17394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 

3See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web 

site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/. 

4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties 

should specify that they are requesting a review of 

entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to 

the extent possible, include the names of such 

exporters in their request. 

5See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011). 

must state why it desires the Secretary 

to review those particular producers or 

exporters. If the interested party intends 

for the Secretary to review sales of 

merchandise by an exporter (or a 

producer if that producer also exports 

merchandise from other suppliers) 

which was produced in more than one 

country of origin and each country of 

origin is subject to a separate order, then 

the interested party must state 

specifically, on an order-by-order basis, 

which exporter(s) the request is 

intended to cover. 

Note that, for any party the 

Department was unable to locate in 

prior segments, the Department will not 

accept a request for an administrative 

review of that party absent new 

information as to the party’s location. 

Moreover, if the interested party who 

files a request for review is unable to 

locate the producer or exporter for 

which it requested the review, the 

interested party must provide an 

explanation of the attempts it made to 

locate the producer or exporter at the 

same time it files its request for review, 

in order for the Secretary to determine 

if the interested party’s attempts were 

reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.303(f)(3)(ii). 

As explained in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and NonMarket Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 

(October 24, 2011) the Department 

clarified its practice with respect to the 

collection of final antidumping duties 

on imports of merchandise where 

intermediate firms are involved. The 

public should be aware of this 

clarification in determining whether to 

request an administrative review of 

merchandise subject to antidumping 

findings and orders.3

Further, as explained in Antidumping 

Proceedings: Announcement of Change 

in Department Practice for Respondent 

Selection in Antidumping Duty 

Proceedings and Conditional Review of 

the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 

65963 (November 4, 2013), the 

Department clarified its practice with 

regard to the conditional review of the 

non-market economy (NME) entity in 

administrative reviews of antidumping 

duty orders. The Department will no 

longer consider the NME entity as an 

exporter conditionally subject to 

administrative reviews. Accordingly, 

the NME entity will not be under review 

unless the Department specifically 

receives a request for, or self-initiates, a 

review of the NME entity.4 In 

administrative reviews of antidumping 

duty orders on merchandise from NME 

countries where a review of the NME 

entity has not been initiated, but where 

an individual exporter for which a 

review was initiated does not qualify for 

a separate rate, the Department will 

issue a final decision indicating that the 

company in question is part of the NME 

entity. However, in that situation, 

because no review of the NME entity 

was conducted, the NME entity’s entries 

were not subject to the review and the 

rate for the NME entity is not subject to 

change as a result of that review 

(although the rate for the individual 

exporter may change as a function of the 

finding that the exporter is part of the 

NME entity). 

Following initiation of an 

antidumping administrative review 

when there is no review requested of the 

NME entity, the Department will 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all 

exporters not named in the initiation 

notice, including those that were 

suspended at the NME entity rate. 

All requests must be filed 

electronically in Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’) 

on Enforcement and Compliance’s 

ACCESS Web site at http://

access.trade.gov.5 Further, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), 

a copy of each request must be served 

on the petitioner and each exporter or 

producer specified in the request. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation 

of Administrative Review of 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation’’ for requests received by 

the last day of April 2015. If the 

Department does not receive, by the last 

day of April 2015, a request for review 

of entries covered by an order, finding, 

or suspended investigation listed in this 

notice and for the period identified 

above, the Department will instruct CBP 

to assess antidumping or countervailing 

duties on those entries at a rate equal to 

the cash deposit of (or bond for) 

estimated antidumping or 

countervailing duties required on those 

entries at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption and to continue to collect 

the cash deposit previously ordered. 

For the first administrative review of 

any order, there will be no assessment 

of antidumping or countervailing duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the relevant 

provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period of 

the order, if such a gap period is 

applicable to the period of review. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: March 25, 2015. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07496 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD593 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air 

Force Conducting Maritime Weapon 

Systems Evaluation Program 

Operational Testing Within the Eglin 

Gulf Test and Training Range 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

regulations, NMFS hereby gives notice 

that NMFS has issued an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization 

(Authorization) to the U.S. Air Force, 

Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB), to take 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to a Maritime Weapon 

Systems Evaluation Program (Maritime 

WSEP) within the Eglin Gulf Test and 

Training Range in the Gulf of Mexico 

from February 5 through April 1, 2015. 

Eglin AFB’s activities are military 

readiness activities per the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as 

amended by the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year 2004. 

DATES: Effective February 5, 2015, 

through April 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the 

final Authorization, Eglin AFB’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 17395 

application and their final 

Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, 

‘‘Maritime Weapons System Evaluation 

Program are available by writing to Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; by 

telephoning the contacts listed here, or 

by visiting the internet at: http://www.

nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/

military.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals of a 

species or population stock, by U.S. 

citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region 

if, after NMFS provides a notice of a 

proposed authorization to the public for 

review and comment: (1) NMFS makes 

certain findings; and (2) the taking is 

limited to harassment. 

Through the authority delegated by 

the Secretary, NMFS shall grant an 

Authorization for the incidental taking 

of small numbers of marine mammals if 

NMFS finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant). 

The Authorization must also 

prescribe, where applicable, the 

permissible methods of taking by 

harassment pursuant to the activity; 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species or stock and its habitat, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for subsistence uses (where 

applicable); and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from 

the specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act of 2004 (NDAA; Pub. L. 108–136) 

removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

‘‘specified geographical region’’ 

limitations indicated earlier and 

amended the definition of harassment as 

it applies to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity’’ to read as follows: (i) Any act 

that injures or has the significant 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild [Level 

A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 

point where such behavioral patterns 

are abandoned or significantly altered 

[Level B Harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received an application on 

August 5, 2014, from Eglin AFB for the 

taking, by harassment, of marine 

mammals, incidental to Maritime WESP 

operational testing in the spring of 2015 

within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training 

Range (EGTTR). Eglin AFB submitted a 

revised application to NMFS on October 

20, 2014, which provided updated take 

estimates for marine mammals based on 

updated acoustic thresholds for 

explosive sources. Eglin AFB submitted 

a second revised application to NMFS 

on December 1, 2014, which provided 

updated mitigation zones. NMFS 

determined the application adequate 

and complete on December 2, 2014 and 

published a notice of proposed 

Authorization on December 8, 2014 (79 

FR 72631). The notice afforded the 

public a 30-day comment period on the 

proposed MMPA Authorization. 

Eglin AFB proposes to conduct 

Maritime WESP missions within the 

EGTTR airspace over the Gulf of 

Mexico, specifically within Warning 

Area 151 (W–151), which is located 

approximately 17 miles offshore from 

Santa Rosa Island, specifically sub-area 

W–151A. The proposed testing activities 

would occur during the daytime over a 

three-week period between February 

and April, 2015. Eglin AFB proposes to 

use multiple types of live munitions 

(e.g., gunnery rounds, rockets, missiles, 

and bombs) against small boat targets in 

the EGTTR. These activities qualify as a 

military readiness activities under the 

MMPA and NDAA. 

Eglin AFB’s Maritime WSEP 

operations may potentially impact 

marine mammals at or near the water 

surface. Thus, the following specific 

aspect of the proposed WSEP activities 

have the potential to take marine 

mammals: Increased underwater sound 

and pressure generated during the 

WSEP testing missions. Marine 

mammals could potentially be harassed, 

injured, or killed by exploding and nonexploding projectiles, and falling debris. 

However, based on analyses provided in 

Eglin AFB’s final; Environmental 

Assessment (EA); their Authorization 

application, including proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures; 

and for reasons discussed later in this 

document, NMFS does not anticipate 

that Eglin’s WSEP activities will result 

in any serious injury or mortality to 

marine mammals. 

Eglin AFB has requested 

authorization to take two cetacean 

species by Level A and Level B 

harassment. The requested species 

include: Atlantic bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus) and Atlantic 

spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis). 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

Eglin AFB proposes to conduct live 

ordnance testing and training in the 

Gulf of Mexico as part of the Maritime 

WSEP operational testing. The Maritime 

WSEP test objectives are to evaluate 

maritime deployment data, evaluate 

tactics, techniques and procedures, and 

to determine the impact of techniques 

and procedures on combat Air Force 

training. The need to conduct this type 

of testing has arisen in response to 

increasing threats at sea posed by 

operations conducted from small boats 

which can carry a variety of weapons; 

can form in large or small numbers; and 

may be difficult to locate, track, and 

engage in the marine environment. 

Because of limited Air Force aircraft and 

munitions testing on engaging and 

defeating small boat threats, the Air 

Force proposes to employ live 

munitions against boat targets in the 

EGTTR in order to continue 

development of techniques and 

procedures to train Air Force strike 

aircraft to counter small maneuvering 

surface vessels. Thus, the Department of 

Defense considers the Maritime WSEP 

activities as high priority for national 

security. 

The proposed Maritime WSEP 

missions are similar to Eglin AFB’s 

Maritime Strike Operations where 

NMFS issued an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization to Eglin AFB related to 

training exercises around small boat 

threats (78 FR 52135, August 22, 2013). 

Dates and Duration 

Eglin AFB proposes to schedule the 

Maritime WSEP missions over an 

approximate two- to three-week period 

that would begin February 6, 2015, and 

end by April 1, 2015. The proposed 

missions would occur on weekdays, 

during daytime hours only, with one or 

two missions occurring per day. Some 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

17396 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 

minor deviation from Eglin AFB’s 

requested dates is possible and the 

Authorization, would be effective from 

February 5, 2015 through April 1, 2015. 

Specified Activity Area 

The specific planned mission location 

is approximately 17 miles (mi) (27.3 

kilometers [km]) offshore from Santa 

Rosa Island, Florida, in nearshore 

waters of the continental shelf in the 

Gulf of Mexico. All activities would take 

place within the EGTTR, defined as the 

airspace over the Gulf of Mexico 

controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a 

point three nautical miles (nmi) (3.5 

miles [mi]; 5.5 kilometers [km]) from 

shore. The EGTTR consists of 

subdivided blocks including Warning 

Area 151 (W–151) where the proposed 

activities would occur, specifically in 

sub-area W–151A. 

NMFS provided detailed descriptions 

of the activity area in a previous notice 

for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 

72631, December 8, 2014). The 

information has not changed between 

the proposed Authorization notice and 

this final notice announcing the 

issuance of the Authorization. 

Detailed Description of Activities 

The Maritime WSEP operational 

testing missions, classified as military 

readiness activities, include the release 

of multiple types of inert and live 

munitions from fighter and bomber 

aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and 

gunships against small, static, towed, 

and remotely-controlled boat targets. 

Munition types include bombs, missiles, 

rockets, and gunnery rounds (Table 1). 

TABLE 1—LIVE MUNITIONS AND

AIRCRAFT

Munitions 

Aircraft (not 

associated with 

specific munitions) 

GBU–10 laser-guided 

Mk-84 bomb.

F–16C fighter aircraft. 

GBU–24 laser-guided 

Mk-84 bomb.

F–16C+ fighter aircraft. 

GBU–12 laser-guided 

Mk-82 bomb.

F–15E fighter aircraft. 

GBU–54 Laser Joint 

Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM), laserguided Mk-82 bomb.

A–10 fighter aircraft. 

CBU–105 (WCMD) .... B–1B bomber aircraft. 

AGM–65 Maverick airto-surface missile.B–52H bomber aircraft. 

GBU–38 Small Diameter Bomb II 

(Laser SDB).

MQ–1/9 unmanned 

aerial vehicle. 

AGM–114 Hellfire airto-surface missile.AC–130 gunship. 

AGM–175 Griffin airto-surface missile.

2.75 Rockets.

PGU–13/B high explosive incendiary 30 

mm rounds.

7.62 mm/.50 Cal.

Key: AGM = air-to-ground missile; CBU = 

Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; 

LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition; 

Laser SDB = Laser Small Diameter Bomb; 

mm = millimeters; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; 

WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser. 

The proposed activities involve 

detonations above the water, near the 

water surface, and under water within 

the EGTTR. However, because the tests 

will focus on weapon/target interaction, 

Eglin AFB will not specify a particular 

aircraft for a given test as long as it 

meets the delivery parameters. 

Eglin AFB would deploy the 

munitions against static, towed, and 

remotely-controlled boat targets within 

W–151A. Eglin AFB would operate the 

remote-controlled boats from an 

instrumentation barge (Gulf Range 

Armament Test Vessel; GRATV) 

anchored on site within the test area. 

The GRATV would provide a platform 

for cameras and weapons-tracking 

equipment and Eglin AFB would 

position the target boats approximately 

182.8 m (600 ft) from the GRATV, 

depending on the munition type. 

Table 2 provides the number, height, 

or depth of detonation, explosive 

material, and net explosive weight 

(NEW) in pounds (lbs) of each munition 

proposed for use during the Maritime 

WSEP activities. 

TABLE 2—MARITIME WSEP MUNITIONS PROPOSED FOR USE IN THE W–151A TEST AREA. 

Type of munition 

Total 

number 

of live 

munitions 

Detonation 

type 

Warhead—explosive 

material 

Net explosive 

weight per 

munition 

GBU–10 or GBU–24 ....................................... 2 Surface ........ MK–84—Tritonal ..................................................... 945 lbs. 

GBU–12 or GBU–54 (LJDAM) ........................ 6 Surface ........ MK–82—Tritonal ..................................................... 192 lbs. 

AGM–65 (Maverick) ........................................ 6 Surface ........ WDU–24/B penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead.86 lbs. 

CBU–105 (WCMD) ......................................... 4 Airburst ........ 10 BLU–108 sub-munitions each containing 4 projectiles parachute, rocket motor and altimeter.83 lbs. 

GBU–38 (Laser Small Diameter Bomb) ......... 4 Surface ........ AFX–757 (Insensitive munition) .............................. 37 lbs.

AGM–114 (Hellfire) ......................................... 15 Subsurface 

(10 msec 

delay).

High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) tandem antiarmor metal augmented charge.20 lbs. 

AGM–176 (Griffin) ........................................... 10 Surface ........ Blast fragmentation ................................................. 13 lbs. 

2.75 Rockets ................................................... 100 Surface ........ Comp B–4 HEI ........................................................ Up to 12 lbs. 

PGU–12 HEI 30 mm ....................................... 1,000 Surface ........ 30 x 173 mm caliber with aluminized RDX explosive. Designed for GAU–8/A Gun System.0.1 lbs. 

7.62 mm/.50 cal .............................................. 5,000 Surface ........ N/A .......................................................................... N/A. 

Key: AGL = above ground level; AGM = air-to-ground missile; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition; mm = millimeters; msec = millisecond; lbs = pounds; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; HEI 

= high explosive incendiary. 

To ensure safety, prior to conducting 

WSEP activities, Eglin AFB would 

conduct a pre-test target area clearance 

procedure for people and protected 

species. Eglin AFB would deploy 

support vessels around a defined safety 

zone to ensure that commercial and 

recreational boats do not accidentally 

enter the area. Before delivering the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 17397 

ordnance, mission aircraft would make 

a dry run over the target area to ensure 

that it is clear of commercial and 

recreational boats (at least two aircraft 

would participate in each test). Due to 

the limited duration of the flyover and 

potentially high speed and altitude, 

pilots will not be able to survey for 

marine species. NMFS provided 

detailed descriptions of the WSEP 

training operations in the previous 

notice for the proposed Authorization 

(79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). This 

information has not changed between 

the proposed Authorization notice and 

this final notice announcing the 

issuance of the Authorization. 

Based on the results from an acoustic 

impacts analysis for live ordnance 

detonations, Eglin AFB would establish 

a separate disturbance zone around the 

target for the protection of marine 

species. Eglin AFB will base the size of 

the zone on the distance to which 

energy- and pressure-related impacts 

will extend for the various type of 

ordnance listed in Table 2. Based on the 

acoustic modeling result, the largest 

possible distance from the target would 

be approximately 5 km (3.1 miles) from 

the target area, which corresponds to the 

Level A harassment threshold range. 

Support vessels would monitor for 

marine mammals around the target area. 

WSEP activities will not proceed until 

Eglin AFB personnel determine that the 

target area is clear of unauthorized 

personnel and protected species. 

In addition to vessel-based 

monitoring, Eglin AFB will position 

three video cameras on an 

instrumentation barge anchored on-site. 

The cameras, typically used for 

situational awareness of the target area 

and surrounding area, would contribute 

to monitoring the test site for the 

presence of marine species. A marine 

species observer would be present in the 

Eglin control tower, along with mission 

personnel, to monitor the video feed 

before and during test activities. 

After each test, Eglin AFB would 

inspect floating targets to identify and 

render safe any unexploded ordnance 

(UXO), including fuzes or intact 

munitions. The Eglin AFB Explosive 

Disposal Team will be on hand for each 

test. If Eglin AFB personnel cannot 

remove the UXO, personnel will 

detonate the UXO in place, which could 

result in the sinking of the target vessel. 

Once Eglin AFB deems the area clear for 

re-entry, test personnel will retrieve 

target debris. Marine species observers 

would survey the area for any evidence 

of adverse impacts to protected species. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of Eglin AFB’s 

application and NMFS’ proposal to 

issue an Authorization to the USAF, 

Eglin AFB, published in the Federal 

Register on December 8, 2014 (79 FR 

72631). During the 30-day public 

comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) only. 

Following are the comments from the 

Commission and NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission notes 

that the Air Force has applied for 

MMPA authorizations to take marine 

mammals on an activity-by-activity 

basis (e.g., naval explosive ordnance 

disposal school, precision strike 

weapon, air-to-surface gunnery and 

maritime strike operation) rather than a 

programmatic basis. The Commission 

believes that the agencies should 

evaluate the impacts of all training and 

testing activities under a single letter of 

authorization application and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

document rather than segmenting the 

analyses based on specific types of 

missions under various authorizations. 

Response: Both Eglin AFB and NMFS 

concur with the Commission’s 

recommendation to streamline the 

rulemaking process for future activities 

conducted within the EGGTR. 

Currently, Eglin AFB personnel are 

planning to develop a Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment as well as a 

Request for a Letter of Authorization for 

all testing and training activities that 

will occur in the Eglin Gulf Test and 

Training Range over the next five years. 

These efforts would facilitate a more 

comprehensive review of actions 

occurring within the EGGTR that have 

the potential to take marine mammals 

incidental to military readiness 

activities for future MMPA rulemaking 

requests by Eglin AFB. 

Comment 2: The Commission states 

that Eglin AFB estimated the zones of 

exposure (i.e., zones of influence (ZOI) 

in two ways: (1) Calculating zones based 

on a single detonation event of each 

munition type within a three-week 

period; and (2) calculating zones based 

on a representative ordnance 

expenditure scenario of the maximum 

number of munitions that Eglin AFB 

could expend within a single day. The 

Commission further noted that the latter 

method was an appropriate method for 

determining distances to the sound 

exposure level (SEL) thresholds which 

are the zones of exposure for 

implementing mitigation. 

However, the Commission states that 

Eglin AFB overestimated marine 

mammal take because they based 

estimates on the former method (i.e., 

calculating zones based on a single 

detonation event of each munition type 

within a three-week period) which 

multiplied the number of animals 

estimated to be taken by a single 

detonation of each munition type by the 

total number of munitions that would be 

detonated, irrespective of when those 

detonations would occur. The 

Commission states that this method 

does not consider the accumulation of 

energy in a 24-hour period which would 

more accurately correspond to zones of 

exposure for the representative scenario 

and serve as more a realistic estimate of 

the numbers of animals that Eglin AFB 

could potentially take during the WSEP 

activities. 

Response: With respect to the first 

point, Eglin AFB developed an example 

test day scenario (assumed to be worst 

case) to calculate impact ranges for all 

energy metrics in response to the 

Commission and NMFS’ concerns. This 

is the basis for the mitigation 

monitoring plan which NMFS presented 

in Table 7 of the notice for the proposed 

Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 

8, 2014). Based on the ranges presented 

in Table 7 and factoring in operational 

limitations associated with survey-based 

vessel support for the missions, Eglin 

AFB estimates that during pre-mission 

surveys, the proposed monitoring area 

would be approximately 5 km (3.1 

miles) from the target area, which 

corresponds to the Level A harassment 

threshold range. Eglin AFB proposes to 

survey the same-sized area for each 

mission day, regardless of the planned 

munition expenditures. By clearing the 

Level A harassment threshold range of 

protected species, animals that may 

enter the area after the completed premission surveys but prior to detonation 

would not reach the smaller slight lung 

injury or mortality zones. 

With respect to the second point, 

Eglin AFB’s modeling approach for take 

estimates treated each munition 

detonation as a separate event impacting 

a new set of animals which results in a 

worst case scenario of potential take and 

is a precautionary overestimate of 

potential harassment. Briefly, Eglin 

AFB’s model treats each ordnance 

detonation as a single event and sums 

the estimated potential impacts from 

each detonation event to provide a total 

estimate of take for the entire WSEP 

testing activities event conducted over a 

period of 3 weeks. This approach 

assumes for a continuous population 

refresh of animals (i.e., a new 

population of animals is impacted) and 

sums all exposures for each species for 

all munitions expended during the 

three-week period. NMFS and Eglin 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

17398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 

AFB acknowledge that this approach 

contributes to the overestimation of take 

estimates. This approach has multiple 

conservative assumptions built into the 

calculations that contribute the 

overestimation of take estimates. One 

assumption included a continuous 

population refresh approach that treated 

each munition detonation as a separate 

event impacting a new set of animals. In 

actuality, multiple detonations will 

occur in each mission day, and while 

Eglin AFB plans to release certain 

munitions on specific days, past 

experience has shown that Eglin AFB 

may not be able to execute the missions 

according to a set plan. Eglin AFB 

requires flexibility to make last minute 

changes to the schedule in order to 

complete all test requirements in the 

allotted 3-week timeframe. That may 

include Eglin AFB releasing additional 

munitions on one day to make up for 

days when they could not release 

planned munitions. 

Comment 3: In estimating take, the 

Commission commented Eglin AFB’s 

model approach was an additive process 

for estimating each zone of exposure, 

and thus the associated takes. 

Effectively, The Commission states that 

Eglin AFB overestimated the number of 

take but is unsure to what degree. 

Further, the Commission recommends 

that Eglin AFB and NMFS should treat 

fractions of estimated take 

appropriately, that is generally, round 

down if less than 0.50 and round up if 

greater than or equal to 0.50 before 

summing the estimates for each species. 

Response: The Commission is correct 

in its understanding of how Eglin AFB 

estimated take based on an additive 

process. Briefly, Eglin AFB estimated 

the associated takes by adding the zones 

of exposure together which leads to a 

double counting of take. For example, 

potential take associated with the Level 

B harassment (behavior) includes 

estimates for takes by mortality, Level A 

harassment, and Level B harassment 

(TTS). The potential take for Level B 

harassment (TTS) includes takes for 

Level A harassment and mortality and 

the potential take for Level A 

harassment (PTS) includes take for 

Level A harassment (slight lung injury 

and GI tract injury) and mortality. 

NMFS agrees with the Commission’s 

recommendations and has recalculated 

the takes by eliminating the double 

counting of the estimated take for each 

species and appropriately rounding take 

estimates before summing the total take. 

Table 8 in this notice provides the 

revised number of marine mammals, by 

species, that Eglin AFB could 

potentially take incidental to the 

conduct of Maritime WSEP operations. 

The re-calculation results in zero take 

by mortality, zero take by slight lung 

injury, and zero take by gastrointestinal 

tract injury. Compared to the take levels 

that NMFS previously proposed (79 FR 

72631, December 8, 2014), the reestimation has reduced take estimates 

for Level A harassment (PTS) by 

approximately five percent to a total of 

38 marine mammals; reduced the take 

estimates for Level B harassment (TTS) 

by approximately eight percent to a total 

of 445 marine mammals; and reduced 

take estimates for Level B harassment 

(behavioral) by approximately 51 

percent to a total of 497 marine 

mammals. Based on the remodeling of 

the number of marine mammals 

potentially affected by maritime strike 

missions, NMFS would authorize take 

for Level A and Level B harassment 

presented in Table 8 of this notice. 

Comment 4: The Commission states 

that Eglin AFB proposes to use live-feed 

video cameras to supplement its 

effectiveness in detecting marine 

mammals when implementing 

mitigation measures. However, the 

Commission is not convinced that those 

measures are sufficient to effectively 

monitor for marine mammals entering 

the training areas during the 30 minute 

timeframe prior to detonation. In 

addition, the Commission states that it 

does not believe that Eglin AFB cannot 

deem the Level A harassment zone clear 

of marine mammals when using only 

three video cameras for monitoring. 

Thus, the Commission recommends that 

NMFS require Eglin AFB to supplement 

its mitigation measures with passive 

acoustic monitoring and determine the 

effectiveness of its suite of mitigation 

measures for activities at Eglin prior to 

incorporating presumed mitigation 

effectiveness into its take estimation 

analyses or negligible impact 

determinations. 

Response: NMFS has worked closely 

with Eglin AFB over the past several 

Authorization cycles to develop proper 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements designed to minimize and 

detect impacts from the specified 

activities and ensure that NMFS can 

make the findings necessary for 

issuance of an Authorization. 

Monitoring also includes vessel-based 

observers for marine species up to 30 

minutes prior to deploying live 

munitions in the area. Eglin AFB has 

submitted annual reports to NMFS 

every year that describes all activities 

that occur in the EGTTR. In addition, 

Eglin AFB submitted annual reports to 

NMFS at the conclusion of the Maritime 

Strike Operations testing activities 

conducted in 2013 and 2014. These 

missions are similar in nature to the 

proposed maritime WSEP operations 

and the Eglin AFB provided information 

on sighting information and results from 

post-mission survey observations. Based 

on those results, NMFS determined that 

the mitigation measures ensured the 

least practicable adverse impact to 

marine mammals. There were no 

observations of injured marine 

mammals and no reports of marine 

mammal mortality during the Maritime 

Strike Operation activities. The 

measures proposed for Maritime WSEP 

are similar, except they will include 

larger survey areas based on updated 

acoustic analysis and previous 

discussions with the Commission and 

NMFS. 

Eglin AFB will continue to research 

the feasibility of supplementing existing 

monitoring efforts with passive acoustic 

monitoring devices for future missions. 

Eglin AFB would be willing to discuss 

alternatives with the Commission and 

NMFS during the development of the 

upcoming environmental planning 

efforts discussed earlier in Comment 1. 

Comment 5: The MMC expressed 

their belief that all permanent hearing 

loss should be considered a serious 

injury and recommends that NMFS 

propose to issue regulations under 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and a 

letter of authorization, rather than an 

incidental harassment authorization, for 

any proposed activities expected to 

cause a permanent threshold shift (PTS). 

Response: NMFS considers PTS to fall 

under the injury category (Level A 

Harassment). However, an animal 

would need to stay very close to the 

sound source for an extended amount of 

time to incur a serious degree of PTS, 

which could increase the probability of 

mortality. In this case, it would be 

highly unlikely for this scenario to 

unfold given the nature of any 

anticipated acoustic exposures that 

could potentially result from a mobile 

marine mammal that NMFS generally 

expects to exhibit avoidance behavior to 

loud sounds within the EGTTR. 

NMFS based PTS thresholds on the 

onset of PTS, meaning an exposure that 

causes a 40 dB threshold shift (Ward et 

al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et 

al., 1996; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 

1996; Henderson et al., 2008). An 

animal would exceed the PTS threshold 

by either being exposed to the sound at 

a lower level for a long amount of time 

(not likely with explosives) or receive a 

shorter exposure at a much higher level 

(meaning being closer to the source) in 

order to incur a significantly more 

serious degree of PTS, beyond onset, 

would require exposures of even longer 

durations or higher levels. Taking into 

consideration marine mammals would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 17399 

likely avoid an area with high levels of 

training activities; the intermittent and 

short duration of the proposed activity 

(4 hours per day within the span of 

three weeks); combined with the density 

of marine mammals, it is unlikely that 

a marine mammal would randomly 

enter the area where more severe 

impacts would be a risk. Additionally, 

some degree of presbycusis (i.e., agerelated high-frequency hearing loss) is 

fairly common in the wild especially 

with older animals (i.e., animals are 

adapted to continue to perform normal 

life functions with some level of PTS). 

NMFS is unaware of data suggesting 

whether, or at what a reduction in 

hearing ability might potentially lead to 

direct or indirect mortality. 

NMFS has recalculated the takes 

proposed in the notice for the proposed 

Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 

8, 2014) and the results of the 

recalculation show zero takes for 

mortality, zero takes by slight lung 

injury, and zero takes by gastrointestinal 

tract injury. Further, the re-estimation 

has reduced the number of take by Level 

A harassment (from PTS) and by Level 

B harassment (TTS and behavioral). 

Based on this re-estimation, NMFS does 

not believe that serious injury will 

result from this activity and that 

therefore it is not necessary to issue 

regulations through section 101(a)(5)(A), 

rather, an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization may be issued. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Table 3 provides the following: 

marine mammal species with possible 

or confirmed occurrence in the 

proposed activity area (Garrison et al., 

2008; Navy, 2007; Davis et al., 2000); 

information on those species’ status 

under the MMPA and the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.); and abundance and 

likelihood of occurrence within the 

proposed activity area. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS MOST LIKELY TO BE HARASSED INCIDENTAL TO EGLIN AFB’S ACTIVITIES IN W–151A 

Species Stock name Regulatory status 1 2 Estimated 

abundance 

Relative 

occurrence in 

W–151 

Common bottlenose dolphin ............ Choctawatchee Bay ......................... MMPA—S ........................................

ESA—NL ..........................................

232 ..............

CV = 0.06 3

Uncommon 

Pensacola/East Bay ......................... MMPA—S ........................................

ESA—NL ..........................................

33 ................

CV = 0.88 4

Uncommon 

St. Andrew Bay ................................ MMPA—S ........................................

ESA—NL ..........................................

124 ..............

CV = 0.18 4

Uncommon 

Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal ..... MMPA—S ........................................

ESA—NL ..........................................

2,473 ...........

CV = 0.25 5

Common 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental 

Shelf.

MMPA—NC .....................................

ESA—NL ..........................................

17,777 .........

CV = 0.32 6

Uncommon 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic .... MMPA—NC .....................................

ESA—NL ..........................................

5,806 ...........

CV = 0.39 7

Uncommon 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ................... Northern Gulf of Mexico .................. MMPA—NC .....................................

ESA—NL ..........................................

37,611 8 .......

CV = 0.28 ....

Common 

1 MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified. 

2ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed. 

3 Conn et al. 201; 2012 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2013) 4Blaylock and Hoggard, 1994; 2012 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2013) 5 2007 Aerial surveys reported in the 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014) 6 2000–2001 Aerial surveys reported in the 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014) 7 2009 Line transect surveys reported in the 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014) 8 2000–2001 Aerial surveys reported in the 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014) 

An additional 19 cetacean species 

have confirmed occurrence 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 the 19 species to be rare or 

extralimital in the W–151A test location 

area. These species are the Bryde’s 

whale (Balaenoptera edeni), sperm 

whale (Physeter macrocephalus), dwarf 

sperm whale (Kogia sima), pygmy sperm 

whale (K. breviceps), pantropical 

spotted dolphin (Stenella atenuarta), 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

densirostris), Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris), Gervais’ beaked 

whale (M. europaeus), Clymene dolphin 

(S. clymene), spinner dolphin (S. 

longirostris), striped dolphin (S. 

coeruleoalba), killer whale (Orcinus 

orca), false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens), pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus), Fraser’s dolphin 

(Lagenodelphis hosei), melon-headed 

whale (Peponocephala electra), roughtoothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), 

and short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus). 

Of these species, only the sperm 

whale is listed as endangered under the 

ESA and as depleted throughout its 

range under the MMPA. Sperm whale 

occurrence within W–151A is unlikely 

because almost all reported sightings 

have occurred in water depths greater 

than 200 m (656.2 ft). 

Because these species are unlikely to 

occur within the W–151A area, Eglin 

AFB has not requested and NMFS has 

not proposed the issuance of take 

authorizations for them. Thus, NMFS 

does not consider these species further 

in this notice. 

NMFS has reviewed Eglin AFB’s 

detailed species descriptions, including 

life history information, distribution, 

regional distribution, diving behavior, 

and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy 

and completeness. NMFS refers the 

reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the 

Authorization application and to 

Chapter 3 in Eglin AFB’s EA rather than 

reprinting the information here. 

Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed 

Action Area 

The endangered West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus) rarely occurs in 

the area (USAF, 2014). The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction 

over the manatee; therefore, NMFS 

would not include an authorization to 

harass manatees and does not discuss 

this species further in this notice. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

17400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

This section of the notice for the 

proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, 

December 8, 2014) included a summary 

and discussion of the ways that the 

types of stressors associated with the 

specified activity (e.g., ordnance 

detonation and vessel movement) have 

been observed to impact marine 

mammals. The ‘‘Estimated Take by 

Incidental Harassment’’ section later in 

this document will include a 

quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that NMFS expects Eglin 

AFB to incidentally take during their 

activities. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’ section will include the 

analysis of how this specific activity 

will impact marine mammals and will 

consider the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, the ‘‘Mitigation’’ 

section, and the ‘‘Anticipated Effects on 

Marine Mammal Habitat’’ section to 

draw conclusions regarding the likely 

impacts of this activity on the 

reproductive success or survivorship of 

individuals and from that on the 

affected marine mammal populations or 

stocks. 

In summary, the Maritime WSEP 

training exercises proposed for taking of 

marine mammals under an 

Authorization have the potential to take 

marine mammals by exposing them to 

impulsive noise and pressure waves 

generated by live ordnance detonation 

at or near the surface of the water. 

Exposure to energy or pressure resulting 

from these detonations could result in 

Level A harassment (PTS) and by Level 

B harassment (TTS and behavioral). In 

addition, NMFS also considered the 

potential for harassment from vessel 

operations. 

The potential effects of impulsive 

sound sources (underwater detonations) 

from the proposed training activities 

may include one or more of the 

following: tolerance, masking, 

disturbance, hearing threshold shift, 

stress response, and mortality. NMFS 

provided detailed information on these 

potential effects in the notice for the 

proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, 

December 8, 2014). The information 

presented in that notice has not 

changed. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

Detonations of live ordnance would 

result in temporary changes to the water 

environment. Munitions could hit the 

targets and not explode in the water. 

However, because the targets are located 

over the water, in water explosions 

could occur. An underwater explosion 

from these weapons could send a shock 

wave and blast noise through the water, 

release gaseous by-products, create an 

oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of 

water to shoot up from the water 

surface. However, these effects would be 

temporary and not expected to last more 

than a few seconds. 

Similarly, Eglin AFB does not expect 

any long-term impacts with regard to 

hazardous constituents to occur. Eglin 

AFB considered the introduction of fuel, 

debris, ordnance, and chemical 

materials into the water column within 

its EA. Eglin AFB analyzed the potential 

effects of each in their EA and 

determined them to be insignificant. 

NMFS provided a summary of the 

analyses in the notice for the proposed 

Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 

8, 2014). The information presented in 

that notice has not changed. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to such activity, and other means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on such species or stock and its 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and the availability 

of such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (where 

relevant). 

The NDAA of 2004 amended the 

MMPA as it relates to military-readiness 

activities and the incidental take 

authorization process such that ‘‘least 

practicable adverse impact’’ shall 

include consideration of personnel 

safety, practicality of implementation, 

and impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

NMFS and Eglin AFB have worked to 

identify 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.’’ NMFS refers the reader to 

Section 11 of Eglin AFB’s application 

for more detailed information on the 

mitigation measures which include the 

following: 

Vessel-Based Monitoring: Eglin AFB 

would station a large number of range 

clearing boats (approximately 20 to 25) 

around the test site to prevent nonparticipating vessels from entering the 

human safety zone. Based on the 

composite footprint, range clearing 

boats will be located approximately 

15.28 km (9.5 mi) from the detonation 

point (see Figure 11–1 in Eglin AFB’s 

application). However, the actual 

distance will vary based on the size of 

the munition being deployed. 

Trained marine species observers 

would be aboard five of these boats and 

will conduct protected species surveys 

before and after each test. The protected 

species survey vessels will be dedicated 

solely to observing for marine species 

during the pre-mission surveys while 

the remaining safety boats clear the area 

of non-authorized vessels. The protected 

species survey vessels will begin 

surveying the area at sunrise. The area 

to be surveyed will encompass the 

largest applicable zone of influence 

(ZOI), which is the Level A harassment 

range. Animals that may enter the area 

after the pre-mission surveys have been 

completed and prior to detonation 

would not reach the predicted smaller 

slight lung injury, gastrointestinal tract, 

and/or mortality zones 

Because of human safety issues, 

observers will be required to leave the 

test area at least 30 minutes in advance 

of live weapon deployment and move to 

a position on the safety zone periphery, 

approximately 9.5 miles from the 

detonation point. Observers will 

continue to scan for marine mammals 

from the periphery. 

Video Monitoring: In addition to 

vessel-based monitoring, three highdefinition video cameras would be 

positioned on the GRATV anchored onsite, as described earlier, to allow for 

real-time monitoring for the duration of 

the mission. The camera configuration 

and actual number of cameras used 

would depend on specific mission 

requirements. In addition to monitoring 

the area for mission objective issues, the 

camera(s) would also monitor for the 

presence of protected species. A trained 

marine species observer from Eglin 

Natural Resources would be located in 

Eglin AFB’s Central Control Facility, 

along with mission personnel, to view 

the video feed before and during test 

activities. The distance to which objects 

can be detected at the water surface by 

use of the cameras is considered 

generally comparable to that of the 

human eye. 

The GRATV will be located about 183 

m (600 ft) from the target. The larger 

mortality threshold ranges correspond 

to the modified Goertner model adjusted 

for the weight of an Atlantic spotted 

dolphin calf, and extend from 0 to 237 

m (0 to 778 ft) from the target, 

depending on the ordnance, and the 

Level A ranges for both common 

bottlenose and Atlantic spotted 

dolphins extend from 7 to 965 m (23 to 

3,166 ft) from the target, depending on 

the ordnance and harassment criterion. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 17401 

Given these distances, observers could 

reasonably be expected to view a 

substantial portion of the mortality zone 

in front of the camera, although a small 

portion would be behind or to the side 

of the camera view. Some portion of the 

Level A harassment zone could also be 

viewed, although it would be less than 

that of the mortality zone (a large 

percentage would be behind or to the 

side of the camera view). 

If the high-definition video cameras 

are not operational for any reason, Eglin 

AFB will not conduct Maritime WSEP 

missions. 

In addition to the two types of visual 

monitoring discussed earlier in this 

section, Eglin AFB personnel are 

present within the mission area (on 

boats and the GRATV) on each day of 

testing well in advance of weapon 

deployment, typically near sunrise. 

They will perform a variety of tasks 

including target preparation, equipment 

checks, etc., and will opportunistically 

observe for marine mammals and 

indicators as feasible throughout test 

preparation. However, such 

observations are considered incidental 

and would only occur as time and 

schedule permits. Any sightings would 

be relayed to the Lead Biologist, as 

described in the following mitigation 

sections. 

Pre-Mission Monitoring: The purposes 

of pre-mission monitoring are to: (1) 

Evaluate the mission site for 

environmental suitability, and (2) verify 

that the ZOI is free of visually detectable 

marine mammals, as well as potential 

indicators of these species. On the 

morning of the mission, the Test 

Director and Safety Officer will confirm 

that there are no issues that would 

preclude mission execution and that 

weather is adequate to support 

mitigation measures. 

Sunrise or Two Hours Prior to 

Mission: Eglin AFB range clearing 

vessels and protected species survey 

vessels will be on site at least two hours 

prior to the mission. The Lead Biologist 

on board one survey vessel will assess 

the overall suitability of the mission site 

based on environmental conditions (sea 

state) and presence/absence of marine 

mammal indicators. This information 

will be communicated to Tower Control 

and relayed to the Safety Officer in 

Central Control Facility. 

One and One-Half Hours Prior to 

Mission: Vessel-based surveys will begin 

approximately one and one-half hours 

prior to live weapon deployment. 

Surface vessel observers will survey the 

ZOI and relay all marine species and 

indicator sightings, including the time 

of sighting, GPS location, and direction 

of travel, if known, to the Lead 

Biologist. The lead biologist will 

document all sighting information on 

report forms to be submitted to Eglin 

Natural Resources after each mission. 

Surveys would continue for 

approximately one hour. During this 

time, Eglin AFB personnel in the 

mission area will also observe for 

marine species as feasible. If marine 

mammals or indicators are observed 

within the ZOI, the range will be 

declared ‘‘fouled,’’ a term that signifies 

to mission personnel that conditions are 

such that a live ordnance drop cannot 

occur (e.g., protected species or civilian 

vessels are in the mission area). If no 

marine mammals or indicators are 

observed, Eglin AFB would declare the 

range clear of protected species. 

One-Half Hour Prior to Mission: At 

approximately 30 minutes to one hour 

prior to live weapon deployment, 

marine species observers will be 

instructed to leave the mission site and 

remain outside the safety zone, which 

on average will be 9.5 miles from the 

detonation point. The actual size is 

determined by weapon NEW and 

method of delivery. The survey team 

will continue to monitor for protected 

species while leaving the area. As the 

survey vessels leave the area, marine 

species monitoring of the immediate 

target areas will continue at CCF 

through the live video feed received 

from the high definition cameras on the 

GRATV. Once the survey vessels have 

arrived at the perimeter of the safety 

zone (approximately 30 minutes after 

being instructed to leave, depending on 

actual travel time) the range will be 

declared ‘‘green’’ and mission will be 

allowed to proceed, assuming all nonparticipating vessels have left the safety 

zone as well. 

Execution of Mission: Immediately 

prior to live weapon drop, the Test 

Director and Safety Officer will 

communicate to confirm the results of 

marine mammal surveys and the 

appropriateness of proceeding with the 

mission. The Safety Officer will have 

final authority to proceed with, 

postpone, or cancel the mission. The 

mission would be postponed if: 

• Any of the high-definition video 

cameras are not operational for any 

reason. 

• Any marine mammal is visually 

detected within the ZOI. Postponement 

would continue until the animal(s) that 

caused the postponement is: (1) 

Confirmed to be outside of the ZOI on 

a heading away from the targets; or (2) 

not seen again for 30 minutes and 

presumed to be outside the ZOI due to 

the animal swimming out of the range. 

• Large schools of fish or large flocks 

of birds feeding at the surface are 

observed within the ZOI. Postponement 

would continue until these potential 

indicators are confirmed to be outside 

the ZOI. 

• Any technical or mechanical issues 

related to the aircraft or target boats. 

• Non-participating vessels enter the 

human safety zone prior to weapon 

release. 

In the event of a postponement, 

protected species monitoring would 

continue from the Central Control 

Facility through the live video feed. 

Post-Mission Monitoring 

Post-mission monitoring is designed 

to determine the effectiveness of premission 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 personnel declare the mission 

area safe. Vessels will move into the 

survey area from outside the safety zone 

and monitor for at least 30 minutes, 

concentrating on the area down-current 

of the test site. This area is easily 

identifiable because of the floating 

debris in the water from impacted 

targets. Up to 10 Eglin AFB support 

vessels will be cleaning debris and 

collecting damaged targets from this 

area thus spending many hours in the 

area once the mission is completed. All 

vessels will be instructed to report any 

dead or injured marine mammals to the 

Lead Biologist. The protected species 

survey vessels will document any 

marine mammals that were killed or 

injured as a result of the mission and, 

if practicable, recover and examine any 

dead animals. The species, number, 

location, and behavior of any animals 

observed will be documented and 

reported to Eglin Natural Resources. 

Mission Delays Due to Weather 

Eglin AFB would delay or reschedule 

Maritime WSEP missions if the Beaufort 

sea state is greater than number 4 at the 

time of the test. The Lead Biologist 

aboard one of the survey vessels will 

make the final determination of whether 

conditions are conducive for sighting 

protected species or not. 

NMFS has carefully evaluated Eglin 

AFB’s proposed mitigation measures in 

the context of ensuring that we 

prescribe the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

marine mammal species and stocks and 

their habitat. NMFS’ evaluation of 

potential measures included 

consideration of the following factors in 

relation to one another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

17402 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed here: 

1. Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

2. A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to training 

exercises that we expect to result in the 

take of marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to 1, above, or to reducing 

harassment takes only). 

3. A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to training exercises 

that we expect to result in the take of 

marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to 1, above, or to reducing 

harassment takes only). 

4. A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to training exercises that we 

expect to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to a, 

above, or to reducing the severity of 

harassment takes only). 

5. Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

6. For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on the evaluation of Eglin 

AFB’s proposed measures, as well as 

other measures considered, NMFS has 

determined that the proposed mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance while also 

considering personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and the 

impact of effectiveness of the military 

readiness activity. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an Authorization for 

an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that we must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for an 

authorization must include the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and our expectations of the 

level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals present 

in the action area. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by us 

should accomplish one or more of the 

following general goals: 

1. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the mitigation zone (thus allowing for 

more effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and during other times and 

locations, in order to generate more data 

to contribute to the analyses mentioned 

later; 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals would 

be affected by seismic airguns and other 

active acoustic sources and the 

likelihood of associating those 

exposures with specific adverse effects, 

such as behavioral harassment, 

temporary or permanent threshold shift; 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

stimuli that we expect to result in take 

and how those anticipated adverse 

effects on individuals (in different ways 

and to varying degrees) may impact the 

population, species, or stock 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

a. Behavioral observations in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(i.e., we need to be able to accurately 

predict received level, distance from 

source, and other pertinent 

information); 

b. Physiological measurements in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(i.e., we need to be able to accurately 

predict received level, distance from 

source, and other pertinent 

information); 

c. Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated stimuli versus times or 

areas without stimuli; 

4. An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; and 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

The Authorization will require the 

following measures in the Maritime 

WSEP Authorization. They are: 

(1) Eglin will track their use of the 

EGTTR for test firing missions and 

protected species observations, through 

the use of mission reporting forms. 

(2) A summary annual report of 

marine mammal observations and 

Maritime WSEP activities will be 

submitted to the NMFS Southeast 

Regional Office (SERO) and the Office of 

Protected Resources either at the time of 

a request for renewal of an 

Authorization or 90 days after 

expiration of the current Authorization 

if a new Authorization is not requested. 

This annual report must include the 

following information: (i) Date and time 

of each Maritime WSEP exercise; (ii) a 

complete description of the pre-exercise 

and post-exercise activities related to 

mitigating and monitoring the effects of 

Maritime WSEP exercises on marine 

mammal populations; and (iii) results of 

the Maritime WSEP exercise 

monitoring, including 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. 

(3) If any dead or injured marine 

mammals are observed or detected prior 

to testing, or injured or killed during 

live fire, a report must be made to 

NMFS by the following business day. 

(4) Any unauthorized takes of marine 

mammals (i.e., injury or mortality) must 

be immediately reported to NMFS and 

to the respective stranding network 

representative. 

Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals 

Taken by Harassment 

NMFS’ analysis identified the 

physiological responses, and behavioral 

responses that could potentially result 

from exposure to underwater explosive 

detonations. In this section, we will 

relate the potential effects to marine 

mammals from underwater detonation 

of explosives to the MMPA regulatory 

definitions of Level A and Level B 

harassment. This section will also 

quantify the effects that might occur 

from the proposed military readiness 

activities in W–151. 

Definition of Harassment 

The NDAA amended the definition of 

harassment as it applies to a ‘‘military 

readiness activity’’ to read as follows: (i) 

Any act that injures or has the 

significant potential to injure a marine 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 17403 

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]. 

At NMFS’ recommendation, Eglin 

AFB updated the thresholds used for 

onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS; 

Level B Harassment) and onset of 

permanent threshold shift (PTS; Level A 

Harassment) to be consistent with the 

thresholds outlined in the Navy’s report 

titled, ‘‘Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. 

Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 

Analysis Technical Report,’’ which the 

Navy coordinated with NMFS. NMFS 

believes that the thresholds outlined in 

the Navy’s report represent the best 

available science. The report is available 

on the internet at: http://aftteis.com/

Portals/4/aftteis/Supporting%20

Technical%20Documents/Criteria_and_

Thresholds_for_US_Navy_Acoustic_

and_Explosive_Effects_Analysis-Apr_

2012.pdf. 

Table 4 in this document outlines the 

revised acoustic thresholds used by 

NMFS for this Authorization when 

addressing noise impacts from 

explosives. 

TABLE 4—IMPULSIVE SOUND EXPLOSIVE THRESHOLDS USED BY EGLIN AFB IN ITS CURRENT ACOUSTICS IMPACTS

MODELING

Group 

Behavior Slight injury 

Mortality 

Behavioral TTS PTS Gastro-intestinal tract Lung 

Mid-frequency Cetaceans ....... 167 dB SEL 172 dB SEL 

or 23 psi 

187 dB SEL 

or 45.86 

psi 

104 psi ........ 39.1 M1⁄3

(1+[DRm/

10.081])1⁄2

Pa-sec.

Where: M = 

mass of the 

animals in 

kg.

DRm = depth of 

the receiver 

(animal) in 

meters.

91.4 M1⁄3 (1+DRm/10.081])1⁄2

Pa-sec 

Where: M = mass of the animals in kg 

DRm = depth of the receiver 

(animal) in meters 

Eglin AFB conservatively modeled 

that all explosives would detonate at a 

1.2 m (3.9 ft) water depth despite the 

training goal of hitting the target, 

resulting in an above water or on land 

explosion. For sources detonated at 

shallow depths, it is frequently the case 

that the explosion may breech the 

surface with some of the acoustic energy 

escaping the water column. Table 5 

provides the estimated maximum range 

or radius, from the detonation point to 

the various thresholds described in 

Table 4. Eglin AFB uses the range 

information shown in Table 5 (Table 6.3 

in Eglin’s application) to calculate the 

total area of the ZOI and combine the 

calculated ZOIs with density estimates 

(adjusted for depth distribution) and the 

number of live munitions to provide an 

estimate of the number of marine 

mammals potentially exposed to the 

various impact thresholds. 

TABLE 5—DISTANCES (M) TO HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FROM EGLIN AFB’S EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE

Munition NEW 

(lbs) 

Total 

number 

Detonation 

scenario 

Mortality Level A harassment Level B Harassment 

Modified 

Goertner 

model 1 

Slight 

lung 

injury 

GI 

track 

injury 

PTS 

TTS Behavioral 

Modified 

Goertner 

model 2 

237 dB 

SPL 

187 dB 

SEL 

230 dB 

peak 

SPL 

172 dB 

SEL 

224 dB 

Peak 

SPL 

167 dB 

SEL 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

GBU–10 ..............................

or GBU–24 

945 2 Surface ........ 199 350 340 965 698 1,582 1,280 2,549 

GBU–12 ..............................

or GBU–54 

192 6 Surface ........ 111 233 198 726 409 2,027 752 2,023 

AGM–65 (Maverick) ........... 86 6 Surface ........ 82 177 150 610 312 1,414 575 1,874 

GBU–39 ..............................

(LSDB) 

37 4 Surface ........ 59 128 112 479 234 1,212 433 1,543 

AGM–114 (Hellfire) ............ 20 15 (10 ft ............

depth) 

110 229 95 378 193 2,070 354 3,096 

AGM–175 (Griffin) .............. 13 10 Surface ........ 38 83 79 307 165 1,020 305 1,343 

2.75 Rockets ...................... 12 100 Surface ........ 36 81 77 281 161 1,010 296 1,339 

PGU–13 ..............................

HEI 30 mm 

0.1 1,000 Surface ........ 0 7 16 24 33 247 60 492 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

17404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 5—DISTANCES (M) TO HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FROM EGLIN AFB’S EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE—Continued 

Munition NEW 

(lbs) 

Total 

number 

Detonation 

scenario 

Mortality Level A harassment Level B Harassment 

Modified 

Goertner 

model 1 

Slight 

lung 

injury 

GI 

track 

injury 

PTS 

TTS Behavioral 

Modified 

Goertner 

model 2 

237 dB 

SPL 

187 dB 

SEL 

230 dB 

peak 

SPL 

172 dB 

SEL 

224 dB 

Peak 

SPL 

167 dB 

SEL 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin and Unidentified Dolphin 1

GBU–10 ..............................

or GBU–24 

945 2 Surface ........ 237 400 340 965 698 1,582 1,280 2,549 

GBU–12 ..............................

or GBU–54 

192 6 Surface ........ 138 274 198 726 409 2,027 752 2,023 

AGM–65 .............................

(Maverick) 

86 6 Surface ........ 101 216 150 610 312 1,414 575 1,874 

GBU–39 ..............................

(LSDB) 

37 4 Surface ........ 73 158 112 479 234 1,212 433 1,543 

AGM–114 ...........................

(Hellfire) 

20 15 (10 ft ............

depth) 

135 277 95 378 193 2,070 354 3,096 

AGM–175 ...........................

(Griffin) 

13 10 Surface ........ 47 104 79 307 165 1,020 305 1,343 

2.75 Rockets ...................... 12 100 Surface ........ 45 100 77 281 161 1,010 296 1,339 

PGU–13 ..............................

HEI 30 mm 

0.1 1,000 Surface ........ 0 9 16 24 33 247 60 492 

AGM = air-to-ground missile; cal = caliber; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; ft = feet; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary; lbs 

= pounds; mm = millimeters; N/A = not applicable; NEW = net explosive weight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = small diameter bomb; PTS = 

permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift; WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser 1 Unidentified dolphin can be either bottlenose or Atlantic spotted dolphin. Eglin AFB based the mortality and slight lung injury criteria on the 

mass of a newborn Atlantic spotted dolphin. 

Determination of the Mitigation and 

Monitoring Zones 

The ranges presented in Table 5 

represent a radius of impact for a given 

threshold from a single detonation of 

each munition/detonation scenario. 

They do not consider accumulated 

energies from multiple detonation 

occurring within the same 24-hour time 

period. For calculating take estimates, 

the single detonation approach is more 

conservative because it multiplies the 

exposures from a single detonation by 

the number of munitions and assumes a 

fresh population of marine mammals is 

being impacted each time. Eglin AFB 

used this approach because of the 

uncertainty surrounding which 

munitions they would release on a given 

day. Multiple variables, such as 

weather, aircraft mechanical issues, 

munition malfunctions, and target 

availability may prevent planned 

munitions releases. By treating each 

detonation as a separate event and 

summing those impacts accordingly, 

Eglin AFB would have maximum 

operational flexibility to conduct the 

missions without limitations on either 

the total number of munitions allowed 

to be dropped in a day, or on the 

specific combinations of munitions that 

could be released. 

While this methodology overestimates 

the overall potential takes presented in 

the next section, the ranges do not 

accurately represent the actual area 

acoustically impacted for a given 

threshold from multiple detonations in 

a given mission day. The total acoustic 

impact area for two identical bombs 

detonating within a given timeframe is 

less than twice the impact area of a 

single bomb’s detonation. This has to do 

with the accumulated energy from 

multiple detonations occurring 

sequentially. When one weapon is 

detonated, a certain level of 

transmission loss is required to be 

calculated to achieve each threshold 

level which can then be equated to a 

range. By releasing a second munition 

in the same event (same place and close 

in time), even though the total energy is 

increased, the incremental impact area 

from the second detonation is slightly 

less than that of the first; however the 

impact range for the two munitions is 

larger than the impact range for one. 

Since each additional detonation adds 

energy to the sound exposure level 

(SEL) metric, all the energy from all 

munitions released in a day is 

accumulated. By factoring in the 

transmission loss of the first detonation 

added with the incremental increases 

from the second, third, fourth, etc., the 

range of the cumulative energy that is 

below each threshold level can be 

determined. Unlike the energy 

component, peak pressure is not an 

additive factor, therefore Eglin AFB did 

not consider thresholds expressed as 

either acoustic impulse or peak SPL 

metrics (i.e., mortality, slight lung 

injury, gastrointestinal tract injury) in 

their calculations. 

Eglin AFB has created a sample day 

reflecting the maximum number of 

munitions that could be released and 

resulting in the greatest impact in a 

single mission day. However, this 

scenario is only a representation and 

may not accurately reflect how Eglin 

AFB may conduct actual operations. 

However, NMFS and Eglin AFB are 

considering this conservative 

assumption to calculate the impact 

range for mitigation monitoring 

measures. Thus, Eglin AFB has 

modeled, combined, and compared the 

sum of all energies from these 

detonations against thresholds with 

energy metric criteria to generate the 

accumulated energy ranges for this 

scenario. Table 6 displays these ranges 

which form the basis of the mitigation 

monitoring thresholds. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 17405 

TABLE 6—DISTANCES (M) TO HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FOR AN EXAMPLE MISSION DAY

Munition NEW 

(lbs) 

Total # 

per day 

Detonation 

scenario 

Level A 

harassment 

Level B harassment 

PTS 187 dB 

SEL 

TTS Behavioral 

172 dB 

SEL 

67 dB 

SEL 

GBU–10 or GBU–24 ...................................................... 945 1 Surface ........ 5,120 12,384 15,960 

GBU–12 or GBU–54 ...................................................... 192 1 Surface.

AGM–65 (Maverick) ....................................................... 86 1 Surface.

GBU–39 (LSDB) ............................................................. 37 1 Surface.

AGM–114 (Hellfire) ......................................................... 20 3 (10 ft depth).

AGM–175 (Griffin) .......................................................... 13 2 Surface.

2.75 Rockets .................................................................. 12 12 Surface.

PGU–13 HEI 30 mm ...................................................... 0.1 125 Surface.

AGM = air-to-ground missile; cal = caliber; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; ft = feet; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary; lbs 

= pounds; mm = millimeters; N/A = not applicable; NEW = net explosive weight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = small diameter bomb; PTS = 

permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift; WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser. 

Based on the ranges presented in 

Table 6 and factoring operational 

limitations associated with survey-based 

vessel support for the missions, Eglin 

AFB estimates that during pre-mission 

surveys, the proposed monitoring area 

would be approximately 5 km (3.1 

miles) from the target area, which 

corresponds to the Level A harassment 

threshold range. Eglin AFB proposes to 

survey the same-sized area for each 

mission day, regardless of the planned 

munition expenditures. By clearing the 

Level A harassment threshold range of 

protected species, animals that may 

enter the area after the completed premission surveys but prior to detonation 

would not reach the smaller slight lung 

injury or mortality zones (presented in 

Table 5). Because of human safety 

issues, Eglin AFB would require 

observers to leave the test area at least 

30 minutes in advance of live weapon 

deployment and move to a position on 

the safety zone periphery, 

approximately 9.5 miles (15 km) from 

the detonation point. Observers would 

continue to scan for marine mammals 

from the periphery, but effectiveness 

would be limited as the boat would 

remain at a designated station. 

Density Estimation 

Density estimates for bottlenose 

dolphin and spotted dolphin were 

derived from two sources (Table 7). 

NMFS provided detailed information on 

Eglin AFB’s derivation of density 

estimates for the bottlenose and Atlantic 

spotted dolphins in the notice for the 

proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, 

December 8, 2014). The information 

presented in that notice has not changed 

and NMFS refers the reader to Section 

3 of Eglin AFB’s application for detailed 

information on all equations used to 

calculate densities presented in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY

ESTIMATES WITHIN EGLIN AFB’S

EGTTR 

Species 

Density 

(animals/

km 2) 

Bottlenose dolphin 1 .................. 1.194 

Atlantic spotted dolphin 2 .......... 0.265 

Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/

Atlantic spotted dolphin 2 ...... 0.009 

1Source: Garrison, 2008; adjusted for observer and availability bias by the author. 2Source: Fulling et al., 2003; adjusted for 

negative bias based on information provided 

by Barlow (2003; 2006). 

Take Estimation 

NMFS recalculated the takes 

proposed in previous notice for the 

proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, 

December 8, 2014) by eliminating the 

double counting of the estimated take 

for each species and appropriately 

rounding take estimates before summing 

the total take. 

Table 8 indicates the modeled 

potential for lethality, injury, and noninjurious harassment (including 

behavioral harassment) to marine 

mammals in the absence of mitigation 

measures. Table 8 includes the revised 

number of marine mammals, by species, 

that Eglin AFB could potentially take 

incidental to the conduct of Maritime 

WSEP operations. The re-calculation 

results in zero take by mortality, zero 

take by slight lung injury, and zero take 

by gastrointestinal tract injury. 

Compared to the take levels that NMFS 

previously proposed (79 FR 72631, 

December 8, 2014), the re-estimation has 

reduced take estimates for Level A 

harassment (PTS) by approximately five 

percent to a total of 38 marine 

mammals; reduced the take estimates 

for Level B harassment (TTS) by 

approximately eight percent to a total of 

445 marine mammals; and reduced take 

estimates for Level B harassment 

(behavioral) by approximately 51 

percent to a total of 497 marine 

mammals. Based on the remodeling of 

the number of marine mammals 

potentially affected by maritime strike 

missions, NMFS would authorize take 

for Level A and Level B harassment 

presented in Table 8 of this notice. 

Eglin AFB and NMFS estimate that 

approximately 38 marine mammals 

could be exposed to injurious Level A 

harassment noise levels (187 dB SEL) 

and approximately 942 animals could 

be exposed to Level B harassment (TTS 

and behavioral) noise levels. 

TABLE 8—RE-MODELED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY MARITIME WSEP OPERATIONS. AUTHORIZED TAKES FOR LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ARE THE SAME AS THOSE MODELED. NMFS WOULD NOT

AUTHORIZE TAKES FOR MORTALITY OR SERIOUS INJURY. 

Species Mortality 

Level A 

harassment 

(PTS only) 

Level B 

harassment 

(TTS) 

Level B 

harassment 

(behavioral) 

Bottlenose dolphin ........................................................................................................... 0 33 373 423 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ................................................................................................... 0 5 68 69 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

17406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 8—RE-MODELED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY MARITIME WSEP OPERATIONS. AUTHORIZED TAKES FOR LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ARE THE SAME AS THOSE MODELED. NMFS WOULD NOT

AUTHORIZE TAKES FOR MORTALITY OR SERIOUS INJURY.—Continued 

Species Mortality 

Level A 

harassment 

(PTS only) 

Level B 

harassment 

(TTS) 

Level B 

harassment 

(behavioral) 

Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic spotted dolphin ................................................. 0 0 4 5 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 0 38 445 497 

Based on the mortality exposure 

estimates calculated by the acoustic 

model, zero marine mammals are 

expected to be affected by pressure 

levels associated with mortality or 

serious injury. Zero marine mammals 

are expected to be exposed to pressure 

levels associated with slight lung injury 

or gastrointestinal tract injury. 

NMFS generally considers PTS to fall 

under the injury category (Level A 

Harassment). An animal would need to 

stay very close to the sound source for 

an extended amount of time to incur a 

serious degree of PTS, which could 

increase the probability of mortality. In 

this case, it would be highly unlikely for 

this scenario to unfold given the nature 

of any anticipated acoustic exposures 

that could potentially result from a 

mobile marine mammal that NMFS 

generally expects to exhibit avoidance 

behavior to loud sounds within the 

EGTTR. 

NMFS has relied on the best available 

scientific information to support the 

issuance of Eglin AFB’s authorization. 

In the case of authorizing Level A 

harassment, NMFS has estimated that 

no more than 33 bottlenose dolphins 

and 5 Atlantic spotted dolphins could, 

although unlikely, experience minor 

permanent threshold shifts of hearing 

sensitivity (PTS). The available data and 

analyses, as described more fully in 

notice for the proposed Authorization 

(79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014) 

include extrapolation results of many 

studies on marine mammal noiseinduced temporary threshold shifts of 

hearing sensitivities. An extensive 

review of TTS studies and experiments 

prompted NMFS to conclude that 

possibility of minor PTS in the form of 

slight upward shift of hearing threshold 

at certain frequency bands by a few 

individuals of marine mammals is 

extremely low, but not unlikely. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

As explained previously, the term 

‘‘negligible impact’’ is defined 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). The lack of likely adverse 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival (i.e., population level effects) 

forms the basis of a negligible impact 

finding. Thus, an estimate of the 

number of Level B harassment takes, 

alone, is not enough information on 

which to base an impact determination. 

In addition to considering estimates of 

the number of marine mammals that 

might be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

migration, etc.), as well as the number 

and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, and the number of 

estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, 

and the status of the species. 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, we consider: 

• The number of anticipated injuries, 

serious injuries, or mortalities; 

• The number, nature, and intensity, 

and duration of Level B harassment; and 

• The context in which the takes 

occur (e.g., impacts to areas of 

significance, impacts to local 

populations, and cumulative impacts 

when taking into account successive/

contemporaneous actions when added 

to baseline data); 

• The status of stock or species of 

marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not 

depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, 

impact relative to the size of the 

population); 

• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of 

recruitment/survival; and 

• The effectiveness of monitoring and 

mitigation measures to reduce the 

number or severity of incidental take. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document and based on the following 

factors, Eglin AFB’s specified activities 

are not likely to cause long-term 

behavioral disturbance, or other nonauditory injury, serious injury, or death. 

The takes from Level B harassment 

will be due to potential behavioral 

disturbance and TTS. The takes from 

Level A harassment will be due to 

potential PTS. Activities would only 

occur over a timeframe of two to three 

weeks in beginning in February, 2015, 

with one, four-hour mission occurring 

each day. It is possible that some 

individuals may be taken more than 

once if those individuals are located in 

the exercise area on two different days 

when exercises are occurring. However, 

multiple exposures are not anticipated 

to have effects beyond Level A and 

Level B harassment. 

Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, 

which includes PTS) are defined as 

increases in the threshold of audibility 

(i.e., the sound has to be louder to be 

detected) of the ear at a certain 

frequency or range of frequencies (ANSI 

1995; Yost 2000). Several important 

factors relate to the magnitude of TS, 

such as level, duration, spectral content 

(frequency range), and temporal pattern 

(continuous, intermittent) of exposure 

(Yost 2000; Henderson et al. 2008). TS 

occurs in terms of frequency range 

(hertz [Hz] or kHz), hearing threshold 

level (dB), or both frequency and 

hearing threshold level (CDC 2004). 

In addition, there are different degrees 

of PTS: Ranging from slight/mild to 

moderate and from severe to profound 

(Clark 1981). Profound PTS or the 

complete loss of the ability to hear in 

one or both ears is commonly referred 

to as deafness (CDC 2004; WHO 2006). 

High-frequency PTS, presumably as a 

normal process of aging that occurs in 

humans and other terrestrial mammals, 

has also been demonstrated in captive 

cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder 1997; 

Yuen et al. 2005; Finneran et al. 2005a; 

Houser and Finneran 2006; Finneran et 

al. 2007a; Schlundt et al. 2011) and in 

stranded individuals (Mann et al. 2010). 

In terms of what is analyzed for the 

potential PTS (Level A harassment) in 

marine mammals as a result of Eglin 

AFB’s Maritime WSEP operations, if it 

occurs, NMFS has determined that the 

levels would be slight/mild because 

research shows that most cetaceans 

show relatively high levels of 

avoidance. Further, it is uncommon to 

sight marine mammals within the target 

area, especially for prolonged durations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices 17407 

Results from monitoring programs 

associated other Eglin AFB activities 

have shown the absence of marine 

mammals within the EGTTR during 

maritime operations. Avoidance varies 

among individuals and depends on their 

activities or reasons for being in the area 

While animals may be impacted in 

the immediate vicinity of the activity, 

because of the short duration of the 

actual individual explosions themselves 

(versus continual sound source 

operation) combined with the short 

duration of the Maritime WSEP 

operations, NMFS has determined that 

there will not be a substantial impact on 

marine mammals or on the normal 

functioning of the nearshore or offshore 

Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. The 

proposed activity is not expected to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of marine mammals since neither 

mortality (which would remove 

individuals from the population) nor 

serious injury are anticipated to occur. 

In addition, the proposed activity would 

not occur in areas (and/or times) of 

significance for the marine mammal 

populations potentially affected by the 

exercises (e.g., feeding or resting areas, 

reproductive areas), and the activities 

would only occur in a small part of their 

overall range, so the impact of any 

potential temporary displacement 

would be negligible and animals would 

be expected to return to the area after 

the cessations of activities. Although the 

proposed activity could result in Level 

A (PTS only, not slight lung injury or 

gastrointestinal tract injury) and Level B 

(behavioral disturbance and TTS) 

harassment of marine mammals, the 

level of harassment is not anticipated to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of marine mammals because the number 

of exposed animals is expected to be 

low due to the short-term (i.e., four 

hours a day) and site-specific nature of 

the activity, and the severity of effect 

would not be detrimental to rates of 

recruitment and survival. 

Moreover, the mitigation and 

monitoring measures required by the 

Authorization (described earlier in this 

document) are expected to further 

minimize the potential for harassment. 

The protected species surveys would 

require Eglin AFB to search the area for 

marine mammals, and if any are found 

in the live fire area, then the exercise 

would be suspended until the animal(s) 

has left the area or relocated. Moreover, 

marine species observers located in the 

Eglin control tower would monitor the 

high-definition video feed from cameras 

located on the instrument barge 

anchored on-site for the presence of 

protected species. Furthermore, 

Maritime WSEP missions would be 

delayed or rescheduled if the sea state 

is greater than a 4 on the Beaufort Scale 

at the time of the test. In addition, 

Maritime WSEP missions would occur 

no earlier than two hours after sunrise 

and no later than two hours prior to 

sunset to ensure adequate daylight for 

pre- and post-mission monitoring. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS finds that Eglin AFB’s Maritime 

WSEP operations will result in the 

incidental take of marine mammals, by 

Level A and Level B harassment only, 

and that the taking from the Maritime 

WSEP exercises will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. Therefore, NMFS has 

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) 

Eglin AFB initiated consultation with 

the Southeast Region, NMFS, under 

section 7 of the ESA regarding the 

effects of this action on ESA-listed 

species and critical habitat under the 

jurisdiction of NMFS. The consultation 

will be completed and a biological 

opinion issued prior to any final 

determinations on the Authorization. 

Due to the location of the activity, no 

ESA-listed marine mammal species are 

likely to be affected; therefore, NMFS 

has determined that this Authorization 

would have no effect on ESA-listed 

marine mammal species. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that a section 7 

consultation under the ESA is not 

required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

Eglin AFB provided NMFS with an 

Environmental Assessment titled, 

Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation 

Program (WSEP) Operational Testing In 

The Eglin Gulf Testing And Training 

Range (EGTTR), Florida. The EA 

analyzes the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts of 

the specified activities on marine 

mammals. NMFS, after review and 

evaluation of the Eglin AFB EA for 

consistency with the regulations 

published by the Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6, 

Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, adopted the 

EA. After considering the EA, the 

information in the IHA application, and 

the Federal Register notice, as well as 

public comments, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of an 

Authorization is not likely to result in 

significant impacts on the human 

environment and has prepared a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). An Environmental Impact 

Statement is not required and will not 

be prepared for the action. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization to Eglin AFB 

for conducting Maritime WSEP 

operations in the EGGTR, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: March 23, 2015. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07429 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Sanctuary System Business Advisory 

Council: Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a 

meeting of the Sanctuary System 

Business Advisory Council (Council). 

The meeting is open to the public, and 

participants may provide comments at 

the appropriate time during the meeting. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Wednesday, April 22, 2015, from 10:00 

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursday, April 

23, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

EDT. An opportunity for public 

comment will be provided on April 23, 

2015 at 11:30 a.m. EDT. These times and 

the agenda topics described below are 

subject to change. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Hubbard Hall Board Room of the 

National Geographic Society, 1146 16th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES