[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16646-16651]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-47]
[[Page 16646]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE32
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/Training and Amphibious Vehicle
Training and Weapons Testing
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization and
receipt of application for five-year regulations; request for comments
and information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 29, 2005, NMFS received a request from Eglin Air
Force Base (Eglin AFB), for authorization to harass marine mammals,
incidental to conducting surf zone testing/training and amphibious
vehicle training and weapons testing off the coast of Santa Rosa Island
(SRI). Following notice and comment, NMFS issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to Eglin AFB for a period of one year
from December 11, 2006, to December 10, 2007, with mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements. On October 16, 2007, NMFS
received a request from Eglin AFB to renew the IHA for a period of one
year. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to Eglin
AFB to incidentally take, by harassment, two species of cetaceans for a
period of 1 year. NMFS is also requesting comments, information, and
suggestions concerning Eglin AFB's application and the structure and
content of future regulations.
DATES: Comments and information must be postmarked no later than April
28, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226. The mailbox address for providing email
comments on this action is PR1.0648-XE32@noaa.gov. Comments sent via
email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file
size. A copy of the application and a list of references used in this
document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the
contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and is also
available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. A
copy of the Santa Rosa Island Mission Utilization Plan Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (SRI Mission PEA) (U.S. Air Force, 2005) and a
2007 supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) are available by
writing to the Department of the Air Force, AAC/EMSN, Natural Resources
Branch, 501 DeLeon St., Suite 101, Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5133.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, NMFS, 301-713-2289, ext
137.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals
by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided
to the public for review.
An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking
will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species
or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has
defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``...an impact
resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.''
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited
process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an
authorization to incidentally take marine mammals by harassment. With
respect to ``military readiness activities,'' the MMPA defines
``harassment'' as follows:
(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A
harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered [Level B harassment].
Summary of Request
On November 21, 2005, Eglin AFB petitioned NMFS for an
authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for the taking, by
harassment, of marine mammals incidental to programmatic mission
activities on Eglin's SRI property, including the shoreline of the Gulf
of Mexico (Gulf or GOM) to a depth of 30 feet (9.1 meters), which is
also known as the surf zone. The distance from the island shoreline
that corresponds to this depth varies from approximately 0.5 mile (0.8
km) at the western side of the Air Force property to 1.5 miles (2.4 km)
at the eastern side, extending out into the inner continental shelf.
Activities conducted in this area are addressed in the Estuarine
and Riverine Areas Programmatic Environmental Assessment (U.S. Air
Force, 2003a). The proposed action is for the 46th Test Wing Commander
to establish a mission utilization plan for SRI based on historical and
anticipated future use. Current and future operations are categorized
as either testing or training and include: 1) Surf Zone Testing/
Training; 2) Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) Training and Weapons
Testing; 3) Amphibious Assaults; and 4) Special Operations Training. A
detailed description of the proposed activities is provided in the June
22, 2006, Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (71 FR 35870). There
is no change of activities for the proposed renewal of the IHA,
therefore, please refer to that Federal Register notice for detailed
information of the activities.
Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity
Marine mammal species potentially occurring within the proposed
action area include the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus), the Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), and the
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). General information
on Florida manatees can be found in the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan
(US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001).
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are distributed throughout the
continental shelf, coastal, and bay-sound waters of the northern GOM
and along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast. The identification of a
biologically-meaningful ``stock'' of bottlenose dolphins in the GOM is
complicated by the high degree of behavioral variability exhibited by
this species (Wells, 2003). Currently, bottlenose dolphins in the U.S.
GOM are managed as 38 different stocks: one northern GOM oceanic stock,
one
[[Page 16647]]
northern GOM continental shelf stock, three northern GOM costal stocks
(western, northern, and eastern Gulf), and 33 bay, sound, and estuarine
stocks (Waring et al., 2007). The identification of these stocks is
based on descriptions of relatively discrete dolphin communities in
these waters. A community includes resident dolphins that regularly
share large portions of their ranges, exhibit similar distinct genetic
profiles, and interact with each other to a much greater extent than
with dolphins in adjacent waters. Bottlenose dolphin communities do not
constitute closed demographic populations, as individuals from adjacent
communities are known to interbreed. Nevertheless, the geographic
nature of these areas and long-term stability of residency patterns
suggest that many of these communities exist as functioning units of
their ecosystems.
Within the proposed action area, at least three Atlantic bottlenose
dolphin stocks are expected to occur: the northern GOM northern
coastal, the Pensacola Bay/East Bay stock, and the Choctawhatchee Bay
stock (Waring et al., 2007). The best population size estimates
available for these stocks are more than 13 years old; therefore, the
current population size for each stock is considered unknown (Wade and
Angliss, 1997). These data are insufficient to determine population
trends for all of the GOM bay, sound and estuary bottlenose dolphin
communities. The relatively high number of bottlenose dolphin deaths
that occurred during mortality events (mostly from stranding) since
1990 raises a concern that some of the stocks are stressed. Human-
caused mortality and serious injury for each of these stocks is not
known, but considering the evidence from stranding data, the total
human-caused mortality and serious injury exceeds 10 percent of the
total known potential biological removal (PBR) or pervious PBR, and,
therefore, it is probably not insignificant. For these reasons, each of
these stocks is listed as a strategic stock under the MMPA.
The Atlantic spotted dolphin is endemic to the Atlantic Ocean in
temperate to tropical waters (Perrin et al., 1994). In the GOM, this
species occurs primarily from continental shelf waters 10 - 200 m (32.8
- 656.2 ft) deep to slope waters <500 m (1,640 ft) deep (Fulling et
al., 2003). 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, 2003). It has been suggested that this
species may move inshore seasonally during spring, but data supporting
this hypothesis are limited (Fritts et al., 1983). The best available
abundance estimate for the northern GOM stock of the Atlantic spotted
dolphin is 30,947 (NMFS, 2005).
More detailed information on Atlantic bottlenose and spotted
dolphins can be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports at: http://
www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm201/tm201.pdf.
Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals
Potential impacts to marine mammals may occur due to underwater
noise and direct physical impacts (DPI). Noise is produced by
underwater detonations in the surf zone and by the operation of
amphibious vehicles. DPI could result from collisions with amphibious
vehicles and from ordnance live fire. However, with implementation of
the mitigation actions proposed later in this document, the potential
for impacts to marine mammals are anticipated to be de minimus (U.S.
Air Force, 2005).
Explosive criteria and thresholds for assessing impacts of
explosions on marine mammals are summarized here in Table 1 and were
discussed in detail in NMFS's notice of issuance of an IHA for Eglin's
Precision Strike Weapon testing activity (70 FR 48675, August 19,
2005). Please refer to that document for background information.
Estimation of Take and Impact
Surf Zone Detonation
Surf zone detonation noise impacts are considered within two
categories: overpressure and acoustics. Underwater explosive
detonations produce a wave of pressure in the water column. This
pressure wave potentially has lethal and injurious impacts, depending
on the proximity to the source detonation. Humans and animals receive
the acoustic signature of noise as sound. Beyond the physical impacts,
acoustics may cause annoyance and behavior modifications (Goertner,
1982).
The impacts on marine mammals from underwater detonations were
discussed by NMFS in detail in its notice of receipt of application for
an IHA for Eglin's Air-to-Surface Gunnery mission in the Gulf (71 FR
3474, January 23, 2006) and is not repeated here. Please refer to that
document for this background information.
A maximum of one surf zone testing/training mission would be
completed per year. The impact areas of the proposed action are derived
from mathematical calculations and models that predict the distances to
which threshold noise levels would travel. The equations for the models
consider the amount of net explosive, the properties of detonations
under water, and environmental factors such as depth of the explosion,
overall water depth, water temperature, and bottom type.
The end result of the analysis is an area known as the Zone of
Influence (ZOI). A ZOI is based on an outward radial distance from the
point of detonation, extending to the limit of a particular threshold
level in a 360-degree area. Thus, there are separate ZOIs for
mortality, injury (hearing-related injury and slight, non-fatal lung
injury), and harassment (temporary threshold shift, or TTS, and sub-
TTS). Given the radius, and assuming noise spreads outward in a
spherical manner, the entire area ensonified (i.e., exposed to the
specific noise level being analyzed) is estimated.
The radius of each threshold is shown for each shallow water surf
zone mine clearing system in Table 1. The radius is assumed to extend
from the point of detonation in all directions, allowing calculation of
the affected area.
The number of takes is estimated by applying marine mammal density
to the ZOI (area) for each detonation type. Species density for most
cetaceans is based on adjusted GulfCet II aerial survey data, which is
shown in Table 2. GulfCet II data were conservatively adjusted upward
to approximately two standard deviations to obtain 99 percent
confidence, and a submergence correction factor was applied to account
for the presence of submerged, uncounted animals. However, the
calculation is an overestimate, since up to half of the ZOI would be
over land and very shallow surf, which is not considered marine mammal
habitat.
[[Page 16648]]
Table 1. Zones of Impact for Underwater Explosive from Four Mine Clearing Systems (Acoustic units are re 1
microPa\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZOI Radius (m)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Threshold SABRE 232 lb MK-5 MCS MK-82 ARRAY
NEW 1,750 lb NEW DET 130 lb 1,372 lb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Behavior 176 dB 1/3 Octave 1,440 2,299 1,252 2,207
SEL\*\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B TTS Dual Criterion 182 dB 1/3 Octave 961 1,658 796 1,544
SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A PTS 205 dB SEL 200 478 155 436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Dual Criteria 23 psi 857 1,788 761 1,557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Injury 13 psi-msec 60 100 58 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality 30.5 psi-msec 45 68 42 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\SEL - Sound energy level
Table 2. Cetacean Densities for Gulf of Mexico Shelf Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted
Individuals/ Dive profile - density
Species km\2\ % at surface (Individuals/
km\2\)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin 0.148 30 0.810
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.089 30 0.677
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose or Atlantic 0.007 30 0.053
dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.244 ............. 1.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Adjusted for undetected submerged animals to approximately two
standard deviations.
Table 3 lists the noise-related dolphin take estimates resulting
from surf zone detonations that are the subject of this proposed IHA.
The take numbers represent the combined total of Atlantic bottlenose
and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and do not consider any mitigation
measures. The use of combined Atlantic bottlenose and Atlantic spotted
dolphin numbers is because of the difficulty in distinguish them from
each other in the field. Implementation of mitigation measures
discussed below would significantly decrease the number of takes.
Discussion of the amount of take reduction is provided below.
Table 3. Take Estimates from Noise Impacts to Dolphins (Acoustic units are re 1 microPa\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Criteria Threshold SABRE MK-5 MCS DET MK-82 Array Takes*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-TTS 176 dB 1/3 Octave 10 26 8 24 68
SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Harassment TTS (dual 182 dB 1/3 Octave 5 13 3 12 33
criterion) SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B TTS (dual criterion) 23 psi 4 15 3 12 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A PTS 205 dB Total SEL 0 1 0 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Non-lethal Injury 13 psi-msec 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality 30.5 psi-msec 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\Estimated exposure with no mitigation measures in place
Noise from LCAC
Noise resulting from LCAC operations was considered under a transit
mode of operation. The LCAC uses rotary air screw technology to power
the craft over the water, therefore, noise from the engine is not
emitted directly into the water. The Navy's acoustic in-water noise
characterization studies show the noise emitted from the LCAC into the
water is very similar to that of the MH-53 helicopter operating at low
altitudes. Based on the Air Force's Excess Sound Attenuation Model for
the LCAC's engines under ground runup condition, the data estimate that
the maximum noise level (98 dBA) is at a point 45 degrees from the bow
of the craft at a distance of 61 m (200 ft) in air. Maximum noise
levels fall below 90 dBA at a point less than 122 meters (400 ft) from
the craft in air (U.S. Air Force, 1999).
Due to the large difference of acoustic impedance between air and
water, much of the acoustic energy would be reflected at the surface.
Therefore, the effects of noise from LCAC to marine mammals would be
negligible.
[[Page 16649]]
Collision with Vessels
During the time that amphibious vehicles are operating in (or, in
the case of LCACs, just above) the water, encounters with marine
mammals are possible. A slight possibility exists that such encounters
could result in a vessel physically striking an animal. However, this
scenario is considered very unlikely. Dolphins are extremely mobile and
have keen hearing and would likely leave the vicinity of any vehicle
traffic. The largest vehicles that would be moving are LCACs, and their
beam measurement can be used for conservative impact analyses. The
operation which potentially uses the largest number of LCACs is
Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) training.
Based on analysis in the ARG/MEU Readiness Training Environmental
Assessment (U.S. Air Force, 2003b), LCAC activities (over 10 days)
could potentially impact 22.25 square miles of the total water surface
area. The estimated number of bottlenose dolphins in this area is 6.9,
with an approximately equal number of Atlantic spotted dolphins. These
species would easily avoid collision because the LCACs produce noise
that would be detected some distance away, and therefore would be
avoided as any other boat in the Gulf. In addition, Amphibious Assault
Vehicles (AAVs) move very slowly and could be easily avoided. The
potential for amphibious craft colliding with marine mammals and
causing injury or death is therefore considered remote.
Live Fire Operations
Live fire operations with munitions directed towards the Gulf have
the potential to impact marine mammals (primarily bottlenose and
Atlantic spotted dolphins).
A maximum of two live fire operations would be conducted in a year,
and are associated with expanded Special Operations training on SRI.
Small caliber weapons between 5.56 mm and .50 caliber with low-range
munitions would be allowed only within designated live fire areas. The
average range of the munitions is approximately 1 km (0.54 nm). If a
given live fire area was 1 km (0.54 nm) wide, then approximately 1.5
dolphins could be vulnerable to a munitions strike. However, even the
largest live fire area on SRI is considerably less than 1 km (0.54 nm)
wide. If live fire is conservatively estimated to originate from a
section of beach 0.2 km (0.11 nm) wide, only 0.3 dolphins would be
within the area of potential DPI (using Table 2 density estimates).
Finally, the mitigation measures discussed below would further reduce
the likelihood of direct impacts to marine mammals due to live fire
operations.
Given the infrequency of the surf zone detonation (maximum of once
per year) and the amphibious vehicle and weapon testing (maximum of
twice per year), NMFS believes there is no potential for long-term
displacement or behavioral impacts of marine mammals within the
proposed action area.
Proposed Mitigation
Eglin AFB would employ a number of mitigation measures in an effort
to substantially decrease the number of animals potentially affected.
Visual monitoring of the operational area can be a very effective means
of detecting the presence of marine mammals. This is particularly true
of the species most likely to be present (bottlenose and Atlantic
spotted dolphins) due to their tendency to occur in groups, their
relatively short dive time, and their relatively high level of surface
activity. In addition, the water clarity in the northeastern GOM is
typically very high. It is often possible to view the entire water
column in the water depth that defines the action area (30 feet or 9.1
m).
For the surf zone testing/training, missions would only be
conducted under daylight conditions of suitable visibility and sea
state of number three or less. Prior to the mission, a trained observer
aboard a helicopter would survey (visually monitor) the test area,
which is a very effective method for detecting sea turtles and
cetaceans. In addition, shipboard personnel would provide supplemental
observations when available. The size of the area to be surveyed would
depend on the specific test system, but it would correspond to the ZOI
for Level B behavioral harassment (176 dB 1/3 octave SEL) listed in
Table 1. The survey would be conducted approximately 250 feet (76 m)
above the sea surface to allow observers to scan a large distance. If a
marine mammal is sighted within the ZOI, the mission would be suspended
until the animal is clear of this area. Surf zone testing would be
conducted between 1 November and 1 March whenever possible.
Navy personnel would only conduct live fire testing with sea
surface conditions of sea state 3 or less on the Beaufort scale, which
is when there is about 33 - 50 percent of surface whitecaps with 0.6 -
0.9 m (2 - 3 ft) waves. During daytime missions, small boats would be
used to survey for marine mammals in the proposed action area before
and after the operations. If a marine mammal is sighted within the
target or closely adjacent areas, the mission would be suspended until
the area is clear. No mitigation for marine mammals would be feasible
for nighttime missions, however, given the remoteness of impact, the
potential that a marine mammal is injured or killed is unlikely.
Monitoring and Reporting
The Eglin AFB will train personnel to conduct aerial surveys for
protected species. The aerial survey/monitoring team would consist of
an observer and a pilot familiar with flying transect patterns. A
helicopter provides a preferable viewing platform for detection of
protected marine species. The aerial observer must be experienced in
marine mammal surveying and be familiar with species that may occur in
the area. The observer would be responsible for relaying the location
(latitude and longitude), the species if known, and the number of
animals sighted. The aerial team would also identify large schools of
fish, jellyfish aggregations, and any large accumulation of Sargassum
that could potentially drift into the ZOI. Standard line-transect
aerial surveying methods would be used. Observed marine mammals and sea
turtles would be identified to species or the lowest possible taxonomic
level possible.
The aerial and (potential) shipboard monitoring teams would have
proper lines of communication to avoid communication deficiencies.
Observers would have direct communication via radio with the lead
scientist, who will review the range conditions and recommend a Go/No-
Go decision to the Officer in Tactical Command, who makes the final Go/
No-Go decision.
Specific stepwise mitigation procedures for SRI surf zone missions
are outlined below. All ZOIs (mortality, injury, TTS) would be
monitored.
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, etc.) and (2) verify that the ZOI is free of
visually detectable marine mammals and other living marine resources.
On the morning of the test, the lead scientist would confirm that the
test site can support the mission and that the weather is adequate to
support observations.
(1) One Hour Prior to Mission
Approximately one hour prior to the mission, or at daybreak, the
appropriate vessel(s) would be on-site near the
[[Page 16650]]
location of the earliest planned mission point. Personnel onboard the
vessel would assess the suitability of the test site, based on visual
observation of marine mammals. This information would be relayed to the
Lead Scientist.
(2) Fifteen Minutes Prior to Mission
Aerial monitoring would commence at the test site 15 minutes prior
to the start of the mission. The entire ZOI would be surveyed by flying
transects through the area. Shipboard personnel would also monitor the
area as available. All marine mammal sightings would be reported to the
Lead Scientist, who would enter all pertinent data into a sighting
database.
(3) Go/No-Go Decision Process
The Lead Scientist would record sightings and bearing for all
protected species detected. This would depict animal sightings relative
to the mission area. The Lead Scientist would have the authority to
declare the range fouled and request a hold until monitoring indicates
that the ZOI is and will remain clear of detectable animals.
The mission would be postponed if any marine mammal or sea turtle
is visually detected within the ZOI for Level B behavioral harassment.
The delay would continue until the marine mammal or sea turtle is
confirmed to be outside the ZOI for Level B behavioral harassment on
its own.
In the event of a postponement, pre-mission monitoring would
continue as long as weather and daylight hours allow. Aerial monitoring
is limited by fuel and the on-station time of the monitoring aircraft.
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 or sea turtles. Post-detonation monitoring would
commence immediately following each detonation and continue for 15
minutes. The helicopter would resume transects in the area of the
detonation, concentrating on the area down current of the test site.
The monitoring team would attempt to document any marine mammals or
turtles that were found dead or injured after the detonation, 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 Lead Scientist.
Post-mission monitoring activities would also include coordination
with marine animal stranding networks. The NMFS maintains stranding
networks along coasts to collect and circulate information about marine
mammal and sea turtle standings.
In addition, NMFS proposes to require Eglin to monitor the target
area for impacts to marine mammals and to report on its activities.
NMFS' Biological Opinion on this action has recommended certain
monitoring measures to protect marine life. NMFS proposes to require
the same requirements under the IHA:
(1) Eglin will develop and implement a marine species observer-
training program in coordination with NMFS. This program will primarily
provide expertise to Eglin's testing and training community in the
identification of marine mammals and other protected marine species
during surface and aerial mission activities in the GOM. Additionally,
personnel involved in the surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon
testing/training would participate in the proposed species observation
training. Observers would receive training in protected species survey
and identification techniques through a NMFS-approved training program.
(2) Eglin would track its use of the surf zone and amphibious
vehicle and weapon testing/training for test firing missions and
protected resources (marine mammal/sea turtle) observations, through
the use of an observer training sheet.
(3) A summary annual report of marine mammal/sea turtle
observations and surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/
training activities would be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional
Office (SERO) and the Headquarters Office of Protected Resources by
January 31 of each year.
(4) If a dead or injuried marine mammal is observed before or after
testing, a report must be made to the NMFS by the following business
day.
(5) Any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., injury or
mortality) must be immediately reported to the NMFS representative and
to the respective stranding network representative.
ESA
On March 18, 2005, the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Eglin AFB, requested
initiation of formal consultation on all potential environmental
impacts to ESA-listed species from all Eglin AFB mission activities on
SRI and within the surf zone near SRI. These missions include the surf
zone detonation and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training that
are the subject of this proposed IHA. On October 12, 2005, NMFS issued
a Biological Opinion, concluding that the surf zone and amphibious
vehicle and weapon testing/training are unlikely to jeopardize the
continued existence of species listed under the ESA that are within the
jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
Eglin AFB also consulted with the FWS for the SRI programmatic program
regarding ESA-listed species and critical habitat under FWS
jurisdiction. On December 1, 2005, FWS issued a Biological Opinion and
concluded that the proposed mission activities are not likely to
adversely affect these ESA-listed species based on Eglin's commitment
to incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to these species.
NEPA
In March, 2005, the USAF prepared the Santa Rosa Island Mission
Utilization Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SRI Mission
PEA). NMFS reviewed this PEA and determined that it satisfies, in large
part, the standards under the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for implementing the
procedural provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR sec. 1508.3). NMFS adopted
the PEA but supplemented the PEA with its own cumulative impacts
analysis to better ascertain the cumulative effects of past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable activities conducted within and around Santa
Rosa Island, and issued a finding of no significant impact on December
14, 2006. On May 9, 2007, Eglin AFB submitted additional information to
ensure the most recent analysis of military activities was available
for consideration in re-assessing the cumulative impacts associated
with the proposed issuance of this IHA. NMFS is reviewing this
additional information on cumulative environmental impacts to determine
whether a supplemental analysis specific to cumulative impacts is
warranted, and, if so, would either adopt the AF information as a
supplement to the (2005 EA and 2007 SEA?) or will prepare its own
supplemental EA to update the cumulative impacts analysis before making
a determination on the issuance of an IHA and rulemaking. A copy of
Eglin's PEA and related information for this activity are available
upon written request (see ADDRESSES).
Preliminary Conclusions
NMFS has preliminarily determined that the surf zone and amphibious
vehicle and weapon testing/training that are proposed by Eglin AFB off
the coast of SRI, is unlikely to result in the mortality or injury of
marine mammals and, would result in, at worst, a
[[Page 16651]]
temporary modification in behavior by marine mammals. While behavioral
modifications may be made by these species as a result of these surf
zone detonation and amphibious vehicle training activities, any
behavioral change is expected to have a negligible impact on the
affected species. Also, given the infrequency of these testing/training
missions (maximum of once per year for surf zone detonation and maximum
of twice per year for amphibious assault training involving live fire),
there is no potential for long-term displacement or long-lasting
behavioral impacts of marine mammals within the proposed action area.
In addition, the potential for temporary hearing impairment is very low
and would be mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the
incorporation of the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed in
this document.
Proposed Authorization
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Eglin AFB for conducting surf zone
and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training off the coast of SRI
in the northern GOM provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Information Solicited
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information
concerning this proposed IHA and Eglin's application for incidental
take regulations (see ADDRESSES). NMFS requests interested persons to
submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning both the
request and the structure and content of future regulations to allow
this taking. NMFS will consider this information in developing proposed
regulations to govern the taking.
Dated: March 21, 2008.
Helen Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-6441 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S