Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7307 

Approximately 15 minutes will be 

reserved for public comments at the end 

of the meeting. Speaking times will be 

assigned on a first-come, first-served 

basis. The amount of time per speaker 

will be determined by the number of 

requests received but is likely to be no 

more than three to five minutes each. 

The exact time for public comments will 

be included in the final agenda that will 

be posted on the MEP Advisory Board 

Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/

about/advisory-board.cfm. Questions 

from the public will not be considered 

during this period. Speakers who wish 

to expand upon their oral statements, 

those who had wished to speak but 

could not be accommodated on the 

agenda, and those who were unable to 

attend in person are invited to submit 

written statements to the MEP Advisory 

Board, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail 

Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

20899–4800, via fax at (301) 963–6556, 

or electronically by email to 

zara.brunner@nist.gov. 

Kevin Kimball, 

Chief of Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02768 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XE343 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air 

Force Conducting Maritime Weapon 

Systems Evaluation Program 

Operational Testing Within the Eglin 

Gulf Test and Training Range 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) implementing regulations, 

NMFS, we, hereby give notice that we 

have issued an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (Authorization) to the 

U.S. Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base 

(Eglin AFB), to take two species of 

marine mammals, the Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

and Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella 

frontalis), by harassment, incidental to a 

Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation 

Program (Maritime WSEP) within the 

Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in 

the Gulf of Mexico from February 4, 

2016 through February 3, 2017. Eglin 

AFB’s activities are military readiness 

activities per the MMPA, as amended by 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2004. 

DATES: Effective February 4, 2016, 

through February 3, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the 

final Authorization, Eglin AFB’s 

application and their final 

Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, 

‘‘Maritime Weapons System Evaluation 

Program are available by writing to Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; by 

telephoning the contacts listed here, or 

by visiting the internet at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/military.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals of a 

species or population stock, by U.S. 

citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region 

if, after NMFS provides a notice of a 

proposed authorization to the public for 

review and comment: (1) NMFS makes 

certain findings; and (2) the taking is 

limited to harassment. 

An Authorization for incidental 

takings for marine mammals shall be 

granted if NMFS finds that the taking 

will have a negligible impact on the 

species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of 

such taking are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from 

the specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act of 2004 (NDAA; Pub. L. 108–136) 

removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

‘‘specified geographical region’’ 

limitations indicated earlier and 

amended the definition of harassment as 

it applies to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity’’ to read as follows (Section 

3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that 

injures or has the significant potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild [Level A 

Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs 

or is likely to disturb a marine mammal 

or marine mammal stock in the wild by 

causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering, to a point where 

such behavioral patterns are abandoned 

or significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On February 5, 2015, we issued an 

Authorization to Eglin AFB to take 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to a Maritime Weapon 

Systems Evaluation Program (Maritime 

WSEP) within the Eglin Gulf Test and 

Training Range (EGTTR) in the Gulf of 

Mexico from February through April 

2015 (see 80 FR 17394, April 1, 2015). 

Eglin AFB conducted the Maritime 

WSEP training activities between 

February 9–12, and March 16–19, 2015. 

However, due to unavailability of some 

of the live munitions, Eglin AFB 

released only 1.05 percent of the 

munitions proposed for the 2015 

military readiness activities. On May 28, 

2015, we received a renewal request for 

an Authorization from Eglin AFB to 

complete the missions authorized in 

2015. Following the initial application 

submission, Eglin AFB submitted a 

revised version of the renewal request 

on December 3, 2015. We considered 

the revised renewal request as adequate 

and complete on December 10, 2015 and 

published a notice of proposed 

Authorization on December 23, 2015 (80 

FR 79843). The notice afforded the 

public a 30-day comment period on the 

proposed MMPA Authorization. 

Eglin AFB proposes to conduct 

Maritime WESP missions within the 

EGTTR airspace over the Gulf of 

Mexico, specifically within Warning 

Area 151 (W–151). The proposed 

Maritime WSEP training activities 

would occur February through April 

(spring) in the daytime; however, the 

activities could occur between February 

2016 and February 2017. 

Eglin AFB proposes to use multiple 

types of live munitions (e.g., gunnery 

rounds, rockets, missiles, and bombs) 

against small boat targets in the EGTTR. 

These activities qualify as a military 

readiness activities under the MMPA 

and NDAA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7308 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

The following aspects of the proposed 

Maritime WSEP training activities have 

the potential to take marine mammals: 

exposure to impulsive noise and 

pressure waves generated by live 

ordnance detonation at or near the 

surface of the water. Take, by Level B 

harassment of individuals of common 

bottlenose dolphin or Atlantic spotted 

dolphin could potentially result from 

the specified activity. Additionally, 

although NMFS does not expect it to 

occur, Eglin AFB has also requested 

authorization for Level A Harassment of 

a small number of individuals of either 

common bottlenose dolphins or Atlantic 

spotted dolphins. Therefore, Eglin AFB 

has requested authorization to take 

individuals of two cetacean species by 

Level A and Level B harassment. 

Eglin AFB’s Maritime WSEP training 

activities may potentially impact marine 

mammals at or near the water surface in 

the absence of mitigation. Marine 

mammals could potentially be harassed, 

injured, or killed by exploding 

projectiles. However, based on analyses 

provided in Eglin AFB’s 2015 

Authorization renewal request; 2014 

application; 2015 Environmental 

Assessment (EA); the 2015 monitoring 

report for the authorized activities 

conducted in February and March 2015; 

and for reasons discussed later in this 

document, we do not anticipate that 

Eglin AFB’s Maritime WSEP activities 

would result in any serious injury or 

mortality to marine mammals. 

For Eglin AFB, this would be the 

second issued Authorization following 

the Authorization issued effective from 

February through April 2015 (80 FR 

17394, April 1, 2015). The monitoring 

report associated with the 2015 

Authorization is available at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/military.htm and provides 

additional environmental information 

related to proposed issuance of this 

Authorization for public review and 

comment. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

Eglin AFB proposes to conduct live 

ordnance testing and training in the 

Gulf of Mexico as part of the Maritime 

WSEP operational testing missions. The 

Maritime WSEP test objectives are to 

evaluate maritime deployment data, 

evaluate tactics, techniques and 

procedures, and to determine the impact 

of techniques and procedures on combat 

Air Force training. The need to conduct 

this type of testing has developed in 

response to increasing threats at sea 

posed by operations conducted from 

small boats which can carry a variety of 

weapons; can form in large or small 

numbers; and may be difficult to locate, 

track, and engage in the marine 

environment. Because of limited Air 

Force aircraft and munitions testing on 

engaging and defeating small boat 

threats, Eglin AFB proposes to employ 

live munitions against boat targets in the 

EGTTR in order to continue 

development of techniques and 

procedures to train Air Force strike 

aircraft to counter small maneuvering 

surface vessels. Thus, the Department of 

Defense considers the Maritime WSEP 

training activities as a high priority for 

national security. 

Dates and Duration 

Eglin AFB proposes to schedule the 

Maritime WSEP training missions over 

an approximate three-week period that 

would begin in early February 2016. 

The proposed missions would occur in 

the spring, on weekdays, during 

daytime hours only, with one or two 

missions occurring per day. Some minor 

deviation from Eglin AFB’s requested 

dates is possible and the proposed 

Authorization, if issued, would be 

effective from February 4, 2016 through 

February 3, 2017. 

Specified Geographic Region 

The specific planned mission location 

is approximately 17 miles (mi) (27.3 

kilometers [km]) offshore from Santa 

Rosa Island, Florida, in nearshore 

waters of the continental shelf in the 

Gulf of Mexico. All activities would take 

place within the EGTTR, defined as the 

airspace over the Gulf of Mexico 

controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a 

point three nautical miles (nmi) (3.5 

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

shore. The EGTTR consists of 

subdivided blocks including Warning 

Area 151 (W–151) where the proposed 

activities would occur, specifically in 

sub-area W–151A. 

NMFS provided detailed descriptions 

of the activity area in a previous notice 

for the proposed Authorization (80 FR 

7984, December 23, 2015). The 

information has not changed between 

the notice of proposed Authorization 

and this final notice announcing the 

issuance of the Authorization. 

Detailed Description of Activities 

The Maritime WSEP training 

missions, classified as military 

readiness activities, include the release 

of multiple types of inert and live 

munitions from fighter and bomber 

aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and 

gunships against small, static, towed, 

and remotely-controlled boat targets. 

Munition types include bombs, missiles, 

rockets, and gunnery rounds (Table 1). 

TABLE 1—LIVE MUNITIONS AND AIRCRAFT

Munitions Aircraft 

(not associated with specific munitions) 

GBU–10 laser-guided Mk-84 bomb ..................................................................................................... F–16C fighter aircraft. 

GBU–24 laser-guided Mk-84 bomb ..................................................................................................... F–16C+ fighter aircraft. 

GBU–12 laser-guided Mk-82 bomb ..................................................................................................... F–15E fighter aircraft. 

GBU–54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM), laser-guided Mk-82 bomb ............................. A–10 fighter aircraft. 

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

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

GBU–38 Small Diameter Bomb II (Laser SDB) .................................................................................. MQ–1/9 unmanned aerial vehicle. 

AGM–114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile .............................................................................................. AC–130 gunship. 

AGM–176 Griffin air-to-surface missile.

2.75 Rockets.

PGU–13/B high explosive incendiary 30 mm rounds.

7.62 mm/.50 Cal (inert).

Key: AGM = air-to-ground missile; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition; Laser 

SDB = Laser Small Diameter Bomb; mm = millimeters; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser. 

The proposed Maritime WSEP 

training activities involve detonations 

above the water, near the water surface, 

and under water within the EGTTR. 

However, because the tests will focus on 

weapons/target interaction, Eglin AFB 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7309 

will not specify a particular aircraft for 

a given test as long as it meets the 

delivery parameters. 

Eglin AFB would deploy the 

munitions against static, towed, and 

remotely-controlled boat targets within 

the W–151A. Eglin AFB would operate 

the remote-controlled boats from an 

instrumentation barge (i.e., the Gulf 

Range Armament Test Vessel; GRATV) 

anchored on site within the test area. 

The GRATV would provide a platform 

for video cameras and weapons-tracking 

equipment. Eglin AFB would position 

the target boats approximately 182.8 m 

(600 ft) from the GRATV, depending on 

the munition type. 

Table 2 lists the number, height, or 

depth of detonation, explosive material, 

and net explosive weight (NEW) in 

pounds (lbs) of each munition proposed 

for use during the Maritime WSEP 

activities. 

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

Type of munition Total # 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.

Inert. 

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 

anti-armor 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 ................................................................. Inert. 

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

= high explosive incendiary. 

At least two ordnance delivery aircraft 

will participate in each live weapons 

release training mission which lasts 

approximately four hours. Before 

delivering the ordnance, mission aircraft 

would make a dry run over the target 

area to ensure that it is clear of 

commercial and recreational boats. Jets 

will fly at a minimum air speed of 300 

knots (approximately 345 miles per 

hour, depending on atmospheric 

conditions) and at a minimum altitude 

of 305 m (1,000 ft). Due to the limited 

flyover duration and potentially high 

speed and altitude, the pilots would not 

participate in visual surveys for 

protected species. 

NMFS provided detailed descriptions 

of the WSEP training operations in a 

previous notice for the proposed 

Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 

23, 2015). This information has not 

changed between the notice of proposed 

Authorization and this final notice 

announcing the issuance of the 

Authorization. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of Eglin AFB’s 

application and NMFS’ proposal to 

issue an Authorization to the USAF, 

Eglin AFB, published in the Federal 

Register on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 

7984). During the 30-day public 

comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) only. 

Following are the comments from the 

Commission and NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission notes 

that Eglin AFB has applied for MMPA 

authorizations to take marine mammals 

on an activity-by-activity basis (e.g., 

naval explosive ordnance disposal 

school, precision strike weapon, air-tosurface gunnery, and maritime strike 

operations) rather than through a 

programmatic basis. The Commission 

believes that the agencies should 

evaluate the impacts of all training and 

testing activities under a single letter of 

authorization application and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

document rather than segmenting the 

analyses based on specific types of 

missions under various authorizations. 

Response: Both Eglin AFB and NMFS 

concur with the Commission’s 

recommendation to streamline the 

rulemaking process for future activities 

conducted within the EGGTR. In 2015, 

Eglin AFB developed a Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment as for all 

testing and training activities that would 

occur in the EGGTR over the next five 

years. Eglin AFB has also developed and 

submitted a request for a Letter of 

Authorization under the MMPA to 

NMFS for all testing and training 

activities that would also occur in the 

EGGTR over the same five year period. 

Both of these efforts will facilitate a 

more comprehensive review of actions 

occurring within the EGGTR that have 

the potential to take marine mammals 

incidental to military readiness 

activities and NMFS will be able to 

evaluate the impacts of all training and 

testing activities under a single letter of 

authorization application rather than 

segmenting our analyses based on 

specific types of missions under 

separate authorizations. 

Comment 2: The Commission states 

that Eglin AFB overestimated marine 

mammal take because they based 

estimates on a single detonation event of 

each munition type which multiplied 

the number of animals estimated to be 

taken by a single detonation event for 

each munition type by the total number 

of munitions that would be detonated, 

irrespective of when those detonations 

would occur. The Commission states 

that this method does not consider the 

accumulation of energy in a 24-hour 

period which would more accurately 

correspond to zones of exposure for the 

representative scenario and serve as 

more a realistic estimate of the numbers 

of animals that Eglin AFB could 

potentially take during the WSEP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7310 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

activities. In estimating take, the 

Commission commented Eglin AFB’s 

model approach was an additive process 

for estimating each zone of exposure, 

and thus the associated takes. 

Effectively, The Commission states that 

Eglin AFB overestimated the number of 

take but is unsure to what degree. 

Further, the Commission recommends 

that Eglin AFB and NMFS should treat 

fractions of estimated take 

appropriately, that is generally, round 

down if less than 0.50 and round up if 

greater than or equal to 0.50 before 

summing the estimates for each species. 

Response: NMFS and Eglin AFB 

acknowledge that this approach 

contributes to the overestimation of take 

estimates. Eglin AFB’s modeling 

approach for take estimates treated each 

munition detonation as a separate event 

impacting a new set of animals which 

results in a worst case scenario of 

potential take and is an overestimate of 

potential harassment. 

NMFS agrees with the Commission’s 

recommendations and has recalculated 

the takes by accounting for the 

accumulation of energy in a 24-hour 

period and by eliminating the double 

counting of the estimated take for each 

species and appropriately rounding take 

estimates before summing the total take. 

Table 8 in this notice provides the 

revised number of marine mammals, by 

species, that Eglin AFB could 

potentially take incidental to the 

conduct of Maritime WSEP operations. 

The re-calculation results in zero take 

by mortality, zero take by slight lung 

injury, and zero take by gastrointestinal 

tract injury. Compared to the take levels 

that NMFS previously presented in the 

notice for the proposed Authorization 

(80 FR 7984, December 23, 2015), our 

re-estimation has reduced take estimates 

for Level A harassment (PTS) from 38 to 

14 marine mammals. Based on the 

remodeling of the number of marine 

mammals potentially affected by the 

Maritime WSEP missions, NMFS would 

authorize take for Level A and Level B 

harassment presented in Table 8 of this 

notice. 

Comment 3: The Commission states 

that Eglin AFB proposes to use live-feed 

video cameras to supplement its 

effectiveness in detecting marine 

mammals when implementing 

mitigation measures. However, the 

Commission is not convinced that those 

measures are sufficient to effectively 

monitor for marine mammals entering 

the training areas during the 30 minute 

timeframe prior to detonation. In 

addition, the Commission states that it 

does not believe that Eglin AFB cannot 

deem the Level A harassment zone clear 

of marine mammals when using only 

three video cameras for monitoring. 

Thus, the Commission recommends that 

NMFS require Eglin AFB to supplement 

its mitigation measures with passive 

acoustic monitoring and determine the 

effectiveness of its suite of mitigation 

measures for activities at Eglin prior to 

incorporating presumed mitigation 

effectiveness into its take estimation 

analyses or negligible impact 

determinations. 

Response: NMFS has worked closely 

with Eglin AFB over the past several 

Authorization cycles to develop proper 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements designed to minimize and 

detect impacts from the specified 

activities and ensure that NMFS can 

make the findings necessary for 

issuance of an Authorization. 

Monitoring also includes vessel-based 

observers for marine species up to 30 

minutes prior to deploying live 

munitions in the area. Eglin AFB has 

submitted annual reports to NMFS 

every year that describes all activities 

that occur in the EGTTR. In addition, 

Eglin AFB submitted annual reports to 

NMFS at the conclusion of the Maritime 

Strike Operations These missions are 

similar in nature to the proposed 

maritime WSEP operations and the 

Eglin AFB provided information on 

sighting information and results from 

post-mission survey observations. Based 

on those results, NMFS determined that 

the mitigation measures ensured the 

least practicable adverse impact to 

marine mammals. There were no 

observations of injured marine 

mammals and no reports of marine 

mammal mortality during the Maritime 

Strike Operation activities. The 

measures proposed for Maritime WSEP 

are similar, except they will include 

larger survey areas based on updated 

acoustic analysis and previous 

discussions with the Commission and 

NMFS. 

Eglin AFB will continue to research 

the feasibility of supplementing existing 

monitoring efforts with passive acoustic 

monitoring devices for future missions 

and is in the process of discussing 

alternatives with the Commission and 

NMFS during the review of the 

environmental planning efforts 

discussed earlier in Comment 1. 

Comment 4: The MMC expressed 

their belief that all permanent hearing 

loss should be considered a serious 

injury and recommends that NMFS 

propose to issue regulations under 

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

letter of authorization, rather than an 

incidental harassment authorization, for 

any proposed activities expected to 

cause a permanent threshold shift (PTS). 

Response: NMFS considers PTS to fall 

under the injury category (Level A 

Harassment). However, an animal 

would need to stay very close to the 

sound source for an extended amount of 

time to incur a serious degree of PTS, 

which could increase the probability of 

mortality. In this case, it would be 

highly unlikely for this scenario to 

unfold given the nature of any 

anticipated acoustic exposures that 

could potentially result from a mobile 

marine mammal that NMFS generally 

expects to exhibit avoidance behavior to 

loud sounds within the EGTTR. 

NMFS has recalculated the takes 

presented in the notice for the proposed 

Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 

23, 2015) and the results of the 

recalculation show zero takes for 

mortality, zero takes by slight lung 

injury, and zero takes by gastrointestinal 

tract injury. Further, the re-estimation 

has reduced the number of take by Level 

A harassment (from PTS) from 38 to 14. 

Based on this re-estimation, NMFS does 

not believe that serious injury will 

result from this activity and that 

therefore it is not necessary to issue 

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

rather, an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization may be issued. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Table 3 lists marine mammal species 

with potential or confirmed occurrence 

in the proposed activity area during the 

project timeframe and summarizes key 

information regarding stock status and 

abundance. Please see NMFS’ draft 2015 

and 2014 Stock Assessment Reports 

(SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/sars and Garrison et al., 2008; Navy, 

2007; Davis et al., 2000 for more 

detailed accounts of these stocks’ status 

and abundance. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7311 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY AREA

Species Stock name Regulatory status 1 2 Estimated abundance 

Relative 

occurrence 

in W–151 

Common bottlenose dolphin ...... Choctawatchee Bay ................... MMPA—S, ESA—NL ................. 179, CV = 0.04 3 ........ Uncommon. 

Pensacola/East Bay ................... MMPA—S, ESA—NL ................. 33, CV = 0.80 4 .......... Uncommon. 

St. Andrew Bay .......................... MMPA—S, ESA—NL ................. 124, CV = 0.57 4 ........ Uncommon. 

Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal MMPA—S, ESA—NL ................. 7,185, CV = 0.21 3 ..... Common. 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf.MMPA—NC, ESA—NL .............. 51,192, CV = 0.10 3 ... Uncommon. 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.MMPA—NC, ESA—NL .............. 5,806, CV = 0.39 4 ..... Uncommon. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin .............. Northern Gulf of Mexico ............. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL .............. 37,611 4, CV = 0.28 ... Common. 

1 MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified. 2 ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed. 3 NMFS Draft 2015 SAR (Waring et al., 2015). 4 NMFS 2014 SAR (Waring et al., 2014). 

An additional 19 cetacean species 

could occur within the northeastern 

Gulf of Mexico, mainly occurring at or 

beyond the shelf break (i.e., water depth 

of approximately 200 m (656.2 ft)) 

located beyond the W–151A test area. 

NMFS and Eglin AFB consider these 19 

species to be rare or extralimital within 

the W–151A test location area. These 

species are the Bryde’s whale 

(Balaenoptera edeni), sperm whale 

(Physeter macrocephalus), dwarf sperm 

whale (Kogia sima), pygmy sperm whale 

(K. breviceps), pantropical spotted 

dolphin (Stenella atenuarta), 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

densirostris), Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris), Gervais’ beaked 

whale (M. europaeus), Clymene dolphin 

(S. clymene), spinner dolphin (S. 

longirostris), striped dolphin (S. 

coeruleoalba), killer whale (Orcinus 

orca), false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens), pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus), Fraser’s dolphin 

(Lagenodelphis hosei), melon-headed 

whale (Peponocephala electra), 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 issued take authorizations for them. 

Thus, NMFS does not consider these 

species further in this notice. 

Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed 

Action Area 

The endangered West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus) rarely occurs in 

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

and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction 

over the manatee; therefore, we would 

not include a proposed Authorization to 

harass manatees and do not discuss this 

species further in this notice. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat 

This section of the notice of the 

proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, 

December 23, 2015) included a 

summary and discussion of the ways 

that components (e.g., exposure to 

impulsive noise and pressure waves 

generated by live ordnance detonation 

at or near the surface of the water) of the 

specified activity, including mitigation 

may impact marine mammals and their 

habitat. The ‘‘Estimated Take by 

Incidental Harassment’’ section later in 

this document will include a 

quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that we expect Eglin AFB to 

take during this activity. The 

‘‘Negligible Impact Analysis’’ section 

will include the analysis of how this 

specific activity would impact marine 

mammals. We will consider the content 

of the following sections: ‘‘Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment’’ and 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals— 

and from that consideration—the likely 

impacts of this activity on the affected 

marine mammal populations or stocks. 

In summary, the Maritime WSEP 

training exercises proposed for taking of 

marine mammals under an 

Authorization have the potential to take 

marine mammals by exposing them to 

impulsive noise and pressure waves 

generated by live ordnance detonation 

at or near the surface of the water. 

Exposure to energy or pressure resulting 

from these detonations could result in 

Level A harassment (PTS) and by Level 

B harassment (TTS and behavioral). In 

addition, NMFS also considered the 

potential for harassment from vessel 

operations. 

The potential effects of impulsive 

sound sources (underwater detonations) 

from the proposed training activities 

may include one or more of the 

following: Tolerance, masking, 

disturbance, hearing threshold shift, 

stress response, and mortality. NMFS 

provided detailed information on these 

potential effects in the notice of the 

proposed Authorization (80 FR 7984, 

December 23, 2015). The information 

presented in that notice has not 

changed. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

Detonations of live ordnance would 

result in temporary changes to the water 

environment. Munitions could hit the 

targets and not explode in the water. 

However, because the targets are located 

over the water, in water explosions 

could occur. An underwater explosion 

from these weapons could send a shock 

wave and blast noise through the water, 

release gaseous by-products, create an 

oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of 

water to shoot up from the water 

surface. However, these effects would be 

temporary and not expected to last more 

than a few seconds. 

Similarly, Eglin AFB does not expect 

any long-term impacts with regard to 

hazardous constituents to occur. Eglin 

AFB considered the introduction of fuel, 

debris, ordnance, and chemical 

materials into the water column within 

its EA and determined the potential 

effects of each to be insignificant. Eglin 

AFB analyzed the potential effects of 

each in their EA and determined them 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7312 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

to be insignificant. NMFS provided a 

summary of the analyses in the notice 

for the proposed Authorization (80 FR 

7984, December 23, 2015). The 

information presented in that notice has 

not changed. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

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

of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to such activity, and other means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on such species or stock and its 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and the availability 

of such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (where 

relevant). 

The NDAA of 2004 amended the 

MMPA as it relates to military-readiness 

activities and the incidental take 

authorization process such that ‘‘least 

practicable adverse impact’’ shall 

include consideration of personnel 

safety, practicality of implementation, 

and impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

NMFS and Eglin AFB have worked to 

identify potential practicable and 

effective mitigation measures, which 

include a careful balancing of the likely 

benefit of any particular measure to the 

marine mammals with the likely effect 

of that measure on personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the ‘‘military-readiness 

activity.’’ We refer the reader to Section 

11 of Eglin AFB’s application for more 

detailed information on the proposed 

mitigation measures which include the 

following: 

Vessel-Based Monitoring: Eglin AFB 

would station a large number of range 

clearing boats (approximately 20 to 25) 

around the test site to prevent nonparticipating vessels from entering the 

human safety zone. Based on the 

composite footprint, range clearing 

boats will be located approximately (see 

Figure 11–1 in Eglin AFB’s application). 

However, the actual distance will vary 

based on the size of the munition being 

deployed. 

Trained protected species observers 

would be aboard five of these boats and 

will conduct protected species surveys 

before and after each test. The protected 

species survey vessels will be dedicated 

solely to observing for marine species 

during the pre-mission surveys while 

the remaining safety boats clear the area 

of non-authorized vessels. The protected 

species survey vessels will begin 

surveying the area at sunrise. The area 

to be surveyed will encompass the zone 

of influence (ZOI), which is 5 km (3.1 

mi). Animals that may enter the area 

after Eglin AFB has completed the premission surveys and prior to detonation 

would not reach the predicted smaller 

slight lung injury and/or mortality 

zones. 

Because of human safety issues, 

observers will be required to leave the 

test area at least 30 minutes in advance 

of live weapon deployment and move to 

a position on the safety zone periphery, 

approximately 15.28 km (9.5 mi) from 

the detonation point. Observers will 

continue to scan for marine mammals 

from the periphery. 

Determination of the Zone of Influence 

Eglin AFB has created a sample day 

reflecting the maximum number of 

munitions that could be released and 

resulting in the greatest impact in a 

single mission day. However, this 

scenario is only a representation and 

may not accurately reflect how Eglin 

AFB may conduct actual operations. 

However, NMFS and Eglin AFB are 

considering this conservative 

assumption to calculate the impact 

range for mitigation monitoring 

measures. Thus, Eglin AFB has 

modeled, combined, and compared the 

sum of all energies from these 

detonations against thresholds with 

energy metric criteria to generate the 

accumulated energy ranges for this 

scenario. Table 4 lists these ranges 

which form the basis of the mitigation 

monitoring. 

TABLE 4—DISTANCES (m) TO HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FOR AN EXAMPLE MISSION DAY

Munition NEW 

(lbs) 

Total # 

per day Detonation scenario 

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

PTS 

187 dB 

SEL 

TTS Behavioral 

172 dB 

SEL 

167 dB 

SEL 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the ranges presented in 

Table 4 and factoring operational 

limitations associated with survey-based 

vessel support for the missions, Eglin 

AFB estimates that during pre-mission 

surveys, the proposed monitoring area 

would be approximately 5 km (3.1 

miles) from the target area, which 

corresponds to the Level A harassment 

threshold range. Eglin AFB proposes to 

survey the same-sized area for each 

mission day, regardless of the planned 

munition expenditures. By clearing the 

Level A harassment threshold range of 

protected species, animals that may 

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

would not reach the smaller slight lung 

injury or mortality zones (presented in 

Table 6 later in this document). Because 

of human safety issues, Eglin AFB 

would require observers to leave the test 

area at least 30 minutes in advance of 

live weapon deployment and move to a 

position on the safety zone periphery, 

approximately 15 km (9.5 miles) from 

the detonation point. Observers would 

continue to scan for marine mammals 

from the periphery, but effectiveness 

would be limited as the boat would 

remain at a designated station. 

Video Monitoring: In addition to 

vessel-based monitoring, Eglin AFB 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7313 

would position three high-definition 

video cameras on the GRATV anchored 

on-site, as described earlier, to allow for 

real-time monitoring for the duration of 

the mission. The camera configuration 

and actual number of cameras used 

would depend on specific mission 

requirements. In addition to monitoring 

the area for mission objective issues, the 

camera(s) would also monitor for the 

presence of protected species. A trained 

marine species observer from Eglin 

Natural Resources would be located in 

Eglin AFB’s Central Control Facility, 

along with mission personnel, to view 

the video feed before and during test 

activities. The distance to which objects 

can be detected at the water surface by 

use of the cameras is considered 

generally comparable to that of the 

human eye. 

The GRATV will be located about 183 

m (600 ft) from the target. The larger 

mortality threshold ranges correspond 

to the modified Goertner model adjusted 

for the weight of an Atlantic spotted 

dolphin calf, and extend from 0 to 237 

m (0 to 778 ft) from the target, 

depending on the ordnance, and the 

Level A ranges for both common 

bottlenose and Atlantic spotted 

dolphins extend from 7 to 965 m (23 to 

3,166 ft) from the target, depending on 

the ordnance and harassment criterion. 

Given these distances, observers could 

reasonably be expected to view a 

substantial portion of the mortality zone 

in front of the camera, although a small 

portion would be behind or to the side 

of the camera view. Based on previous 

monitoring reports for this activity, the 

pre-training surveys for delphinids and 

other protected species within the 

mission area are effective. Observers can 

view some portion of the Level A 

harassment zone, although the view 

window would be less than that of the 

mortality zone (a large percentage 

would be behind or to the side of the 

camera view). 

If the high-definition video cameras 

are not operational for any reason, Eglin 

AFB will not conduct Maritime WSEP 

missions. 

In addition to the two types of visual 

monitoring discussed earlier in this 

section, Eglin AFB personnel are 

present within the mission area (on 

boats and the GRATV) on each day of 

testing well in advance of weapon 

deployment, typically near sunrise. 

They will perform a variety of tasks 

including target preparation, equipment 

checks, etc., and will opportunistically 

observe for marine mammals and 

indicators as feasible throughout test 

preparation. However, we consider 

these observations as supplemental to 

the proposed mitigation monitoring and 

would only occur as time and schedule 

permits. Eglin AFB personnel would 

relay information on these types of 

sightings to the Lead Biologist, as 

described in the following mitigation 

sections. 

Pre-Mission Monitoring 

The purposes of pre-mission 

monitoring are to: (1) Evaluate the 

mission site for environmental 

suitability, and (2) verify that the ZOI 

(in this case, 5 km [3.1 mi]) is free of 

visually detectable marine mammals, as 

well as potential indicators of these 

species. On the morning of the mission, 

the Test Director and Safety Officer will 

confirm that there are no issues that 

would preclude mission execution and 

that weather is adequate to support 

mitigation measures. 

Sunrise or Two Hours Prior to Mission 

Eglin AFB range clearing vessels and 

protected species survey vessels will be 

on site at least two hours prior to the 

mission. The Lead Biologist on board 

one survey vessel will assess the overall 

suitability of the mission site based on 

environmental conditions (sea state) and 

presence/absence of marine mammal 

indicators. Eglin AFB personnel will 

communicate this information to Tower 

Control and personnel will relay the 

information to the Safety Officer in 

Central Control Facility. 

One and One-Half Hours Prior to 

Mission 

Vessel-based surveys will begin 

approximately one and one-half hours 

prior to live weapons deployment. 

Surface vessel observers will survey the 

ZOI (in this case, 5 km [3.1 mi]) and 

relay all marine species and indicator 

sightings, including the time of sighting, 

GPS location, and direction of travel, if 

known, to the Lead Biologist. The lead 

biologist will document all sighting 

information on report forms which he/ 

she will submit to Eglin Natural 

Resources after each mission. Surveys 

would continue for approximately one 

hour. During this time, Eglin AFB 

personnel in the mission area will also 

observe for marine species as feasible. If 

marine mammals or indicators are 

observed within the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]), 

the range will be declared ‘‘fouled,’’ a 

term that signifies to mission personnel 

that conditions are such that a live 

ordnance drop cannot occur (e.g., 

protected species or civilian vessels are 

in the mission area). If there are no 

observations of marine mammals or 

indicators of marine mammals, Eglin 

AFB would declare the range clear of 

protected species. 

One-Half Hour Prior to Mission 

At approximately 30 minutes to one 

hour prior to live weapon deployment, 

marine species observers will be 

instructed to leave the mission site and 

remain outside the safety zone, which 

on average will be 15.28 km (9.5 mi) 

from the detonation point. The actual 

size is determined by weapon net 

explosive weight and method of 

delivery. The survey team will continue 

to monitor for protected species while 

leaving the area. As the survey vessels 

leave the area, marine species 

monitoring of the immediate target areas 

will continue at the Central Control 

Facility through the live video feed 

received from the high definition 

cameras on the GRATV. Once the 

survey vessels have arrived at the 

perimeter of the safety zone 

(approximately 30 minutes after leaving 

the area per instructions from Eglin 

AFB, depending on actual travel time), 

Eglin AFB will declare the range as 

‘‘green’’ and the mission will proceed, 

assuming all non-participating vessels 

have left the safety zone as well. 

Execution of Mission 

Immediately prior to live weapons 

drop, the Test Director and Safety 

Officer will communicate to confirm the 

results of marine mammal surveys and 

the appropriateness of proceeding with 

the mission. The Safety Officer will 

have final authority to proceed with, 

postpone, or cancel the mission. Eglin 

AFB would postpone the mission if: 

• Any of the high-definition video 

cameras are not operational for any 

reason; 

• Any marine mammal is visually 

detected within the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]). 

Postponement would continue until the 

animal(s) that caused the postponement 

is: (1) confirmed to be outside of the ZOI 

(5 km [3.1 mi]) on a heading away from 

the targets; or (2) not seen again for 30 

minutes and presumed to be outside the 

ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]) due to the animal 

swimming out of the range; 

• Any large schools of fish or large 

flocks of birds feeding at the surface are 

within the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]). 

Postponement would continue until 

Eglin AFB personnel confirm that these 

potential indicators are outside the ZOI 

(5 km [3.1 mi]): 

• Any technical or mechanical issues 

related to the aircraft or target boats; or 

• Any non-participating vessel enters 

the human safety zone prior to weapon 

release. 

In the event of a postponement, 

protected species monitoring would 

continue from the Central Control 

Facility through the live video feed. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7314 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

Post-Mission Monitoring 

Post-mission monitoring determines 

the effectiveness of pre-mission 

mitigation by reporting sightings of any 

marine mammals. Post-detonation 

monitoring surveys will commence once 

the mission has ended or, if required, as 

soon as personnel declare the mission 

area safe. Vessels will move into the 

survey area from outside the safety zone 

and monitor for at least 30 minutes, 

concentrating on the area down-current 

of the test site. This area is easily 

identifiable because of the floating 

debris in the water from impacted 

targets. Up to 10 Eglin AFB support 

vessels will be cleaning debris and 

collecting damaged targets from this 

area thus spending several hours in the 

area once Eglin AFB completes the 

mission. Observers will document and 

report any marine mammal species, 

number, location, and behavior of any 

animals observed to Eglin Natural 

Resources. 

Mission Delays Due to Weather 

Eglin AFB would delay or reschedule 

Maritime WSEP missions if the Beaufort 

sea state is greater than number 4 at the 

time of the testing activities. The Lead 

Biologist aboard one of the survey 

vessels will make the final 

determination of whether conditions are 

conducive for sighting protected species 

or not. 

We have carefully evaluated Eglin 

AFB’s proposed mitigation measures in 

the context of ensuring that we 

prescribe the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

marine mammal species and stocks and 

their habitat. Our evaluation of potential 

measures included consideration of the 

following factors in relation to one 

another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed here: 

1. Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

2. A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to stimuli expected 

to result in incidental take (this goal 

may contribute to 1, above, or to 

reducing takes by behavioral harassment 

only). 

3. A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to stimuli that we 

expect to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing harassment takes 

only). 

4. A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to training exercises that we 

expect to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing the severity of 

harassment takes only). 

5. Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

6. For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of Eglin 

AFB’s proposed measures, as well as 

other measures that may be relevant to 

the specified activity, we have 

determined that the proposed mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. while also 

considering personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and the 

impact of effectiveness of the military 

readiness activity. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an Authorization for 

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

MMPA states that we must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for an 

authorization must include the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and our expectations of the 

level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals present 

in the proposed action area. 

Eglin AFB submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring plan in their 

Authorization application. We have not 

modified or supplemented the plan 

based on comments or new information 

received from the public during the 

public comment period. Any monitoring 

requirement we prescribe should 

improve our understanding of one or 

more of the following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species in action area (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) Affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) Cooccurrence of marine mammal species 

with the action; or (4) Biological or 

behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, 

calving or feeding areas). 

• Individual responses to acute 

stressors, or impacts of chronic 

exposures (behavioral or physiological). 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of an individual; or 

(2) Population, species, or stock. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

and resultant impacts to marine 

mammals. 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

The Authorization for Maritime WSEP 

operations will require the following 

measures. They are: 

(1) Eglin AFB will track the use of the 

EGTTR for test firing missions and 

protected species observations, through 

the use of mission reporting forms. 

(2) Eglin AFB will submit a summary 

report of marine mammal observations 

and Maritime WSEP activities to the 

NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) 

and the Office of Protected Resources 90 

days after expiration of the current 

Authorization. This report must include 

the following information: (i) Date and 

time of each Maritime WSEP exercise; 

(ii) a complete description of the preexercise and post-exercise activities 

related to mitigating and monitoring the 

effects of Maritime WSEP exercises on 

marine mammal populations; and (iii) 

results of the Maritime WSEP exercise 

monitoring, including number of marine 

mammals (by species) that may have 

been harassed due to presence within 

the activity zone. 

(3) Eglin AFB will monitor for marine 

mammals in the proposed action area. If 

Eglin AFB personnel observe or detect 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7315 

any dead or injured marine mammals 

prior to testing, or detects any injured or 

dead marine mammal during live fire 

exercises, Eglin AFB must cease 

operations and submit a report to NMFS 

within 24 hours. 

(4) Eglin AFB must immediately 

report any unauthorized takes of marine 

mammals (i.e., serious injury or 

mortality) to NMFS and to the 

respective Southeast Region stranding 

network representative. Eglin AFB must 

cease operations and submit a report to 

NMFS within 24 hours. 

Monitoring Results From Previously 

Authorized Activities 

Eglin AFB complied with the 

mitigation and monitoring required 

under the previous Authorization for 

2015 WSEP activities. Marine mammal 

monitoring occurred before, during, and 

after each Maritime WSEP mission. 

During the course of these activities, 

Eglin AFB’s monitoring did not suggest 

that they had exceeded the take levels 

authorized under Authorization. In 

accordance with the 2015 

Authorization, Eglin AFB submitted a 

monitoring report (available at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/military.htm). 

Under the 2015 Authorization, Eglin 

AFB anticipated conducting Maritime 

WSEP training missions over 

approximately two to three weeks, but 

actually conducted a total of eight 

mission days: four days (February 9, 10, 

11, and 12, 2015) associated with inert 

ordnance delivery and four days (March 

16, 17, 18, and 19, 2015) associated with 

live ordnance delivery. 

During the February 2015 missions, 

Eglin AFB released two inert CBU–105s 

in air which resulted in no acoustic 

impacts to marine mammals. The CBU– 

105 is a cluster bomb unit that detonates 

in air (airburst), contains 10 

submunition cylinders with each 

cylinder containing four subsubmunitions (skeets) which fire inert 

projectiles. 

During the March 2015 live fire 

missions, Eglin AFB expended four 

AGM–65 Mavericks and six AGM–114 

Hellfire missiles against remotelycontrolled boats approximately 27 km 

(17 mi) offshore Santa Rosa Island, FL. 

Net explosive weights of the munitions 

that detonated at the water surface or up 

to 3 m (10 ft) below the surface are 86 

lbs for the AGM–65 Maverick missiles 

and 13 pounds for the AGM–114 

Hellfire missiles. Eglin AFB conducted 

the required monitoring for marine 

mammals or indicators of marine 

mammals (e.g., flocks of birds, baitfish 

schools, or large fish schools) before, 

during, and after each mission and 

observed only two species of marine 

mammals: the common bottlenose 

dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin. 

Total protected species observed during 

pre-mission surveys ranged between 149 

and 156 individuals and Eglin AFB 

confirmed that marine mammals were 

outside of the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]) at the 

conclusion of each pre-mission survey. 

For one mission day (March 17, 2015), 

Eglin AFB personnel extended the 

duration of the pre-mission surveys to 

continue to monitoring a pod of 10 

bottlenose dolphins until the vessel 

captain could confirm that the pod 

remained outside the ZOI (5 km [3.1 

mi]) and did not change travel direction. 

Eglin AFB delayed weapons delivery as 

required by the Authorization. Eglin 

AFB continued with their mission 

activities after all animals cleared the 

ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]). 

After each mission, Eglin AFB reentered the ZOI (5 km [3.1 mi]) to begin 

post-mission surveys for marine 

mammals and debris-clean-up 

operations. Eglin AFB personnel did not 

observe reactions indicative of 

disturbance during the pre-mission 

surveys and did not observe any marine 

mammals during the post-mission 

surveys. In summary, Eglin AFB reports 

that no observable instances of take of 

marine mammals occurred incidental to 

the Maritime WSEP training activities 

under the 2015 Authorization. 

Estimated Numbers of Marine 

Mammals Taken by Harassment 

The NDAA amended the definition of 

harassment as it applies to a ‘‘military 

readiness activity’’ to read as follows 

(Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any 

act that injures or has the significant 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild [Level 

A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 

point where such behavioral patterns 

are abandoned or significantly altered 

[Level B Harassment]. 

NMFS’ analysis identified the 

physiological responses, and behavioral 

responses that could potentially result 

from exposure to underwater explosive 

detonations. In this section, we will 

relate the potential effects to marine 

mammals from underwater detonation 

of explosives to the MMPA regulatory 

definitions of Level A and Level B 

harassment. This section will also 

quantify the effects that might occur 

from the proposed military readiness 

activities in W–151. 

At NMFS’ recommendation, Eglin 

AFB updated the thresholds used for 

onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS; 

Level B Harassment) and onset of 

permanent threshold shift (PTS; Level A 

Harassment) to be consistent with the 

thresholds outlined in the Navy’s report 

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

Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 

Analysis Technical Report,’’ which the 

Navy coordinated with NMFS. NMFS 

believes that the thresholds outlined in 

the Navy’s report represent the best 

available science. The report is available 

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

Portals/4/aftteis/

Supporting%20Technical%20

Documents/Criteria_and_Thresholds_

for_US_Navy_Acoustic_and_Explosive_

Effects_Analysis-Apr_2012.pdf. 

Level B Harassment 

Of the potential effects described 

earlier in this document, the following 

are the types of effects that fall into the 

Level B harassment category: 

Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral 

disturbance that rises to the level 

described in the above definition, when 

resulting from exposures to nonimpulsive or impulsive sound, is Level 

B harassment. Some of the lower level 

physiological stress responses discussed 

earlier would also likely co-occur with 

the predicted harassments, although 

these responses are more difficult to 

detect and fewer data exist relating 

these responses to specific received 

levels of sound. When predicting Level 

B harassment based on estimated 

behavioral responses, those takes may 

have a stress-related physiological 

component. 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—As 

discussed previously, TTS can affect 

how an animal behaves in response to 

the environment, including 

conspecifics, predators, and prey. NMFS 

classifies TTS (when resulting from 

exposure to explosives and other 

impulsive sources) as Level B 

harassment, not Level A harassment 

(injury). 

Level A Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described earlier, the following are the 

types of effects that fall into the Level 

A Harassment category: 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

PTS (resulting either from exposure to 

explosive detonations) is irreversible 

and NMFS considers this to be an 

injury. 

Table 5 in this document outlines the 

acoustic thresholds used by NMFS for 

this Authorization when addressing 

noise impacts from explosives. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7316 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

TABLE 5—IMPULSIVE SOUND EXPLOSIVE THRESHOLDS USED BY EGLIN AFB IN ITS CURRENT ACOUSTICS IMPACTS

MODELING

Group 

Behavior Slight injury 

Mortality 

Behavioral TTS PTS 

GastroIntestinal 

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 modeled that all explosives 

would detonate at a 1.2 m (3.9 ft) water 

depth despite the training goal of hitting 

the target, resulting in an above water or 

on land explosion. For sources 

detonated at shallow depths, it is 

frequently the case that the explosion 

may breech the surface with some of the 

acoustic energy escaping the water 

column. Table 6 provides the estimated 

maximum range or radius, from the 

detonation point to the various 

thresholds described in Table 5. 

TABLE 6—DISTANCES (m) TO HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FROM EGLIN AFB’S EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE

Munition NEW 

(lbs) 

Total 

# 

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 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin and Unidentified Dolphin 1

GBU–10 or GBU–24 ... 945 2 Surface .............. 237 400 340 965 698 1,582 1,280 2,549 

GBU–12 or GBU–54 ... 192 6 Surface .............. 138 274 198 726 409 2,027 752 2,023 

AGM–65 (Maverick) .... 86 6 Surface .............. 101 216 150 610 312 1,414 575 1,874 

GBU–39 (LSDB) ......... 37 4 Surface .............. 73 158 112 479 234 1,212 433 1,543 

AGM–114 (Hellfire) ..... 20 15 (10 ft depth) ....... 135 277 95 378 193 2,070 354 3,096 

AGM–175 (Griffin) ....... 13 10 Surface .............. 47 104 79 307 165 1,020 305 1,343 

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

PGU–13 HEI 30 mm ... 0.1 1,000 Surface .............. 0 9 16 24 33 247 60 492 

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

millimeters; N/A = not applicable; NEW = net explosive weight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = small diameter bomb; PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift; WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser. 1 Unidentified dolphin can be either bottlenose or Atlantic spotted dolphin. Eglin AFB based the mortality and slight lung injury criteria on the mass of a newborn Atlantic spotted dolphin. 

Eglin AFB uses the distance 

information shown in Table 6 to 

calculate the radius of impact for a 

given threshold from a single detonation 

of each munition/detonation scenario, 

then combine the calculated impact 

radii with density estimates (adjusted 

for depth distribution) and the number 

of live munitions to provide an estimate 

of the number of marine mammals 

potentially exposed to the various 

impact thresholds. The ranges presented 

in Table 6 represent a radius of impact 

for a given threshold from a single 

detonation of each munition/detonation 

scenario. They do not consider 

accumulated energies from multiple 

detonation occurring within the same 

24-hour time period. 

Density Estimation 

Density estimates for bottlenose 

dolphin and spotted dolphin were 

derived from two sources (see Table 7). 

NMFS provided detailed information on 

Eglin AFB’s derivation of density 

estimates for the common bottlenose 

and Atlantic spotted dolphins in a 

previous Federal Register notice for a 

proposed Authorization to Eglin AFB 

for the same activities (79 FR 72631, 

December 8, 2014). The information 

presented in that notice has not changed 

and NMFS refers the reader to Section 

3 of Eglin AFB’s application for detailed 

information on all equations used to 

calculate densities presented in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY

ESTIMATES WITHIN EGLIN AFB’S

EGTTR 

Species Density 

(animals/km2) 

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

Atlantic spotted dolphin 2 ...... 0.265 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7317 

TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY

ESTIMATES WITHIN EGLIN AFB’S

EGTTR—Continued 

Species Density 

(animals/km2) 

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 (80 FR 7984, 

December 23, 2015) based upon the 

Commission’s recommendations to 

eliminate the double counting of the 

estimated take for each species and 

appropriately rounding take estimates 

before summing the total take. Table 8 

indicates the modeled potential for 

lethality, injury, and non-injurious 

harassment (including behavioral 

harassment) to marine mammals in the 

absence of mitigation measures. Eglin 

AFB and NMFS estimate that 

approximately 14 marine mammals 

could be exposed to injurious Level A 

harassment noise levels (187 dB SEL) 

and approximately 671 animals could 

be exposed to Level B harassment (TTS 

and Behavioral) noise levels in the 

absence of mitigation measures. 

TABLE 8—MODELED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY MARITIME WSEP OPERATIONS

Species Mortality 

Level A 

Harassment 

(PTS only) 

Level B 

Harassment 

(TTS) 

Level B 

Harassment 

(Behavioral) 

Bottlenose dolphin ........................................................................................... 0 14 255 353 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ................................................................................... 0 0 23 40 

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

Total .......................................................................................................... 0 14 278 393 

Based on the mortality exposure 

estimates calculated by the acoustic 

model, zero marine mammals are 

expected to be affected by pressure 

levels associated with mortality or 

serious injury. Zero marine mammals 

are expected to be exposed to pressure 

levels associated with slight lung injury 

or gastrointestinal tract injury. 

NMFS generally considers PTS to fall 

under the injury category (Level A 

Harassment). An animal would need to 

stay very close to the sound source for 

an extended amount of time to incur a 

serious degree of PTS, which could 

increase the probability of mortality. In 

this case, it would be highly unlikely for 

this scenario to unfold given the nature 

of any anticipated acoustic exposures 

that could potentially result from a 

mobile marine mammal that NMFS 

generally expects to exhibit avoidance 

behavior to loud sounds within the 

EGTTR. 

NMFS has relied on the best available 

scientific information to support the 

issuance of Eglin AFB’s authorization. 

In the case of authorizing Level A 

harassment, NMFS has estimated that 

no more than 14 bottlenose dolphins 

and no Atlantic spotted dolphins could, 

although unlikely, experience minor 

permanent threshold shifts of hearing 

sensitivity (PTS). The available data and 

analyses, as described more fully in a 

previous notice for a proposed 

Authorization (80 FR 7984, December 

23, 2015) and this notice include 

extrapolation results of many studies on 

marine mammal noise-induced 

temporary threshold shifts of hearing 

sensitivities. An extensive review of 

TTS studies and experiments prompted 

NMFS to conclude that possibility of 

minor PTS in the form of slight upward 

shift of hearing threshold at certain 

frequency bands by a few individuals of 

marine mammals is extremely low, but 

not unlikely. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determinations 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘. . . an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ A negligible 

impact finding is based on the lack of 

likely adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of Level B harassment takes alone is not 

enough information on which to base an 

impact determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through behavioral harassment, we 

consider other factors, such as the likely 

nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as the 

number and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, and effects on 

habitat. 

To avoid repetition, the discussion 

below applies to all the species listed in 

Table 8 for which we propose to 

authorize incidental take for Eglin 

AFB’s activities. 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, we consider: 

• The number of anticipated injuries, 

serious injuries, or mortalities; 

• The number, nature, and intensity, 

and duration of Level B harassment; 

• The context in which the takes 

occur (e.g., impacts to areas of 

significance, impacts to local 

populations, and cumulative impacts 

when taking into account successive/

contemporaneous actions when added 

to baseline data); 

• The status of stock or species of 

marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not 

depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, 

impact relative to the size of the 

population); 

• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of 

recruitment/survival; and 

• The effectiveness of monitoring and 

mitigation measures to reduce the 

number or severity of incidental take. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document and based on the following 

factors, Eglin AFB’s specified activities 

are not likely to cause long-term 

behavioral disturbance, serious injury, 

or death. 

The takes from Level B harassment 

would be due to potential behavioral 

disturbance and TTS. The takes from 

Level A harassment would be due to 

some form of PTS. Activities would 

only occur over a timeframe of two to 

three weeks in beginning in February 

2016, with one or two missions 

occurring per day. It is possible that 

some individuals may be taken more 

than once if those individuals are 

located in the exercise area on two 

different days when exercises are 

occurring. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7318 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, 

which includes PTS) are defined as 

increases in the threshold of audibility 

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

detected) of the ear at a certain 

frequency or range of frequencies (ANSI 

1995; Yost 2000). Several important 

factors relate to the magnitude of TS, 

such as level, duration, spectral content 

(frequency range), and temporal pattern 

(continuous, intermittent) of exposure 

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

occurs in terms of frequency range (Hz 

or kHz), hearing threshold level (dB), or 

both frequency and hearing threshold 

level (CDC, 2004). 

In addition, there are different degrees 

of PTS: ranging from slight/mild to 

moderate and from severe to profound 

(Clark, 1981). Profound PTS or the 

complete loss of the ability to hear in 

one or both ears is commonly referred 

to as deafness (CDC, 2004; WHO, 2006). 

High-frequency PTS, presumably as a 

normal process of aging that occurs in 

humans and other terrestrial mammals, 

has also been demonstrated in captive 

cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder, 1997; 

Yuen et al. 2005; Finneran et al., 2005; 

Houser and Finneran, 2006; Finneran et 

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

stranded individuals (Mann et al., 

2010). 

In terms of what is analyzed for the 

potential PTS (Level A harassment) in 

marine mammals as a result of Eglin 

AFB’s Maritime WSEP operations, if it 

occurs, NMFS has determined that the 

levels would be slight/mild because 

research shows that most cetaceans 

show relatively high levels of 

avoidance. Further, it is uncommon to 

sight marine mammals within the target 

area, especially for prolonged durations. 

Results from monitoring programs 

associated other Eglin AFB activities 

and for Eglin AFB’s 2015 Maritime 

WSEP activities have shown the absence 

of marine mammals within the EGTTR 

during and after maritime operations. 

Avoidance varies among individuals 

and depends on their activities or 

reasons for being in the area. 

NMFS’ predicted estimates for Level 

A harassment take are likely 

overestimates of the likely injury that 

will occur. NMFS expects that 

successful implementation of the 

required vessel-based and video-based 

mitigation measures would avoid Level 

A take in some instances. Also, NMFS 

expects that some individuals would 

avoid the source at levels expected to 

result in injury. Nonetheless, although 

NMFS expects that Level A harassment 

is unlikely to occur at the numbers 

proposed to be authorized, because it is 

difficult to quantify the degree to which 

the mitigation and avoidance will 

reduce the number of animals that 

might incur PTS, we are proposing to 

authorize (and analyze) the modeled 

number of Level A takes (14), which 

does not take the mitigation or 

avoidance into consideration. However, 

we anticipate that any PTS incurred 

because of mitigation and the likely 

short duration of exposures, would be in 

the form of only a small degree of 

permanent threshold shift and not total 

deafness. 

While animals may be impacted in 

the immediate vicinity of the activity, 

because of the short duration of the 

actual individual explosions themselves 

(versus continual sound source 

operation) combined with the short 

duration of the Maritime WSEP 

operations, NMFS has determined that 

there will not be a substantial impact on 

marine mammals or on the normal 

functioning of the nearshore or offshore 

Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. We do not 

expect that the proposed activity would 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of marine mammals since we do not 

expect mortality (which would remove 

individuals from the population) or 

serious injury to occur. In addition, the 

proposed activity would not occur in 

areas (and/or times) of significance for 

the marine mammal populations 

potentially affected by the exercises 

(e.g., feeding or resting areas, 

reproductive areas), and the activities 

would only occur in a small part of their 

overall range, so the impact of any 

potential temporary displacement 

would be negligible and animals would 

be expected to return to the area after 

the cessations of activities. Although the 

proposed activity could result in Level 

A (PTS only, not slight lung injury or 

gastrointestinal tract injury) and Level B 

(behavioral disturbance and TTS) 

harassment of marine mammals, the 

level of harassment is not anticipated to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of marine mammals because the number 

of exposed animals is expected to be 

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

hours a day or less) and site-specific 

nature of the activity. We do not 

anticipate that the effects would be 

detrimental to rates of recruitment and 

survival because we do not expect 

serious of extended behavioral 

responses that would result in energetic 

effects at the level to impact fitness. 

Moreover, the mitigation and 

monitoring measures proposed for the 

Authorization (described earlier in this 

document) are expected to further 

minimize the potential for harassment. 

The protected species surveys would 

require Eglin AFB to search the area for 

marine mammals, and if any are found 

in the live fire area, then the exercise 

would be suspended until the animal(s) 

has left the area or relocated. Moreover, 

marine species observers located in the 

Eglin control tower would monitor the 

high-definition video feed from cameras 

located on the instrument barge 

anchored on-site for the presence of 

protected species. Furthermore, 

Maritime WSEP missions would be 

delayed or rescheduled if the sea state 

is greater than a 4 on the Beaufort Scale 

at the time of the test. In addition, 

Maritime WSEP missions would occur 

no earlier than two hours after sunrise 

and no later than two hours prior to 

sunset to ensure adequate daylight for 

pre- and post-mission monitoring. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS finds that Eglin AFB’s Maritime 

WSEP operations will result in the 

incidental take of marine mammals, by 

Level A and Level B harassment only, 

and that the taking from the Maritime 

WSEP exercises will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Due to the location of the activity, no 

ESA-listed marine mammal species are 

likely to be affected; therefore, NMFS 

has determined that this proposed 

Authorization would have no effect on 

ESA-listed species. Therefore, NMFS 

has determined that a section 7 

consultation under the ESA is not 

required for the issuance of an MMPA 

Authorization to Eglin AFB. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

In 2015, Eglin AFB provided NMFS 

with an EA titled, Maritime Weapon 

Systems Evaluation Program (WSEP) 

Operational Testing in the Eglin Gulf 

Testing and Training Range (EGTTR), 

Florida. The EA analyzed the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental 

impacts of the specified activities on 

marine mammals. NMFS, after review 

and evaluation of the Eglin AFB EA for 

consistency with the regulations 

published by the Council of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7319 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6, 

Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, adopted the 

EA. After considering the EA, the 

information in the 2014 IHA 

application, and the Federal Register 

notice, as well as public comments, 

NMFS has determined that the issuance 

of the 2015 Authorization was not likely 

to result in significant impacts on the 

human environment; adopted Eglin 

AFB’s EA under 40 CFR 1506.3; and 

issued a FONSI statement on issuance of 

an Authorization under section 

101(a)(5) of the MMPA. 

In accordance with NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6 

(Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 

1999), NMFS will again review the 

information contained in Eglin AFB’s 

EA and determine whether the EA 

accurately and completely describes the 

preferred action alternative and the 

potential impacts on marine mammals. 

Based on this review and analysis, 

NMFS has reaffirmed the 2015 FONSI 

statement on issuance of an annual 

authorization under section 101(a)(5) of 

the MMPA or supplement the EA if 

necessary. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization to Eglin AFB 

for conducting Maritime WSEP 

activities, for a period of one year from 

the date of issuance, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: February 8, 2016. 

Perry F. Gayaldo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02801 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XE282 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Rocky Intertidal 

Monitoring Surveys Along the Oregon 

and California Coasts 

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 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that we have issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Partnership for Interdisciplinary Study 

of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) at the 

University of California (UC) Santa Cruz 

for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take three 

species of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to rocky 

intertidal monitoring surveys. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from February 3, 2016, through 

February 2, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

An electronic copy of PISCO’s 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained by 

visiting the Internet at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/research.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

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 small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ‘‘. . . an impact resulting 

from the specified activity that cannot 

be reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the U.S. can apply for 

an authorization to incidentally take 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

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 marine mammals. Within 

45 days of the close of the comment 

period, NMFS must either issue or deny 

the authorization. Except with respect to 

certain activities not pertinent here, the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as ‘‘any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment].’’ 

Summary of Request 

On August 10, 2015 NMFS received 

an application from PISCO for the 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

rocky intertidal monitoring surveys 

along the Oregon and California coasts. 

NMFS determined that the application 

was adequate and complete on October 

9, 2015. In December 2012, NMFS 

issued a 1-year IHA to PISCO to take 

marine mammals incidental to these 

same proposed activities (77 FR 72327, 

December 5, 2012). In December 2013, 

NMFS issued a second 1-year IHA to 

PISCO to take marine mammals 

incidental to these same proposed 

activities (78 FR 79403, December 30, 

2013). The 2013 IHA expired on 

December 16, 2014. A third IHA was 

issued to PISCO with an effective date 

of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 73048, 

December 9, 2014) to take animals for 

these identical activities and expires on 

December 16, 2015. The IHA announced 

in this notice is valid from February 3, 

2016 through February 2, 2017. 

The research group at UC Santa Cruz 

operates in collaboration with two largescale marine research programs: PISCO 

and the Multi-agency Rocky Intertidal 

Network (MARINe). The research group 

at UC Santa Cruz (PISCO) is responsible 

for many of the ongoing rocky intertidal 

monitoring programs along the Pacific 

coast. Monitoring occurs at rocky 

intertidal sites, often large bedrock 

benches, from the high intertidal to the 

water’s edge. Long-term monitoring 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES