysis. Modeling both detonations 
as a single event results in a conservative impact estimate. PSW 
munitions are shown in Table 8.

                            Table 8--Summary of Annual Precision Strike Weapon Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total number      Number of     Total number
                    Munitions                     Number of live      of live      inert tests/      of inert
                                                    tests/year       munitions         year          munitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM-158 (JASSM).................................               2               2               4               4
GBU-39 (SDB I) Single Launch....................               2               2               4               4
GBU-39 (SDB I) Simultaneous Launch..............               2               4               4               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JASSM = Joint Air-To-Surface Stand-Off Missile; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

    Based on availability, one of two potential target types would be 
used during PSW tests. The first is a Container Express (CONEX) target 
that consists of up to five containers (each of which is 8 ft 6 in. 
length, 6 ft 3 in. in width and 6 ft 10.5 in. in height), strapped, 
braced, and welded together to form a single structure. The CONEX 
target would be constructed on land and shipped to the target location 
two to three days prior to the test. The other target type would be a 
barge target (125 ft in length, 30 ft in width and 12 ft in height), 
which would also be stationed at the target location two to three days 
prior to the test. During an inert mission, the JASSM would pass 
through the target and the warhead would sink to the bottom of the 
Gulf. Immediately following impact, the JASSM recovery team would pick 
up surface debris originating from the missile and target. Depending on 
the test schedule, the target could remain in the Gulf of Mexico for up 
to one month at a time. If the target is significantly damaged, and it 
is deemed impractical and unsafe to retrieve it, the target remains 
could be sunk through coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard or Tyndall 
AFB. Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be 
required prior to sinking a target. PSW test activities would occur in 
W-151 at the GRATV target location. Targets are located in 
approximately 115 to 120 ft of water, about 17 miles offshore of Test 
Area A-3 on Santa Rosa Island (actual distance could range from 15 to 
24 miles offshore). This area is the same as the Maritime WSEP test 
site, which is located 17 miles offshore. Test missions could occur 
during any time of the year but during daylight hours only.
    In addition to the above description, future (Phase 2) testing of 
the SDB is planned by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation 
Center (AFOTEC) as shown in Table 9. AFOTEC proposes to expend two live 
and one inert GBU-53 (SDB II) weapons in the EGTTR. The live weapons 
would be deployed against moving boats with a length of 30 to 40 ft, 
while the inert weapon would be used against a smaller fiberglass boat.

                   Table 9--Summary of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Precision Strike Weapon Live Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Number of
                                                                                  Number of live       inert
                             Weapon                                  NEW (lbs)       munitions       munitions
                                                                                     released        released
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM-158 (JASSM).................................................             240               2               4
GBU-39 (SDB I)..................................................              37               2               4
GBU-39 (SDB I) Double Shot *....................................              74               2               4
GBU-53 (SDB II).................................................           22.84               2               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = Air-To-Ground Missile; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; JASSM = Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile; lbs =
  pounds; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.
* NEW is doubled for each simultaneous launch.

    The 780 TS/OGMT missions have been categorized based on the number 
of weapons released per day, assuming three mission days are planned 
annually. Representative mission days are shown in Table 10.

                            Table 10--780 TS/OGMT Precision Strike Weapon Testing Catergorized as Representative Mission Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Munitions per   Mission days/       Total
       Mission category                  Munition               NEW (lbs)          Detonation type              day            year       munitions/year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M............................  AGM-158 (JASSM).............             240  Surface....................               2               1               2
N............................  GBU-39 (SDB I)..............              37  Surface....................               2               1               2
                               GBU-39 (SDB I) Double Shot *              74  Surface....................               2  ..............               2

[[Page 61381]]

 
O............................  GBU-53 (SDB II).............           22.84  Surface....................               2               1               2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = Air-To-Ground Missile; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; JASSM = Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile; lbs = pounds; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.
* NEW is doubled for each simultaneous launch.

    The 780 TS plans to conduct other various testing activities that 
involve targets on the water surface in the EGTTR. Many of the missions 
would target small boats or barges. Weapons would primarily be 
delivered by aircraft, although a rail gun would be used for one test. 
Live warheads would be used for some missions, while others would 
involve inert warheads with a live fuse (typically contains a very 
small NEW). Total future munitions for 780 TS are listed in Table 11. 
As with the preceding missions using live weapons, safety zone 
enforcement and pre- and post-mission marine species monitoring would 
be required.

                             Table 11--780 TS Annual Munitions, Other Future Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of        Proposed
           Munition               NEW (lbs)       releases         location       Target type    Detonation type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Air-Ground Missile.....           27.41               2  W-151 (subareas  HSMST or Boston  1--Point
                                                                A, S5, and S6).  Whaler type      Detonation 1--
                                                                                 boat.            Airburst.
Navy Rail Gun................           Inert              19  W-151..........  Barge..........  Penetrating
                                                                                                  Rod.
                                            1               5  W-151..........  Barge..........  Airburst.
JDAM--Extended Range.........           Inert               3  W-151..........  Water surface    Inert.
                                                                                 (2).
                                                                                Barge (1)......
Navy HAAWC...................           Inert               2  W-151..........  Water surface..  Inert.
Laser SDB (live fuse only)...             0.4               4  W-151A.........  Small boats....  Airburst or
                                                                                                  Surface.
SDB II Guided Test Vehicle                0.4               4  W-151A.........  Small boats....  Surface.
 (live fuse only).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAAWC = High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability; HSMT = High Speed Maneuverable Surface Target;
  JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; NEW = net explosive weight; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

    The 780 TS/OGMT future missions primarily consist of one-day test 
events for each type of munition. Inert munitions and munitions being 
detonated as airbursts were not included in the development of these 
scenarios because no in-water acoustic impacts are anticipated. 
Therefore representative mission days were developed for live munitions 
resulting in surface detonations, as shown in Table 12.

                                    Table 12--780 TS Other Future Actions Categorized as Representative Mission Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Total
          Mission category                     Munition              NEW (lbs)        Detonation type      Munitions per   Mission days/    munitions/
                                                                                                                day            year            year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P..................................  Joint Air-Ground Missile...           27.41  Surface...............               1               1               1
Q..................................  Laser SDB (fuse only) and               0.4  Surface...............               2               4               8
                                      SDB II Guided Test Vehicle
                                      (fuse only).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAAWC = High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability; HSMT = High Speed Maneuverable Surface Target; JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; N/A
  = not applicable; NEW = net explosive weight; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

96 Operations Group

    The 96 Operations Group (OG), which conducts the 96 TW's primary 
missions of developmental testing and evaluation of conventional 
munitions, and command and control systems, anticipates support of air-
to-surface missions for several user groups on an infrequent basis. As 
the organization that oversees all users of Eglin ranges, they have the 
authority to approve new missions that could be conducted in the EGTTR. 
Specific details on mission descriptions under this category have not 
been determined, as this is meant to capture future unknown activities. 
Sub-surface detonations would be at 5 to 10 ft below the surface. 
Projected annual munitions expenditures and detonation scenarios are 
listed in Table 13.

                          Table 13--Annual Munitions for 96th Operations Group Support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Number annual
                   Munition                        NEW (lbs)           Detonation scenario           releases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24..............................             945  Subsurface......................               1
AGM-158 (JASSM)...............................             240  Surface.........................               1

[[Page 61382]]

 
GBU-12 or GBU-54..............................             192  Subsurface......................               1
AGM-65 (Maverick).............................              86  Surface.........................               2
GBU-39 (SDB I or LSDB)........................              37  Subsurface......................               4
AGM-114 (Hellfire)............................              20  Subsurface......................              20
105 mm full-up................................             4.7  Surface.........................             125
40 mm.........................................             0.9  Surface.........................             600
Live fuse.....................................             0.4  Surface.........................             200
30 mm.........................................             0.1  Surface.........................           5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; lbs = pounds; LSDB = Laser Small Diameter Bomb; SDB = Small
  Diameter Bomb.

    The 96 OG future missions have been categorized based on the number 
of weapons released per day, instead of treating each weapon release as 
a separate event. This approach is meant to satisfy NMFS requests for 
analysis and modeling of accumulated energy from multiple detonations 
over a 24-hour timeframe. Eglin AFB used all available information to 
determine these daily estimates, including historic release reports; 
however, these scenarios may not represent exact weapon releases 
because military needs and requirements are in a constant state of 
flux. The mission day scenarios for 96 OG annually are shown in Table 
14.
    Categories of missions for 96 OG were grouped (similar to Maritime 
WSEP) first using historical weapon releases per day. Next, the most 
recent weapons evaluation needs and requirements were considered to 
develop three different scenarios: Categories R, S, and T. Mission-day 
Category R represents munitions with larger NEW (192 to 945 pounds) and 
both surface and subsurface detonations. This category includes future 
requirements and provides flexibility for the military mission. To 
date, Category R levels of activity have not been conducted under 96 OG 
missions, and is considered a worst-case scenario. Category S 
represents munitions with medium levels of NEW (20 to 86 pounds) 
including surface and subsurface detonations. Category T represents 
munitions with smaller NEW (0.1 to 13 pounds) and includes surface 
detonations only.

                                       Table 14--96 OG Future Missions Categorized as Representative Mission Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Total
       Mission category                  Munition               NEW (lbs)          Detonation Type         Munitions per   Mission days/    munitions/
                                                                                                                day            year            year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R............................  GBU-10/-24..................             945  Subsurface.................               1               1               1
                                                                             (10-ft depth)..............
                               AGM-158 (JASSM).............             240  Surface....................               1  ..............               1
                               GBU-12 or GBU-54............             192  Subsurface.................               1  ..............               1
                                                                             (10-ft depth)..............
S............................  AGM-65 (Maverick)...........              86  Surface....................               1               2               2
                               GBU-39 (SDB I or LSDB)......              37  Subsurface.................               2  ..............               4
                               AGM-114 (Hellfire)..........              20  Subsurface.................              10  ..............              20
                                                                             (10-ft depth)..............
T............................  105 mm full-up..............             4.7  Surface....................              13              10             130
                               40 mm.......................             0.9  Surface....................              60  ..............             600
                               Live fuse...................             0.4  Surface....................              20  ..............             200
                               30 mm.......................             0.1  Surface....................             500  ..............           5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary; JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct
  Attack Munition; LSDB = Laser Small Diameter Bomb; lbs = pounds; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; mm = millimeter; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see ``Proposed 
Mitigation'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting'').

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the Application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), and more general information about these species (e.g., 
physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website 
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
    Table 15 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence 
in the EGTTR that could be subjected to acoustic impacts and summarizes 
information related to the population or stock, including regulatory 
status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), 
where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR 
is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including 
natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock 
while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable 
population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is 
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and 
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross 
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent

[[Page 61383]]

the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total 
number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock 
abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of 
individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that 
stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. 
waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. 
2016 US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Stock Assessment Report 
(Hayes et al. 2017). All values presented in Table 15 are the most 
recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 
2016 Stock assessment report (available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/).
    As described below, two marine mammal species (with 7 managed 
stocks) temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the 
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed 
authorizing it.

                                                    Table 15--Species Proposed for Authorized Take *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Stock abundance (CV,
                                                                                 ESA/MMPA status;     Nmin, most recent                     Annual M/SI
           Common name                Scientific name            Stock         strategic (Y/N) \1\    abundance survey)         PBR             \3\
                                                                                                             \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Bottlenose dolphin........  Tursiops truncatus..  Choctawatchee Bay...  -/-:Y                179 (0.04,173, 2007)             1.7      3.4 (0.99)
                                                         Pensacola/East Bay..  -/-:Y                33 (0.80, UNK, 1993)             UND             UND
                                                         St. Andrew Bay......  -/-:Y                124 (0.21, UNK,                  UND             UND
                                                                                                     1993).
                                                         Gulf of Mexico        -/-:N                7,185 (0.21, 6,044,               60       21 (0.66)
                                                          Northern Coastal.                          2012).
                                                         Northern Gulf of      -/-:N                51,192 (0.10,                    469       56 (0.42)
                                                          Mexico Continental                         46,926, 2012).
                                                          Shelf.
                                                         Northern Gulf of      -/-:N                5,806 (0.39, 4,230,               42      6.5 (0.65)
                                                          Mexico Oceanic.                            2009).
Atlantic spotted dolphin.........  Stenella frontalis..  Northern Gulf of      -/-:N                37,611 (0.28, UNK,               UND       42 (0.45)
                                                          Mexico.                                    2004).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hayes et al. 2017.
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case].
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.

    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 
attenuata), Clymene dolphin (S. clymene), spinner dolphin (S. 
longirostris), striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba), Blainville's beaked 
whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), Gervais' beaked whale (M. europaeus), 
Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), 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). The uncommon Bryde's whale occurs in waters at a depth of 
100-300 m and has been proposed for listing under the ESA. However, 
trained observers will be vigilant in watching for these whales and 
ensuring they are not in the ZOI during mission activities. As such, 
Eglin AFB is not anticipating or requesting take for these species.
    Because marine mammals from the other 19 species with potential 
occurrence within the northeast Gulf of Mexico listed above are 
unlikely to occur within the W-151A area, or are likely to move away 
from the target area in response to proposed mitigation measures, Eglin 
AFB has not requested authorization for, nor are we proposing to 
authorize take for them. Thus, we do not consider these species further 
in this notice.
    Below we offer a brief introduction to the two species and relevant 
stocks that are likely to be affected by testing and training 
activities in the EGTTR. We provide a summary of available information 
regarding population trends and threats, and describe any information 
regarding local occurrence.

Common Bottlenose Dolphin

    This species is not listed under the ESA but is protected under the 
MMPA. Along the United States east coast and northern Gulf of Mexico, 
the bottlenose dolphin stock structure is well studied. There are 
currently 34 stocks identified by NMFS in northern Gulf of Mexico 
including the Continental Shelf stock, Northern Coastal stock, Oceanic 
stock,

[[Page 61384]]

and 31 bay, sound and estuary stocks (BSE) (Waring et al. 2016).
    Genetic, photo-identification, and tagging data support the concept 
of relatively discrete bay, sound, and estuary stocks (Waring et al., 
2016; Duffield and Wells 2002). NMFS has provisionally identified 31 
such stocks which inhabit areas of contiguous, enclosed, or semi-
enclosed water bodies adjacent to the northern Gulf of Mexico. The 
stocks are based on a description of dolphin communities in some areas 
of the Gulf coast. A community is generally defined as resident 
dolphins that regularly share a large portion of their range; exhibit 
similar genetic profiles; and interact with each other to a much 
greater extent than with dolphins in adjacent waters. Although the 
shoreward boundary of W-151 is beyond these environments, individuals 
from these stocks could potentially enter the project area. Movement 
between various communities has been documented (Waring et al., 2016; 
Fazioli et al. 2006) reported that dolphins found within bays, sounds, 
and estuaries on the west central Florida coast move into the nearby 
Gulf waters used by coastal stocks. Air-to-surface activities will 
occur directly seaward of the area occupied by the Choctawhatchee Bay 
stock. The best abundance estimate for this stock, as provided in the 
Stock Assessment Report, is 179. Stocks immediately to the west and 
east of Choctawhatchee Bay include Pensacola/East Bay and St. Andrew 
Bay stocks. PBR for the Choctawhatchee Bay stock is 1.7 individuals. 
NMFS considers all bay, sound, and estuary stocks to be strategic.
    Of the 31 stocks of Bay, Sound and Estuary (BSE) bottlenose 
dolphins recognized by NMFS, only 11 met the criteria for small and 
resident populations as a biologically important area. The 
Choctawhatchee Bay Stock has published data suggesting small and 
resident populations; however, it was one of the 21 remaining stocks 
that did not meet the biologically important area criteria (LaBrecque 
et al., 2015). Therefore, no biologically important areas have been 
identified within or around the EGTTR Study Area.
    The bottlenose dolphin is the most widespread and common cetacean 
in coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (W[uuml]rsig et al., 2000). The 
species is abundant in continental shelf waters throughout the northern 
Gulf of Mexico (Fulling et al., 2003; Waring et al., 2016), including 
the outer continental shelf, upper slope, nearshore waters, the DeSoto 
Canyon region, the West Florida Shelf, and the Florida Escarpment. 
Mullin and Fulling (2004) noted that in oceanic waters, bottlenose 
dolphins are encountered primarily in upper continental slope waters 
(less than 1,000 m (3281 ft) in bottom depth) and that highest 
densities are in the northeastern Gulf. Significant occurrence is 
expected near all bays in the northern Gulf.
    Three coastal stocks have been identified in the northern Gulf of 
Mexico, occupying waters from the shore to the 20-m (66-ft) isobath: 
Eastern Coastal, Northern Coastal, and Western Coastal stocks. The 
Western Coastal stock inhabits nearshore waters from the Texas/Mexico 
border to the Mississippi River Delta. The Northern Coastal stock's 
range is considered to be from the Mississippi River Delta to the Big 
Bend region of Florida (approximately 84[deg] W). The Eastern Coastal 
stock is defined from 84[deg] W to Key West, Florida. Of the coastal 
stocks, the Northern Coastal Stock is geographically associated with 
the GRATV target location. PBR is 60 individuals. Prior to 2012, this 
stock was not considered strategic. However, beginning February 1, 2010 
an Unusual Mortality Event of unprecedented size and duration has been 
ongoing (Litz et al., 2014) that has resulted in NMFS' reclassification 
of this stock as strategic.
    The Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic stock is provisionally defined 
as bottlenose dolphins inhabiting waters from the 200-m (656-ft) 
isobath to the seaward extent of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. This 
stock is believed to consist of the offshore form of bottlenose 
dolphins. The continental shelf stock may overlap with the oceanic 
stock in some areas and may be genetically indistinguishable. PBR is 42 
individuals, and the stock is not considered strategic.
    Sounds emitted by bottlenose dolphins have been classified into two 
broad categories: Pulsed sounds (including clicks and burst-pulses) and 
narrow-band continuous sounds (whistles), which usually are frequency 
modulated. Clicks and whistles have a dominant frequency range of 110 
to 130 kiloHertz (kHz) and a source level of 218 to 228 decibels (dB) 
referenced to one microPascal-meter (dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m peak-to-peak) 
(Au, 1993) and 3.4 to 14.5 kiloHertz (kHz) and 125 to 173 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa-m peak-to-peak, respectively (Ketten, 1998). Whistles are 
primarily associated with communication and can serve to identify 
specific individuals (i.e., signature whistles) (Janik et al., 2006). 
Sound production is influenced by group type (single or multiple 
individuals), habitat, and behavior (Nowacek, 2005). Bray calls (low-
frequency vocalizations; majority of energy below 4 kHz), for example, 
are used when capturing fishes in some regions (Janik, 2000). 
Additionally, whistle production has been observed to increase while 
feeding (Acevedo-Guti[eacute]rrez and Stienessen, 2004; Cook et al., 
2004). Whistles and clicks may vary geographically in terms of overall 
vocal activity, group size, and specific context (e.g., feeding, 
milling, traveling, and socializing) (Jones and Sayigh, 2002; Zaretsky 
et al., 2005; Baron, 2006).
    Bottlenose dolphins can hear within a broad frequency range of 0.04 
to 160 kHz (Au, 1993; Turl, 1993). Electrophysiological experiments 
suggest that the bottlenose dolphin brain has a dual analysis system: 
one specialized for ultrasonic clicks and another for lower-frequency 
sounds, such as whistles (Ridgway, 2000). Scientists have reported a 
range of highest sensitivity between 25 and 70 kHz, with peaks in 
sensitivity at 25 and 50 kHz (Nachtigall et al., 2000). Recent research 
on the same individuals indicates that auditory thresholds obtained by 
electrophysiological methods correlate well with those obtained in 
behavior studies, except at lower (10 kHz) and higher (80 and 100 kHz) 
frequencies (Finneran and Houser, 2006).

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin

    The Atlantic spotted dolphin occurs in two forms that may be 
distinct subspecies (Perrin et al., 1987, 1994; Viricel and Rosel 
2014): the large, heavily spotted form, which inhabits the continental 
shelf and is usually found inside or near the 200-m isobath; and the 
smaller, less spotted island and offshore form, which occurs in the 
Atlantic Ocean but is not known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico (Fulling 
et al., 2003; Mullin and Fulling 2004; Viricel and Rosel 2014). In the 
Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic spotted dolphins occur primarily from 
continental shelf waters 10-200 m deep to slope waters less than 500 m 
deep (Fulling et al., 2003; Mullin and Fulling 2004).
    The most recent abundance estimate is 37,611 individuals in the 
northern Gulf of Mexico (outer continental shelf and oceanic waters) 
and is derived from fall surveys in 2000-2011 and spring/summer surveys 
in 2003-2004. According to the 2016 Stock Assessment Report, since 
these data are more than 8 years old, the current best population 
estimate is unknown (Hayes et al., 2017). The northern Gulf of Mexico 
population is considered to be genetically distinct from western North 
Atlantic populations. PBR for this species is undetermined and the 
stock is not considered strategic.

[[Page 61385]]

    A variety of sounds including whistles, echolocation clicks, 
squawks, barks, growls, and chirps have been recorded for the Atlantic 
spotted dolphin. Whistles have dominant frequencies below 20 kHz 
(range: 7.1 to 14.5 kHz), but multiple harmonics extend above 100 kHz, 
while burst pulses consist of frequencies above 20 kHz (dominant 
frequency of approximately 40 kHz) (Lammers et al., 2003). Other sounds 
typically range in frequency from 0.1 to 8 kHz (Thomson and Richardson, 
1995). Recorded echolocation clicks had two dominant frequency ranges 
at 40 to 50 kHz and 110 to 130 kHz, depending on source level (Au and 
Herzing, 2003). Echolocation click source levels as high as 210 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa-m peak-to-peak have been recorded (Au and Herzing, 2003). 
Spotted dolphins in the Bahamas were frequently recorded during 
aggressive interactions with bottlenose dolphins (and their own 
species) to produce squawks (0.2 to 12 kHz broad band burst pulses; 
males and females), screams (5.8 to 9.4 kHz whistles; males only), 
barks (0.2 to 20 kHz burst pulses; males only), and synchronized 
squawks (0.1-15 kHz burst pulses; males only in a coordinated group) 
(Herzing, 1996).
    Hearing ability for the Atlantic spotted dolphin is unknown. 
However, odontocetes are generally adapted to hear in relatively high 
frequencies (Ketten, 1997).

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect 
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided 
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated 
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, 
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB 
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception 
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was 
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
et al. (2007) retained. The hearing groups and the associated 
frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges 
correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range 
not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within 
that group):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best 
hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked 
whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to 
less than 100 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and 
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members 
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data 
and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
     Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz, 
with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
     Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized 
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best 
hearing between 2-48 kHz.
    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    Two marine mammal species (common bottlenose and Atlantic spotted 
dolphins) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed 
survey activities. Both species are classified as mid-frequency 
cetaceans.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section 
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number 
of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
``Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination'' section considers the 
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, to draw 
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those 
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or 
stocks.
    The proposed Eglin AFB mission activities have the potential to 
incidentally take marine mammals by exposing them to impulsive noise 
and pressure waves generated by live ordnance detonation at and below 
the surface of the water. Exposure to energy or pressure resulting from 
these detonations could result in Level A harassment (PTS and slight 
lung injury) and by Level B harassment (temporary threshold shift (TTS) 
and behavioral harassment).

Description of Sound Sources

    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are 
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number 
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and 
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the 
distance between two peaks of a sound wave. Amplitude is the height of 
the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound, and is 
typically measured using the dB scale. A dB is the ratio between a 
measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a 
constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a 
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; 
therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large 
changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels 
(SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the 
context of underwater sound pressure to 1 [mu]Pa. One pascal is the 
pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of 
one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a 
distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa). The received 
level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that we 
reference all underwater sound levels in this document to a pressure of 
1 [mu]Pa, and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced 
to a pressure of 20 [mu]Pa.
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the

[[Page 61386]]

duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound 
amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of 
the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative 
values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that one 
can account for the values in the summation of pressure levels 
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the 
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral 
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed 
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure 
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the 
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all 
directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a 
pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The 
compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are 
detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound 
receptors such as hydrophones.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient 
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a 
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level 
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated 
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., 
waves, earthquakes, ice, and atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and 
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, and 
construction). A number of sources contribute to ambient sound, 
including the following (Richardson et al., 1995):
     Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and 
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of 
naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 
kHz (Mitson 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase 
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes 
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 
during heavy surf conditions.
     Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the 
water surface can become an important component of total noise at 
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 
times.
     Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to 
ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band 
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 
kHz.
     Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human 
activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), 
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic 
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise 
typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 
and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are 
below 1 kHz; and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they 
attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable 
anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a 
passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound as opposed to 
ambient sound.
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate 
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, 
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the 
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local 
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine 
mammals.
    The sounds produced by proposed military operations in the EGTTR 
are considered impulsive, which is one of two general sound types, the 
other being non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types 
is important because they have differing potential to cause physical 
effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 
Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-
depth discussion of these concepts.
    Impulsive sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 
and impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH 1998; ISO 2003), and occur either as 
isolated events or repeated in some succession. These sounds have a 
relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value 
followed by a rapid decay period that may include a period of 
diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally 
have an increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with 
sounds that lack these features.

Acoustic Impacts

    Please refer to the information given previously (Description of 
Sound Sources) regarding sound, characteristics of sound types, and 
metrics used in this document. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range 
of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable 
impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe 
responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, 
behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of 
underwater sound from active acoustic sources can potentially result in 
one or more of the following: Non-auditory physical or physiological 
effects; temporary or permanent hearing impairment; behavioral 
disturbance; stress; and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et 
al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; G[ouml]tz et 
al., 2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal 
characteristics, received level, distance from the source, duration of 
the sound exposure, and animal's activity at time of exposure. In 
general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can 
longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of 
hearing will occur almost exclusively as a result of exposure to noise 
within an animal's hearing range. We first describe specific 
manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific 
to Eglin AFB's activities.
    Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of 
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a 
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing 
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be 
audible (potentially perceived) to the animal, but not strong enough to 
elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone 
corresponds with the area where the signal is audible

[[Page 61387]]

to the animal and of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or 
physiological responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals 
of high intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially 
cause discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. 
Overlaying these zones to a certain extent is the area within which 
masking (i.e., when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an 
animal to detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute 
hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable 
in size.
    We briefly describe certain non-auditory physical effects which are 
categorized as Level A harassment as defined in the MMPA. These blast 
related effects include slight lung injury and gastrointestinal (GI) 
tract injury (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012).
    The threshold for slight lung injury is based on a level of lung 
injury from which all exposed animals are expected to survive (zero 
percent mortality) (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Similar to the 
mortality determination, the metric is positive impulse and the 
equation for determination is that of the Goertner injury model (1982), 
corrected for atmospheric and hydrostatic pressures and based on the 
cube root scaling of body mass (Richmond et al., 1973; U.S. Department 
of the Navy, 2001b). The equation is provided in Appendix A of the 
Application.
    Gastrointestinal (GI) tract injuries are correlated with the peak 
pressure of an underwater detonation. GI tract injury thresholds are 
based on the results of experiments in the 1970s in which terrestrial 
mammals were exposed to small charges. The peak pressure of the shock 
wave was found to be the causal agent in recoverable contusions 
(bruises) in the GI tract (Richmond et al., 1973, in Finneran and 
Jenkins, 2012). The experiments found that a peak SPL of 237 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa predicts the onset of GI tract injuries, regardless of an 
animal's mass or size. Therefore, the unweighted peak SPL of 237 dB re 
1 [mu]Pa is used in explosive impacts assessments as the threshold for 
slight GI tract injury for all marine mammals.
    Marine mammals may experience auditory impacts when exposed to 
high-intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged 
periods. They may experience hearing threshold shift (TS) which is the 
loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 
1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be 
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not 
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's 
hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe 
cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most 
cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific 
frequency ranges (Kryter 1985).
    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in 
the ear (i.e., tissue damage); whereas, TTS represents primarily tissue 
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other 
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of 
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical 
injury (e.g., Ward 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to 
constitute auditory injury.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals. PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal 
(Kastak et al., 2008) but are assumed to be similar to those in humans 
and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels 
at least several dB above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS 
onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild TTS 
(a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al., 
2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 
assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as 
bombs) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-
pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 
15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds 
(Southall et al., 2007). Given the higher level of sound or longer 
exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is 
considerably less likely that PTS could occur.
    When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is 
incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a ``stranding'' (16 
U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of 
reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery 
interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, 
sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained 
concurrently or in series (e.g., Geraci et al., 1999). However, the 
cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (e.g., Best 1982). 
Combinations of dissimilar stressors may combine to kill an animal or 
dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure without the 
other would not be expected to produce the same outcome (e.g., Sih et 
al., 2004). For further description of stranding events see, e.g., 
Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013.
    Temporary threshold shift (TTS) is the mildest form of hearing 
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter 1985). While 
experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a 
higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, 
TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In 
many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the 
sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit 
mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the data 
published at the time of this writing concern TTS elicited by exposure 
to multiple pulses of sound.
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to 
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate 
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency 
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there 
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts.
    Currently, TTS data exist only for four species of cetaceans 
((bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena 
asiaeorientalis)) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant 
seal (Mirounga angustirostris), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and 
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)) exposed to a limited 
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in 
laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 
2004; Kastak et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In 
general, harbor seals (Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a) 
and harbor porpoises (Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have 
a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species. 
Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited 
number of individuals within these species. There are no data available 
on

[[Page 61388]]

noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS 
in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 
please see Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
    Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including 
subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area 
or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar 
behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe 
reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality 
habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic 
factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current 
activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, and time of day), 
as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., Richardson et al., 
1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; 
Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among 
individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous 
experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors 
(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics 
associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or 
stationary, number of sources, and distance from the source). Please 
see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of studies 
involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in 
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor 
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to 
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is 
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent 
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of 
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic 
harassment devices) have been varied, but often consist of avoidance 
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and 
Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone to the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 
2005). There are broad categories of potential response, which we 
describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive 
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of 
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel 
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 
al.; 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, b). Variations in dive behavior may 
reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., 
foraging), or they may be of little biological significance. The impact 
of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure 
depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the 
type and magnitude of the response.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 
2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between 
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history 
stage of the animal.
    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors, 
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure 
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may 
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and 
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in 
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise 
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic 
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005b, 2006; Gailey et 
al., 2007).
    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple 
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and 
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic 
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to 
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased 
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of 
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have 
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales 
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward 
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic 
noise (Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, animals may cease sound 
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other 
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance 
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory 
paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area 
once

[[Page 61389]]

the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold 1996; Stone et 
al., 2000; Morton and Symonds 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term 
displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in 
abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the 
affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not 
occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et 
al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in 
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, and rate of 
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine 
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight 
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and 
Heithaus 1996). The result of a flight response could range from brief, 
temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal 
provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (Evans 
and England 2001). However, it should be noted that response to a 
perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves 
2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence 
the response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in subtler 
ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of 
focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of increased 
vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to other 
critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects have 
generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford 2011). In 
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through 
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent 
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington 
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, 
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose 
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any 
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). 
Disruptions of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors 
such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last 
more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 
2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day 
and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly 
severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival 
(Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-
day substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.
    An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger 
stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral 
responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine 
responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 2000). In many 
cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of 
energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential 
stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically 
involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 
activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or 
may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune 
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated 
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through 
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals 
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; 
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to 
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects 
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano 
et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g., 
Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that 
noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These 
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine 
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to 
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be 
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS 
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
    Auditory masking occurs when sound disrupts behavior by masking or 
interfering with an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or 
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for 
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, 
predator avoidance, and navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking 
occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another 
coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher 
intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping 
shrimp, wind, waves, and precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 
shipping, sonar, and seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a 
noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the 
characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest 
(e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, and direction), in 
relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., 
sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency 
discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 
and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.
    Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing 
significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in

[[Page 61390]]

survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) 
sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or 
altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and 
PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs 
during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is 
not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not 
considered a physiological effect, but it may result in a behavioral 
effect.
    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important 
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation 
sounds produced by odontocetes, but are more likely to affect detection 
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. 
The masking of communication signals caused by anthropogenic noise may 
be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals 
(e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs 
as animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 
2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 
2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where 
the signal and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 
1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other 
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore 2014). Masking can be tested 
directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe 2008), but in wild populations 
it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking 
compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking 
sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g., 
Branstetter et al., 2013).
    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and 
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the 
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency 
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's oceans from pre-industrial 
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping 
(Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially 
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.

Acoustic Effects, Underwater

    Explosive detonations at the water surface send a shock wave and 
sound energy through the water and can release gaseous by-products, 
create an oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up 
from the water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of 
most concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock 
wave and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be 
injured, killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience hearing 
related effects with or without behavioral responses, or exhibit 
temporary behavioral responses (e.g., flight responses, temporary 
avoidance) from hearing the blast sound. Generally, exposures to higher 
levels of impulse and pressure levels would result in greater impacts 
to an individual animal.
    The effects of underwater detonations on marine mammals are 
dependent on several factors, including the size, type, and depth of 
the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of the sound; the depth 
of the water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff 
distance between activities and the animal; and the sound propagation 
properties of the environment. Thus, we expect impacts to marine 
mammals from EGTTR activities to result primarily from acoustic 
pathways. As such, the degree of the effect relates to the received 
level and duration of the sound exposure, as influenced by the distance 
between the animal and the source. The further away from the source, 
the less intense the exposure should be.
    The potential effects of underwater detonations from the proposed 
EGTTR mission activities may include one or more of the following: 
Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or 
physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson 
et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 
al., 2007). However, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly 
variable, often depending on species and contextual factors (based on 
Richardson et al., 1995).
    In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species could 
result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and 
strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type and 
severity of behavioral impacts are more difficult to define due to 
limited studies addressing the behavioral effects of impulsive sounds 
on marine mammals.
    Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Marine mammals 
exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can 
experience hearing threshold shift. Given the available data, the 
received level of a single pulse (with no frequency weighting) might 
need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 [mu]Pa2-s (i.e., 186 dB sound 
exposure level (SEL) or approximately 221-226 dB p-p (peak)) in order 
to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several strong pulses that each 
have received levels near 190 dB rms (175-180 dB SEL) might result in 
cumulative exposure of approximately 186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in 
a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first 
approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy.
    Non-auditory Physiological Effects--Non-auditory physiological 
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals 
exposed to strong underwater sound include stress and other types of 
organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007).
    Serious Injury/Mortality: The explosions from munitions would send 
a shock wave and blast noise through the water, release gaseous by-
products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of water to 
shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and blast noise are of 
most concern to marine animals. In general, potential impacts from 
explosive detonations can range from brief effects (such as short term 
behavioral disturbance), tactile perception, physical discomfort, 
slight injury of the internal organs, and death of the animal 
(Yelverton et al., 1973; O'Keeffe and Young 1984). Physical damage of 
tissues resulting from a shock wave (from an explosive detonation) 
constitutes an injury. Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid 
interface (Landsberg 2000) and gas-containing organs, particularly the 
lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are especially susceptible to damage 
(Goertner 1982; Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal sacs, larynx, pharynx, 
trachea, and lungs may be damaged by compression/expansion caused by 
the oscillations of the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman 2003). 
Severe damage (from the shock wave) to the ears can include tympanic 
membrane rupture, fracture of the ossicles, cochlear damage, 
hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the middle ear.
    Non-lethal injury includes slight injury to internal organs and the 
auditory system; however, delayed lethality can be a result of 
individual or cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN 2001). Immediate 
lethal injury would be a result of massive combined trauma to internal 
organs as a direct result of

[[Page 61391]]

proximity to the point of detonation (DoN 2001).

Disturbance Reactions

    Because the few available studies show wide variation in response 
to underwater sound, it is difficult to quantify exactly how sound from 
military operations at the EGTTR would affect marine mammals. It is 
likely that the onset of surface detonations could result in temporary, 
short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of 
the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et 
al., 1995): Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows 
per surfacing, moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal 
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such 
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); or avoidance of 
areas where sound sources are located.
    The biological significance of any of these behavioral disturbances 
is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear 
minor. However generally, one could expect the consequences of 
behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change 
affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral 
modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, 
survival, or reproduction include:
     Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as 
those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
     Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic 
environment; and
     Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and 
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals 
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007).

Auditory Masking

    While it may occur temporarily, we do not expect auditory masking 
to result in detrimental impacts to an individual's or population's 
survival, fitness, or reproductive success. Dolphin movement is not 
restricted within EGTTR area, allowing for movement out of the area to 
avoid masking impacts, and the sound resulting from the detonations is 
short in duration. Also, masking is typically of greater concern for 
those marine mammals that utilize low frequency communications, such as 
baleen whales and, as such, is not likely to occur for marine mammals 
in the EGTTR area.

Vessel and Aircraft Presence

    The marine mammals most vulnerable to vessel strikes are slow-
moving and/or spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to 
restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (e.g., 
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), fin whales, and 
sperm whales). Smaller marine mammals, including dolphins, are agile 
and move more quickly through the water, making them less susceptible 
to ship strikes.
    Aircraft produce noise at frequencies that are well within the 
frequency range of cetacean hearing and also produce visual signals 
such as the aircraft itself and its shadow (Richardson et al., 1995, 
Richardson and Wursig, 1997). A major difference between aircraft noise 
and noise caused by other anthropogenic sources is that the sound is 
generated in the air, transmitted through the water surface and then 
propagates underwater to the receiver, diminishing the received levels 
significantly below what is heard above the water's surface. Sound 
transmission from air to water is greatest in a sound cone 26 degrees 
directly under the aircraft.
    There are fewer reports of reactions of odontocetes to aircraft 
than those of pinnipeds. Responses to aircraft by pinnipeds include 
diving, slapping the water with pectoral fins or tail fluke, or 
swimming away from the track of the aircraft (Richardson et al., 1995). 
The nature and degree of the response, or the lack thereof, are 
dependent upon the nature of the flight (e.g., type of aircraft, 
altitude, straight vs. circular flight pattern). Wursig et al. (1998) 
assessed the responses of cetaceans to aerial surveys in the north 
central and western Gulf of Mexico using a DeHavilland Twin Otter 
fixed-wing airplane. The plane flew at an altitude of 229 m (751.3 ft) 
at 204 km/hr (126.7 mph) and maintained a minimum of 305 m (1,000 ft) 
straight line distance from the cetaceans. Water depth was 100 to 1,000 
m (328 to 3,281 ft). Bottlenose dolphins most commonly responded by 
diving (48 percent), while 14 percent responded by moving away. Other 
species (e.g., beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and sperm whales) show 
considerable variation in reactions to aircraft but diving or swimming 
away from the aircraft are the most common reactions to low flights 
(less than 500 m; 1,640 ft).

Direct Strike by Ordnance

    Another potential risk to marine mammals is direct strike by 
ordnance, in which the ordnance physically hits an animal. Although 
strike from an item at the surface of the water while the animals are 
at the surface is possible, the potential risk of a direct hit to an 
animal within the target area would be low. Marine mammals spend the 
majority of their time below the surface of the water, and the 
potential for one bomb or missile to hit that animal at that specific 
time is highly unlikely. The 2002 Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range 
(EGTTR) Programmatic Environmental Assessment (Navy 2002) estimated 
that a maximum of 0.2 marine mammals could potentially be struck by 
projectiles, falling debris, and inert munitions each year.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The primary sources of marine mammal habitat impact are noise and 
pressure waves resulting from live weapon detonations. However, neither 
the noise nor overpressure constitutes a long-term physical alteration 
of the water column or ocean floor. Further, these effects are not 
expected to substantially affect prey availability, are of limited 
duration, and are intermittent. Impacts to marine fish were analyzed in 
the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range Environmental Assessment 
(Department of the Air Force, 2015). While detonations of live ordnance 
from EGTTR activities have the potential to kill or injure marine fish, 
most fish species experience large numbers of natural mortalities. Any 
behavioral reactions of fish in the vicinity of underwater detonations 
would be relatively short term, localized, and are not expected to have 
lasting effects on the survival, growth, or reproduction of fish 
populations. Additionally, the relatively small levels of mortality 
potentially caused by EGTTR missions would not likely affect fish 
populations as a whole and would therefore not limit prey availability 
for marine mammals.
    Other factors related to air-to-surface activities that could 
potentially affect marine mammal habitat include the introduction of 
metals, explosives and explosion by-products, other chemical materials, 
and debris into the water column and substrate due to the use of 
munitions and target vessels. The effects of each were analyzed under 
National Environmental Policy Act documentation (Eglin Gulf Test and 
Training Range Environmental Assessment; in preparation) and were 
determined to not be significant. The

[[Page 61392]]

analysis in the Range Environmental Assessment is provided in the 
following paragraphs.
    Various metals would be introduced into the water column through 
expended munitions. The casings, fins, or other parts of large 
munitions such as bombs and missiles are typically composed primarily 
of steel but usually also contain small amounts of lead, manganese, 
phosphorus, sulfur, copper, nickel, and several other metals (U.S. 
Navy, 2013). Many smaller caliber rounds contain aluminum, copper, and 
zinc. Aluminum is also present in some explosive materials such as 
tritonal and PBXN-109. Lead is present in batteries typically used in 
vessels such as the remotely controlled target boats. Many metals occur 
naturally in seawater at varying concentrations and some, such as 
aluminum, would not necessarily be detrimental to the substrate or 
water column. However, at high concentrations, a number of metals 
(e.g., lead) may be toxic to microbial communities in the substrate.
    Munitions and other metal items would sink to the seafloor and 
would typically undergo one of three processes: (1) Enter the sediment 
where there is reduced oxygen content, (2) remain exposed on the ocean 
floor and begin to react with seawater, or (3) remain exposed on the 
ocean floor and become encrusted with marine organisms. The rate of 
deterioration would therefore depend on the specific composition of an 
item and its position relative to the seafloor/water column. Munitions 
located deep in the sediment would typically undergo slow 
deterioration. Some portion of the metal ions would become bound to 
sediment particles. Metal materials exposed to seawater would begin to 
slowly corrode. This process typically creates a layer of corroded 
material between the seawater and metal, which slows the movement of 
the metal ions into the adjacent sediment and water column. Therefore, 
elevated levels of metals in sediment would be restricted to a small 
zone around the munitions, and releases to the overlying water column 
would be diluted. A similar process would occur with munitions that 
become covered by marine growth. Direct exposure to seawater would be 
reduced, thereby decreasing the rate of corrosion.
    Munitions that come to rest on the seafloor would slowly corrode 
and would release small amounts of metals to adjacent sediment and the 
water column. Metal particles that migrate into the water column would 
be diluted by diffusion and water movement. Elevated concentrations 
would be localized and would not be expected to significantly affect 
overall local or regional water quality. This expectation is supported 
by the results of two U.S. Navy studies related to munitions use and 
water quality, as summarized in U.S. Navy (2013). In one study, water 
quality sampling for lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc was 
conducted at a shallow bombing range in Pamlico Sound off North 
Carolina immediately following a bomb training event with inert 
practice munitions. With the exception of nickel, all water quality 
parameters tested were within the state limits. The nickel 
concentration was significantly higher than the state criterion, 
although the concentration did not differ significantly from a control 
site located outside the bombing range. This suggests that bombing 
activities may not have been responsible for the elevated nickel 
concentration. The second study, conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps, 
included sediment and water quality sampling for 26 munitions 
constituents at several water training ranges. Metals included lead and 
magnesium. No levels were detected above screening values used at the 
water ranges.
    Chemical materials with potential to affect substrates and the 
water column include explosives, explosion by-products, and fuel, oil, 
and other fluids (including battery acid) associated with vessel 
operations and the use of remotely controlled target boats. Explosives 
are complex chemical mixtures that may affect water or sediment quality 
through the by-products of their detonation and the distribution of 
unconsumed explosives. Some of the more common types of explosive 
materials used in air-to-surface activities include tritonal and 
research department explosive (RDX). Tritonal is primarily composed of 
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT). Therefore, discussion in the remainder of 
this section will consider TNT and RDX to be representative of all 
explosives. During detonation, energetic compounds may undergo high-
order (complete) detonation or low-order (incomplete) detonation, or 
they may fail to detonate altogether. High-order detonations consume 
almost all of the explosive material, with the remainder released into 
the environment as discrete particles. Analysis of live-fire 
detonations on terrestrial ranges have indicated that over 99.9 percent 
of TNT and RDX explosive material is typically consumed during a high-
order detonation (USACE, 2003). Pennington et al. (2006) reported a 
median value of 0.006 percent and 0.02 percent for TNT and RDX residue, 
respectively, remaining after detonation. The annual total NEW for all 
combined munitions is 30,488 pounds. Using the more conservative 
(higher) value of 0.02 percent for residual material, a total of about 
6.1 pounds of explosive material could be deposited into the EGTTR 
annually. For purposes of analysis, it may be conservatively assumed 
that all residual materials are deposited simultaneously and remain 
within W-151A and within the top 10 ft of the water column (10 ft is 
the maximum detonation scenario for any munition). In this case, the 
resulting concentration of explosive material would be about 8 x 
10-8 milligrams/liter (mg/L). In reality, the materials 
would be dispersed throughout a larger surface area and water volume by 
currents, waves, and wind (for in-air detonations). Although there are 
no regulatory standards specifically for explosive materials in marine 
waters, this value may be compared with the Department of Defense Range 
and Munitions Use Working Group marine screening value for the amount 
of C-4 (another type of explosive composed of mostly RDX) remaining 
after detonation (as provided in U.S. Navy, 2013). The screening value 
is 5 mg/L, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the 
concentration calculated above.
    Various by-products are produced during and immediately after 
detonation of TNT and RDX. During the brief time that a detonation is 
in progress, intermediate products may include carbon ions, nitrogen 
ions, oxygen ions, water, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen 
gas, nitrous oxide, cyanic acid, and carbon dioxide (Becker, 1995). 
However, reactions quickly occur between the intermediates, and the 
final products consist mainly of carbon (i.e., soot), carbon dioxide 
(CO2), water, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen gas 
(Swisdak, 1975). These substances are natural components of seawater. 
Other products, occurring at substantially lower concentrations, 
include hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen cyanide, among others.
    After detonation, the residual explosive materials and detonation 
by-products would be dispersed throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico 
by diffusion and by the action of wind, waves, and currents. A portion 
of the carbon compounds, such as CO and CO2, would likely 
become integrated into the carbonate system (alkalinity and pH 
buffering capacity of seawater). Some of the nitrogen and carbon 
compounds would be metabolized or assimilated by phytoplankton and 
bacteria. Most of the gas products that do not react with the water or 
become

[[Page 61393]]

assimilated by organisms would be released to the atmosphere. In 
addition, many of the detonations would occur in the air or at the 
water surface. In these cases, some portion of the by-products could be 
widely distributed by wind. Given that the residual concentration of 
explosive material would be small, that most of the explosion by-
products would be harmless or natural seawater constituents, and that 
by-products would dissipate or be quickly diluted, impacts resulting 
from high-order detonations would be negligible.
    Low-order detonations consume a lower percentage of the explosive; 
and, therefore, a portion of the material is available for release into 
the environment. If the ordnance fails to detonate, the entire amount 
of energetic compound remains largely intact and is released to the 
environment over time as the munition casing corrodes. The likelihood 
of incomplete detonations is not quantified; however, the portion of 
munitions that could fail to detonate (i.e., duds) has been estimated 
at between about 3 and 5 percent (USACE, 2007; Rand Corporation, 2005). 
Due to the potential dud rate, number of live munitions included in the 
2015 REA, and NEW in each munition, an un-estimable but small amount of 
explosive material (TNT and RDX, among others) could enter the EGTTR 
annually through unexploded munitions. However, most of this material 
would not be available to the marine environment immediately. Explosive 
material would diffuse into the water through screw threads, cracks, or 
pinholes in the munition casings. Therefore, movement of explosive 
material into the water column would likely be a slow process, 
potentially ranging from months to decades.
    After leaving the munition casing, explosive material would enter 
the sediment or water column. Similar to the discussion of explosive 
by-products above, chemical materials in the water column would be 
dispersed by currents and would eventually become uniformly distributed 
throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico. Explosive materials in the 
water column would also be subject to biotic (biological) and abiotic 
(physical and chemical) transformation and degradation, including 
hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation exposure, and biodegradation. The 
results of a recent investigation suggest that TNT is rapidly degraded 
in marine environments by biological and photochemical processes 
(Walker et al., 2006). Marine ecosystems are generally nitrogen limited 
compared with freshwater systems, and marine microbes such as bacteria 
may therefore readily use TNT metabolites (e.g., ammonia and ammonium). 
TNT that is not biodegraded may sorb (bind to by absorption or 
adsorption) onto particulates, break down into dissolved organic 
matter, or dissolve into the water column. TNT is also subject to 
photochemical degradation, known as photolysis, whereby the ultraviolet 
component of sunlight degrades the compound into products similar to 
those produced by biodegradation. Photolysis is more effective in 
waters of shallower depth and/or with greater clarity. Uptake and 
metabolism of TNT has also been noted in phytoplankton. It is assumed 
that similar processes could affect other explosives such as RDX.
    The results of studies of UXO in marine environments generally 
suggest that there is little overall impact to water quality resulting 
from the leaching of explosive material. Various researchers have 
studied an area in Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia, where UXO was deposited 
in 1945. Rodacy et al. (2000) reported that explosives signatures were 
detectable in 58 percent of water samples, but that marine growth was 
observed on most of the exposed ordnance. TNT metabolites, suspected to 
result from biological decomposition, were also detected. In an earlier 
study (Darrach et al. 1998), sediment collected near unexploded (but 
broken) ordnance did not indicate the presence of TNT, whereas samples 
near intact ordnance showed trace explosives in the range of low parts 
per billion or high parts per trillion. The authors concluded that, 
after 50 years, the contents of broken munitions had dissolved, 
reacted, biodegraded, or photodegraded and that intact munitions appear 
to be slowly releasing their contents through corrosion pinholes or 
screw threads.
    Hoffsommer et al. (1972) analyzed seawater (as well as sediment and 
ocean floor fauna) at known munitions dumping sites off Washington 
State and South Carolina for the presence of TNT, RDX, tetryl, and 
ammonium perchlorate. None of these materials were found in any of the 
samples. Walker et al. (2006) sampled seawater and sediment at two 
offshore sites where underwater demolition was conducted using 10-pound 
charges of TNT and RDX. Residual TNT and RDX were below the detection 
limit in seawater, including samples collected in the plume within five 
minutes of detonation.
    Additional materials produced during air-to-surface activities 
would include petroleum products (primarily fuel and oil in target 
boats), battery acid, and plastics. Increased use of remotely 
controlled target boats and mission support vessels would increase the 
potential for fuel, oil, and battery acid to be deposited in the water 
(primarily through destruction of target boats). When hydrocarbons 
enter the ocean, the lighter-weight components evaporate, degrade by 
sunlight, and undergo chemical degradation. Many constituents are also 
consumed by microbes. Higher-weight molecular compounds are more 
resistant to degradation and tend to persist after these processes have 
occurred. Microbial breakdown of PCBs has been documented in estuarine 
and marine sediments (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease, 2000). 
In addition, currents would disperse any hydrocarbons produced during 
test and training activities. It is anticipated that potential impacts 
to water quality due to petroleum-based products would be 
insignificant. Similarly, battery acid, while possibly having a 
temporary and local effect on the water column, would be quickly 
dispersed and diluted by water currents.
    Debris deposited on the seafloor would include spent munitions 
fragments and possibly pieces of targets (fiberglass, plywood, etc.). 
Debris would not appreciably affect the sandy seafloor. Debris moved by 
water currents could scour the bottom, but sediments would quickly 
refill any affected areas, and overall effects to benthic communities 
would be minor. Large pieces of debris would not be as prone to 
movement on the seafloor and could result in beneficial effects by 
providing habitat for encrusting organisms, fish, and other marine 
fauna. Target boats have foam-filled hulls, and most of the pieces are 
designed to float in order to facilitate collection for a damage 
assessment. Overall, the quantity of material deposited on the seafloor 
would be small compared with other sources of debris in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Hardbottom habitats and artificial reefs would be avoided when 
possible through location of target sites and training missions and 
would not be likely to be affected by debris. There is a potential for 
some debris to be carried by currents and interact with the substrate, 
but damage to natural or artificial reefs is not expected and the 
impacts would not be significant.

Previous Monitoring Results

    Below is a summary of annual marine mammal monitoring reports 
required as part of LOAs and IHAs issued to Eglin AFB. AFSOC gunnery 
missions were scheduled over nine days in 2012, three days in 2013, 10 
days in 2014, and eight days in 2015. There was no recorded

[[Page 61394]]

take of marine mammals during this time period. Thirteen days of 
maritime strike operations took place in 2013 and 2014 with no recorded 
takes. WSEP missions were held over four days in 2015 and five days in 
2016 with no observable takes before, during, and after each mission. 
In summary, Eglin AFB reports that since 2012 no observable take of 
marine mammals has occurred incidental to numerous missions and mission 
activities in the EGTTR.
    While we anticipate that the specified activity may result in 
marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, 
this impact to habitat and prey species would be temporary and 
reversible. The main impact associated with the proposed activity would 
be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects 
on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Marine mammals 
are anticipated to temporarily vacate the area of live detonations. 
However, these events are usually of short duration, and animals are 
anticipated to return to the activity area during periods of non-
activity. Thus, based on the preceding discussion, we do not anticipate 
that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that 
could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine 
mammals or their populations.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this LOA, which will inform NMFS' 
consideration of the negligible impact determination.
    For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines 
``harassment'' as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
(Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to 
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited 
to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to 
a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly 
altered (Level B Harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use 
of explosive sources has the potential to result in disruption of 
behavioral patterns and TTS for individual marine mammals. There is 
also some potential for auditory injury and tissue damage (Level A 
harassment) to result. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures 
are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent 
practicable. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or 
proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the 
take is estimated.
    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: 
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available 
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur 
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of 
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the 
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; 
and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these 
components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic 
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above 
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be 
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS 
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also 
been developed to identify the pressure levels above which animals may 
incur different types of tissue damage from exposure to pressure waves 
from explosive detonation.
    The criteria and thresholds used to estimate potential pressure and 
energy impacts to marine mammals resulting from detonations were 
obtained from Finneran and Jenkins (2012). Criteria used to analyze 
impacts to marine mammals include mortality, harassment that causes or 
is likely to cause injury (Level A) and harassment that disrupts or is 
likely to disrupt natural behavior patterns (Level B). Each category is 
discussed below with additional details provided in Appendix A of the 
application.

Mortality

    Mortality risk assessment may be considered in terms of direct 
injury, which includes primary blast injury and barotrauma. The 
potential for direct injury of marine mammals has been inferred from 
terrestrial mammal experiments and from post-mortem examination of 
marine mammals believed to have been exposed to underwater explosions 
(Finneran and Jenkins, 2012; Ketten et al., 1993; Richmond et al., 
1973). Actual effects on marine mammals may differ from terrestrial 
animals due to anatomical and physiological differences, such as a 
reinforced trachea and flexible thoracic cavity, which may decrease the 
risk of injury (Ridgway and Dailey, 1972).
    Primary blast injuries result from the initial compression of a 
body exposed to a blast wave, and is usually limited to gas-containing 
structures (e.g., lung and gut) and the auditory system (U.S. 
Department of the Navy, 2001b). Barotrauma refers to injuries caused 
when large pressure changes occur across tissue interfaces, normally at 
the boundaries of air-filled tissues such as the lungs. Primary blast 
injury to the respiratory system may be fatal depending upon the 
severity of the trauma. Rupture of the lung may introduce air into the 
vascular system, producing air emboli that can restrict oxygen delivery 
to the brain or heart.
    Whereas a single mortality threshold was previously used in 
acoustic impacts analysis, species-specific thresholds are currently 
required. Thresholds are based on the level of impact that would cause 
extensive lung injury to one percent of exposed animals (i.e., an 
impact level from which one percent of exposed animals would not 
recover). (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). The threshold represents the 
expected onset of mortality, where 99 percent of exposed animals would 
be expected to survive. Most survivors would have moderate blast 
injuries. The lethal exposure level of blast noise, associated with the 
positive impulse pressure of the blast, is expressed as Pa[middot]s and 
is determined using the Goertner (1982) modified positive impulse 
equation. This equation incorporates source/animal depths and the mass 
of a newborn calf for the affected species. The threshold is 
conservative because animals of greater mass can withstand greater 
pressure waves, and newborn calves typically make up a very small 
percentage of any cetacean group.
    For the actions described in this proposed LOA, two species are 
expected to occur within the EGTTR Study Area: The bottlenose dolphin 
and the Atlantic spotted dolphin. Finneran and Jenkins (2012) provide 
known or surrogate masses for newborn calves of several cetacean 
species. For the bottlenose dolphin, this value is 14 kilograms (kg) 
(31 pounds). Values are not provided for the Atlantic spotted dolphin 
and, therefore, a surrogate species, the striped dolphin (Stenella 
coeruleoalba), is used. The mass provided for a newborn striped dolphin 
calf is 7 kg (15 pounds). Impacts analysis for the unidentified dolphin 
group (assumed to consist of bottlenose and Atlantic striped dolphins) 
conservatively used the mass of the smaller spotted dolphin. The 
Goertner equation, as presented in Finneran and Jenkins (2012) is used 
in

[[Page 61395]]

the acoustic model to develop impacts analysis in this LOA request. The 
equation is provided in Table 16.

Injury (Level A Harassment)

    Potential injuries that may occur to marine mammals include blast 
related injury: Gastrointestinal (GI) tract injury and slight lung 
injury, and irrecoverable auditory damage. These injury categories are 
all types of Level A harassment as defined in the MMPA.
    Slight Lung Injury--This threshold is based on a level of lung 
injury from which all exposed animals are expected to survive (zero 
percent mortality) (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Similar to the 
mortality determination, the metric is positive impulse and the 
equation for determination is that of the Goertner injury model (1982), 
corrected for atmospheric and hydrostatic pressures and based on the 
cube root scaling of body mass (Richmond et al., 1973; U.S. Department 
of the Navy, 2001b). The equation is provided in Table 16.
    Gastrointestinal Tract Injuries--GI tract injuries are correlated 
with the peak pressure of an underwater detonation. GI tract injury 
thresholds are based on the results of experiments in the 1970s in 
which terrestrial mammals were exposed to small charges. The peak 
pressure of the shock wave was found to be the causal agent in 
recoverable contusions (bruises) in the GI tract (Richmond et al., 
1973, in Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). The experiments found that a peak 
SPL of 237 dB re 1 [mu]Pa predicts the onset of GI tract injuries, 
regardless of an animal's mass or size. Therefore, the unweighted peak 
SPL of 237 dB re 1 [mu]Pa is used in explosive impacts assessments as 
the threshold for slight GI tract injury for all marine mammals.
    Auditory Damage (PTS)--Another type of injury, permanent threshold 
shift or PTS, is auditory damage that does not fully recover and 
results in a permanent decrease in hearing sensitivity. As there have 
been no studies to determine the onset of PTS in marine mammals, this 
threshold is estimated from available information associated with TTS. 
According to research by the Navy (Navy, 2017) PTS thresholds are 
defined differently for three groups of cetaceans based on their 
hearing sensitivity: Low frequency, mid-frequency, and high frequency. 
Bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins that are the subject of the 
EGTTR acoustic impacts analysis both fall within the mid-frequency 
hearing category. The PTS thresholds use dual criteria, one based on 
cumulative SEL and one based on peak SPL of an underwater blast. For a 
given analysis, the more conservative of the two is applied to afford 
the most protection to marine mammals. The mid-frequency cetacean 
criteria for PTS are provided in Table 16.

Non-Injurious Impacts (Level B Harassment)

    Two categories of Level B harassment are currently recognized: 
Temporary threshold shift (TTS) and behavioral impacts. Although TTS is 
a physiological impact, it is not considered injury because auditory 
structures are temporarily fatigued instead of being permanently 
damaged.
    TTS--Non-injurious effects on marine mammals, such as TTS, are 
generally extrapolated from data on terrestrial mammals (Southall et 
al., 2007). Similar to PTS, dual criteria are provided for TTS 
thresholds, and the more conservative is typically applied in impacts 
analysis. TTS criteria are based on data from impulse sound exposures 
when available. According to the most recent data (Navy, 2017) the TTS 
onset thresholds for mid-frequency cetaceans are based on TTS data from 
a beluga whale exposed to an underwater impulse produced from a seismic 
watergun. The TTS thresholds consist of the SEL of an underwater blast 
weighted to the hearing sensitivity of mid-frequency cetaceans and an 
unweighted peak SPL measure. The dual thresholds for TTS in mid-
frequency cetaceans are provided in Table 16.

Behavioral Impacts

    Behavioral impacts refer to disturbances that may occur at sound 
levels below those considered to cause TTS in marine mammals, 
particularly in cases of multiple detonations. During an activity with 
a series of explosions (not concurrent multiple explosions shown in a 
burst), an animal is expected to exhibit a startle reaction to the 
first detonation followed by a behavioral response after multiple 
detonations. At close ranges and high sound levels, avoidance of the 
area around the explosions is the assumed behavioral response in most 
cases. Other behavioral impacts may include decreased ability to feed, 
communicate, migrate, or reproduce, among others. Such effects, known 
as sub-TTS Level B harassment, are based on observations of behavioral 
reactions in captive dolphins and beluga whales exposed to pure tones, 
a different type of noise than that produced from an underwater 
detonation (Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt et al., 2000). For 
multiple, successive detonations (i.e., detonations happening at the 
same location within a 24-hour period), the threshold for behavioral 
disturbance is set 5 dB below the SEL-based TTS threshold, unless there 
are species- or group-specific data indicating that a lower threshold 
should be used. This is based on observations of behavioral reactions 
in captive dolphins and belugas occurring at exposure levels 
approximately 5 dB below those causing TTS after exposure to pure tones 
(Finneran and Jenkins, 2012; Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt et 
al., 2000).
    Table 16 outlines the explosive thresholds, based on the best 
available science, used by NMFS to predict the onset of disruption of 
natural behavior patterns, PTS, tissue damage, and mortality.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27DE17.003


[[Page 61396]]



Marine Mammal Occurrence

    Bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphin density estimates used in 
this document were obtained from Duke University Marine Geospatial 
Ecology Lab Reports (Roberts et al., 2016) which integrated 23 years of 
aerial and shipboard surveys, linked them to environmental covariates 
obtained from remote sensing and ocean models, and built habitat-based 
density models using distance sampling methodology. For bottlenose 
dolphins, geographic modeling strata from MMPA stock boundaries and 
seasonal strata were not defined because of the lack of information 
about seasonality in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as substantial spatial 
and seasonal biases in survey efforts (Roberts et al., 2015a). 
Therefore, bottlenose dolphin numbers were modeled in the Gulf of 
Mexico using a single year-round model. Similarly for Atlantic spotted 
dolphins, there is no evidence that this species migrates or exhibits 
seasonal patterns in the Gulf of Mexico, so a single, year-round model 
that incorporated all available survey data was used (Roberts et al., 
2015b). The model results are available at the OBIS-SEAMAP repository 
found online (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/).
    Two marine mammal density estimates were calculated for this 
proposed LOA. One density estimate is considered a large-scale estimate 
and is used for missions that could occur anywhere in W-151A, shoreward 
of the 200-m isobath. The mission sets that utilize the entire W-151A 
area include AFSOC's Air-to-Surface Gunnery Training Operations and 413 
FLTS's AC-130J Precision Strike Package Gunnery Testing (Scenarios D, 
E, F, G, and H). The other density estimate is considered a fine-scale 
estimate and is used for missions that are proposed specifically around 
the GRATV target area. The mission sets that utilize the nearshore 
GRATV target location are 86th FWS Maritime WSEP, 413 FLTS AC-130J and 
AC-130W Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions Testing, 780th TS 
Precision Strike Weapons, 780 TS/OGMT future missions, and 96th OG 
future missions (Scenarios A, B, C, and I through T). Using two 
different density estimates based on the mission locations accounts for 
the differences between inshore and offshore distribution of bottlenose 
and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and provides more realistic take 
calculations.
    Raster data provided online from the Duke University Marine 
Geospatial Ecology Lab Report was imported into ArcGIS and overlaid 
onto the W-151A area. Density values for each species were provided in 
10 x 10 km boxes. The large-scale estimates for W-151A were obtained by 
averaging the density values of these 100 km\2\ boxes within the W-151A 
boundaries and converted to number of animals per km\2\. Fine-scale 
estimates were calculated by selecting nine 100 km\2\ boxes centered 
around the GRATV target location and averaging the density values from 
those boxes. Large-scale and fine-scale density estimates are provided 
in Table 17.

Table 17--Marine Mammal Density Estimates for EGTTR Testing and Training
                               Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Large-scale density   Fine-scale density
                               estimate a (animals   estimate b (animals
           Species                  per km2)              per km2)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin c........                 0.276                 0.433
Atlantic spotted dolphin \d\                 0.160                 0.148
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Large-scale estimates incorporate the entire W-151A area.
\b\ Fine-scale estimates incorporate the nine 10 km\2\ boxes centered
  around the GRATV location.
\c\ Densities derived from Roberts et al. 2015a.
\d\ Densities derived from Roberts et al. 2015b.

    Density estimates usually assume that animals are uniformly 
distributed within the prescribed area, even though this is likely 
rarely true. Marine mammals are often clumped in areas of greater 
importance, for example, in areas of high productivity, lower 
predation, safe calving, etc. Furthermore, assuming that marine mammals 
are distributed evenly within the water column does not accurately 
reflect behavior. Databases of behavioral and physiological parameters 
obtained through tagging and other technologies have demonstrated that 
marine animals use the water column in various ways. Some species 
conduct regular deep dives while others engage in much shallower dives, 
regardless of bottom depth. Assuming that all species are evenly 
distributed from surface to bottom can present a distorted view of 
marine mammal distribution in any region. Density is assumed to be two-
dimensional, and exposure estimates are, therefore, simply calculated 
as the product of affected area, animal density, and number of events. 
The resulting exposure estimates are considered conservative, because 
all animals are presumed to be located at the same depth, where the 
maximum sound and pressure ranges would extend from detonations, and 
would, therefore, be exposed to the maximum amount of energy or 
pressure. In reality, it is highly likely that some portion of marine 
mammals present near the impact area at the time of detonation would be 
at various depths in the water column and not necessarily occur at the 
same depth corresponding to the maximum sound and pressure ranges.
    A mission-day based analysis was utilized in order to model 
accumulated energy over a 24-hour timeframe where each mission-day 
scenario would be considered a separate event. As described previously, 
Eglin AFB developed multiple mission-day categories separated by 
mission groups and estimated the number of days each category would be 
executed annually. In total, there are 20 different mission-day 
scenarios included in the acoustic analysis Labeled A-T. Table 18 below 
summarizes the number of days each mission-day scenario, or event, 
would be conducted annually in the EGTTR.

 Table 18--Annual Number of Days Proposed for Each Mission Category Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Mission    Number of
                 Mission groups                    category     mission
                                                      day      days/year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 FWS Maritime WSEP............................          A           2
                                                          B           4
                                                           C          2
AFSOC Air-to-Surface Gunnery....................          D          25
                                                          E          45
413 FLTS PSP Gunnery............................          F           3
                                                          G           4
                                                          H           4
413 FLTS SOPGM..................................          I           2
                                                          J           2
                                                          K           2
                                                          L           2
780 TS Precision Strike Weapon..................          M           1
                                                          N           1
                                                          O           1

[[Page 61397]]

 
780 TS Other Tests..............................          P           1
                                                          Q           4
96 OG Future Missions...........................          R           1
                                                          S           2
                                                          T          10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Eglin AFB completed acoustic modeling to determine the distances 
from their explosive ordnance corresponding to NMFS' explosive 
thresholds. These distances were then used with each species' density 
to determine exposure estimates. Below is a summary of the methodology 
for those modeling efforts. Appendix A in the application provides 
additional details.
    The maximum estimated range, or radius, from the detonation point 
to the point at which the various thresholds extend for all munitions 
proposed to be released in a 24-hour time period was calculated based 
on explosive acoustic characteristics, sound propagation, and sound 
transmission loss in the EGTTR. Results are shown in Table 19. These 
calculations incorporated water depth, sediment type, wind speed, 
bathymetry, and temperature/salinity profiles. Transmission loss was 
calculated from the explosive source depth down to an array of water 
depth bins (0 to 160 m). Impact volumes were computed for each 
explosive source (based on the total number of munitions released on a 
representative mission day). The impact volume is a cylinder extending 
from surface to seafloor, centered at the sound source with a radius 
set equal to the maximum range, Rmx, across all depths and azimuths at 
which the particular metric is still above the threshold. The total 
energy for all weapons released as part of a representative mission day 
was calculated to assess impacts from the accumulated energy resulting 
from multiple weapon releases within a 24-hour period. The number of 
animals impacted is computed by multiplying the area of a circle with 
radius Rmax, by the original animal density given in animal per km\2\.

                                 Table 19--Threshold Radii (in Kilometers) for EGTTR Air-to-Surface Testing and Training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Mortality                   Level A harassment                            Level B harassment
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Slight lung    GI Tract              PTS                       TTS             Behavioral
                                                                  injury       Injury   ----------------------------------------------------------------
              Mission-day category                  Modified  --------------------------
                                                    Goertner     Modified                             230 dB Peak               224 dB Peak
                                                    Model 1      Goertner    237 dB SPL   185 dB SEL      SPL       170 dB SEL      SPL       165 dB SEL
                                                                 Model 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Bottlenose Dolphin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............................................        0.427        0.768        0.348        1.039        0.705        5.001        1.302        8.155
B...............................................        0.107        0.225        0.156         0.43        0.317        2.245        0.585        3.959
C...............................................        0.037        0.085        0.083         0.32        0.169        1.128        0.312        1.863
D...............................................        0.024        0.055        0.059        0.254         0.12        0.982        0.222        1.413
E...............................................         0.01        0.024        0.034        0.232        0.069        0.878        0.126        1.252
F...............................................        0.003        0.007        0.019        0.096        0.033        0.218        0.062        0.373
G...............................................        0.024        0.055        0.059        0.167         0.12        0.552        0.222        0.809
H...............................................        0.006        0.015        0.025        0.097        0.051        0.229        0.093        0.432
I...............................................        0.023        0.054        0.059        0.125        0.119        0.328         0.22        0.572
J...............................................        0.045        0.101        0.096        0.167        0.195        0.555         0.36        0.812
K...............................................        0.057        0.128        0.117        0.164        0.237        0.541        0.438        0.795
L...............................................        0.057        0.128        0.117          0.2        0.237        0.654        0.438        0.953
M...............................................         0.12        0.249         0.22        0.211        0.447        0.761        0.825        1.123
N...............................................        0.076        0.168        0.149        0.202        0.302        0.671        0.557        0.982
O...............................................        0.047        0.107        0.101        0.136        0.204        0.432        0.376         0.64
P...............................................        0.051        0.115        0.107        0.116        0.217        0.271          0.4        0.527
Q...............................................        0.007        0.016        0.026        0.073        0.053        0.149        0.098        0.207
R...............................................        0.427        0.768        0.348        0.811        0.705        4.316        1.302        6.883
S...............................................        0.142        0.286        0.156        0.692        0.317        3.941        0.585        5.132
T...............................................        0.024        0.055        0.059        0.224         0.12        0.837        0.222        1.209
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............................................        0.504        0.886        0.348        1.039        0.705        5.001        1.302        8.155
B...............................................        0.133        0.266        0.156         0.43        0.317        2.245        0.585        3.959
C...............................................        0.047        0.104        0.083         0.32        0.169        1.128        0.312        1.863
D...............................................         0.03        0.067        0.059        0.254         0.12        0.982        0.222        1.413
E...............................................        0.013         0.03        0.034        0.232        0.069        0.878        0.126        1.252
F...............................................        0.004        0.009        0.019        0.096        0.033        0.218        0.062        0.373
G...............................................         0.03        0.067        0.059        0.167         0.12        0.552        0.222        0.809
H...............................................        0.008        0.018        0.025        0.097        0.051        0.229        0.093        0.432
I...............................................         0.03        0.067        0.059        0.125        0.119        0.328         0.22        0.572
J...............................................        0.057        0.124        0.096        0.167        0.195        0.555         0.36        0.812
K...............................................        0.072        0.157        0.117        0.164        0.237        0.541        0.428        0.795
L...............................................        0.072        0.157        0.117          0.2        0.237        0.654        0.438        0.953
M...............................................         0.15         0.29         0.22        0.211        0.447        0.761        0.825        1.123
N...............................................        0.096        0.201        0.149        0.202        0.302        0.671        0.557        0.982
O...............................................         0.06        0.131        0.101        0.136        0.204        0.432        0.376         0.64
P...............................................        0.065        0.141        0.107        0.116        0.217        0.271          0.4        0.527
Q...............................................        0.009         0.02        0.026        0.073        0.053        0.149        0.098        0.207
R...............................................        0.504        0.886        0.348        0.811        0.705        4.316        1.302        6.883
S...............................................        0.172        0.336        0.156        0.692        0.317        3.941        0.585        5.132
T...............................................         0.03        0.067        0.059        0.224         0.12        0.837        0.222        1.209
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61398]]

    The ranges presented above were used to calculate the total area 
(circle) of the zones of influence for each criterion/threshold. To 
eliminate ``double-counting'' of animals, impact areas from higher 
impact categories (e.g., mortality) were subtracted from areas 
associated with lower impact categories (e.g., Level A harassment). The 
estimated number of marine mammals potentially exposed to the various 
impact thresholds was calculated with a two-dimensional approach, as 
the product of the adjusted impact area, animal density, and annual 
number of events for each mission-day category. The calculations 
generally resulted in decimal values, suggesting that, in most cases, a 
fraction of an animal was exposed. The results were therefore rounded 
at the annual mission-day level and then summed for each criterion to 
obtain total annual take estimates from all EGTTR mission activities. A 
``take'' is considered to occur for SEL metrics if the received level 
is equal to or above the associated threshold within the appropriate 
frequency band of the sound received, adjusted for the appropriate 
weighting function value of that frequency band. Similarly, a ``take'' 
would occur for impulse and peak SPL metrics if the received level is 
equal to or above the associated threshold. For impact categories with 
multiple criteria (e.g., slight lung injury, GI tract injury, and PTS 
for Level A harassment) and criteria with two thresholds (e.g., 187 dB 
SEL and 230 peak SPL for PTS), the criterion and/or threshold that 
yielded the higher exposure estimate was used for detonation impact 
analyses shows the total numbers of marine mammals potentially affected 
by all EGTTR testing and training mission activities annually (See 
Table 20). These exposure estimates do not take into account the 
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures which are expected to 
decrease the potential for impacts.
    Acoustic analysis results indicate the potential for injury and 
non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine 
mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. Mortality was calculated 
as one (1) for bottlenose dolphins and zero (0) for Atlantic spotted 
dolphin. However, because the modeling is conservative and it did not 
include implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, the 
likelihood of mortality is small and the potential for Level A 
harassment takes would be significantly reduced. As such, NMFS is not 
proposing to authorize any take due to mortality.
    Animals from the Northern Gulf of Mexico stock of spotted dolphins 
and the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental shelf stock of bottlenose 
dolphins are likely to be affected. There is also a chance that a 
limited number of bottlenose dolphins from the Gulf of Mexico Northern 
Coastal stock could be affected. Animals from this stock are known to 
occur in waters greater than 20 m in depth. Even though the 20 m 
isopleth delineates the stock's range, it is an artificial boundary 
used for management purposes and is not ecologically based. However, 
most of the bottlenose dolphins potentially affected would be part of 
the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental shelf stock.

  Table 20--Total Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Affected Annually by Air-to-Surface Testing and Training
                                              Missions in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Level A harassment              Level B harassment
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                     Species                        Slight lung
                                                      injury         PTS (SEL)       TTS (SEL)      Behavioral
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin..............................               2               7             220             315
Atlantic spotted dolphin........................               0               2              85             120
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................               2               9             305             435
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an LOA under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, ``and other means of effecting the least practicable impact 
on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention 
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking'' for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action).
    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.
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned) and the likelihood of effective implementation (probability of 
being implemented as planned); and
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    Eglin AFB has proposed 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. Proposed 
mitigation measures include the following:
    Timing Restrictions--With the exception of gunnery operations, 
missions will take place no earlier than two hours after sunrise. This 
measure provides observers with adequate visibility necessary for two 
hour pre-mission monitoring. Missions must also be completed at least 
30 minutes before

[[Page 61399]]

sunset which will allow adequate visibility for post-mission 
monitoring.
    Trained Observers--All monitoring will be conducted by personnel 
who have completed Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training Course, 
which was developed in cooperation with NMFS. This training includes a 
summary of environmental laws, consequences of non-compliance, 
description of an observer's role, pictures and descriptions of 
protected species and protected species indicators, survey methods, 
monitoring requirements, and reporting procedures. The training will be 
provided to user groups either electronically or in person by an Eglin 
AFB representative. Any person acting as an observer for a particular 
mission must have completed the training within the year prior to the 
mission. Names of personnel who have completed the training will be 
submitted to Eglin AFB along with the date of completion. In cases 
where multiple survey platforms are required to cover large survey 
areas, a Lead Biologist will be designated to lead all monitoring 
efforts and coordinate sighting information with the Test Director or 
Safety Officer.
    Pre- and Post-Mission Monitoring--For each live mission, at a 
minimum, pre- and post-mission monitoring will be required. Missions 
will 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, with the exception of AFSOC and the 413 FLTS 
gunnery missions. In those cases, aircrews will utilize aircraft 
instrumentation and sensors to monitor the area.
    Monitoring will be conducted from a given platform depending on the 
specific mission. The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) 
evaluate the mission site for environmental suitability and (2) verify 
that the ZOI is free of visually detectable marine mammals and 
potential marine mammal indicators. Air Force range clearing vessels 
and protected species survey vessels will be on-site at least two hours 
prior to the mission. Vessel-based surveys will begin approximately one 
and one-half hours prior to live weapon deployment. Surveys will 
continue for approximately one hour or until the entire ZOI has been 
adequately surveyed, whichever comes first. At approximately 30 minutes 
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 miles from the detonation point.
    The duration of pre-mission surveys will depend on the area 
required to be surveyed and survey platforms (vessels versus aircraft). 
All marine mammal sightings including the species (if possible), 
number, location, and behavior of the animals will be documented on 
report forms that will be submitted to Eglin AFB after each mission. 
Missions will be postponed, relocated, or cancelled based on the 
presence of protected species within the survey areas.
    Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness 
of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any dead or injured 
marine mammals. Post-detonation monitoring surveys will commence once 
the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as the mission area is 
declared safe. Vessels will move into the survey area from outside the 
safety zone and monitor for at least 30 minutes. The duration of post-
mission surveys will vary based on survey platform. Similar to pre-
mission surveys, all sightings would be properly documented on report 
forms and submitted to Eglin AFB. Any authorized marine mammals that 
are detected in the ZOI during post-mission surveys will be counted as 
Level B takes.
    If any marine mammals are killed or injured as a result of the 
mission, Eglin AFB would be contacted immediately. Observers would 
document the species or description of the animal, location, and 
behavior and, if practicable, take pictures and maintain visual contact 
with the animal. Eglin AFB must notify the Director, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by telephone (301-427-8401), 
and the Southeast Regional Office (phone within 24 hours of the injury 
or death) and await further instructions or the arrival of a response 
team on-site, if feasible. Activities shall cease and not resume until 
NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take.
    Mission Delay under Poor Sea State Conditions--Weather conducive to 
marine mammal monitoring is required to effectively conduct the pre- 
and post-mission surveys. Wind speed and the resulting surface 
conditions are critical factors affecting observation effectiveness. 
Higher winds typically increase wave height and create ``whitecap'' 
conditions, both of which limit an observer's ability to locate marine 
species at or near the surface. Air-to-surface missions will be delayed 
or rescheduled if the sea state is greater than number 4 as listed in 
Table 21 at the time of the mission. Protected species observers or the 
Lead Biologist will make the final determination of whether or not 
conditions are conducive to sighting protected species.

         Table 21--Sea State Scale for EGTTR Pre-Mission Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Sea state No.                        Sea conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................................  Flat, calm, no waves or ripples.
1................................  Light air, winds 1-2 knots; wave
                                    height to 1 foot; ripples without
                                    crests.
2................................  Light breeze, winds 3-6 knots; wave
                                    height 1-2 feet; small wavelets,
                                    crests not breaking.
3................................  Gentle breeze, winds 7-10 knots; wave
                                    height 2-3.5 feet; large wavelets,
                                    scattered whitecaps.
4................................  Moderate breeze, winds 11-16 knots;
                                    wave height 3.5-6 feet; breaking
                                    crests, numerous whitecaps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Visibility is also a critical factor for flight safety issues when 
aerial surveys are being conducted. Therefore, a minimum ceiling of 305 
m (1,000 ft) and visibility of 5.6 km (3 nmi) is required to support 
monitoring efforts and flight safety concerns.
    Determination of ZOI Survey Areas-- The ZOI is defined as the area 
or volume of ocean in which marine mammals could be exposed to various 
pressure or acoustic energy levels caused by exploding ordnance. Each 
threshold range listed in Table 19 represents a radius of impact for a 
given threshold of each munition/detonation scenario. These ranges will 
be used for determining the size of the area required to be monitored 
during pre-mission surveys for each activity. For any mission involving 
live munitions (other than gunnery rounds) an area extending out to the 
PTS harassment range for the corresponding mission-day scenario will be 
completely cleared of marine mammals prior to release of the first live 
ordnance. Depending on the mission-day scenario, the corresponding 
radius could be between 73 m for a live fuse surface detonation 
associated with mission-day scenario Q, and 1,039 m associated with 
mission-day scenario A. This would help ensure that no marine mammals 
will be within any of the Level A harassment or mortality zones during 
a live detonation event, significantly reducing the potential for these 
types of impacts to occur.
    Some missions will be delayed to allow survey platforms to evacuate 
the human safety zone after pre-missions surveys are completed. For 
these delayed missions, Eglin proposes to include a buffer around the 
survey area

[[Page 61400]]

that would extend to the TTS harassment zone for the corresponding 
mission-day scenario. This would double, and in some cases triple, the 
size of the survey area for the PTS zone. This buffer will mitigate for 
the potential that an animal outside the area during pre-mission 
surveys would enter the Level A harassment or mortality zones during a 
mission. However, missions that consist solely of gunnery testing and 
training operations will actually survey larger areas based on 
previously established safety profiles and the ability to conduct 
aerial surveys of large areas from mission aircraft. These ranges are 
shown in Table 22. Comparing the monitoring area below with behavioral 
harassment threshold radii for Atlantic spotted dolphins for mission-
day categories D through H (between 0.4 km and 1.4 km (0.2 and 0.8 
nmi)) shows that a much larger area will be covered by this monitoring 
procedure.
    Mission Delay Associated with Animals in Zone of Influence-- A 
mission delay of live ordnance mission activities will occur if a 
protected species, large schools of fish, or large flocks of birds 
feeding at the surface are observed within the Level B harassment ZOI. 
Mission activities cannot resume until one of the following conditions 
is met: (1) Marine mammal is confirmed to be outside of the ZOI on a 
heading away from the target area; (2) marine mammal is not seen again 
for 30 minutes and presumed to be outside the Level A ZOI; or (3) large 
groupings of fish or birds leading to required delay are confirmed 
outside the ZOI.
    Mission Abort if Sperm or Baleen Whales observed during Pre-mission 
Monitoring--Marine mammal species found in the Gulf of Mexico, 
including the federally listed sperm whale and the Bryde's whale, which 
is proposed for ESA listing, occur with greater regularity in waters 
over and beyond the continental shelf break. To avoid impacts to the 
sperm whale, AFSOC has agreed to conduct all gunnery missions within 
(shoreward of) the 200-m isobath, which is considered to be the shelf 
break for purposes of this document. Furthermore, mission activities 
will be aborted/suspended for the remainder of the day if one or more 
sperm or baleen whales are detected during pre-mission monitoring 
activities as no takes of these species have been authorized. This 
measure will incidentally provide greater protection to several other 
species as well. Trained observers will also be instructed to be 
vigilant in ensuring Bryde's whales are not in the ZOI.

                              Table 22--Monitoring Area Radii for Gunnery Missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Monitoring          Operational
            Aircraft                 Gunnery round      Monitoring area        altitude            altitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC-130 gunship..................  25 mm, 30 mm, 40    5 nmi (9,260 m)...  6,000 ft..........  15,000-20,000 ft.
                                   mm, 105 mm (FU
                                   and TR).
CV-22 Osprey....................  .50 cal, 7.62 mm..  3 nmi (5,556 m)...  1,000 ft..........  1,000 ft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cal = caliber; ft = feet; FU = full up; m = meters; mm = millimeter; nmi = nautical miles; TR = Training Round.

    Mitigation Measures for Gunnery Actions--Eglin AFB has identified 
and required implementation of operational mitigation measures for 
gunnery missions, including development of the 105-mm TR, use of ramp-
up procedures (explained below), re-initiation of species surveys if 
live fire activities are interrupted for more than 10 minutes, and 
eliminating missions conducted over waters beyond the continental 
shelf.
    The largest type of ammunition used during gunnery missions is a 
105-mm round, which contains 4.7 pounds of high explosive (HE). This is 
several times more HE than that found in the next largest round (40 
mm). As a mitigation technique, the Air Force developed a 105-mm TR 
that contains only 0.35 pounds of HE. The TR was developed to 
substantially reduce the risk of harassment during nighttime 
operations, when visual surveying for marine mammals is of limited 
effectiveness (however, monitoring by use of the AC-130's 
instrumentation is effective at night).
    Ramp-up procedures refer to the process of beginning with the least 
impactive action and proceeding to more impactive actions. In the case 
of gunnery activities, ramp-up procedures entail beginning a mission 
with the lowest caliber munition and proceeding to the highest, which 
means the munitions would be fired in the order of 25 mm, 40 mm, and 
105 mm. The rationale for the procedure is that this process may allow 
marine species to perceive steadily increasing noise levels and to 
react, if necessary, before the noise reaches a threshold of 
significance.
    If use of gunship weapons is interrupted for more than 10 minutes, 
Eglin AFB would be required to reinitiate applicable protected species 
surveys in the ZOI to ensure that no marine mammal species entered into 
the ZOI during that time.
    The AC-130 gunship weapons are used in two phases. First, the guns 
are checked for functionality and calibrated. This step requires an 
abbreviated period of live fire. After the guns are determined ready 
for use, the aircraft deploys a flare onto the surface of the water as 
a target, and the mission proceeds under various test and training 
scenarios. This second phase involves a more extended period of live 
fire and can incorporate use of one or any combination of the munitions 
available (25-mm, 40-mm, and 105-mm rounds).
    A ramp-up procedure will be required for the initial calibration 
phase and, after this phase, the guns may be fired in any order. Eglin 
AFB believes this process will allow marine species the opportunity to 
respond to increasing noise levels. If an animal leaves the area during 
ramp-up, it is unlikely to return during the live-fire mission. This 
protocol provides a more realistic training experience for aircrews. In 
combat situations, gunship crews would not necessarily fire the 
complete ammunition load of a given caliber gun before proceeding to 
another gun. Rather, a combination of guns might be used as required by 
real-time situations. An additional benefit of this protocol is that 
mechanical or ammunition problems with an individual gun can be 
resolved while live fire continues with functioning weapons. This 
diminishes the possibility of pause in live fire lasting 10 minutes or 
more, which would necessitate reinitiation of protected species 
surveys.
    Based on our evaluation of Eglin AFB's proposed measures, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide 
the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected 
species or stocks and their habitat, while also considering personnel 
safety, practicality of implementation, and the impact of effectiveness 
of the military readiness activity.

[[Page 61401]]

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, 
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 
``requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such 
taking.'' The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 
indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested 
means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will 
result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking 
or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be 
present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    The following monitoring options have been developed to support 
various types of air-to-surface mission activities that may be 
conducted in the EGTTR. Eglin AFB users covered by this proposed LOA 
must meet specific test or training objectives and safety requirements 
and have different assets available to execute the pre- and post-
mission surveys. The monitoring options and mitigation measures 
described in the subsections below balance all mission-essential 
parameters with measures that will provide adequate protection to 
marine mammals. Monitors will search for both authorized and non-
authorized marine mammal species. Monitors will be instructed to be 
extra vigilant in ensuring that species of concern, including the sperm 
whale (listed as endangered under the ESA) and Bryde's whale (proposed 
for listing under the ESA) are clear of the ZOI during testing and 
training activities.
    Vessel-based Monitoring--Pre-mission surveys conducted from surface 
vessels will typically begin at sunrise. Trained observers will be 
aboard designated vessels to conduct protected species surveys before 
and after each mission. These vessels will be dedicated solely to 
monitoring for protected marine species and species indicators during 
the pre-mission surveys. For missions that require multiple vessels to 
conduct surveys based on the size of the survey area, a Lead Biologist 
will be designated to coordinate all survey efforts, compile sighting 
information from the other vessels, function as the point of contact 
between the survey vessels and Tower Control on Santa Rosa Island, and 
provide final recommendations to the Safety Officer/Test Director on 
the suitability of the mission site based on environmental conditions 
and survey results.
    Survey vessels will run pre-determined line transects, or survey 
routes, that will provide sufficient coverage of the survey area. 
Monitoring activities will be conducted from the highest point feasible 
on the vessels. There will be at least two dedicated observers on each 
vessel, and they will utilize optical equipment with sufficient 
magnification to allow observation of surfaced animals.
    All sighting information from pre-mission surveys will be 
communicated to the Lead Biologist on a pre-determined radio channel to 
reduce overall radio chatter and potential confusion. After compiling 
all the sighting information from the other survey vessels, the Lead 
Biologist will inform Tower Control on Santa Rosa Island on whether the 
area is clear of protected species or not. If the range is not clear, 
the Lead Biologist will provide recommendations on whether the mission 
should be delayed or cancelled. For example, a mission delay would be 
recommended if a small number of protected species are in the ZOI but 
appear to be on a heading away from the mission area. The delay would 
continue until the Lead Biologist has confirmed that the animals are no 
longer in the ZOI and traveling away from the mission site. On the 
other hand, a mission cancellation could be recommended if one or more 
protected species in the ZOI are found and there is no indication that 
they would leave the area on their own within a reasonable timeframe. 
Tower Control on Santa Rosa Island will relay the Lead Biologist's 
recommendation to the Safety Officer. The Safety Officer and Test 
Director will collaborate regarding range conditions based on the 
information provided by the Lead Biologist and the status of range 
clearing vessels. The Safety Officer will have final authority on 
decisions regarding delays and cancellations of missions.
    Air Force Support Vessels--Air Force support vessels will consist 
of a combination of Air Force and civil service/civilian personnel 
responsible for mission site/target setup and range clearing 
activities. Air Force personnel will be within the mission area (on 
boats and the GRATV) for each mission well in advance of weapon 
deployment, typically near sunrise. They will perform a variety of 
tasks including target preparation, equipment checks, etc., and will 
observe for marine mammals and indicators as feasible throughout test 
preparation. However, such observations are considered incidental and 
would only occur as time and schedule permits. Any sightings would be 
relayed to the Lead Biologist.
    The Eglin Safety Officer, in cooperation with the Tower Control on 
Santa Rosa Island will coordinate and manage all range clearing efforts 
and be in direct communication with the survey vessel team, typically 
through the Lead Biologist. All support vessels will be in radio 
contact with one another and with Tower Control. The Safety Officer 
will monitor all radio communications, but Tower Control will relay 
messages between the vessels and the Safety Officer. The Safety Officer 
and Tower Control will also be in continual contact with the Test 
Director throughout the mission and will convey information regarding 
range clearing progress and protected species survey status. Final 
decisions regarding mission execution, including possible mission delay 
or cancellation based on protected species sightings or civilian boat 
traffic interference, will be the responsibility of the Safety Officer, 
with concurrence from the Test Director.
    Aerial-based Monitoring--Aircraft typically provide an excellent 
viewing platform for detection of marine

[[Page 61402]]

mammals at or near the surface. Depending on the mission, the aerial 
survey team will either consist of Eglin AFB personnel or their 
designees aboard a non-mission aircraft or the mission aircrew who have 
completed the Marine Species Observer Training. A description of each 
follows.
    For non-mission aircraft, the pilot will be instructed in protected 
marine species survey techniques and will be familiar with marine 
species expected to occur in the area. One person in the aircraft will 
act as data recorder and is responsible for relaying the location, 
species (if possible), direction of movement, and number of animals 
sighted to the Lead Biologist. The aerial team will also identify 
protected species indicators such as large schools of fish and large, 
active groups of birds. Pilots will fly the aircraft in such a manner 
that the entire ZOI (and a buffer, if required) is monitored. Marine 
mammal sightings from the aerial survey team will be compiled by the 
Lead Biologist and communicated to the Test Director or Safety Officer. 
Similar to survey vessel requirements, all non-mission personnel will 
be required to exit the human safety zone before the mission can 
commence. As a result, the ZOI may not be monitored up to immediate 
deployment of live weapons. Due to this fact, the aerial team may be 
required to survey an additional buffer zone unless other monitoring 
assets, such as live video monitoring, can be employed.
    Some mission aircraft have the capability to conduct aerial surveys 
immediately prior to releasing munitions. In those instances, aircrews 
that have completed the marine species observer training will make 
several passes over the target area to ensure the area is clear of all 
protected species. For mission aircraft in this category, aircrews will 
operate at reasonable and safe altitudes (dependent on the aircraft) 
appropriate to either visually scan the sea surface or utilize 
available instrumentation and sensors to detect protected species. 
Typical missions in this category are air-to-surface gunnery operations 
from AC-130 and CV-22 gunships. In some cases, other aerial platforms 
may be available to supplement monitoring activities for pre-mission 
surveys and during the missions.
    Video-based Monitoring--Video-based monitoring may be accomplished 
via live high-definition video feed transmitted to CCF. Video 
monitoring typically facilitates data collection for the mission but 
can also allow remote viewing of the area for determination of 
environmental conditions and the presence of marine species up to the 
release time of live munitions. There are multiple sources of video 
that can be streamed to multiple monitors within CCF. When authorized 
for specific missions (e.g., Maritime WSEP), a trained marine species 
observer from Eglin AFB will monitor all live video feed transmitted to 
CFF and will report any marine mammal sightings to the Safety Officer, 
who will also be at CCF. Employing this measure typically resolves any 
lapse between the time survey vessels or aircraft leave the safety zone 
after completing pre-mission surveys but before the mission actually 
begins.
    The primary platform for video monitoring would be through the 
GRATV. Four video cameras are typically positioned on the GRATV 
(anchored on-site) to allow for real-time monitoring and data 
collection during the mission. The cameras will also be used to monitor 
for the presence of protected species. All cameras have a zoom 
capability of up to at least a 300-mm equivalent. At this setting, when 
targets are at a distance of 2 nmi from the GRATV, the field of view 
would be 195 ft by 146 ft. Video observers can detect an item with a 
minimum size of 1 square foot up to 4,000 m away. The GRATV will 
typically be located about 183 m (600 ft) from the target area; this 
range is well within the zooming capability of the video cameras.
    Supplemental video monitoring can also be accomplished through the 
employment of additional aerial assets, when available. Eglin's 
aerostat balloon provides aerial imagery of weapon impacts and 
instrumentation relay. When utilized, it is tethered to a boat anchored 
near the GRATV but outside weapon impact areas. The balloon can be 
deployed to an altitude up to 2,000 ft above sea level. It is equipped 
with a high-definition camera system that is remotely controlled to 
pivot and focus on a specific target or location within the mission 
site. The video feed from the camera system is transmitted to CCF. 
Eglin may also employ other assets such as intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance aircraft to provide real-time imagery or relay 
targeting pod videos from mission aircraft. Unmanned aerial vehicles 
may also be employed to provide aerial video surveillance. While each 
of these platforms may not be available for all missions, they 
typically can be used in combination with each other and with the GRATV 
cameras to supplement marine mammal monitoring efforts.
    Even with a variety of platforms potentially available to supply 
video feeds to CCF, the entire ZOI may not be visible for the entire 
duration of the mission. However, the targets and immediately 
surrounding areas will typically be in the field of view of the GRATV 
cameras and the observer will be able to identify any protected species 
that may enter the target area before weapon releases. In addition, the 
observer will be able to determine if any animals were injured 
immediately following the detonations. Should a protected marine 
species be detected on the live video, the weapon release can be 
stopped almost immediately because the video camera observer is in 
direct contact with Test Director and Safety Officer at CCF.
    Acoustic Monitoring--Eglin will conduct a NMFS-approved passive 
acoustic monitoring (PAM) study as an initial step towards 
understanding acoustic impacts from underwater detonations. During a 
live mission event, the Eglin AFB proposes to collect data that 
measures energy and pressure levels from varying distances away from 
weapon impact points. The data would likely be recorded by hydrophones 
attached to buoys that are deployed just before the mission. After 
mission activities, the buoys would be collected, then the data would 
be downloaded and analyzed. The results would be compared to the 
various ranges to effects for Level A and Level B Harassment that were 
calculated with the acoustic model.
    Eglin AFB and NMFS discussed the possibility of employing PAM as a 
required mitigation measure during EGTTR activities. However, human 
safety concerns and the inability to make mission go/no-go decisions in 
a timely manner are the most immediate obstacles for Eglin AFB 
implementing real-time PAM during live weapon missions in the EGTTR.
    Eglin's current boat and aerial pre- and post-mission visual 
surveys have been successful in preventing impacts to marine mammals 
because no unauthorized takes have occurred as a result of these 
procedures under previous incidental take authorizations. Until Eglin 
AFB is confident that this first step toward a rudimentary PAM study is 
successfully implemented, the Air Force cannot commit to PAM as a 
mitigation measure, which would add multiple layers of complexities 
required to detect and localize marine mammals during a live mission 
event. Furthermore, Eglin would need to gain better understanding of 
PAM capabilities so mission-appropriate procedures could be developed 
for making go/no-go decisions in a timely manner. Given the level of 
success with current mitigation procedures and the high level of 
unknowns associated with

[[Page 61403]]

implementing PAM as part of mitigation procedures for Air Force 
activities, Eglin AFB and NMFS agreed that using PAM as a real-time 
mitigation measure is not practicable at this time.
    AC-130 and CV-22 Gunship Procedures--After arriving at the mission 
site and prior to initiating firing events, gunships will conduct at 
least two complete orbits around the survey area at a minimum safe 
airspeed around the mission site at the appropriate monitoring 
altitude. Provided that marine mammals (and other protected species or 
indicators) are not detected, the aircraft will then begin the ascent 
to operational altitude, continuing to orbit the target area as it 
climbs. The initial orbits occur over a timeframe of approximately 10 
to 15 minutes. Monitoring for marine mammals, vessels, and other 
objects will continue throughout the mission. If a towed target is 
used, mission personnel will ensure that the target remains in the 
center portion of the survey area to ensure gunnery impacts do not 
extend past the ZOI.
    During the low-altitude orbits and climb, the aircrew will visually 
scan the sea surface within the aircraft's orbit circle for the 
presence of marine mammals. The surface scan will primarily be 
conducted by the flight crew in the cockpit and personnel stationed in 
the tail observer bubble and starboard viewing window. During nighttime 
missions, crews will use night vision goggles during observation. In 
addition to visual surveys, aircraft optical and electronic sensors 
will also be used for site clearance. AC-130 gunships are equipped with 
low-light TV cameras and infrared detection sets (IDSs). The TV cameras 
operate in a range of visible and near-visible light. Infrared systems 
are capable of detecting differences in temperature from thermal energy 
(heat) radiated from living bodies or from reflected and scattered 
thermal energy. In contrast to typical night-vision devices, visible 
light is not necessary for object detection. Infrared systems are 
equally effective during day or night use. The IDS is capable of 
detecting very small thermal differences. CV-22 aircraft have similar 
visual scanners and operable sensors; however, they operate at a much 
lower altitudes than the AC-130 gunships, and no HE rounds will be 
fired from these aircraft.
    If any marine mammals are detected during pre-mission surveys or 
during the mission, activities will be immediately halted until the ZOI 
area is clear of all marine mammals, or the mission will be relocated 
to another target area. If the mission is relocated, the pre-mission 
survey procedures will be repeated. In addition, if multiple firing 
missions are conducted within the same flight, clearance procedures 
will precede each mission.
    Gunship crews will conduct a post-mission survey beginning at the 
operational altitude and proceeding through a spiraling descent to the 
designated monitoring altitude. It is anticipated that the descent will 
occur over a three- to five-minute time period. During this time, 
aircrews will use similar equipment and instrumentation to scan the 
water surface for animals that may have been impacted during the 
gunnery mission. During daytime missions, visual scans will be used as 
well.
    Coordination with Eglin Natural Resources Office--Prior to 
conducting live missions, proponents will coordinate with Eglin Natural 
Resources to be briefed on their mitigation and monitoring 
requirements. Throughout coordination efforts, mission assets available 
for monitoring will be identified and an implementation plan will be 
developed. Based on the assets, survey routes will be designed to 
incorporate the size of the monitoring area and determine whether a 
buffer will be required. Training and reporting requirements will also 
be communicated to the proponents
    The following table lists known proponents and the monitoring 
platforms that may be employed for marine mammal monitoring before, 
during, and after live air-to-surface missions. As stated above, 
coordination with proponents before live missions will ensure these 
options are still available, as well as any changes to assets or 
mission capabilities for new proponents that would fall under this 
authorization. Eglin Natural Resources will ensure all practical 
measures will be implemented to the maximum extent possible to comply 
with the mitigation and monitoring requirements while meeting mission 
objectives

    Table 23--Monitoring Options Available for Live Air-to-Surface Mission Proponents Operating in the EGTTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Monitoring Platform
                         Mission \1\                          --------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Vessel           Aerial           Video
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 FWS Maritime Weapons System Evaluation Program (WSEP)                ...............        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-to-Surface Gunnery                                         ...............        
Small Diameter Bomb/Griffin Missile Training                   ...............        
CV-22 Training                                                 ...............        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        413th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC-130J Precision Strike Package Testing                       ...............        
AC-130J Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions Testing           ...............        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               780th Test Squadron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Strike Weapon                                                       
Longbow Littoral Testing                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 FWS = 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron.


[[Page 61404]]

Monitoring and Reporting Measures

    In addition to monitoring for marine species before and after 
missions, the following monitoring and reporting measures will be 
required.
     Within a year before the planned missions, all protected 
species observers will receive the Marine Species Observer Training 
Course developed by Eglin in cooperation with NMFS.
     Eglin AFB will track use of the EGTTR and protected 
species observation results through the use of protected species 
observer report forms.
     A summary annual report of marine mammal observations and 
mission activities will be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional 
Office and the NMFS Office of Protected Resources 90 days after 
completion of mission activities each year or 60 days prior to the 
issuance of any subsequent LOA for projects at the EGTTR, whichever 
comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 
days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. 
This annual report must include the following information:
    [cir] Date and time of each mission.
    [cir] A complete description of the pre-mission and post-mission 
activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of mission 
activities on marine mammal populations.
    [cir] Results of the visual monitoring, including numbers by 
species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result 
of the missions, and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) 
that may have been harassed due to presence within the activity zone.
    [cir] If any dead or injured marine mammals are observed or 
detected prior to mission activities, or injured or killed during 
mission activities, a report must be made to the NMFS Southeast Region 
Marine Mammal Stranding Network at 877-433-8299, the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 
301-427-8401 and the Florida Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline at 888-
404-3922 within the next business day.
    [cir] Any unauthorized impacts on marine mammals must be 
immediately reported to the National Marine Fisheries Service's 
Southeast Regional Administrator, at 727-842-5312, and the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 
301-427-8401.

Adaptive Management

    NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, 
monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Eglin AFB 
regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates 
a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of 
the mitigation and monitoring measures for these regulations.
    Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to 
modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA 
include: (1) Results from Eglin AFB's acoustic monitoring study; (2) 
results from monitoring during previous year(s); (3) results from other 
marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and (4) any information 
that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or 
number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
    If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the 
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS 
will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and 
solicit public comment. If, however, NMFS determines that an emergency 
exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species 
or stocks of marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico, an LOA may be 
modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice 
would be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the 
action.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as ``an impact resulting from 
the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). 
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 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 harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to 
bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins, given that the 
anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal 
stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information about 
the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or 
structure of any of these species or stocks that would lead to a 
different analysis for this activity.
    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. 
Because the exposure model was conservative and calculated a single 
bottlenose dolphin death, along with the required mitigation and 
monitoring measures not incorporated into the model, NMFS does not 
anticipate or propose to authorize any take by mortality. The takes 
from Level B harassment would be due to disturbance of normal 
behavioral patterns and TTS. The potential takes from Level A 
harassment would be due to PTS and slight lung injury (not 
gastrointestinal tract injury).
    NMFS has determined that direct strike by ordnance is highly 
unlikely. Although strike from a munition at the surface of the water 
while the animals are at the surface is possible, the potential risk of 
a direct hit to an animal within the target area would be low. The Air 
Force (2002 PEA) estimated that a maximum of 0.2 marine mammals could 
potentially be struck by projectiles, falling debris, and inert 
munitions each year.
    Disruption of normal behavioral patterns constituting Level B 
harassment would be limited to reactions such as startle responses, 
movements away from the area, and short-term changes to behavioral 
state. These impacts are expected to be temporary and of limited 
duration due to the likely avoidance of the action area by marine 
mammals, short period of individual explosions themselves (versus 
continual sound source operation), and relatively short duration of the 
EGTTR operations (i.e. ranging from a few minutes to no more than four 
hours per day depending on the mission category).
    Level B harassment in the form of TTS was modeled to occur in both

[[Page 61405]]

species for which take is authorized. If TTS occurs, it is expected to 
be at low levels and of short duration. As explained previously, TTS is 
temporary with no long term effects to species. The modeled take 
numbers are expected to be overestimates since NMFS expects that 
successful implementation of the required aerial-based, vessel-based 
and video-based mitigation measures could avoid TTS. Furthermore, 
monitoring results from previous Authorizations has demonstrated that 
it is uncommon to sight marine mammals within the ZOI, especially for 
prolonged durations. Results from monitoring programs associated with 
Eglin AFB's 2015 and 2016 Maritime WSEP activities have shown the 
absence of marine mammals within the ZOI during and after maritime 
operations.
    NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required aerial-
based, vessel-based and video-based mitigation measures would reduce 
take by Level A harassment in some instances. Marine mammals would 
likely begin to move away from the immediate target area once bombing 
begins, decreasing exposure to the full amount of acoustic energy. 
There have also been no marine mammal observations in the ZOI according 
to monitoring reports from previous years. Therefore, we anticipate 
that, because of the mitigation measures, low observation rate of 
marine mammals in the target area, and the likely limited duration of 
exposures, any PTS incurred would be in the form of only a small degree 
of PTS, rather than total deafness.
    Other than for mortality, the take numbers proposed by NMFS do not 
consider mitigation or avoidance. Therefore, NMFS expects that Level A 
harassment is unlikely to occur at the numbers proposed for 
Authorization. However, since it is difficult to quantify the degree to 
which the mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of animals 
that might incur Level A harassment (i.e. PTS, slight lung injury), 
NMFS proposes to authorize take by Level A harassment at the numbers 
derived from the exposure model. Moreover, the mitigation and 
monitoring measures proposed for the Authorization (described earlier 
in this document) are expected to further minimize the potential for 
both Level A and Level B harassment.
    Impacts to habitat are not anticipated. Noise and pressure waves 
resulting from live weapon detonations are not likely to result in 
long-term physical alterations of the water column or ocean floor. 
These effects are not expected to substantially affect prey 
availability, are of limited duration, and are intermittent. Impacts to 
marine fish were analyzed in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range 
Environmental Assessment (Department of the Air Force, 2015). In the 
EA, it was determined that fish populations were unlikely to be 
affected and prey availability for marine mammals would not be 
impaired. Other factors related to EGTTR activities that could 
potentially affect marine mammal habitat include the introduction of 
metals, explosives and explosion by-products, other chemical materials, 
and debris into the water column and substrate due to the use of 
munitions and target vessels. However, the effects of each were 
analyzed in the EA and were determined to not be significant.
    While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the 
target area, because of the short duration of the actual individual 
explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) 
combined with the relatively short duration of daily operations (i.e. 
ranging from a few minutes to no more than four hours per day depending 
on the mission category), NMFS has preliminarily determined that there 
will not be a substantial impact on marine mammals or their habitat in 
Gulf of Mexico ecosystems in the EGTTR. 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 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 and slight lung injury) 
and Level B (behavioral disturbance and TTS of lesser degree and 
shorter duration) 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 relatively short-term and site-specific nature of the activity. 
Furthermore, we do not anticipate that the effects would be detrimental 
to rates of recruitment and survival because we do not expect serious 
extended behavioral responses that would result in energetic effects at 
the level to impact fitness.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No mortality is anticipated or authorized and only 11 
instances of Level A harassment are authorized. Remaining impacts would 
be within the non-injurious TTS or behavioral effects zones (Level B 
harassment consisting of generally temporary modifications in 
behavior);
     Effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring requirements 
which are designed and expected to avoid exposures that may cause 
serious injury and minimize the likelihood of PTS, TTS, or more severe 
behavioral responses;
     Adverse impacts to habitat are not expected; and
     Results from previous monitoring reports did not record 
any marine mammal takes associated with military readiness activities 
occurring in the EGTTR.
    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 proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on 
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

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

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of LOAs, 
NMFS consults internally, in this case with Southeast Regional 
Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize 
take for endangered or threatened species.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammal species is proposed 
for authorization or expected to result from

[[Page 61406]]

the proposed activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal 
consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this 
action.

Classification

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this 
proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. 
This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because 
this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The RFA requires a Federal agency to prepare an analysis of a rule's 
impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. However, a Federal agency may certify, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605 (b), that the action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
A description of this proposed rule and its purpose are found earlier 
in the preamble for this action and is not repeated here. Eglin AFB is 
the sole entity that will be affected by this rulemaking and is not a 
small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, 
as defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by LOAs issued pursuant 
to these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements 
imposed by these regulations, will be applicable only to Eglin AFB.
    NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the 
associated LOAs to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to 
the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect Eglin 
AFB and not a small entity, NMFS concludes the action would not result 
in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is necessary, 
and none has been prepared.
    This action does not contain any collection of information 
requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218

    Exports, Fish, Imports, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and 
Recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 18, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 218--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS 
INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Add subpart G consisting of Sec. Sec.  218.60 through 218.69 to read 
as follows:
Subpart G--Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Testing and Training 
Activities Conducted at the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in the 
Gulf of Mexico
Sec.
218.60 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
218.61 Effective dates.
218.62 Permissible methods of taking.
218.63 Prohibitions.
218.64 Mitigation.
218.65 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
218.66 Letters of Authorization.
218.67 Renewals and Modifications of Letters of Authorization.
218.68 [Reserved]
218.69 [Reserved]

Subpart G--Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Testing and 
Training Activities Conducted at the Eglin Gulf Test and Training 
Range in the Gulf of Mexico.


Sec.  218.60  Specified activity and specified geographical region.

    (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to Eglin Air Force Base 
(Eglin AFB) and those persons it authorizes to conduct activities on 
its behalf, for the taking of marine mammals as outlined in paragraph 
(b) of this section and incidental to testing and training missions in 
the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR).
    (b) The taking of marine mammals by Eglin AFB pursuant to a Letter 
of Authorization (LOA) is authorized only if it occurs at the EGTTR in 
the Gulf of Mexico.


Sec.  218.61  Effective dates.

    Regulations in this subpart are effective February 4, 2018 through 
February 3, 2023.


Sec.  218.62  Permissible methods of taking.

    Under a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to Sec.  
216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  218.66, the Holder of the LOA (herein 
after Eglin AFB) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine 
mammals by Level A and Level B harassment associated with EGTTR 
activities within the area described in Sec.  218.60, provided the 
activities are in compliance with all terms, conditions, and 
requirements of these regulations in this subpart and the appropriate 
LOA.


Sec.  218.63  Prohibitions.

    Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec.  218.60 and authorized 
by an LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  218.66, 
no person in connection with the activities described in Sec.  218.60 
of this chapter may:
    (a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and 
requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of 
this chapter and Sec.  218.66.
    (b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
    (c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner 
other than as specified;
    (d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines 
such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or 
stocks of such marine mammal; or
    (e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines 
such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or 
stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.


Sec.  218.64  Mitigation requirements.

    When conducting activities identified in Sec.  218.60, the 
mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of 
this chapter and Sec.  218.66 must be implemented. These mitigation 
measures shall include but are not limited to the following general 
conditions:
    (a) If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate 
monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, EGTTR 
operations must be delayed until adequate sea conditions exist for 
monitoring to be undertaken.
    (b) Restrictions on time of activities.
    (1) Missions involving the use of live bombs, missiles and rockets 
will only occur during daylight hours.
    (2) Missions during daylight hours will occur no earlier than two 
hours after sunrise and no later than two hours prior to sunset.
    (c) Required delay of live ordnance mission activities will occur 
if a protected species, large schools of fish or large flocks of birds 
feeding at the surface are observed within the ZOI.

[[Page 61407]]

Mission activities cannot resume until one of the following conditions 
is met:
    (1) Protected species marine mammal(s) is confirmed to be outside 
of the ZOI on a heading away from the target area; or
    (2) Protected species marine mammal(s) is not seen again for 30 
minutes and presumed to be outside the Level A harassment ZOI.
    (3) Large groupings of fish or birds leading to required delay are 
confirmed outside of the ZOI.
    (d) Gunnery operations shall require employment of the following 
mitigation measures.
    (1) Use of 105-mm training rounds (TR) during nighttime missions.
    (2) Ramp-up procedures requiring the use of the lowest caliber 
munition and proceeding to the highest, which means the munitions would 
be fired in the order of 25 mm, 40 mm, and 105 mm.
    (3) Any pause in live fire activities greater than 10 minutes shall 
require reinitiation of protected species surveys.
    (4) Missions shall be conducted within the 200-m isobaths to 
provide greater protection to several species.
    (e) If one or more sperm or baleen whales are detected during pre-
mission monitoring activities, mission activities will be aborted/
suspended for the remainder of the day.
    (f) Additional mitigation measures as contained in an LOA.


Sec.  218.65  Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

    (a) Holders of LOAs issued pursuant to Sec.  218.66 for activities 
described in Sec.  218.60(a) are required to cooperate with NMFS, and 
any other Federal, state, or local agency with authority to monitor the 
impacts of the activity on marine mammals. If the authorized activity 
identified in Sec.  218.60(a) is thought to have resulted in the 
mortality or injury of any marine mammals or take of marine mammals not 
identified in Sec.  218.60(b), then the Holder of the LOA must notify 
the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by 
telephone (301)427-8401, and the Southeast Regional Office (phone 
within 24 hours of the injury or death).
    (b) Monitoring will be conducted by personnel who have completed 
Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training Course, which was developed in 
cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
    (c) The Holder of the LOA will use mission reporting forms to track 
their use of the EGTTR for testing and training missions and to track 
marine mammal observations.
    (d) Depending on the mission category, visual aerial-based, vessel-
based, or video-based marine mammal surveys shall be conducted before 
and after live ordnance mission activities each day.
    (e) Vessel-based surveys will begin approximately one and one-half 
hours prior to live weapon deployment and shall be completed 30 minutes 
prior to the start of mission.
    (f) Surveys will continue for approximately one hour or until the 
entire ZOI has been adequately surveyed, whichever comes first.
    (g) Post-mission monitoring surveys shall commence once the mission 
has ended or as soon as the mission area is declared safe.
    (h) Vessel-based post-mission surveys shall be conducted for 30 
minutes after completion of live ordnance missions.
    (i) Any authorized marine mammals that are detected in the ZOI 
during post-mission surveys shall be counted as Level B takes.
    (j) A minimum of two dedicated observers shall be stationed on each 
vessel.
    (k) Observers shall utilize optical equipment with sufficient 
magnification to allow observation of surfaced animals.
    (l) The size of the survey area for each mission shall be 
determined according to the radius of impact for the given threshold of 
each munition/detonation scenario. These ranges shall be monitored 
during pre-mission surveys for each activity.
    (m) Some missions shall be delayed to allow survey platforms to 
evacuate the human safety zone after pre-missions surveys are 
completed.
    (n) Any aerial-based pre-mission surveys shall be conducted by 
observers aboard non-mission aircraft or mission aircraft who have 
completed the Marine Species Observer Training.
    (o) Gunship standard procedures initiated prior to initiation of 
live-firing events shall require at least two complete orbits around 
the survey mission site at the appropriate airspeed and monitoring 
altitude and include the following:
    (1) Monitoring for marine mammals shall continue throughout the 
mission by mission crew.
    (2) Where applicable aircraft optical and electronic sensors shall 
be used for marine mammal observation.
    (3) If any marine mammals are detected during pre-mission surveys 
or during the mission, activities will be immediately halted until the 
ZOI area is clear of all marine mammals, or the mission will be 
relocated to another target area. If the mission is relocated, the pre-
mission survey procedures will be repeated.
    (4) If multiple firing missions are conducted within the same 
flight, standard clearance procedures will precede each mission.
    (5) Gunship crews will conduct a post-mission survey beginning at 
the operational altitude and proceeding through a spiraling descent to 
the designated monitoring altitude.
    (p) Video-based monitoring from the GRATV shall be conducted where 
appropriate via live high-definition video feed.
    (1) Supplemental video monitoring shall be conducted through the 
employment of additional aerial assets including aerostats and drones 
when available.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (q) Acoustic Monitoring:
    (1) Eglin AFB will conduct a passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 
study as an initial step towards understanding acoustic impacts from 
underwater detonations, once funding is approved.
    (2) The results of the PAM study will be submitted to NMFS OPR as a 
draft monitoring report within 90 days of completion of the study, will 
be incorporated into any subsequent LOA request or, if no request is 
made, no later than 90 days after expiration of the LOA.
    (r) The Holder of the LOA is required to:
    (1) Submit a draft report to NMFS OPR on all monitoring conducted 
under the LOA within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal 
monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent LOA for 
projects at the EGTTR, whichever comes first. A final report shall be 
prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments 
on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain, at a minimum, 
the following information:
    (i) Date and time of each EGTTR mission;
    (ii) A complete description of the pre-mission and post-mission 
activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of EGTTR 
missions on marine mammal populations; and
    (iii) Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by 
species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result 
of the EGTTR mission and number of marine mammals (by species if 
possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the zone 
of influence.
    (2) The draft report will be subject to review and comment by NMFS. 
Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report 
prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered the 
final report for

[[Page 61408]]

this activity under the LOA if NMFS has not provided comments and 
recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft report.
    (s) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
    (1) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the LOA, 
such as an injury for species not authorized (Level A harassment), 
serious injury, or mortality, Eglin AFB shall immediately cease the 
specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, and the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS. The report 
must include the following information:
    (i) Time and date of the incident;
    (ii) Description of the incident;
    (iii) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    (iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
    (vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    (2) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Eglin AFB to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Eglin AFB may not 
resume their activities in the EGTTR until notified by NMFS.
    (3) In the event that Eglin AFB discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury 
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less 
than a moderate state of decomposition), Eglin AFB shall immediately 
report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 
Southeast Regional Office, NMFS.
    (i) The report must include the same information identified in 
paragraph (p)(1) of this section. Activities may continue while NMFS 
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Eglin 
AFB to determine whether additional mitigation measures or 
modifications to the activities are appropriate.
    (ii) In the event that Eglin AFB discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or 
death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in 
the LOA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to 
advanced decomposition, scavenger damage), Eglin AFB shall report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Southeast 
Regional Office, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. Eglin AFB 
shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
    (4) Additional Conditions.
    (i) The Holder of the LOA must inform the Director, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301-427-8401) or designee prior to the 
initiation of any changes to the monitoring plan for a specified 
mission activity.
    (ii) A copy of the LOA must be in the possession of the safety 
officer on duty each day that EGTTR missions are conducted.
    (5) The LOA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder 
fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS 
determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible 
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.


Sec.  218.66   Letters of Authorization.

    (a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these 
regulations, Eglin AFB must apply for and obtain an LOA.
    (b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a 
period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
    (c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these 
regulations, Eglin AFB must apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
    (d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to 
mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, Eglin AFB must 
apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in Sec.  
218.67.
    (e) The LOA will set forth:
    (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
    (2) Number of marine mammals, by species and age class, authorized 
to be taken;
    (3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., 
mitigation) on the species of marine mammals authorized for taking, on 
its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence 
uses; and
    (4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
    (f) Issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the 
level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total 
taking allowable under these regulations.
    (g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA will be published in the 
Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.


Sec.  218.67  Renewals and Modifications of Letters of Authorization.

    (a) An LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  
218.66 for the activity identified in Sec.  218.60(a) will be renewed 
or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
    (1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as 
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes 
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section); and
    (2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were 
implemented.
    (b) For an LOA modification or renewal request by the applicant 
that includes changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or 
reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management 
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the 
findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor 
change in the total estimated number of authorized takes (or 
distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of 
proposed LOA in the Federal Register, including the associated analysis 
illustrating the change, and solicit public comment before issuing the 
LOA.
    (c) An LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  
218.66 for the activity identified in Sec.  218.60(a) may be modified 
by NMFS under the following circumstances:
    (1) Adaptive Management--NMFS may modify (including augment) the 
existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after 
consulting with Eglin AFB regarding the practicability of the 
modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more 
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring 
set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
    (2) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision 
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA 
are:
    (i) Results from Eglin AFB's annual monitoring reports;
    (ii) Results from other marine mammal and sound research or 
studies; or
    (iii) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been 
taken in a manner, extent or number not

[[Page 61409]]

authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
    (3) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the 
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS 
will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and 
solicit public comment.
    (4) Emergencies--If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that 
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of 
marine mammals specified LOAs issued pursuant to Sec.  216.106 of this 
chapter and 218.60 of this chapter, an LOA may be modified without 
prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be 
published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the action.


Sec.  218.68  [Reserved]


Sec.  218.69   [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2017-27580 Filed 12-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P