60694 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Form 3-186, Notice of Waterfowl Sale or 

Transfer, from the permittee for as long 

as you have the birds, eggs, or their 

progeny. 

(b) All progeny of captive-reared birds 

or from eggs of captive-reared birds 

must be physically marked in 

accordance with § 21.13(b). 

(c) With the exception of muscovy 

ducks, you may transfer or dispose of 

captive-reared birds or their eggs, 

whether alive or dead, to any other 

person only if you have a valid 

waterfowl sale and disposal permit (see 

§ 21.25 of subpart C of this part). 

(d) Lawfully-possessed and properlymarked birds may be killed, in any 

number, at any time or place, by any 

means except shooting. The birds may 

be killed by shooting only in accordance 

with all applicable hunting regulations 

governing the taking of like species from 

the wild (see part 20 of this subchapter). 

(e) At all times during possession, 

transportation, and storage, until the 

raw carcasses of such birds are finally 

processed immediately prior to cooking, 

smoking, or canning, you must leave the 

marked foot or wing attached to each 

carcass, unless the carcass is marked as 

provided in § 21.13(b). 

(f) Muscovy ducks. You do not need 

a permit to acquire, possess, or sell 

properly-marked, captive-reared 

muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata) or 

their eggs. You may not release captivereared muscovy ducks to the wild or to 

any location used by wild ducks. You 

may not sell muscovy ducks to be 

hunted or released to the wild, sell them 

or distribute them as pets, or transfer 

them to anyone to be hunted or released 

to the wild. Nothing in this section shall 

be construed to permit the taking of live 

muscovy ducks or their eggs from the 

wild. 

(g) Dealers in meat and game, hotels, 

restaurants, and boarding houses may 

serve or sell to their customers the 

carcass of any bird acquired from a 

holder of a valid waterfowl sale and 

disposal permit. 

3. Amend § 21.25 as follows: 

a. By redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), 

(c), (d), and (e) as paragraphs (b), (c), (d), 

(e), and (f); 

b. By adding a new paragraph (a) to 

read as set forth below; and 

c. By revising newly designated 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as set 

forth below. 

§ 21.25 Waterfowl sale and disposal 

permits. 

(a) Prohibition on taking waterfowl 

from the wild. You may not take 

migratory waterfowl or their eggs from 

the wild, except as provided for 

elsewhere in this subchapter. 

(b) Permit requirement. You do not 

need a permit to acquire, possess, sell, 

or dispose of properly-marked, captivereared mallard ducks (Anas 

platyrhynchos) or properly-marked, 

captive-reared muscovy ducks (Cairina 

moschata), or their eggs. You must have 

a waterfowl sale and disposal permit 

before you may lawfully sell, trade, 

donate, or otherwise dispose of other 

species of properly-marked, captivereared migratory waterfowl or their eggs. 

(c) Permit conditions. In addition to 

the general conditions set forth in part 

13 of this subchapter B, waterfowl sale 

and disposal permits are subject to the 

following conditions: 

(1) You may acquire waterfowl, other 

than mallard ducks or muscovy ducks, 

or their eggs, only from a person who 

has a valid waterfowl sale and disposal 

permit. 

(2) You must physically mark all 

offspring hatched in captivity before 

they are 6 weeks of age in accordance 

with § 21.13(b), unless you hold them 

at a public zoological park or a public 

scientific or educational institution. 

(3) Properly marked captive-reared 

birds may be killed, in any number, at 

any time or place, by any means except 

shooting. They may be killed by 

shooting only in accordance with all the 

applicable hunting regulations for the 

species (see part 20 of this subchapter). 

(4) During possession, transportation, 

and storage, until the raw carcasses of 

such birds are finally processed 

immediately prior to cooking, smoking, 

or canning, the marked foot or wing 

must remain attached to each carcass. 

However, if you have a State license, 

permit, or authorization that allows you 

to sell game, you may remove the 

marked foot or wing from the raw 

carcasses if the number of your State 

license, permit, or authorization has 

been legibly stamped in ink on the back 

of each carcass and on the wrapping or 

container in which each carcass is 

maintained, or if each carcass is 

identified by a State band on a leg or 

wing pursuant to requirements of your 

State license, permit, or authorization. 

(5) You may transfer or sell live or 

dead birds marked by a method listed in 

§ 21.13(b), or their eggs, at any time or 

place. 

(6) If you transfer captive-reared birds 

or their eggs, other than mallard ducks 

or muscovy ducks or their eggs, to 

another person, you must complete 

FWS Form 3-186, Notice of Waterfowl 

Sale or Transfer, and provide all 

information required on the form, plus 

the method or methods listed in § 

21.13(b) by which the birds are marked. 

(i) Give the original of the completed 

form to the person acquiring the birds 

or eggs. 

(ii) Retain one copy in your files. 

(iii) Attach one copy to the shipping 

container for the birds or eggs, or 

include it with shipping documents that 

accompany the shipment. 

(iv) By the end of the month in which 

you complete the transfer, mail two 

copies to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Regional Office that issued your permit. 

* * * * * 

4. Revise § 21.54(c) as follows: 

(c) Disposal of muscovy ducks. Any 

muscovy duck removed live under this 

order must be: Any muscovy duck 

removed live under this order must be: 

(1) placed with a facility where it will 

be maintained under conditions that 

will prevent its escape to the wild, (2) 

donated to public museums or public 

institutions for scientific or educational 

purposes, or (3) euthanized and 

disposed of by burying or incineration. 

Any muscovy duck taken lethally under 

this order may be donated to a public 

museum or public institution for 

scientific or educational purposes. If it 

is not donated to a public museum or 

public institution, it must be disposed 

of by burying or incineration. You may 

not retain for personal use or 

consumption, offer for sale, or sell a 

muscovy duck removed under authority 

of this section, nor may you release it 

in any other location. 

Dated: August 31, 2010 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23139 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

[Docket No. 100217098–0373–01] 

RIN 0648–AY64 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; 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: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the U.S. Department of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60695 

the Air Force, Headquarters 96th Air 

Base Wing (U.S. Air Force), Eglin Air 

Force Base (Eglin AFB) for authorization 

to take marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment, incidental to Naval 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal School 

(NEODS) training operations, military 

readiness activities, at Eglin AFB, FL 

from approximately December, 2010, to 

November, 2015. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is proposing regulations to govern the 

requested take and requesting 

information, suggestions, and comments 

on its proposed regulations. NMFS 

issued annual Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations pursuant to the MMPA 

for similar specified activities in 2005, 

2006, 2007, and 2008. No activities have 

occurred to date. 

DATES: Information, suggestions, and 

comments must be received no later 

than November 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

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

20910–3225. Submit all electronic 

public comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.

noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the Internet at: http://www.

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

htm. Documents cited in this notice may 

be viewed, by appointment, during 

regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. NMFS is 

current preparing a Draft Environmental 

Assessment in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) as implemented by the 

regulations published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–713–2289, ext. 172. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the Internet at: http://www.

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

htm. 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at the aforementioned 

address. 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), 

upon request, to allow for a period of 

not more than five years, 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 regulations are issued. 

Alternatively, if the taking is limited to 

harassment an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) is issued. Upon 

making a finding that an application for 

incidental take is adequate and 

complete, NMFS commences the 

incidental take authorization process by 

publishing in the Federal Register a 

notice of a receipt of an application for 

the implementation of regulations or a 

proposed IHA. 

An authorization for the incidental 

takings may be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking during the period of the 

authorization 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 to achieve the least practicable 

adverse impact. 

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. 108–36) 

modified the MMPA by removing the 

‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified 

geographic region’’ limitations and 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ 

as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity’’ to read as follows (Section 

3(18)(B) of the MMPA): 

(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 

behavioral patterns are abandoned or 

significantly altered (Level B harassment). 

Summary of Request 

On November 6, 2009, NMFS received 

a letter from the U.S. Air Force 

requesting an authorization for the take 

of marine mammals incidental to 

NEODS training operations. These 

training operations are properly 

considered ‘‘military readiness activity’’ 

under the provisions of the NDAA. On 

January 15, 2010, NMFS published a 

Notice of Receipt (75 FR 2490) in the 

Federal Register for the U.S. Air Force’s 

NEODS training operations and 

determined that its application was 

adequate and complete. The U.S. Air 

Force states and NMFS concurs that 

underwater explosive detonations could 

result in the take by harassment of 

marine mammals by exposing them to 

sound. The requested regulations would 

establish a framework for authorizing 

incidental take with future LOAs. These 

LOAs, if approved, would authorize the 

take, by Level B (behavioral) 

harassment, of Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) 

incidental to conducting NEODS 

training operations and testing at Eglin 

Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) 

at property off Santa Rosa Island (SRI), 

Florida, in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM). Based on the application, premitigation take would average 

approximately 10 animals per year; 

approximately 50 animals over the five 

year period. NMFS issued annual 

Incidental Harassment Authorizations 

(IHA) for almost identical activities in 

2005 (70 FR 51341; August 30, 2005), 

2006 (71 FR 60639; October 16, 2006), 

2007 (72 FR 58290; October 15, 2007), 

and 2008 (73 FR 56800; September 30, 

2008). The past missions have been 

delayed due to safety issues related to 

bringing demolition charges under a 

bridge. No missions have occurred to 

date under any of the IHAs. NEODS 

missions would involve underwater 

detonations of small, live explosive 

charges adjacent to inert mines. The 

NEODS training activities are classified 

as military readiness activities. The U.S. 

Air Force states that underwater 

detonation of the specified explosive 

charges may expose bottlenose dolphins 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

in the area to noise and pressure 

resulting in non-injurious temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) (temporary hearing 

loss). 

Additional information on the NEODS 

training operations is contained in the 

application, which is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Description of the Proposed Specified 

Activities 

Background 

Potential impacts to listed species and 

habitat from NEODS testing are limited 

to the sites offshore of Eglin AFB shown 

in Figure 1–1 of Eglin AFB’s 

application. The EGTTR encompasses 

approximately 222,739 km2 (86,000 mi2) 

within the GOM and consists of the 

airspace over the GOM, which is 

scheduled and operated by Eglin AFB. 

NEODS test areas are located 

approximately three nautical miles 

(nmi) from shore, in approximately 18.3 

m (60 ft) of water and in area W–151 of 

the EGTTR. 

The mission of NEODS is 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 U.S. Navy 

EOD force of approximately 1,000 men 

and women has the equipment, 

mobility, and flexibility to tackle the 

global spectrum of threats in all world 

environments. Mine Countermeasures 

(MCM) detonations is one function of 

the U.S. Navy EOD force, which 

involves mine-hunting and mineclearance operations. The NEODS 

facilities are located at Eglin AFB, 

Florida. The proposed training at Eglin 

AFB involves focused training on basic 

EOD skills. Examples of these 

fundamental skills are recognizing 

ordnance, reconnaissance, 

measurement, basic understanding of 

demolition charges, and neutralization 

of conventional and chemical ordnance. 

The NEODS at Eglin AFB proposes to 

use the GOM waters off of SRI for a 

portion of the NEODS class. The NEODS 

would utilize areas approximately one 

to three nmi offshore of Test Site A–15, 

A–10 or A–3 for MCM training (see 

Figure 1–1 of Eglin AFB’s application). 

A ‘‘test site’’ is a specific location on 

EGTTR where the mission activities 

actually occur. The goal of the training 

is to give NEODS students the tools and 

techniques to implement MCM through 

real scenarios. The students would be 

taught established techniques to 

implement MCM through real scenarios. 

The students would be taught 

established techniques for neutralizing 

mines by diving and hand-placing 

charges adjacent to the mines. The 

detonation of small, live explosive 

charges adjacent to the mine disables 

the mine function. Inert mines are 

utilized for training purposes. This 

training would occur offshore of SRI up 

to eight times annually, at varying times 

within the year. 

Proposed NEODS Operations 

MCM training classes are 51 days in 

duration, with four days of on-site 

training in the GOM. Two of these four 

days will be utilized to lay the inert 

mines prior to the training. The other 

two days will require the use of live 

detonations in the GOM. One large 

safety vessel and five MK V inflatable 

3.1 m (10 ft) rubber boats with 50 

horsepower (HP) engines would be used 

to access the GOM waters during 

training activities. The training 

procedures during the two ‘‘live 

demolition’’ days are described as 

follows. 

First Live Demolition Day: Five inert 

mines will be placed in a compact area 

on the GOM floor in approximately 60 

ft of water. These five mines will be 

utilized for the one or two live 

demolition days. Divers will locate the 

mines by hand-held sonars (AN/PQS– 

2A acoustic locator and the Dukane 

Underwater Acoustic Locator System), 

which detect the mine casings (mine 

shape reacquisition). The hand-held 

sonar would not impact any protected 

marine species because the sonar ranges 

are below any current threshold for 

protected marine species (see Table 1– 

1 of Eglin AFB’s application); therefore, 

potential noise impacts from sonars are 

not included in this analysis. 

Five charges packed with C–4 

explosive material (either 2.3 kg [5 lb] 

NEW or 4.6 kg [10 lb] NEW) will be set 

up adjacent to the mines. A charge 

includes detonation cord, non-electric 

caps, time fuses and fuse igniters. No 

more than five charges will be utilized 

over the two-day period. Live training 

events will occur eight times annually, 

averaging once every six to seven weeks. 

Four of the training events will involve 

five-lb charges, and four events will 

involve ten-lb charges. Because five 

detonations (maximum) are expected 

during each event, there will be up to 

twenty five-lb detonations and twenty 

ten-lb detonations annually, for a total 

of forty detonations. It is expected that 

60 percent of the training events will 

occur in summer, and 40 percent will 

occur in winter. Therefore, analyses of 

potential marine mammal impacts in 

Section 6 of Eglin AFB’s application 

reflect this seasonal distribution. 

Overpressure from the detonation is 

intended to disrupt the electrical charge 

on the mine, rendering it safe. The five 

charges will be detonated individually 

with a maximum separation time of 20 

minutes between each detonation. The 

time of detonation will be limited to an 

hour after sunrise and an hour before 

sunset. Mine shapes and debris will be 

recovered and removed from the GOM 

waters when training is completed. 

Second Live Demolition Day: Each 

team has two days to complete their 

entire evolution (detonation of five 

charges). The second day will be 

utilized only if the teams cannot 

complete their evolution on day one. 

TABLE 1—(TABLE 1–1 OF THE APPLICATION) HAND-HELD SONAR CHARACTERISTICS

AN/PQS–2A Dukane 

Frequency Operating Range ....................................... 115 kHz–145 kHz ........................................................ 30–45 kHz. 

Audible Frequency Range ........................................... N/A .............................................................................. 250 Hz–2,500 Hz. 

Operating Frequency ................................................... 115 kHz–145 kHz ........................................................ 37.5 kHz ± 1 kHz. 

Sound Pressure Level ................................................. 1.78.5 re 1 μPa @ 1m ................................................ 157–160.5 re 1 μPa @ 1m. 

Additional details regarding the 

proposed NEODS training operations 

can be found in Eglin AFB’s LOA 

application and Draft Environmental 

Assessment on the Promulgation of 

Regulations and the Issuance of Letters 

of Authorization to Take Marine 

Mammals, by Harassment, Incidental to 

Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

School Training Operations at Eglin Air 

Force Base, Florida (Draft EA). The Draft 

EA can also be found online at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications. 

Military Readiness Activity 

NEODS supports the Naval Fleet by 

providing training to personnel from all 

four armed services, civil officials, and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60697 

military students from over 70 

countries. The NEODS facility supports 

the Department of Defense Joint Service 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal training 

mission. According to the application, 

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. 

As described in the application, the 

Navy believes that an array of transnational, rogue, and sub-national 

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 Eglin AFB is 

considered a military readiness activity 

pursuant to the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108– 

136). 

Proposed Dates, Duration, and Location 

of Specified Activity 

NEODS missions will occur over the 

next five years utilizing resources 

within the Eglin Military Complex, 

including three sites in the EGTTR 

(Figure 1–1 of Eglin AFB’s application). 

There will be eight training events 

annually, with an average of one event 

occurring every six to seven weeks. Half 

of the events will involve 5 lb charges 

and half will involve 10 lb charges. 

Description of Marine Mammals and 

Habitat Affected in the Activity Area of 

the Specified Activities 

Marine mammal species that 

potentially occur within the EGTTR 

include several species of cetaceans and 

one sirenian, the West Indian manatee 

(see Table 1 below). Marine mammal 

species listed as Endangered under the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

includes the humpback, sei, fin, blue, 

North Atlantic right, sperm whale, and 

Florida manatee. The marine mammals 

that generally occur in the proposed 

training operations area belong to three 

taxonomic groups: Mysticetes (baleen 

whales), odontocetes (toothed whales), 

and sirenians (the manatee). Table 2 

below outlines the cetacean species and 

their habitat in the region of the 

proposed project area. 

During winter months, manatee 

distribution in the GOM is generally 

confined to southern Florida. During 

summer months, a few may migrate 

north as far as Louisiana. However, 

manatees primarily inhabit coastal and 

inshore waters and rarely venture 

offshore. NEODS missions would be 

conducted one to three nmi from shore. 

Therefore, effects on manatees are 

considered very unlikely, and the 

discussion of marine mammal species is 

confined to cetaceans. The primarily 

cetacean occurring in the NEODS area of 

interest, EGTTR sub-area 197 (Figure 3– 

1 of Eglin AFB’s application), is the 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin and this 

analysis will focus on that species. 

TABLE 2—THE HABITAT AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS INHABITING THE PROPOSED STUDY AREA IN

THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF OF FLORIDA. 

Species Habitat ESA1 MMPA2

Mysticetes 

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) ........................... Coastal and shelf .............................................. EN D. 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) ............................... Pelagic, neashore waters and banks ............... EN D. 

Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei) ............................................ Pelagic and coastal ........................................... NL NC. 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ................................... Pelagic and coastal ........................................... NL NC. 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ........................................... Pelagic and coastal ........................................... EN D. 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ................................................ Primarily offshore, pelagic ................................ EN D. 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) .............................................. Slope, mostly pelagic ........................................ EN D. 

Odontocetes 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) ...................................... Pelagic, deep seas ........................................... EN D. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) ................................. Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus) ........................ Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

True’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus) ................................... Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) ................... Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) ................................................. Offshore, pelagic ............................................... NL NC. 

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) ........................................ Offshore, pelagic ............................................... NL NC. 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ........................................................... Widely distributed .............................................. NL NC. 

D (Southern Resident, AT1 Transient). 

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) .............. Inshore and offshore ......................................... NL NC. 

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) ................................... Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) ............................ Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) ......................................... Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ............................................... Pelagic, shelf ..................................................... NL NC. 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ....................................... Offshore, inshore, coastal, estuaries ................ NL NC. 

D (Western North 

Atlantic Coastal). 

Rough toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) ................................ Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) ........................................ Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) ........................................ Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) .......................... Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

D (Northeastern Offshore). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—THE HABITAT AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS INHABITING THE PROPOSED STUDY AREA IN

THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF OF FLORIDA.—Continued 

Species Habitat ESA1 MMPA2

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) .................................. Coastal to pelagic ............................................. NL NC. 

Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) .......................................... Mostly pelagic ................................................... NL NC. 

D (Eastern). 

Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) ............................................ Pelagic .............................................................. NL NC. 

Sirenians 

West Indian (Florida) manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) .. Coastal, rivers and estuaries ............................ EN D. 

1 U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = Not listed. 

2 U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: NC = Not Classified, D = Depleted, S = Strategic. 

The three species of marine mammals 

that are known to commonly occur in 

close proximity to the NEODS training 

area of the GOM are the West Indian 

(Florida) manatee, Atlantic spotted 

dolphin, and Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphin. 

Florida Manatee 

The West Indian manatee in Florida 

and U.S. waters is listed as Endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). They primarily inhabit coastal 

and inshore waters. Because the Florida 

manatee is managed under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service it is not considered 

further in this analysis. 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphins 

The Atlantic spotted dolphin is 

endemic to the Atlantic Ocean in 

temperate to tropical waters (Perrin et 

al., 1987, 1994). In the GOM, Atlantic 

spotted dolphins occur primarily from 

continental shelf waters 10 to 200 m (33 

to 656 ft) deep to slope waters greater 

than 500 m (1,640 ft) deep (Fulling et 

al., 2003; Mullin and Fulling, 2004). 

Atlantic spotted dolphins were seen in 

all seasons during GulfCet aerial surveys 

of the northern GOM from 1992 to 1998 

(Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin and 

Hoggard, 2000). It has been suggested 

that this species may move inshore 

seasonally during spring, but data 

supporting this hypothesis are limited 

(Caldwell and Caldwell, 1966; Fritts et 

al., 1983). 

Eglin AFB has included Atlantic 

spotted dolphins in previous requests 

for IHAs to be conservative, although 

their occurrence is considered unlikely. 

The stock assessment reports for the 

northern GOM describes the shoreward 

range of Atlantic spotted dolphins as 

10 m (33 ft) depth. NEODS activities can 

occur from one to three miles offshore. 

Maximum water depth of the proposed 

activities is 18.3 m (60 ft), but they often 

train in approximately 9.1 m (30 ft) of 

water, so this species range occurs at the 

very edge of the proposed activities. 

Therefore, the chance of impacting 

Atlantic spotted dolphins is remote, 

especially given the monitoring and 

mitigation measures described below. 

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins 

The marine mammal species 

potentially affected is the Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphin. Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins are distributed worldwide in 

tropical and temperate waters. Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins occur in slope, 

shelf, and inshore waters of the entire 

GOM, and their diet consists mainly of 

fish, crabs, squid, and shrimp (Caldwell 

and Caldwell, 1983). In addition, a 

coastal and an offshore form of the 

bottlenose dolphin have been suggested. 

Baumgartner et al. (2001) suggest a 

bimodal distribution in the northern 

GOM, with a shelf population occurring 

out to the 150 m (492 ft) isobath and a 

shelf break population out to the 750 m 

(2,460.6 ft) isobath. Occurrence in water 

with depth greater than 1,000 m (3,280.8 

ft) is not considered likely and not 

applicable to this assessment. Migratory 

patterns from inshore to offshore are 

likely associated with the movements of 

prey rather than a preference for a 

particular habitat characteristic (such as 

surface water temperature) (Ridgeway, 

1972; Irving, 1973; Jefferson et al., 

1992). 

Within the EGTTR, there are four 

defined stocks of bottlenose dolphins: 

the Northern GOM Oceanic Stock, the 

Northern GOM Continental Shelf Stock, 

the Eastern GOM Coastal Stock, and the 

Northern GOM Coastal Stock. In 

addition, there are 33 stocks of 

bottlenose dolphins inhabiting the bays, 

sounds, and estuaries along the GOM 

coast (Waring et al., 2007). Prior to the 

2007 Garrison survey and model 

predictions, the best estimates of 

abundance were 7 to 15 years old, 

occurred during different seasons, and 

each of the surveys suffered from 

differing degrees of negative bias in 

abundance estimates because all surveys 

assumed that all animals on the 

trackline were seen. Therefore, 

estimates based on those surveys would 

be highly uncertain. Based on data from 

the Protected Species Habitat Modeling 

in the EGTTR, the total estimate of 

abundance of bottlenose dolphins from 

the winter 2007 survey was 65,861 (95 

percent CI 36,699 to 118,200) and for 

the summer 2007 survey was 11,433 

animals (95 percent CI 7,346 to 17,793) 

(Garrison, 2008). For both the summer 

and winter surveys, the highest density 

of bottlenose dolphins occurred in the 

northern inshore stratum. The summer 

survey overall abundance estimate for 

bottlenose dolphins was approximately 

50 percent lower than the winter survey 

(Garrison, 2008). Bottlenose dolphin 

stocks for the shelf edge and slope are 

not considered strategic. The potential 

for biological removal (PBR) for shelf 

and slope stocks is 45 dolphins (Waring 

et al., 2001). 

The presence of fish in the stomachs 

of some individual offshore bottlenose 

dolphins suggest that they dive to 

depths of more than 500 m (1,640 ft). A 

tagged individual near Bermuda had 

maximum recorded dives of 600 to 700 

m (1,969 to 2,297 ft) and durations of 11 

to 12 min. Dive durations up to 15 min 

have been recorded for trained 

individuals. Typical dives, however, are 

more shallow and of a much shorter 

duration. Data from a tagged individual 

off Bermuda indicated a possible diel 

dive cycle (i.e., a regular daily dive 

cycle) in search of mesopelagic (living at 

depths between 180 and 900 m [591 and 

2,953 ft]) prey in the deep scattering 

layer. 

In the EGTTR as a whole, there were 

a total of 281 groups of bottlenose 

dolphins during the winter survey and 

162 groups during the summer survey. 

According to the species-habitat model 

for bottlenose dolphins, densities were 

predicted to be highest in relatively 

shallow water, with an offshore peak in 

density between 40 to 60 m (131 to 

196.9 ft) depth and in waters ranging 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60699 

between 27.5 to 28.5 °C (81.5 to 83.3 °F) 

(Garrison, 2008). 

Bottlenose dolphin density estimates 

for the study area are derived from 

Protected Species Habitat Modeling in 

the EGTTR (Garrison, 2008). NMFS 

developed habitat models using new 

aerial survey line transect data collected 

during the winter and summer of 2007. 

The winter survey was conducted 

primarily during the month of February 

(water temperatures of 12 to 15 °C [53.6 

to 59 °F]) while the summer survey was 

primarily during July (water 

temperatures >26 °C [78.8 °F]). In 

combination with remotely sensed 

habitat parameters (sea surface 

temperature and chlorophyll), these 

data were used to develop spatial 

density models for bottlenose dolphins 

within the continental shelf and coastal 

waters of the eastern GOM. Encounter 

rates during the aerial surveys were 

corrected for sighting probabilities and 

the probability that animals were 

available to be seen on the surface. The 

models predict the absolute density of 

bottlenose dolphins within the EGTTR. 

Given that the survey area (EGTTR subarea 197, Figure 3–1 of Eglin AFB’s 

application) completely overlaps the 

NEODS mission area and that this data 

is currently the best available survey 

data, these models best reflect the 

occurrence of bottlenose dolphins 

within the EGTTR. 

Table 3–1 of Eglin AFB’s application 

provides median and adjusted 

bottlenose dolphin densities in EGTTR 

sub-area 197. These absolute estimates 

of density (animals per square kilometer 

[km2] were produced by combining the 

spatial density model, sighting 

probability, and availability model 

(Garrison, 2008). All environmental 

terms were retained in the specieshabitat model for the winter survey and 

the summer survey with the exception 

of glare for the summer survey. The 

model fits for the winter and summer 

were highly significant, explained a 

significant portion of the variability in 

the data, and resulted in effective 

predictions of spatial distribution of 

bottlenose dolphins. 

NEODS missions may be executed at 

any time during the year. It is 

anticipated that approximately 60 

percent of missions will be executed 

during summer months, and 40 percent 

will be executed during winter months. 

Separate summer and winter density 

estimates are provided in Table 3–1 of 

Eglin AFB’s application. Months with 

high CV values (greater than 1) have 

high degrees of uncertainty in the model 

predictions. These months include May, 

June, September, October, and 

November where density was unknown. 

In order to compensate for the months 

without good estimates, interpolation 

was used between the available months 

by providing a means of estimating the 

function at intermediate points through 

presuming that there were linear 

seasonal trends. Interpolation assumes 

that the poorly estimated periods lie 

somewhere in the middle of the well 

estimated periods. Adjusted densities 

for each month were reached after 

interpolation calculations (see Table 3– 

1 of Eglin AFB’s application). Based on 

the adjusted densities, January, March, 

and July have the highest bottlenose 

dolphin densities while the months 

from August through December months 

have the lowest densities. On average, 

there are 0.81 bottlenose dolphins/km2

throughout the year in EGTTR sub-area 

197. Seasonally there are on average 

0.84 dolphins/km2 during summer and 

0.78 dolphins/km2 during winter in subarea 197. 

TABLE 3—(TABLE 3–1 OF THE APPLICATION) BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN DENSITIES FOR EGTTR SUB-AREA 197 

Month Median density 

(Individuals/km2) CV Valid Adjusted density (Individuals/km2)a

November ................................................................................ 0.00 31.62 0 0.51 

December ................................................................................ 0.52 0.25 1 0.52 

January .................................................................................... 1.24 0.22 1 1.24 

February ................................................................................... 0.73 0.20 1 0.73 

March ....................................................................................... 1.22 0.28 1 1.22 

April .......................................................................................... 0.84 0.46 1 0.84 

Average Winter Density 

May .......................................................................................... 0.00 22.41 0 0.95 

June ......................................................................................... 0.00 4.47 0 1.06 

July ........................................................................................... 1.17 0.24 1 1.17 

August ...................................................................................... 0.48 0.22 1 0.48 

September ............................................................................... 0.01 3.02 0 0.49 

October .................................................................................... 0.00 20.43 0 0.50 

Average Summer Density .................... 0.78 

Overall Average Density .................... 0.81 

aAdjusted through interpolation. 

NMFS anticipates that no bottlenose 

dolphins will be injured, seriously 

injured, or killed during the proposed 

NEODS training operations. The specific 

objective of the U.S. Air Force’s 

mitigation and monitoring plan is to 

ensure that no dolphins (or manatees) or 

other protected species are in the action 

area where they might be impacted by 

the explosive detonations. Because of 

the circumstances and the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

discussed in this document, NMFS 

believes it highly unlikely that the 

proposed activities would result in 

injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, or mortality of bottlenose 

dolphins, however, they may 

temporarily avoid the area where the 

proposed explosive demolition will 

occur. Eglin AFB has requested the 

incidental take of 10 bottlenose dolphin 

each year and approximately 50 animals 

during the five year duration of the 

proposed action. 

Further information on the biology, 

habitat, and local distribution of these 

species and others in the region can be 

found in Eglin AFB’s application, which 

is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES), and the NMFS Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 

which are available online at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60700 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Comments and Responses 

On January 15, 2010, NMFS 

published a notice of receipt of 

application for a LOA in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 2490) and requested 

comments, information, and suggestions 

from the public for 30 days. NMFS 

received comments from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission) 

and a private citizen. The private 

citizen’s comments opposed the 

issuance of an authorization without 

providing any specific rationale for that 

position. NMFS, therefore, cannot 

respond to this comment. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

supports NMFS’ intent to publish 

proposed small-take regulations for 

these activities, provided the research, 

mitigation, and monitoring activities 

described in the application are 

incorporated into the rule. The 

Commission looks forward to reviewing 

the proposed regulations. 

Response: NMFS appreciates with the 

Commission’s comments and has 

incorporated the research, mitigation, 

and monitoring activities described in 

the application into the proposed rule. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals 

In general, potential impacts to 

marine mammals from explosive 

detonations could include non-lethal 

injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, and mortality, as well as Level B 

harassment. In the absence of 

monitoring and mitigation, marine 

mammals may be killed or injured as a 

result of an explosive detonation due to 

the response of air cavities in the body, 

such as the lungs and bubbles in the 

intestines. Effects are likely to be most 

severe in near surface waters where the 

reflected shock wave creates a region of 

negative pressure called ‘‘cavitation.’’ 

While these direct physiological effects 

are possible, they are considered 

unlikely in association with the 

specified activities due to the 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described below. 

A second potential possible cause of 

mortality is the onset of extensive lung 

hemorrhage. Extensive lung hemorrhage 

is considered debilitating and 

potentially fatal. Suffocation caused by 

lung hemorrhage is likely to be the 

major cause of marine mammal death 

from underwater shock waves. The 

estimated range for the onset of 

extensive lung hemorrhage to marine 

mammals varies depending upon the 

animal’s weight, with the smallest 

mammals having the greatest potential 

hazard range. 

Marine mammals may potentially be 

harassed due to noise from NEODS 

mission involving underwater 

detonations. The potential numbers and 

species taken by noise are assessed in 

this section. Three key sources of 

information are necessary for estimating 

potential noise effects on marine 

resources: (1) The number of distinct 

firing or test events; (2) the Zone of 

Influence (ZOI) for noise exposure; and 

(3) the density of animals that 

potentially reside within the ZOI. The 

ZOI is the area where potential impacts 

from the mission could occur. The ‘‘test 

site’’ and ‘‘mission area’’ are both found 

within the ZOI. 

For the acoustic analysis, the 

exploding charge is characterized as a 

point source. The impact thresholds 

used for marine mammals relate to 

potential effects on hearing from 

underwater detonation noise. No ESAlisted marine mammals would be 

affected given the location of the 

proposed action in nearshore waters. 

The only ESA-listed marine mammal 

likely to be found in the northeastern 

GOM, the Federal and state-listed 

endangered sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus), occurs farther out on 

the continental slope in water generally 

deeper than 600 m (1,968.5 ft). Manatees 

are not considered likely to occur in the 

mission areas (see Figure 1–1 of Eglin 

AFB’s application) and are therefore not 

considered in this analysis. 

For the explosives in question, actual 

detonation depths would occur at 60 ft 

near the sand bottom. The inert mines 

and sea floor may potentially interact 

with the propagation of noise into the 

water. However, effects on the 

propagation of noise into the water 

column cannot be determined without 

in-water noise monitoring at the time of 

detonation. Potential exposure of a 

sensitive species to detonation noise 

could theoretically occur at the surface 

or at any number of depths with 

differing consequences. A conservative 

acoustic analysis was selected to ensure 

the greatest direct path for the 

harassment ranges and to give the 

greatest impact range for the injury 

thresholds. 

Criteria and thresholds that are the 

basis of the analysis of NEODS noise 

impacts to cetaceans were initially used 

in U.S. Navy Environmental Impact 

Statements for ship shock trials of the 

Seawolf submarine and the Winston S. 

Churchill (Churchill) vessel (DON, 1998; 

DON, 2001) and adopted by NMFS 

(NMFS, 2001). Supplemental criteria 

and thresholds have been introduced in 

the EGTTR Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment (U.S. Air 

Force, 2002), subsequent EGTTR LOA 

(U.S. Air Force, 2003) permit request, 

Precision Strike Weapons (PSW) LOA 

(U.S. Air Force, 2004), and Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Panama City 

Division LOA (U.S. Navy, 2008). 

Standard impulsive and acoustic 

metrics were used for the analysis of 

underwater pressure waves in this 

document. 

• Energy flux density (EFD) is the 

time integral of the squared pressure 

divided by the impedance. EFD levels 

have units of dB re 1 μPa2·s. 

• 1⁄3-Octave EFD is the energy flux 

density in a 1⁄3-octave frequency band; 

the 1⁄3 octave selected is the hearing 

range at which the subject animals’ 

hearing is believed to be most sensitive. 

• Peak pressure is the maximum 

positive pressure for an arrival of a 

sound pressure wave that a marine 

mammal would receive at some distance 

away from a detonation. Units used here 

are pounds per square inch (psi) and dB 

levels. 

Non-lethal injurious impacts are 

defined in this document as eardrum 

rupture (i.e., tympanic-membrane (TM 

rupture) and the onset of slight lung 

injury. These are considered indicative 

of the onset of injury. The threshold for 

TM rupture corresponds to a 50 percent 

rate of rupture (i.e., 50 percent of 

animals exposed to the level are 

expected to suffer TM rupture); this is 

stated in terms of an EFD value of 1.17 

in-lb/in2, which is about 205 dB re 1 

μPa2·s. This recognizes that TM rupture 

is not necessarily a life-threatening 

injury, but is a useful index of possible 

injury that is well-correlated with 

measures of permanent hearing 

impairment (e.g., Ketten [1998] 

indicates a 30 percent incidence of 

permanent threshold shift [PTS] at the 

same threshold). 205 re 1 μPa2·s has 

been requested by NMFS to calculate 

harassment distances for Level A 

harassment (NMFS, 2008). 

Public Law 108–136 (2004) amended 

the definition of Level B harassment 

under the MMPA for military readiness 

activities, such as this action (and also 

for scientific research on marine 

mammals conducted by or on the behalf 

of the Federal Government). For military 

readiness activities, Level B harassment 

is now defined as ‘‘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.’’ Unlike Level A 

harassment, which is solely associated 

with physiological effects, both 

physiological and behavioral effects 

may cause Level B harassment. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60701 

NMFS (2008) requested a dual 

criterion (i.e., 182 dB re 1 μPa2·s and 23 

psi peak) be used to calculate Level B 

harassment. Since the mission (five 

detonations over one or two days) does 

not meet multiple explosion criteria and 

the potential for significant alteration of 

behavior will not be expected for the 

short duration of noise produced from 

single detonations from NEODS 

missions, thresholds for behavioral 

effects to explosive sound will not be 

analyzed. The first criterion for noninjurious harassment is TTS, which is 

defined as a temporary, recoverable loss 

of hearing sensitivity (NMFS, 2001; 

DON, 2001). The criterion for TTS is 

182 dB re 1 μPa2·s. The potential for 

significant alteration of behavior 

described below will not be expected for 

the short duration of noise produced 

from single detonations from NEODS 

tests. 

The second criterion for estimating 

TTS threshold applies to all cetacean 

species and is stated in terms of peak 

pressure at 23 psi. The threshold is 

derived from the Churchill threshold 

which was subsequently adopted by 

NMFS in its Final Rule on the 

unintentional taking of marine animals 

incidental to the shock testing (NMFS, 

2001). The original criteria in Churchill 

incorporated 12 psi. The current criteria 

and threshold for peak pressure over all 

exposures was updated from 12 psi to 

23 psi for explosives less than 907 kg 

(2,000 lb) based on an IHA issued to the 

Air Force for a similar action (NOAA, 

2006a). Peak pressure and energy scale 

at different rates with charge weight, so 

that ranges based on the peak-pressure 

threshold are much greater than those 

for the energy metric when charge 

weights are small, even when source 

and animal are away from the surface. 

In order to more accurately estimate 

TTS for smaller shots while preserving 

the safety feature provided by the peak 

pressure threshold, the peak pressure 

threshold is appropriately scaled for 

small shot detonations. This scaling is 

based on the similitude formulas (e.g., 

Urick, 1983) used in virtually all 

compliance documents for short ranges. 

Further, the peak-pressure threshold for 

marine mammal TTS for explosives 

offers a safety margin for source or 

animals near the ocean surface. 

The more conservative isopleths of 

the criterion for estimating Level B 

harassment will be used in take 

analysis. Table 6–1 of Elgin AFB’s 

application provides a summary of 

threshold criteria and metrics for 

potential noise impacts to sensitive 

species. 

TABLE 4—(TABLE 6–1 OF THE APPLICATION) THRESHOLD CRITERIA AND METRICS UTILIZED FOR IMPACT ANALYSES

Level A harassment Level B harassment 

Injurious; eardrum rupture (for 50 percent of 

animals exposed).

Non-injurious; TTS (temporary hearing loss) ... Non-injurious; peak-pressure threshold for 

TTS. 

205 dB re 1 μPa2·s EFD ................................... 182 dB re 1 μPa2·s .......................................... 23 psi. 

EFD* and/or 12 psi.

* Note: In greatest 1⁄3-octave band above 10 Hz or 100 Hz. 

Noise ZOIs were calculated for bottom 

detonation scenarios at 60 ft both 

lethality and harassment (Level A and B 

harassment). To determine the number 

of potential ‘‘takes’’ or animals affected, 

cetacean population information from 

surveys was applied to the various ZOIs. 

The impact calculations for this section 

utilize marine mammal density 

estimates that have been derived from a 

Legacy funded NMFS/Air Force project 

(Garrison, 2008). The species density 

estimate data were adjusted to reflect 

the best available data and more 

realistic encounters of these animals in 

their natural environment (Garrison, 

2008). These calculations and estimates 

are explained in detail in Section 3, and 

adjusted density estimates are provided 

in Table 3–1 of Eglin AFB’s application. 

Given the variability in mission 

schedules (any time during the year), an 

overall average of bottlenose dolphin 

density of 0.81 individuals/km2 is used 

for take analysis. 

Table 6–2 of Eglin AFB’s application 

gives the estimated impact ranges for 

the two explosive weights. The 

proposed test locations are one to three 

nmi south of SRI. NEODS detonations 

were modeled for bottom detonations at 

60 ft. 

No behavioral impacts (176 dB re 1 

μPa2·s) are anticipated with the NEODS 

test activities and are not considered in 

this analysis. Repetitive exposure 

(below TTS) to the same resident 

animals is highly unlikely due to the 

infrequent test events (no more than 5 

detonations over a one or two day 

period), the potential variability in 

target locations, and the continuous 

movement of marine mammals in the 

northern GOM. 

TABLE 5—(TABLE 6–2 OF THE APPLICATION) ZOI FOR UNDERWATER EXPLOSIONS

Ordnance NEW (lbs) 

Depth of 

explosion 

(m) 

Ranges for 

EFDL >205 dB 

(m) 

Ranges for 

EFDL in 1⁄3

octave band 

(m) 

23 psi (m) 

Summer 

NEODS MCM 2.3 kg (5 lb) charge .................................. 5 18 52 .1 227 .5 222 

NEODS MCM 4.5 kg (10 lb) charge ................................ 10 18 77 385 280 

Winter 

NEODS MCM 5 lb charge ............................................... 5 18 52 .2 229 .8 222 

NEODS MCM 10 lb charge ............................................. 10 18 77 389 280 

EFDL = Energy Flux Density Level. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Applying the harassment ranges in 

Table 6–2 of the application to the 

species densities of Table 3–1 of the 

application, the number of animals 

potentially occurring within the ZOI 

was estimated. These results are 

presented in Tables 6–3 and 6–4 of the 

application. For Level B harassment 

calculations (Table 6–4 of the 

application), the ZOI corresponding to 

the 182 dB re 1 μPa2·s metric is used 

because this radius is in all cases greater 

than the radius corresponding to 23 psi. 

The total number of animals potentially 

exposed annually is in bold. A whole 

animal (and potential take) is defined as 

0.5 or greater, where calculation totals 

result in fractions of an animal. Where 

less than 0.5 animals are affected, no 

calculation totals result in fractions of 

an animals. Where less than 0.5 animals 

are affected, no take is assumed. The 

calculations in Tables 6–3 and 6–4 of 

the application are based on the 

expected tempo of: (1) 40 total 

detonations per year, (2) one-half of 

detonations are of 5 lb charges, and onehalf are of 10 lb charges, and (3) 60 

percent of detonations occur in summer, 

and 40 percent occur in winter. 

TABLE 6—(TABLE 6–3 OF THE APPLICATION) MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES AND RISK ESTIMATES FOR LEVEL A 

HARASSMENT (205 dB EFD 1⁄3 OCTAVE BAND) NOISE EXPOSURE FOR SUMMER AND WINTER

Species Density 

(animals/km2) 

ZOI 

(km) 

Number of animals exposed to Level A 

harassment 

5 lb 

charge 

10 lb 

charge 

5 lb 

charge 

10 lb 

charge 

Summer 

Bottlenose Dolphin .......................................... 0.78 0.0521 0.0770 0.08 ........................

(12 detonations) .....

0.17. 

(12 detonations). 

Winter 

Bottlenose Dolphin .......................................... 0.84 0.0522 0.0770 0.06 ........................

(8 detonations) .......

0.13. 

(8 detonations). 

Total Number Animals Potentially ...........

Exposed To Level A Harassment 

Annually 

............................ ........................ ........................ 0.44 

TABLE 7—(TABLE 6–4 OF THE APPLICATION) MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES AND RISK ESTIMATES FOR LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT (182 dB EFT 1⁄3 OCTAVE BAND) NOISE EXPOSURE

Species Density 

(animals/km2) 

ZOI 

(km) 

Number of animals exposed to Level B 

harassment 

5 lb 

charge 

10 lb 

charge 

5 lb 

charge 

10 lb 

charge 

Summer 

Bottlenose Dolphin .......................................... 0.78 0.2275 0.385 1.52 ........................

(12 detonations) .....

4.36. 

(12 detonations). 

Winter 

Bottlenose Dolphin .......................................... 0.84 0.2298 0.389 1.11 ........................

(8 detonations) .......

3.19. 

(8 detonations). 

Total Number Animals Potentially ...........

Exposed To Level B Harassment 

Annually 

............................ ........................ ........................ 10.18 

The tables above indicate that the 

potential for non-injurious (Level B) 

harassment, as well as the onset of 

injury (Level A harassment) to cetaceans 

is possible but unlikely even without 

any mitigation measures. Wintertime 

ZOIs are generally slightly larger but do 

not significantly affect the numbers of 

animals potentially exposed to noise. 

Less than 0.5 cetaceans are estimated 

to be exposed to Level A harassment 

(205 dB re 1 μPa2·s) ZOI. Therefore, as 

discussed above, no potential Level A 

exposures are anticipated. Level B 

harassment (182 dB re 1 μPa2·s) noise 

would potentially affect approximately 

10 cetaceans. None of the above impact 

estimates consider mitigation measures 

that will be employed by the proponent 

to minimize potential impacts to 

protected species. These mitigation 

measures are described in Section 11 

and are anticipated to greatly reduce 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Based on the analyses and results 

provided here and in Section 6 of Eglin 

AFB’s application, no strategic marine 

mammal stocks would be affected, and 

none of the marine mammal species that 

could potentially be taken is listed as 

threatened or endangered. The PBR for 

bottlenose dolphin is 45. No strategic 

marine mammal stocks would be 

affected. 

Possible Effects of Activities on Marine 

Mammal Habitat 

The primary source of marine 

mammal habitat impact is noise 

resulting from live NEODS missions. 

However, the noise does not constitute 

a long-term physical alteration of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60703 

water column or bottom topography, as 

the occurrences are of limited duration 

and are intermittent in time. Surface 

vessels associated with the missions are 

present in limited duration and are 

intermittent as well. 

Other sources that may affect marine 

mammal habitat were considered and 

potentially include the introduction of 

fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical 

residues in the water column. The 

effects of each of these components 

were considered in the NEODS BA and 

were determined to be unlikely to 

adversely affect protected marine 

species. Marine mammal habitat would 

not be affected, lost or modified. 

NMFS anticipates that the action will 

result in no impacts to marine mammal 

habitat beyond rendering the areas 

immediately around the NEODS 

training operations in the EGTTR less 

desirable shortly after each demolition 

event. The impacts will be localized and 

instantaneous. Impacts to marine 

mammal, invertebrate, and fish species 

are not expected to be detrimental. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an Incidental Take 

Authorization under Section 

101(a)(5)(A) and (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 on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses. The NDAA of 

2004 amended the MMPA as it relates 

to military readiness activities and the 

incidental take authorization process 

such that ‘‘the least practicable adverse 

impact’’ shall include consideration of 

personnel, safety, practicality of 

implementation, and the impact on the 

effectiveness of the ‘‘military readiness 

activity.’’ NEODS training involves 

military readiness activities. 

The NEODS has employed a number 

of mitigation measures in an effort to 

substantially decrease the number of 

animals potentially affected. Eglin AFB 

is committed to assessing the mission 

activity for opportunities to provide 

operational mitigations while 

potentially sacrificing some mission 

flexibility. 

Prior to the mission, a trained 

observer aboard the largest surface 

support vessel will survey (visually 

monitor) the test area for the presence 

of sea turtles and cetaceans. The area to 

be surveyed will span 230 m (754.6 ft) 

in every direction from the target, which 

is approximately the size of the largest 

harassment ZOI. The trained observer 

will conduct ship-based monitoring for 

non-participating vessels as well as for 

protected species. Dependent on 

visibility, surface observation would be 

effective out to several kilometers. 

Weather that supports the ability to 

sight small marine life is required in 

order to mitigate the test site effectively 

(DON, 1998). Wind, visibility, and 

surface conditions of the GOM are the 

most critical factors affecting mitigation 

operations. Higher winds typically 

increase wave height and create ‘‘white 

cap’’ conditions, limiting an observer’s 

ability to locate surfacing marine 

mammals. NEODS missions would be 

delayed if the sea state were greater than 

the Scale Number 3 described on Table 

8 (below) and in Eglin AFB’s 

application. Such a delay would 

maximize detection of marine 

mammals. 

TABLE 8—(TABLE 11–1 OF THE APPLICATION) SEA STATE SCALE FOR MARINE MAMMAL AND SEA TURTLE OBSERVATION

Scale No. Sea Conditions 

0 ................................. Flat calm, no waves or ripples. 

1 ................................. Small wavelets, few if any whitecaps. 

2 ................................. Whitecaps on 0 to 33 percent of surface; 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 ft) waves. 

3 ................................. Whitecaps on 33 to 50 percent of surface; 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft) waves. 

4 ................................. Whitecaps on greater than 50 percent of surface; greater than 0.9 m (3 ft) waves. 

Shipboard Monitoring Team 

Shipboard monitoring would be 

staged from the highest point possible 

on a support ship. The trained observer 

will be experienced in shipboard 

surveys and be familiar with the marine 

life of the area. The observer on the 

vessel must be equipped with optical 

equipment with sufficient magnification 

(e.g., binoculars, as these have been 

successfully used in monitoring from 

ships), which should allow the observer 

to sight surfacing mammals from a 

significant distance past the safety zone 

of 230 m (754.6 ft). The trained observer 

would be responsible for reporting 

sighting locations, which would be 

based on bearing and distance. 

The trained observer will have proper 

lines of communication to avoid 

communication deficiencies to make 

Go/No-Go recommendations for the 

detonations. The observer recommends 

the Go/No-Go decision to the Officer in 

Tactical Command, who makes the final 

Go/No-Go decision. As long as no 

protected species are sighted by the 

observer, then the mission is a Go, 

meaning it can proceed. However, if the 

area is fouled, meaning a protected 

species has entered the area, then the 

mission is a No-Go and cannot proceed 

until those individuals have left the 

mission area. 

Mitigation Procedures Plan 

Stepwise mitigation procedures for 

NEODS missions are outlined below. 

All zones (TTS, injury, and safety zones) 

are monitored, plus a buffer area that is 

twice the size of the largest ZOI (460 m 

or 1,509.2 ft). 

Pre-mission Monitoring: The purposes 

of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) 

evaluate the test site for environmental 

suitability of the mission (e.g., relatively 

low numbers of marine mammals, few 

or no patches of Sargassum, etc.) and (2) 

verify that the ZOI is free of visually 

detectable marine mammals, large 

schools of fish, large flocks of birds, 

large Sargassum mats, and large 

concentrations of jellyfish. On the 

morning of the test, the Officer in 

Tactical Command would confirm that 

the test sites can still support the 

mission and that the weather is 

adequate to support mitigation. 

(a) Two Hours Prior to Mission 

Approximately two hours prior to the 

mission, or at daybreak, (whichever is 

closest to time of the mission) the 

appropriate vessel(s) would be on-site 

near the location of the earliest planned 

detonation point. Observers onboard the 

vessels and the trained observer would 

assess the suitability of the test site, 

based on visual observation of marine 

mammals, the presence of large 

Sargassum mats, and overall 

environmental conditions (visibility, sea 

state, etc.). This information would be 

relayed to the Officer in Tactical 

Command. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(b) One Hour Prior to Mission 

One hour prior to the mission, 

monitoring would commence within the 

test site to evaluate the test site for 

environmental suitability. The observer 

would monitor the area around the 

detonation site, out to 0.47 km (0.25 

nmi) from the site, and record in a 

database all marine mammals sightings, 

include the time of each sighting. 

(c) Five Minutes Prior to Mission 

Visual monitoring would continue to 

document any protected animals seen 

inside the ZOI and farther out to 0.47 

km (0.25 nmi). If a marine mammal is 

traveling toward the test area, the time 

and distance can be calculated to 

determine if it will enter the test area 

during detonation. 

(d) Go/No-Go Decision Process 

The observer would plot and record 

sightings and bearings for all marine 

animals detected. This would depict 

animal sightings relative to the mission 

area. The observer would have the 

authority to declare the range fouled 

and recommend a hold until monitoring 

indicates that the test area (or ZOI) is 

and will remain clear of detectable 

marine mammals. 

(e) Throughout the Mission 

Monitoring of the test area will 

continue until the last detonation is 

complete. If any change in the status of 

the test area is observed or a protected 

marine mammal is sighted, the mission 

will be postponed until the area can be 

certified clear of protected marine 

mammals. 

The mission would be postponed if: 

1. Any marine mammal is visually 

detected within the ZOI. The delay 

would continue until the marine 

mammal that caused the postponement 

is confirmed to be outside of the ZOI 

due to the animal swimming out of the 

range. 

2. Any marine mammal is detected 

within or about to enter the ZOI (230 m 

[754.6 ft]) and subsequently cannot be 

reacquired. 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 230 m (754.6 ft) of 

the mission area. The delay would 

continue until the 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, 

operations would attempt to recognize 

and solve the problem while continuing 

with all mitigation measures in place. 

The probability of this occurring is very 

remote but the possibility still exists. 

Should a charge fail to explode, the 

Proponent would attempt to identify the 

problem and detonate the charge with 

all marine mammal mitigation measures 

in place as described. 

Post-mission monitoring: Post-mission 

monitoring is designed to determine the 

effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation 

by reporting any sightings of dead or 

injured marine mammals. Postdetonation monitoring would 

commence immediately following each 

detonation and would be concentrated 

on the area down current of the test site. 

Marine mammals killed by an 

explosion would likely suffer lung 

rupture, which would cause them to 

float to the surface immediately due to 

air in the blood stream. Animals that 

were not killed instantly but were 

mortally wounded would likely 

resurface within a few days, though this 

would depend on the size and type of 

animal, fat stores, depth, and water 

temperature (DON, 2001). The 

monitoring team would attempt to 

document any marine mammals that 

were killed or injured as a result of the 

test and, if practicable, recover and 

examine any dead animals. The species, 

number, location, and behavior of any 

animals observed by the observation 

teams would be documented and 

reported to the Officer in Tactical 

Command. 

The NMFS maintains stranding 

networks along coasts to collect and 

circulate information about marine 

mammal strandings. Local coordinators 

report stranding data to state and 

regional coordinators. Any observed 

dead or injured marine mammal would 

be reported to the appropriate 

coordinator. 

Summary of Mitigation Plan 

In the event either any human safety 

concerns arise or marine mammals are 

sighted within the ZOI, the test will be 

postponed. The area to be surveyed will 

be 0.3 km (0.15 nmi) in every direction 

from the target (approximately the size 

of the largest harassment ZOI). 

Additionally, a buffer area (0.5 km or 

0.25 nmi) will be surveyed for protected 

marine animals moving toward the ZOI. 

The total area to be monitored is 0.7 

km2 (0.2 nmi2). The survey vessel will 

leave the safety footprint immediately 

prior to detonation; however, given the 

relatively small impact area, visual 

observation of the ZOI will be ongoing. 

Avoidance of impacts to schools of 

cetaceans will most likely be realized 

through visual monitoring since groups 

of dolphins are relatively easy to spot 

with the survey distances and methods 

that will be employed. 

Post-mission monitoring would be 

conducted after each mission and would 

attempt to document any marine 

mammals that were killed or injured as 

a result of the test and, if practicable, 

recover and examine any dead animals. 

Post-mission monitoring activities may 

include coordination with marine 

animals stranding networks if any dead 

or injured marine mammal or sea turtles 

are observed. 

Hard-bottom habitats and artificial 

reefs would be avoided to alleviate any 

potential impacts to protected habitat. 

NEODS testing would be delayed if 

large Sargassum mats or large schools of 

fish or jellyfish were found in the ZOI. 

Testing would resume only when the 

mats or schools move outside of the 

largest ZOI. The NEODS personnel will 

recover all debris from the targets and 

charges following test activities. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for ITAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present. 

Mitigations may include any 

supplemental activities that are 

designed, proposed, and exercised to 

help reduce or eliminate the potential 

impacts to the marine resources. The 

Air Force recognizes the importance of 

such ‘‘in-place’’ mitigations and is aware 

that NMFS recommends an approved 

mitigation plan that outlines the scope 

and effectiveness of the Proposed 

Action’s mitigations. 

The risk of harassment (Levels A and 

B) to marine mammals has been 

determined to be relatively small. Eglin 

AFB has determined that with the 

implementation and commitment to 

utilizing the ‘‘visual monitoring’’ 

mitigations, potential takes are greatly 

reduced. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60705 

For NEODS testing, areas to be used 

in missions are visually monitored for 

marine mammal presence from a surface 

vessel prior to detonation of mine 

neutralization charges. Monitoring 

would be conducted before missions to 

clear marine mammals within the ZOI. 

If protected animals are inside the ZOI, 

firing would be postponed until they 

left the area. The following procedures 

may be feasible during the mission 

activities using the operational aircraft. 

• Conduct survey clearance 

procedures using best operational 

methods possible. 

• Clear ZOI and avoid all dolphins 

and Sargassum rafts to the maximum 

extent possible. 

• Re-conduct clearance procedures if 

dolphins or Sargassum rafts are 

encountered. 

• Conduct post-mission observation 

and report operations data as required 

by Eglin’s Natural Resources Section, 96 

CEG/CEVSN. 

• Submit an annual summary 

(coordinated through 96 CEG/CEVSN) of 

mission observations to: National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast 

Regional Office, Protected Resources 

Division, 9721 Executive Center Drive 

North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702. 

Proposed monitoring requirements in 

relation to Eglin AFB’s NEODS training 

activities would include observations 

made by the applicant and their 

associates. Information recorded would 

include species counts, numbers of 

observed disturbances, and descriptions 

of the disturbance behaviors before, 

during, and after explosive activities. 

Observations of unusual behaviors, 

numbers, or distributions of marine 

mammals in the activity area will be 

reported to NMFS and USFWS so that 

any potential follow-up observations 

can be conducted by the appropriate 

personnel. In addition, observations of 

tag-bearing marine mammals, sea 

turtles, and fish carcasses as well as any 

rare or unusual species of marine 

mammals and fish would be reported to 

NMFS and USFWS. 

Eglin AFB would notify NMFS and 

the Regional Office prior to initiation of 

each explosive demolition session. If at 

any time injury or death of any marine 

mammal occurs that may be a result of 

the proposed NEODS activities, Eglin 

AFB would suspend activities and 

contact NMFS immediately to 

determine how best to proceed to ensure 

that another injury, serious injury, or 

death does not occur and to ensure that 

the applicant remains in compliance 

with the MMPA. Any takes of marine 

mammals other than those authorized 

by the LOA, as well as any injuries or 

deaths of marine mammals, will be 

reported to the Southeast Regional 

Administrator, within 24 hours. An 

annual draft final report must be 

submitted to NMFS within 90 days after 

the conclusion of the NEODS activities. 

An annual report must be submitted at 

the time of renewal of the LOA as well. 

Also, a report must be submitted at least 

180 days prior to the expiration of these 

regulations. The report would include a 

summary of the activities undertaken 

and information gathered pursuant to 

the monitoring requirements set forth in 

the regulations and LOA, including 

dates and times of detonations as well 

as pre- and post-blasting monitoring 

observations. A final report must be 

submitted to the Regional Administrator 

within 30 days after receiving comments 

from NMFS on the draft final report. If 

no comments are received from NMFS, 

the draft final report would be 

considered to be the final report. 

Research 

Although Eglin AFB does not 

currently conduct independent Air 

Force monitoring efforts, Eglin’s Natural 

Resources Section does participate in 

marine animal tagging and monitoring 

programs led by other agencies. 

Additionally, the Natural Resources 

Section also supports participation in 

annual surveys of marine mammals in 

the GOM with NMFS. From 1999 to 

2002, Eglin AFB’s Natural Resources 

Section, through a contract 

representative, participated in summer 

cetacean monitoring and research 

opportunities. The contractor 

participated in visual surveys in 1999 

for cetaceans in the GOM, photographic 

identification of sperm whales in the 

northeastern GOM in 2001, and as a 

visual observer during the 2000 Sperm 

Whale Pilot Study and the 2002 sperm 

whale Satellite-tag (S-tag) cruise. 

Support for these research efforts is 

anticipated to continue. In addition, 

Eglin’s Natural Resources Section has 

obtained Department of Defense funding 

for two marine mammal habitat 

modeling projects. The latest such 

project (2008) included funding and 

extensive involvement of NMFS 

personnel so that the most recent aerial 

survey data could be utilized for habitat 

modeling and animal density estimates 

in the northeastern GOM. 

Eglin AFB conducts other research 

efforts that utilize marine mammal 

stranding information as a means of 

ascertaining the effectiveness of 

mitigation techniques. Stranding data is 

collected and maintained for the Florida 

panhandle and GOM-wide areas. This is 

undertaken through the establishment 

and maintenance of contacts with local, 

state, and regional stranding networks. 

Eglin AFB assists with stranding data 

collection by maintaining its own team 

of stranding personnel. In addition to 

simply collecting stranding data, 

various analyses are performed. 

Stranding events are tracked by year, 

season, and NMFS statistical zone, both 

GOM-wide and on the coastline in 

proximity to Eglin AFB. Stranding data 

is combined with records of EGTTR 

mission activity in each water range and 

analyzed for any possible correlation. In 

addition to being used as a measure of 

the effectiveness of mission mitigations, 

stranding data can yield insight into the 

species composition of cetaceans in the 

region. 

Negligible Impact Determination 

NMFS implementing regulations 

codified at 50 CFR 216.103 states that 

‘‘negligible impact is 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.’’ 

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, on behalf of the Secretary, 

preliminarily finds that Eglin AFB’s 

proposed activities would result in the 

incidental take of marine mammals, by 

Level B harassment only, and that the 

total taking from the NEODS training 

operations would have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals. 

Tables 2, 3, 6 and 7 in this document 

disclose the habitat, regional 

abundance, conservation status, density, 

and the number of individuals exposed 

to sound levels considered the threshold 

for Level A and B harassment. Also, 

there are no known important 

reproductive or feeding areas in the 

proposed action area. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document, the specified activities 

associated with the proposed NEODS 

operations are not likely to cause TTS, 

PTS, or other non-auditory injury, 

serious injury, or death to affected 

marine mammals. As a result, no take by 

injury, serious injury, or death is 

anticipated or authorized, and the 

potential for temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment is very low and will 

be avoided through the incorporation of 

the proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures. 

In making a negligible impact 

determination NMFS evaluated factors 

such as: No anticipated injury, serious 

injury, or mortality; the number, nature, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

intensity, and duration of harassment 

(all relatively limited); the low 

probability that take will likely result in 

effects to annual rates of recruitment of 

survival; the context in which it occurs 

(i.e., 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. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There is no subsistence hunting for 

marine mammals in the waters off of the 

coast of Florida that implicates MMPA 

Section 101(a)(5)(D). 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

For the reasons already described in 

this Federal Register notice, NMFS has 

determined that the described proposed 

NEODS training operations and the 

accompanying IHA may have the 

potential to adversely affect species 

under NMFS jurisdiction and protected 

by the ESA. Eglin AFB requested a 

Section 7 consultation pursuant to the 

ESA with NMFS’ Southeast Regional 

Office (SERO) for the revised proposed 

NEODS training operations. NMFS 

SERO issued a Biological Opinion on 

October 25, 2004 for a five year plan of 

NEODS training operations in the 

EGTTR (Consultation No. F/SER/2004/ 

00361). The U.S. Air Force requested 

informal Section 7 consultation with 

SERO on May 9, 2010 and SERO 

concurred that the proposed action may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, ESA-listed species or designated 

critical habitat in a letter to the U.S. Air 

Force dated July 28, 2010. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS has begun conducting NEPA 

analysis and preparing a Draft 

Environmental Assessment on the 

Promulgation of Regulations and the 

Issuance of Letters of Authorization to 

Take Marine Mammals, by Harassment, 

Incidental to Naval Explosive Ordnance 

Disposal School Training Operations at 

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, which 

analyzes the project’s purpose and need, 

alternatives, affected environment, and 

environmental effects for the proposed 

action. NMFS will complete the 

necessary NEPA analysis and the public 

comments received prior to making a 

determination on the issuance of the 

final rule and LOA. 

Preliminary Determinations 

Based on Eglin AFB’s application, as 

well as the analysis contained herein, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the impact of the described NEODS 

training operations will result, at most, 

in a temporary modification in behavior 

(Level B harassment) of Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins, in the form of 

temporarily vacating the action area to 

avoid NEODS training activities and 

potential for minor visual and acoustic 

disturbance from detonations. The effect 

of the NEODS training operations is 

expected to be limited to short-term and 

localized TTS-related behavioral 

changes. 

Due to the infrequency, short timeframe, and localized nature of these 

activities, the number of marine 

mammals, relative to the stock 

population size, potentially taken by 

harassment is small. In addition, no take 

by injury, serious injury, or death is 

anticipated, and take by Level B 

harassment will be at the lowest level 

practicable due to incorporation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures mentioned previously in this 

document. No injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or mortality 

is expected or authorized for marine 

mammals, and take by harassment will 

be at the lowest level practicable due to 

incorporation of the monitoring and 

mitigation measures mentioned 

previously in this document. Further, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the anticipated takes incidental to 

this activity is expected to result in a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals. The 

provision requiring that the activity not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of the affected species or 

stock for subsistence uses does not 

apply to this proposed action as there 

are no subsistence users within the 

geographic area of the proposed project. 

Classification 

For purposes of Executive Order 

12866, the Office of Management and 

Budget has determined that this 

proposed rule is not significant. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Chief 

Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce has certified 

to the Chief of Counsel for Advocacy of 

the Small Business Administration that 

this proposed rule, if adopted, would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The U.S. Air Force is the entity 

that will be affected by this rulemaking, 

not a small governmental jurisdiction, 

small organization or small business, as 

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. The requested authorization is 

specific to an will only govern the 

behavior of the U.S. Air Force as it 

carries out the specified training 

activities on water ranges at Eglin AFB. 

The primary effect of the authorization 

will be to impose mitigation and 

monitoring requirements on the U.S. Air 

Force for a specified, limited number of 

annual training events. Thus, the 

regulated activity involves only military 

activities on a Federal military 

installation. The requested 

authorization will not affect the 

activities of the private sector or result 

in any costs to local government 

jurisdictions. As a result, NMFS 

concludes the action would not result in 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

five-year regulations establishing a 

framework for the issuance of LOAs to 

Eglin AFB for the harassment of Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins incidental to 

NEODS training operations, provided 

the previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, 

Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seafood, Transportation. 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 217 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 217—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE 

MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO 

SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 

1. The authority citation for part 217 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

2. Subpart I is added to part 217 to 

read as follows. 

Subpart I—Taking of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Naval Explosive Ordnance 

Disposal School Training Operations 

Sec. 

217.80 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

217.81 Effective dates. 

217.82 Permissible methods of taking. 

217.83 Prohibitions. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60707 

217.84 Mitigation. 

217.85 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

217.86 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

217.87 Letters of Authorization. 

217.88 Renewal of Letters of Authorization. 

217.89 Modifications of Letters of 

Authorization. 

Subpart I–Taking of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Naval Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal School (NEODS) 

Training Operations 

§ 217.80 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the incidental taking of those 

marine mammals specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section by the United States 

Air Force, Headquarters 96th Air Base 

Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, and those 

persons who engage in activities 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(7) of this section and the area set forth 

in paragraph (b) of this section: 

(1) NEODS missions involving 

underwater detonations of small, live 

explosive charges adjacent to inert 

mines in order to disable the mine 

function. 

(2) Live training events occurring 

eight times annually, averaging one 

event occurring every six to seven 

weeks. 

(3) Four of the training events 

involving 5-lb charges, and four events 

involving 10-lb charges. 

(4) Up to twenty 5-lb detonations and 

twenty 10-lb detonations annually, for a 

total of forty detonations. 

(5) The five charges will be detonated 

individually with a maximum 

separation time of 20 minutes between 

each detonation. 

(6) Mine shapes and debris will be 

recovered and removed from the Gulf of 

Mexico waters when training is 

completed. 

(7) Each training team has two days to 

complete their entire evolution (i.e., 

detonation of five charges). If operations 

cannot be completed on the first live 

demolition day, the second live 

demolition day will be utilized to 

complete the evolution. 

(b) The incidental take of marine 

mammals at Eglin Air Force Base, 

within the Eglin Military Complex, 

including three sites in the Eglin Gulf 

Test and Training Range at property off 

Santa Rosa Island, Florida, in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico, under the 

activity identified in paragraph (a) of 

this section, is limited to the following 

species: Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus). 

§ 217.81 Effective dates. 

Regulations in this subpart are 

effective from December 1, 2010, 

through November 30, 2015. 

§ 217.82 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under Letters of Authorization 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 

217.87, the U.S. Department of the Air 

Force, Headquarters 96th Air Base 

Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, its 

contractors, and clients, may 

incidentally, but not intentionally, take 

marine mammals by Level B 

harassment, within the area described in 

§ 217.80, provided the activity is in 

compliance with all terms, conditions, 

and requirements of these regulations 

and the appropriate Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals is 

authorized for the species listed in 

§ 217.80(b) and is limited to Level B 

harassment. 

§ 217.83 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 217.80 and 

authorized by a Letter of Authorization 

issued under § 216.106 and § 217.87, no 

person in connection with the activities 

described in § 217.80 may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 217.80(b); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 217.80(b) other than by 

incidental, unintentional harassment; 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 217.80(b) if such taking results in 

more than a negligible impact on the 

species or stocks of such marine 

mammal; or 

(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or a Letter of Authorization 

issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.87. 

§ 217.84 Mitigation. 

(a) The activity identified in 

§ 217.80(a) must be conducted in a 

manner that minimizes, to the greatest 

extent practicable, adverse impacts on 

marine mammals and their habitats. 

When conducting operations identified 

in § 217.80(a), the mitigation measures 

contained in the Letter of Authorization 

issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.87 

must be implemented. These mitigation 

measures include (but are not limited 

to): 

(1) The time of detonation will be 

limited to an hour after sunrise and an 

hour before sunset. 

(2) NEODS missions would be 

postponed if: 

(i) The Beaufort sea state is greater 

than scale number three. Such a delay 

would maximize detection of marine 

mammals. 

(ii) Any marine mammal is visually 

detected within the Zone of Influence. 

The delay would continue until the 

marine mammal that caused the 

postponement is confirmed to be 

outside of the Zone of Influence due to 

the animal swimming out of the range. 

(iii) Any marine mammal is detected 

within or about to enter the Zone of 

Influence (i.e., the exclusion radius of 

230 m or 754.6 ft) and subsequently 

cannot be reacquired. The mission 

would not continue until the last 

verified location is outside of the Zone 

of Influence and the animal is moving 

away from the mission area. 

(iv) Large Sargassum rafts of large 

concentrations of jellyfish are observed 

within the Zone of Influence. The delay 

would continue until the Sargassum 

rafts or jellyfish that caused the 

postponement are confirmed to be 

outside of the Zone of Influence either 

due to the current and/or wind moving 

them out of the mission area. 

(v) Large schools of fish are observed 

in the water within 230 m (754.6 ft) of 

the mission area. The delay would 

continue until the large fish schools are 

confirmed to be outside the Zone of 

Influence. 

(3) A Go/No-Go decision process if 

the range is fouled and if monitoring 

indicates that the test area is and will 

remain clear of detectable marine 

mammals. As long as no protected 

species are sighted by the observer, then 

the mission is a Go, meaning it can 

proceed. However, if the area is fouled, 

meaning a protected species has entered 

the area, then the mission is a No-Go 

and cannot proceed until those 

individuals have left the mission area. 

(4) In the event of a postponement, 

pre-mission monitoring would continue 

as long as weather and daylight hours 

allow. If a charge failed to explode, 

operations would attempt to recognize 

and solve the problem while continuing 

with all mitigation measures in place. 

Should a charge fail to explode, the 

proponent would attempt to identify the 

problem and detonate the charge with 

all marine mammal mitigation measures 

in place as described. 

(5) Additional mitigation measures as 

contained in a Letter of Authorization. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 217.85 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) Holders of Letters of Authorization 

pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 217.87 for 

activities described in 216.80(a) are 

required to cooperate with NMFS, and 

any other Federal, state, or local agency 

with authority to monitor the impacts of 

the activity on marine mammals. Unless 

specified otherwise in the Letter of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Authorization, the Holder of the Letter 

of Authorization must notify the 

Administrator, Southeast Region, 

NMFS, by letter or telephone, prior to 

activities possibly involving the taking 

of marine mammals. If the authorized 

activity identified in § 217.80(a) is 

thought to have resulted in the mortality 

or injury of any marine mammals or in 

any take of marine mammals not 

identified in § 217.80(b), then the 

Holder of the Letter of Authorization 

must notify the Director, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, or 

designee, by telephone (301–713–2289), 

within 24 hours of the discovery of the 

injured or dead animal. 

(b) Holders of Letters of Authorization 

must designate trained, qualified, onsite individuals approved in advance by 

NMFS, as specified in the Letter of 

Authorization, to perform the following 

monitoring requirements: 

(1) For NEODS testing, areas to be 

used in missions are visually monitored 

for marine mammal presence from a 

surface support vessel prior to 

detonation of mine neutralization 

charges. The observer on the vessel 

must be equipped with the proper 

optical equipment and lines of 

communication in order to recommend 

the Go/No-Go decision. 

(2) Monitoring (pre-mission, two 

hours prior to mission, one hour prior 

to mission, five minutes prior to 

mission, throughout the mission, postmission) will be conducted before 

missions to evaluate the test site for 

environmental suitability of the mission 

and to verify the area is clear of marine 

mammals within the Zone of Influence. 

If marine mammals are inside the Zone 

of Influence, firing would be postponed 

until they have left the area. 

(3) Conduct survey clearance 

procedures using best operational 

methods possible. 

(4) Re-conduct clearance procedures if 

dolphins or Sargassum rafts are 

encountered. 

(5) Conduct post-mission observation 

and report operations data as required 

by Eglin Air Force Base’s Natural 

Resources Section, 96 CEG/CEVSN. 

Post-mission monitoring would 

commence immediately following each 

detonation and would be concentrated 

on the area down current of the test site. 

If any injured or dead marine mammals 

are observed, that information will be 

reported and coordinated with marine 

animals stranding networks. 

(6) Submit an annual summary 

(coordinated through 96 CEG/CEVSN) of 

mission observations to: NMFS, 

Southeast Regional Office, Protected 

Resources Division, 9721 Executive 

Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, 

Florida 33702. 

(c) Holders of Letters of Authorization 

must conduct additional monitoring as 

required under an annual Letter of 

Authorization. 

(d) Holders of Letters of Authorization 

must submit an annual report 

summarizing the specified activity as 

well as monitoring and mitigation data 

to the Southeast Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, within 90 days 

after the conclusion of the NEODS 

activities. This report must contain the 

following information: 

(1) Date(s), time(s), and location(s) of 

explosive activities, 

(2) Design of the monitoring program, 

(3) Results of the monitoring program 

including, but not necessarily limited 

to: 

(i) Species counts, 

(ii) Numbers of observed 

disturbances, 

(iii) Descriptions of the disturbance 

behaviors before, during, and after 

explosive activities, 

(iv) Bearing and distances, 

(v) Observations of unusual behaviors, 

numbers, or distributions of marine 

mammals in the activity area will be 

reported to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service so that any potential 

follow-up observations can be 

conducted by the appropriate personnel. 

In addition, observations of tag-bearing 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish 

carcasses as well as any rare or unusual 

species of marine mammals and fish 

would be reported to NMFS and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(e) An annual report must be 

submitted at the time of renewal of the 

Letter of Authorization. 

(f) A final report must be submitted at 

least 180 days prior to expiration of 

these regulations. This report will 

summarize the activities undertaken 

and the results reported in all previous 

reports. 

§ 217.86 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

the U.S. citizen (as defined by 

§ 216.103) conducting the activity 

identified in § 217.80(a) must apply for 

and obtain either an initial Letter of 

Authorization in accordance with 

§ 217.87 or a renewal under § 217.88. 

(b) The application must be submitted 

to NMFS at least 30 days before the 

activity is scheduled to begin. 

(c) Application for a Letter of 

Authorization and for renewals of 

Letters of Authorization must include 

the following: 

(1) Name of the U.S. citizen 

requesting the authorization. 

(2) A description of the activity, the 

dates of the activity, and the specific 

location of the activity, and 

(3) Plans to monitor the behavior and 

effects of the activity on marine 

mammals. 

(d) A copy to the Letter of 

Authorization must be in the possession 

of the persons conducting activities that 

may involve incidental takings of 

marine mammals. 

§ 217.87 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless 

suspended or revoked, will be valid for 

a period of time not to exceed the period 

of validity of this subpart, but must be 

renewed annually subject to annual 

renewal conditions in § 217.88. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization will 

set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species, its habitat, and on the 

availability of the species for 

subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and 

(3) Requirements for mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting. 

(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter 

of Authorization will be based on a 

determination that the total number of 

marine mammals taken by the activity 

as a whole will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock of marine mammal(s). 

§ 217.88 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under §§ 216.106 and 217.87 for the 

activity identified in § 217.80(a) will be 

renewed annually upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 217.86 will be 

undertaken and there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming 12 months; 

(2) Timely receipt of the monitoring 

reports required under § 217.85(d) and 

(e), and the Letter of Authorization 

issued under § 217.87, which has been 

reviewed and accepted by NMFS; and 

(3) A determination by NMFS that the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures required under §§ 217.84 and 

217.85 and the Letter of Authorization 

issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.87, 

were undertaken and will be undertaken 

during the upcoming annual period of 

validity of a renewed Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) If a request for a renewal of a 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 217.88 indicates that a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60709 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming season will occur, NMFS will 

provide the public a period of 30 days 

for review and comment on the request. 

Review and comment on renewals of 

Letters of Authorization are restricted 

to: 

(1) New cited information and data 

indicating that the determinations made 

in this document are in need of 

reconsideration, and 

(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation 

and monitoring requirements contained 

in these regulations or in the current 

Letter of Authorization. 

(c) A notice of issuance or denial of 

a renewal of a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

§ 217.89 Modifications of Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no substantive 

modification (including withdrawal or 

suspension) to the Letter of 

Authorization by NMFS issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.106 and 217.87 and subject to 

the provisions of this subpart shall be 

made until after notification and an 

opportunity for public comment has 

been provided. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a renewal of a Letter of 

Authorization under § 217.88, without 

modification (except for the period of 

validity), is not considered a substantive 

modification. 

(b) If the Assistant Administrator 

determines that an emergency exists 

that poses a significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine 

mammals specified in § 217.80(b), a 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.106 and 217.87 may be 

substantively modified without prior 

notification and an opportunity for 

public comment. Notification will be 

published in the Federal Register 

within 30 days subsequent to the action. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24689 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

RIN 0648–BA01 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Notice of Availability for Amendments 

16–5 and 23 to the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Availability of amendments to 

a fishery management plan; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) has submitted Amendments 

16–5 and 23 to the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) for Secretarial review. 

Amendment 16–5 would modify the 

FMP to implement an overfished 

species rebuilding plan for petrale sole 

and revise existing overfished species 

rebuilding plans. In addition, 

Amendment 16–5 would modify the 

default proxy values for FMSY and 

BMSY as they apply to the flatfish 

species, including petrale sole; and the 

harvest control rule policies. 

Amendment 23 introduces a new 

framework for fishery specifications and 

other measures for establishing Annual 

Catch Limits (ACLs) as required by the 

recent amendments to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

DATES: Comments on Amendments 16– 

5 and 23 must be received on or before 

November 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–BA01, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 206–526–6736; Attn: Becky 

Renko. 

• Mail: William Stelle, Regional 

Administrator, Northwest Region, 

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 

Seattle, WA 98115–0070; Attn: Becky 

Renko 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (if 

submitting comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal, enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the 

relevant required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, 

or Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Renko (Northwest Region, 

NMFS), phone: 206–526–6110; fax: 206 

526 6736; and e mail: 

becky.renko@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This Federal Register document is 

also accessible via the internet at the 

website of the Office of the Federal 

Register: http://www.access.gpo.gov/sudocs/aces/aces140.html. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

that each regional fishery management 

council submit any FMP or plan 

amendment it prepares to NMFS for 

review and approval, disapproval, or 

partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens 

Act also requires that NMFS, upon 

receiving an FMP or amendment, 

immediately publish a notice that the 

FMP or amendment is available for 

public review and comment. NMFS will 

consider the public comments received 

during the comment period described 

above in determining whether to 

approve Amendments 16–5 and 23 to 

the FMP. 

Petrale sole was declared overfished 

on February 9, 2010. Amendment 16–5 

adds a new rebuilding plan for petrale 

sole to the FMP and revises the seven 

existing overfished species rebuilding 

plans consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act. The following groundfish 

species have been declared as 

overfished and are currently being 

managed under rebuilding plans: 

bocaccio in the Monterey and 

Conception areas; canary rockfish; 

cowcod south of Point Conception to 

the U.S. Mexico boundary; darkblotched 

rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch (POP), 

widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. 

In the FMP, MSY refers to a constant 

harvest rate (F) control rule that is 

assumed to produce the maximum 

average yield over time while protecting 

the spawning potential of the stock. The 

constant F control rule is generally the 

proxy for the MSY control rule. The 

long-term average biomass associated 

with fishing at FMSY is BMSY. Fishing 

rates above FMSY eventually result in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS