Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51341 

federal and commercial contracting and 

financing opportunities, the size of the 

market, and the need for MBDA 

resources in the applicant’s defined 

service area should also be discussed. (5 

Points) 

4. Proposed Budget and Supporting 

Budget Narrative (20 Points) 

The applicant’s proposal will be 

evaluated on the following sub-criteria: 

• Reasonableness, allowability and 

allocability of costs (5 points). MBDA 

anticipates that 75% of the funding 

level will be allocated to key staff, such 

as the Executive Director and senior 

business development persons. 

• Proposed cost sharing of 30 percent 

is required and must be documented, 

including whether client fees for 

brokering will be charged and applied to 

the cost share. Applicants choosing to 

charge fees should set forth a fee 

schedule in their proposals (5 points). 

• Performance-based Budget. Discuss 

how the budget is related to the 

accomplishment of the work 

requirements and the Performance 

measures. Provide a budget narrative 

that clearly shows the connections. (10 

points) 

• Non Federal Cost sharing exceeding 

30 percent that is related to additional 

staff (5) bonus points). 

Intergovernmental Review 

Applications under this program are 

not subject to Executive Order 12372, 

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs.’’

Limitation of Liability 

Applicants are hereby given notice 

that funds have not yet been 

appropriated for this program. In no 

event will MBDA or the department of 

Commerce be responsible for proposal 

preparation costs if this program fails to 

receive funding or is cancelled because 

of other agency priorities. Publication of 

this announcement does not oblige 

MBDA or the Department of Commerce 

to award any specific project or to 

obligate any available funds. 

Universal Identifier 

Applicant should be aware that they 

may be required to provide a Dun and 

Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering 

system (DUNS) number during the 

application process. See the June 27, 

2003 (68 FR 38402) Federal Register 

notice for additional information. 

Organization can receive a DUNS 

number at no cost by calling the 

dedicated toll-free DUNS Number 

request line at 1–866–705–5711 or on 

MBDA’s Web site at http:// 

www.mbda.gov. 

Department of Commerce Pre-Award 

Notification Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements 

The Department of Commerce PreAward Notification Requirements for 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

contained in the Federal Register notice 

of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are 

applicable to this solicitation. 

Application Forms and Package 

A completed proposal submitted by 

mail, hand delivery, or electronically 

consists of the following sections: 

—Program Narrative; 

—Budget and Budget Narrative; 

—Standard Forms 424; 424A; 424B; 

and SF LLL; and 

lDepartment of Commerce forms 

CD–346; and CD–511. 

Failure to include, by the deadline, a 

signed, original SF–424 with the paper 

application, or separately in conjunction 

with an electronically submitted 

application, will result in the 

application being rejected and returned 

to the applicant. Failure to sign and 

submit the remaining forms with the 

paper application, or separately in 

conjunction with an electronically 

submitted application, by the deadline, 

will automatically cause an application 

to lose two (2) points in the overall 

score. MBDA shall not accept any 

changes, additions, revisions or 

deletions to competitive applications 

after the closing date for receiving 

applications. MBDA may contact 

applicants for additional clarifications. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) the use 

of standard forms 424, 424A, 424B, CD 

346, and SF–LLL have been approved 

by OMB under the respective control 

numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 0348–

0040, 0605–0001, and 0348–0046. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection displays a currently valid 

OMB control Number. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of E.O. 

12866. 

Administrative Procedure Act/ 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Prior notice for an opportunity for 

public comment are not required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act for rules 

concerning public property, loans, 

grant, benefits and contracts (5 U.S.C. 

533(a)(2)). Because notice and 

opportunity for comment are not 

required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533 or any 

other law, the analytical requirements of 

the regulatory flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 

601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, 

a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required and has not been prepared. 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Ronald J. Marin, 

Financial Management Officer, Minority 

Business Development Agency. 

[FR Doc. 05–17233 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–21–U 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 031005B] 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; Naval 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal School 

training operations at Eglin Air Force 

Base, Florida 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

provisions of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, 

notification is hereby given that NMFS 

has issued an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to Eglin Air Force 

Base (EAFB) to take marine mammals by 

Level B harassment incidental to Naval 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal School 

(NEODS) training operations, which 

include up to 30 detonations per year of 

small C–4 charges, off Santa Rosa Island 

(SRI) at EAFB. 

DATES: Effective from August 1, 2005, 

through July 31, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the 

application are available by writing to 

Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225, or by telephoning the 

contact listed here. A copy of the 

application containing a list of 

references used in this document may 

be obtained by writing to this address, 

by telephoning the contact listed here 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) 

or online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

protlres/PR2/SmalllTake/ 

51342 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

smalltakelinfo.htm#applications. 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at the aforementioned 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie 

Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext 166. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional taking of marine mammals 

by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

may be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, 

and that the permissible methods of 

taking and requirements pertaining to 

the monitoring and reporting of such 

taking are set forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as: 

an impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably expected 

to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 

affect the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. The 

National Defense Authorization Act of 

2004 (NDAA) (Public Law 108–136) 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’

in section 18(A) of the MMPA 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]. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–

day time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a 30–day public 

notice and comment period on any 

proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of small numbers 

of marine mammals. Within 45 days of 

the close of the comment period, NMFS 

must either issue or deny issuance of 

the authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On March 11, 2004, NMFS received 

an application from EAFB, under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

requesting authorization for the 

harassment of Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and 

Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella 

frontalis) incidental to NEODS training 

operations at EAFB, Florida, in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Each of 

up to six missions per year would 

include up to five live detonations of 

approximately 5–pound (2.3–kg) net 

explosive weight charges to occur in 

approximately 60–ft (18.3–m) deep 

water from 1–3 nm (1.9 to 5.6 km) off 

shore. Because this activity will be a 

multi-year activity, NMFS also plans to 

develop proposed regulations for 

NEODS training operations at EAFB. 

Specified Activities 

The mission of NEODS is to train 

personnel to detect, recover, identify, 

evaluate, render safe, and dispose of 

unexploded ordnance (UXO) that 

constitutes a threat to people, material, 

installations, ships, aircraft, and 

operations. The NEODS proposes to 

utilize three areas within the Eglin Gulf 

Test and Training Range (EGTTR), 

consisting of approximately 86,000 

square miles within the GOM and the 

airspace above, for Mine 

Countermeasures (MCM) detonations, 

which involve mine-hunting and mineclearance operations. The detonation of 

small, live explosive charges disables 

the function of the mines, which are 

inert for training purposes. The 

proposed training would occur 

approximately one to three nautical 

miles (nm) (1.9 to 5.6 km) offshore of 

SRI six times annually, at varying times 

within the year. 

Each of the six training classes would 

include one or two ‘‘Live Demolition 

Days.’’ During each set of Live 

Demolition Days, five inert mines would 

be placed in a compact area on the sea 

floor in approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) of 

water. Divers would locate the mines by 

hand-held sonars. The AN/PQS–2A 

acoustic locator has a sound pressure 

level (SPL) of 178.5 re 1 microPascal at 

1 meter and the Dukane Underwater 

Acoustic Locator has a SPL of 157–160.5 

re 1 microPascal at 1 meter. Because 

these sonar ranges are below any current 

threshold for protected species, noise 

impacts are not anticipated and are not 

addressed further in this analysis. 

Five charges packed with five lbs (2.3 

kg) of C–4 explosive material will be set 

up adjacent to each of the mines. No 

more than five charges will be detonated 

over the 2–day period. Detonation times 

will begin no earlier than 2 hours after 

sunrise and end no later than 2 hours 

before dusk and charges utilized within 

the same hour period will have a 

maximum separation time of 20 

minutes. Mine shapes and debris will be 

recovered and removed from the water 

when training is completed. A more 

detailed description of the work 

proposed for 2005 and 2006 is 

contained in the application which is 

available upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

Military Readiness Activity 

NEODS supports the Naval Fleet by 

providing training to personnel from all 

four armed 

services, civil officials, and military 

students from over 70 countries. The 

NEODS facility supports the Department 

of Defense Joint Service Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal training mission. 

The Navy and the Marine Corps believe 

that the ability of Sailors and Marines to 

detect, characterize, and neutralize 

mines from their operating areas at sea, 

on the shore, and inland, is vital to their 

doctrines. 

The Navy believes that an array of 

transnational, rogue, and subnational 

adversaries now pose the most 

immediate threat to American interests. 

Because of their relative low cost and 

ease of use, mines will be among the 

adversaries’ weapons of choice in 

shallow-water situations, and they will 

be deployed in an asymmetrical and 

asynchronous manner. The Navy needs 

organic means to clear mines and 

obstacles rapidly in three challenging 

environments: shallow water; the surf 

zone; and the beach zone. The Navy also 

needs a capability for rapid clandestine 

surveillance and reconnaissance of 

minefields and obstacles in these 

environments. The NEODS mission in 

the GOM offshore of EAFB is considered 

a military readiness activity pursuant to 

the NDAA (Public Law 108–136). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of the EAFB 

application and proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33122). During the 

comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) and one 

individual. 

Comment 1: The Commission notes 

that the proposed weapons test appears 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51343 

to fit within the definition of a ‘‘military 

readiness activity’’ as defined in section 

315(f) of Public Law 107–314, which 

includes ‘‘the adequate and realistic 

testing of military equipment, vehicles, 

weapons, and sensors for proper 

operation and suitability for combat 

use.’’ As such, the revised definition of 

harassment adopted in the NDAA 

(Public Law 108–136) would seem to be 

applicable in this instance. However, 

NMFS’ analysis of the small take request 

does not seem to have employed this 

definition. If NMFS’ preliminary 

conclusion that ‘‘no take by serious 

injury and/or death is anticipated, and 

the potential for temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment is low 

and will be avoided through the 

incorporation of (proposed) mitigation 

measures is correct, it may be that no 

taking by harassment can be expected 

and that no authorization is needed. The 

Commission therefore recommends that 

NMFS analyze the request for an IHA 

and the small take regulations being 

contemplated in light of the applicable 

definition of the term ‘‘harassment.’’

Although the Commission appreciates 

NMFS has yet to promulgate regulations 

or take other steps to implement the 

new definition, the statutory change 

cannot be ignored. 

Response: In the preamble to the 

notice of proposed authorization and in 

this document, NMFS cited the NDAA 

definition of Level B harassment for 

military readiness activities. While 

NMFS believes that the monitoring to be 

implemented by EAFB will ensure that 

Level A harassment or mortality is 

highly unlikely, an authorization under 

section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA is 

warranted because some animals could 

be injured (estimate is 0.4 animals per 

year) if the mitigation and monitoring 

overlooks an animal. 

Given the uncertainty associated with 

predicting animal presence and 

behavior in the field, NMFS accords 

some deference to applicants requesting 

an MMPA authorization for an activity 

that might fall slightly below the NDAA 

definition of harassment, so that they 

are covered for impacts that may rise to 

the level of take. Equally important, 

such an authorization also carries with 

it responsibilities to implement 

mitigation and monitoring measures to 

protect marine mammals. 

Comment 2: The Commission remains 

concerned that NMFS assessment of 

potential harassment levels fails to 

apply the statutory definition of 

‘‘harassment’’ in the MMPA. It is the 

Commission’s view that an across-theboard definition of temporary threshold 

shift (TTS) as constituting no more than 

Level B Harassment inappropriately 

dismisses possible injury and 

biologically significant behavioral 

effects to the affected animals. 

Response: As mentioned in previous 

Federal Register documents, second 

level impacts due to a marine mammal 

having a temporary hearing impairment 

cannot be predicted and are, therefore, 

speculative. The principal reason that 

second level impacts are not considered 

in classification is that any Level B 

disruption of behavior could, with 

suppositions, be seen as potentially 

dangerous and, therefore, considered 

potential Level A harassment or even 

lethal. Similarly, Level A injuries could 

be seen as being accompanied by some 

disruption of behavior and, therefore, 

Level B disturbances as well as Level A 

injuries. Such reasoning blurs the 

distinctions that the definitions of 

harassment attempt to make. NMFS 

believes that Level B harassment, if of 

sufficient degree and duration, can be 

very serious and require consideration, 

as has been done here. Moderate TTS 

does not necessarily mean that the 

animal cannot hear, only that its 

threshold of hearing is raised above its 

normal level. The extent of time that 

this impairment remains is dependent 

upon the amount of initial threshold 

shift which in turn depends on the 

strength of the received sound and 

whether the TTS is in a frequency range 

that the animal depends on for receiving 

cues that would benefit survival. It 

should be noted that increased ambient 

noise levels, due to biologics, storms, 

shipping, and tectonic events may also 

result in short-term decreases in an 

animal’s ability to hear normally. NMFS 

scientists believe that marine mammals 

have likely adopted behavioral 

responses, such as decreased spatial 

separation, slower swimming speeds, 

and cessation of socialization to 

compensate for increased ambient noise 

or shifts in hearing threshold levels. 

Ship strikes of whales by large vessels 

suggest that at least certain species of 

large whales do not use vessel sounds 

to avoid interactions. Also, there is no 

indication that smaller whales and 

dolphins with TTS would modify 

behavior significantly enough to be 

struck by an approaching vessel. 

Finally, a hypothesis that marine 

mammals would be subject to increased 

predation presumes that the predators 

would either not be similarly affected by 

the detonation or would travel from 

areas outside the impact zone, 

indicating recognition between the 

signal of a single detonation at distance 

and potentially debilitated food sources. 

Therefore, NMFS does not believe the 

evidence warrants that all (or an 

unknown percentage) of the estimated 

numbers of Level B harassment be 

considered as Level A harassment or as 

potential mortalities. 

Comment 3: The Commission believes 

that NMFS needs to provide a better 

explanation of, and justification for, 

using the dual criteria established for 

determining non-lethal injury (i.e., the 

onset of slight lung hemorrhage and a 50 

percent probability for eardrum 

rupture). 

Response: Explanation and 

justification were provided in detail in 

both the SEAWOLF and CHURCHILL 

Final EISs (DoN 1998 and DoN 2001). 

An updated summary for using the dual 

injury criteria from those documents 

was provided in a recent Federal 

Register notice, published August 19, 

2005, announcing the issuance of an 

IHA for the Navy’s Precision Strike 

Weapons. 

Comment 4: The Commission states 

that defining Level B acoustic 

harassment from explosive detonation 

events in terms off TTS exclusively (i.e., 

behavioral changes related to temporary 

hearing impairment), like NMFS does, 

implies that behavioral changes not 

related to TTS would not constitute 

harassment as defined in the MMPA, 

which is inconsistent with the term 

‘‘harassment’’ as it is defined generally 

in the MMPA. 

Response: NMFS justification for the 

way Level B Harassment is defined as 

related to explosive detonations is 

addressed in detail in a recent Federal 

Register notice, published August 19, 

2005, announcing the issuance of an 

IHA for the Navy’s Precision Strike 

Weapons. 

Comment 5: The Commission believes 

that additional clarification and 

justification is needed concerning the 

threshold for ‘‘non-injurious behavioral 

response’’ proposed in the application 

(6 dB below TTS (i.e., 176 dB re 1 

microPa2-sec). 

Response: Based on the science used 

to develop the CHURCHILL criteria, for 

single detonations a significant response 

by a marine mammal is not expected to 

occur other than by TTS. As noted in 

the proposed authorization, NEODS 

training operations consist of six 

training sessions a year, and each 

session consists of five single small 

detonations over the course of 2 days. 

Due to the infrequent test events, the 

potential variability in target locations, 

and the continuous movement of marine 

mammals in the GOM, NMFS does not 

anticipate sub-TTS behavioral 

modification because the same animal 

will not be repeatedly exposed. The 

discussion in the application and 

Federal Register notice is relevant to 

actions involving multiple detonations. 

51344 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

NMFS will address comments on this 

threshold criterion in an applicable 

proposed IHA application with multiple 

detonations. 

Comment 6: The Commission believes 

that NMFS should provide a better 

explanation of and justification for 

using the 23 psi criterion (versus 12 psi) 

for estimating the TTS pressure 

threshold. 

Response: This issue remains under 

review by the Navy, the U.S. Air Force 

and NMFS. Navy acousticians believe 

that Ketten (1995), which summarized 

earlier acoustic research, does not fully 

support using a 12–psi peak pressure 

threshold for TTS for underwater 

explosion impacts on marine mammals 

from small detonations. The original 

basis in Ketten (1995) for the use of the 

12–psi threshold for the SEAWOLF and 

CHURCHILL actions (which were 

10,000 lb (4,536 kg) detonations) is the 

use of a combination of in-air and inwater peak pressure measurements 

without adjustment for the medium. A 

re-examination of the basis for the 12–

psi threshold by Navy acousticians 

indicates that, for underwater 

explosions of small charges, a higher 

threshold may be warranted. This led 

the Navy and Eglin to suggest scaling 12 

psi for small charges, which was used 

in the proposed authorization notice 

and analysis. Although this issue 

remains under review by NMFS and the 

Navy for future rulemaking actions, as 

an interim criterion for this IHA and for 

the Navy Precision Strike Weapon 

(PSW) IHA, NMFS is adopting the 

experimental findings of Finneran et al. 

(2002) that TTS can be induced at a 

pressure level of 23 psi (at least in 

belugas). As explained here, this is 

considered conservative since a 23–psi 

pressure level was below the level that 

induced TTS in bottlenose dolphins. 

Finneran et al. (2000; as described in 

Finneran et al. (2002)) conducted a 

study designed to measure masked TTS 

(MTTS) in bottlenose dolphins and 

belugas exposed to single underwater 

impulses. This study used an 

‘‘explosion simulator’’ (ES) to generate 

impulsive sounds with pressure 

waveforms resembling those produced 

by distant underwater explosions. No 

substantial (i.e., 6 dB or larger) 

threshold shifts were observed in any of 

the subjects (two bottlenose dolphins 

and 1 beluga) at the highest received 

level produced by the ES: 

approximately 70 kPa (10 psi) peak 

pressure, 221 dB re re 1 micro Pa peakto-peak (pk-pk) pressure, and 179 dB re 

1 microPa2–s total EFD. In Finneran et 

al. (2002), a watergun was substituted 

for the ES because it is capable of 

producing impulses with higher peak 

pressures and total energy fluxes than 

the pressure waveforms produced using 

the ES. It was also preferable to other 

seismic sources because its impulses 

contain more energy at higher 

frequencies, where odontocete hearing 

thresholds are relatively low (i.e., more 

sensitive). Hearing thresholds were 

measured at 0.4, 4 and 30 kHz. MTTSs 

of 7 and 6 dB were observed in the 

beluga at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively, 

approximately 2 minutes following 

exposure to single impulses with peak 

pressures of 160 kPa (23 psi), pk-pk 

pressures of 226 dB re 1 microPa, and 

total EFD of 186 dB re 1 microPa2–s. 

Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of 

the pre-exposure value approximately 4 

minutes post exposure. No MTTS was 

observed in the single bottlenose 

dolphin tested at the highest exposure 

conditions: peak pressure of 207 kPa (30 

psi), 228 dB re 1 microPa pk-pk 

pressure, and 188 dB re 1 microPa2–s 

total energy flux. Therefore, until more 

scientific information is obtained, 

NMFS has determined that the pressure 

criterion for small explosions can be 

raised from 12 psi to 23 psi. At this 

time, NMFS believes that setting the 

pressure metric at 23 psi is conservative. 

Analyses indicate that the ranges for 

the 23–psi TTS metric at depths of 60 

ft (18.3 m) (depth of NEODS missions) 

are slightly less conservative than the 

originally provided ranges for the 182–

dB (re 1 microPa2–s) TTS energy metric. 

For the NEODS activity, NMFS will use 

the more conservative values to 

determine impacts and areas that need 

to be monitored. 

Comment 7: Based on the information 

contained in the application and 

Federal Register notice, the 

Commission believes that NMFS’

preliminary determinations are 

reasonable, provided that the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring activities are 

adequate to detect all marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the proposed 

operations and sufficient to ensure that 

marine mammals are not being taken in 

unanticipated ways or numbers. The 

Commission notes however, that even 

under the best of conditions and using 

experienced observers, there is greater 

than an 80–percent likelihood that small 

cetaceans will not be observed if they 

are in the vicinity of the test site. Thus, 

although there may be a low probability 

that certain marine mammal species 

will be within the area where 

mortalities are considered possible at 

the time of weapon deployment, it is 

unclear that the proposed monitoring 

effort will be adequate to detect them if 

they are present. This being the case, the 

proposed monitoring activities may be 

insufficient to provide assurance that 

marine mammals are not being exposed 

to sound pressures or energy levels that 

could cause lethal injuries. Thus, 

NMFS, before issuing the requested 

authorization, should further explain its 

rationale for determining that the 

takings will only be by harassment. 

Response: The vessel monitoring 

effort for NEODS is similar to that used 

in previous Navy ship-shock actions, 

with the differences being that the zone 

of influence is significantly smaller and 

the water is shallower, both of which 

make it even more likely that a marine 

animal will be detected. In these past 

ship-shock actions, detonations of 

10,000 lbs (4536 kg) were used without 

any serious injuries or mortalities being 

noted during extensive follow-up 

monitoring. Though aerial surveys were 

also incorporated into the ship-shock 

monitoring measures, they were 

considered less effective than vessel 

monitoring for NEODS, and in fact, the 

Navy found that detection of bottlenose 

dolphins and spotted dolphins by 

shipboard observers was 100 percent 

(DON, 1999, Appendix C). Since, for 

safety reasons, the observer vessel will 

need to move out of the testing area 

immediately prior to the detonation (but 

will continue to monitor the ZOI), we 

can probably assume that the detection 

of dolphins within the ZOI is somewhat 

less than 100 percent. However, since 

the estimated (based on density 

estimates) number of any marine 

mammals that could potentially be 

exposed to energy levels that may cause 

Level A Harassment or death during the 

course of the 30 individual detonations 

per year, without any observers present, 

is only 0.4, NMFS is confident that no 

marine mammals will be killed as a 

result of EAFB’s NEODS training 

operations. 

Comment 8: The Commission 

recommends that, if NMFS determines 

that the potential for lethal injuries is 

sufficiently remote to warrant the 

issuance of an authorization under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, any 

such authorization explicitly require 

that operations be suspended 

immediately if a dead or seriously 

injured animal is found in the vicinity 

of the test site, pending authorization to 

proceed or issuance of regulations 

authorizing such takes under section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Commission’s recommendation and has 

included the requirement in the IHA. 

Description of Marine Mammals and 

Habitat Affected by the Activity 

Marine mammal species that 

potentially occur within the EGTTR 

include several species of cetaceans and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51345 

the West Indian manatee. While a few 

manatees may migrate as far north as 

Louisiana in the summer from southern 

Florida (where there are generally 

confined in the winter), they primarily 

inhabit coastal and inshore waters and 

rarely venture offshore. NEODS 

missions are conducted at a distance of 

between 1 and 3 nm (5.6 km) from shore 

and effects on manatees are therefore 

considered very unlikely and not 

discussed further in this analysis. 

Cetacean abundance estimates for the 

project area are derived from GulfCet II 

aerial surveys conducted from 1996 to 

1998 over a 70,470 km2 area, including 

nearly the entire continental shelf 

region of the EGTTR, which extends 

approximately 9 nm (16.7 km) from 

shore. The dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales are not included in this analysis 

because their potential for being found 

near the project site is remote. Although 

Atlantic spotted dolphins do not 

normally inhabit nearshore waters, they 

are included in the analysis to ensure 

conservative mitigation measures are 

applied. The two marine mammal 

species expected to be affected by these 

activities are the bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus) and the Atlantic 

spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis). 

Descriptions of the biology and local 

distribution of these species can be 

found in the application (see ADDRESSES

for availability), other sources such as 

Wursig et al. (2000), and the NMFS 

Stock Assessments, which can be 

viewed at: http://www.NMFS.noaa.gov/ 

pr/PR2/StocklAssessmentlProgram/ 

sars.html. 

The habitat at the NEODS test sites is 

approximately 60–ft (18.3–m) deep open 

water. The EGTTR contains many reefs, 

both natural and artificial, but the 

closest reef to the NEODS test site is an 

artificial reef over 2 mi (3.2 km) away. 

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are 

distributed worldwide in tropical and 

temperate waters and occur in the slope, 

shelf, and inshore waters of the GOM. 

Based on a combination of geography 

and ecological and genetic research, 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins have been 

divided into many separate stocks 

within the GOM. The exact structure of 

these stocks is complex and continues 

to be revised as research is completed. 

For now, bottlenose dolphins inhabiting 

waters less than 20 m (66 ft) deep in the 

U.S. GOM are believed to constitute 36 

inshore or coastal stocks, and those 

inhabiting waters from 20 to 200 m (66 

to 656 ft) deep in the northern GOM 

from the U.S.-Mexican border to the 

Florida Keys are considered the 

continental shelf stock (Waring et al., 

2004). The proposed action would occur 

on the ocean floor at a depth of 

approximately 60 ft (18 m) and therefore 

has the potential to affect both the 

continental shelf and inshore stocks. 

Continental shelf stock assessments 

were estimated using data from vessel 

surveys conducted between 1998 and 

2001 (at 20– to 200–m (66– to 656–ft) 

depths). The minimum population 

estimate for the northern GOM 

continental shelf stock of the Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphin is 20,414 (Waring et 

al., 2004). 

The most recent inshore stock 

assessment surveys were conducted 

aerially in 1993 and covered the area 

from the shore or bay boundaries out to 

9.3 km (5.0 nm) past the 18.3 m-depth 

(60.0 nm-depth) isobath (a slightly 

different area than that defined as 

inshore in the more recent stock 

assessment above). The minimum 

population estimate of the northern 

GOM coastal stock of the Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphin was 3,518 dolphins 

(Waring et al., 1997). 

Texas A&M University and the NMFS 

conducted GulfCet II aerial surveys in 

an area including the EGTTR from 1996 

to 1998. Density estimates were 

calculated using abundance data 

collected from the continental shelf area 

of the EGTTR. In an effort to provide 

better species conservation and 

protection, estimates were adjusted to 

incorporate temporal and spatial 

variations, surface and submerged 

variations, and overall density 

confidence. The adjusted density 

estimate for Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins within the project area is 0.810 

individuals/km2. A small number of 

dolphins could not be identified 

specifically as Atlantic bottlenose or 

Atlantic spotted and their estimated 

density was 0.053 individuals/km2. 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphins 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are endemic 

to the tropical and warm temperate 

waters of the Atlantic Ocean and can be 

found from the latitude of Cape May, 

New Jersey south along mainland shores 

to Venezuela, including the GOM and 

Lesser Antilles. In the GOM, Atlantic 

spotted dolphins occur primarily in 

continental shelf waters 10 to 200 m (33 

to 656 ft) deep out to continental slope 

waters less than 500 m (1640.4 ft) deep. 

One recent study presents strong genetic 

support for differentiation between 

GOM and western North Atlantic 

management stocks, but the Gulf of 

Mexico stock has not yet been further 

subdivided. 

Abundance was estimated in the most 

recent assessment of the northern GOM 

stock of the Atlantic spotted dolphin 

using combined data from continental 

shelf surveys (20 to 200 m (66 to 656 ft) 

deep) and oceanic surveys (200 m (656 

ft)) to the offshore extent of U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone) conducted 

from 1996 to 2001. The minimum 

population estimate for the northern 

GOM is 24,752 Atlantic spotted 

dolphins (Waring et al., 2004). 

Density estimates for the Atlantic 

spotted dolphin within the EGTTR were 

calculated using abundance data 

collected during the GulfCet II aerial 

surveys. In an effort to provide better 

species conservation and protection, 

estimates were adjusted to incorporate 

temporal and spatial variations, surface 

and submerged variations, and overall 

density confidence. The adjusted 

density estimate for Atlantic spotted 

dolphins within the project area is 0.677 

individuals/km2. A small number of 

dolphins could not be identified 

specifically as Atlantic bottlenose or 

Atlantic spotted and their estimated 

density was 0.053 individuals/km2. 

Potential Effects of Activities on Marine 

Mammals 

The primary potential impact to the 

Atlantic bottlenose and the Atlantic 

spotted dolphins occurring in the 

EGTTR from the proposed detonations 

is Level B harassment from noise. There 

is a slight potential, absent mitigation, 

that a few mammals would be injured 

or killed due to the energy generated 

from an explosive force on the sea floor. 

Analysis of NEODS noise impacts to 

cetaceans was based on criteria and 

thresholds presented in both Finneran 

et al., 2002, and in the U.S. Navy 

Environmental Impact Statements for 

ship shock trials of the SEAWOLF 

submarine and the WINSTON 

CHURCHILL vessel and subsequently 

adopted by NMFS. 

Non-lethal injurious impacts (Level A 

Harassment) are defined in as tympanic 

membrane (TM) rupture and the onset 

of slight lung injury. The threshold for 

Level A Harassment corresponds to a 50 

percent rate of TM rupture, which can 

be stated in terms of an energy flux 

density (EFD) value of 205 dB re 1 

microPa2s. TM rupture is wellcorrelated with permanent hearing 

impairment (Ketten (1998) indicates a 

30–percent incidence of permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) at the same 

threshold). The zone of influence 

(ZOI)(farthest distance from the source 

at which an animal is exposed to the 

EFD level referred to) for the Level A 

Harassment threshold is 52.2 m (171.6 

ft). 

Level B (non-injurious) Harassment 

includes temporary (auditory) threshold 

shift (TTS), a slight, recoverable loss of 

51346 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

hearing sensitivity. The energy criterion 

used for TTS is 182 dB re 1 microPa2’s 

maximum EFD level in any 1/3–octave 

band above 100 Hz for toothed whales 

(e.g., dolphins). The ZOI for this 

threshold is 229.8 m (754.0 ft). The 

pressure criterion, 23 psi, has recently 

been established by NMFS based on the 

more current work of Finneran et al., 

2002. The ZOI for 23 psi is 222 m (728 

ft). A detailed justification for the recent 

change in NMFS’ pressure exposure 

criteria may be found in the Federal 

Register notice for the issuance of an 

IHA to the Navy for Precision Strike 

Weapons, published August 19, 2005. 

Level B Harassment also includes 

behavioral modifications resulting from 

repeated noise exposures (below TTS) to 

the same animals (usually resident) over 

a relatively short period of time. No 

strictly sub-TTS behavioral responses 

(i.e., Level B harassment) are anticipated 

with the NEODS training activities 

because there are no successive 

detonations (5 small detonations in the 

course of 2 days, some of which may be 

separated by less than 20 minutes, but 

which would be in separate locations) 

which could provide causation for a 

behavioral disruption rising to the level 

of a significant alteration or 

abandonment of behavioral patterns 

without also causing TTS. Also, 

repetitive exposures (below TTS) to the 

same resident animals are highly 

unlikely due to the infrequent NEODS 

training sessions (6 sessions per year), 

the potential variability in target 

locations, and the continuous 

movement of marine mammals in the 

northern GOM. 

Because of mitigation measures 

proposed, NMFS anticipates that only 

Level B harassment will occur 

incidental to the NEODS training 

operations and that these events will 

result in no more than a negligible 

impact on marine mammal species or 

their habitats. 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

Mitigation will consist primarily of 

surveying and taking action to avoid 

detonating charges when protected 

species are within the ZOI. A trained, 

NMFS-approved observerwill be staged 

from the highest point possible on a 

support ship and have proper lines of 

communication to the Officer in 

Tactical Command. The survey area will 

be 460 m (1509 ft) in every direction 

from the target, which is twice the 

radius of the ZOI for Level B 

Harassment (230 m (755 ft)). To ensure 

visibility of marine mammals to 

observers, NEODS missions will be 

delayed if whitecaps cover more than 50 

percent of the surface or if the waves are 

greater than 3 feet (Beaufort Sea State 4). 

Pre-mission monitoring will be used 

to evaluate the test site for 

environmental suitability of the 

mission. Visual surveys will be 

conducted 2 hours, 1 hour, and 5 

minutes prior to the mission to verify 

that the ZOI (230 m (755 ft)) is free of 

visually detectable marine mammals, 

sea turtles, large schools of fish, large 

flocks of birds, large Sargassum mats, or 

large concentrations of jellyfish and that 

the weather is adequate to support 

visual surveys. The observer will plot 

and record sightings, bearing, and time 

for all marine mammals detected, which 

would allow the observer to determine 

if the animal is likely to enter the test 

area during detonation. If an animal 

appears likely to enter the test area 

during detonation, if marine mammals, 

sea turtles, large schools of fish, large 

flocks of birds, large Sargassum mats, or 

large concentrations of jellyfish are 

present, or if the weather is inadequate 

to support monitoring, the observer will 

declare the range fouled and the tactical 

officer will implement a hold until 

monitoring indicates that the test area is 

and will remain clear of detectable 

marine mammals or sea turtles. 

Monitoring of the test area will 

continue throughout the mission until 

the last detonation is complete. The 

mission would be postponed if: 

(1) Any marine mammal is visually 

detected within the ZOI (230 m (755 ft)). 

The delay would continue until the 

animal that caused the postponement is 

confirmed to be outside the ZOI 

(visually observed swimming out of the 

range). 

(2) Any marine mammal or sea turtle 

is detected in the ZOI and subsequently 

is not seen again. The mission would 

not continue until the last verified 

location is outside of the ZOI and the 

animal is moving away from the mission 

area. 

(3) Large Sargassum rafts or large 

concentrations of jellyfish are observed 

within the ZOI. The delay would 

continue until the Sargassum rafts or 

jellyfish that caused the postponement 

are confirmed to be outside of the ZOI 

either due to the current and/or wind 

moving them out of the mission area. 

(4) Large schools of fish are observed 

in the water within of the ZOI. The 

delay would continue until large fish 

schools are confirmed to be outside the 

ZOI. 

In the event of a postponement, premission monitoring would continue as 

long as weather and daylight hours 

allow. If a charge failed to explode, 

mitigation measures would continue 

while operations personnel attempted to 

recognize and solve the problem 

(detonate the charge). 

Post-mission monitoring is designed 

to determine the effectiveness of premission mitigation by reporting any 

sightings of dead or injured marine 

mammals or sea turtles. Post-detonation 

monitoring, concentrating on the area 

down current of the test site, will 

commence immediately following each 

detonation and continue for at least two 

hours after the last detonation. The 

monitoring team will document and 

report to the appropriate marine animal 

stranding network any marine mammals 

or turtles killed or injured during the 

test and, if practicable, recover and 

examine any dead animals. The species, 

number, location, and behavior of any 

animals observed by the teams would be 

documented and reported to the Officer 

in Tactical Command. 

Reporting 

EAFB will notify NMFS 2 weeks prior 

to initiation of each training session. 

Any takes of marine mammals other 

than those authorized by the IHA, as 

well as any injuries or deaths of marine 

mammals, will be reported to the 

Southeast Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, by the next working day. A 

summary of mission observations and 

test results, including dates, times, and 

locations of detonations as well as preand post-mission monitoring 

observations, will be submitted to the 

Division of Permits, Conservation, and 

Education, Office of Protected Resources 

(NMFS) and the Southeast Regional 

Office (NMFS) within 90 days after the 

completion of the last training session. 

Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected 

to be Harassed 

Estimates of the potential number of 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and 

Atlantic spotted dolphins to be harassed 

by the training were calculated using 

the number of distinct firing or test 

events (maximum 30 per year), the ZOI 

for noise exposure, and the density of 

animals that potentially occur in the 

ZOI. The take estimates provided here 

do not include mitigation measures, 

which are expected to further minimize 

impacts to protected species and make 

injury or death highly unlikely. 

The estimated number of Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic 

spotted dolphins that could potentially 

be exposed to the Level A Harassment 

threshold (205 dB re 1 microPa2 s) 

during one year is less than one (0.22 

and 0.19, respectively). 

For Level B Harassment, two separate 

criteria were established, one expressed 

in dB re 1 microPa2s maximum EFD 

level in any 1/3–octave band above 100 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51347 

Hz, and one expressed in psi. The 

estimated numbers of Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic 

spotted dolphins potentially exposed to 

182 dB and 23 psi, during one year, if 

mitigation measures were not effectively 

implemented within the 230–m (754 ft) 

ZOI, are 4 and 3 individuals. 

Possible Effects of Activities on Marine 

Mammal Habitat 

The Air Force anticipates no loss or 

modification to the habitat used by 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins or Atlantic 

spotted dolphins in the EGTTR. The 

primary source of marine mammal 

habitat impact resulting from the 

NEODS missions is noise, which is 

intermittent (maximum 30 times per 

year) and of limited duration. NMFS 

does not anticipate that either debris 

(which will be recovered following test 

activities) or the minimal chemical 

residue from the detonated charges will 

affect marine mammal habitat. 

Possible Effects of Activities on 

Subsistence Needs 

There are no subsistence uses for 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins Atlantic 

spotted dolphins in Florida waters, and 

thus, there are no anticipated effects on 

subsistence needs. 

Endangered Species Act 

In a Biological Opinion issued on 

October 25, 2004, NMFS concluded that 

the NEODS training missions and their 

associated actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened or endangered species under 

the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat that 

has been designated for those species. 

NMFS has issued an incidental take 

statement (ITS) for 4 species of sea 

turtles (leatherback sea turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea), green sea turtle 

(Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and 

loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)) 

pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. The ITS contains 

reasonable and prudent measures with 

implementing terms and conditions to 

minimize the effects of this take. This 

IHA action is within the scope of the 

previously analyzed action and does not 

change the action in a manner that was 

not considered previously. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) on the 

Issuance of Authorizations to Take 

Marine Mammals, by Harassment, 

Incidental to Naval Explosive Ordnance 

Disposal School Training Operations at 

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Therefore, 

preparation of an EIS on this action is 

not required by section 102(2) of the 

NEPA or its implementing regulations. 

A copy of the EA and FONSI are 

available upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

Conclusions 

NMFS has determined that the 

NEODS training operations, as 

described in this document and in the 

application for an IHA, will result in no 

more than Level B harassment of 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and 

Atlantic spotted dolphins and will have 

no more than a negligible impact on 

these stocks. The effects of the NEODS 

training are expected to be limited to 

short-term and localized TTS-related 

behavioral changes, and these takes will 

be at the lowest level practicable due to 

incorporation of the mitigation 

measures mentioned previously in this 

document. With the application of the 

mitigation measures, as well as the 

potential density of dolphins in the area 

of the NEODS training operations, 

NMFS believes it highly unlikely that 

the proposed action will result in any 

injury or mortality of marine mammals. 

Additionally, the NEODS training 

operations will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

marine mammal stocks for subsistence 

use, as there are no subsistence uses for 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins or Atlantic 

spotted dolphins in Florida waters. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued a 1–year IHA to 

EAFB for the take of Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins, 

by harassment, incidental to NEODS 

training operations, which include up to 

30 detonations of small C–4 charges per 

year, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

Donna Wieting, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–17224 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 082305D] 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

convene public meetings. 

DATES: The meetings will be held 

September 12 16, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held 

at the Wyndham Bourbon Orleans, 717 

Orleans Street, New Orleans, LA 70116. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 

North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, 

FL 33607. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Council 

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 

1:30 p.m. Convene. 

1:45 p.m. – 5 p.m. – Receive public 

testimony on (a) Final Reef Fish 

Amendment 18A/Environmental 

Assessment (EA), (b) Final Red Grouper 

Regulatory Amendment, and (c) 

Exempted fishing permits (if any). 

5 p.m. – 5:15 p.m. – Receive the Budget/ 

Personnel Committee Report. 

5:15 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. – Receive the 

Mackerel Management Committee 

Report. 

Thursday, September 15, 2005 

8:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. – Receive the 

joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management 

Committees Report. 

1 p.m. – 3 p.m. – Receive the Reef Fish 

Management Committee Report. 

3 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. – Receive the 

Migratory Species Management 

Committee Report. 

3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. – Receive the joint 

Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum 

Committees Report. 

4:30 p.m. – 5 p.m. – Receive the 

Administrative Policy Committee 

Report. 

Friday, September 16, 2005 

8:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. – Receive the 

Enforcement Reports. 

8:45 a.m. – 9 a.m. – Receive the 

Regional Administrator’s Report. 

9 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. – Receive the State 

Director’s Reports. 

9:30 a.m. – 10 a.m. – Other Business. 

10 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. – Election of Chair 

and Vice-Chair. 

Committee 

Monday, September 12, 2005 

8:30 a.m. – 12 noon – The Reef Fish 

Management Committee will review 

public hearing summaries, public 

letters, Advisory Panel (AP)