Composite Training Unit Exercises and Joint Task ... - Govsupport.us

COMPTUEX/JTFEX EA/OEA Final Chapter 44.3.1.7.5 Regulatory FrameworkA number of Navy actions and NOAA rulings have helped to qualify possible events deemed as“harassment” under the MMPA. Note that “harassment” under the MMPA includes both potential injuryand disruptions of natural behavioral patterns to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered.The acoustic effects analysis and exposure calculations are based on the following premises:Harassment that may result from Navy operations described in the COMPTUEX/JTFEXEA/OEA is unintentional and incidental to those operations.The COMPTUEX/JTFEX EA/OEA uses an unambiguous definition of injury developed inprevious rulings (NOAA, 2001; 2002): injury occurs when any biological tissue is destroyedor lost as a result of the action.Behavioral disruption might result in subsequent injury and injury may cause a subsequentbehavioral disruption, so Level A and Level B (defined below) harassment categories canoverlap and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, by prior ruling (NOAA, 2001),the COMPTUEX/JTFEX EA/OEA assumes that Level A and B harassment exist on a singlecontinuum without overlap.An individual animal predicted to experience simultaneous multiple injuries, multipledisruptions, or both, is counted as a single take (see NOAA, 2001). An animal whosebehavior is disrupted by an injury has already been counted as a Level A harassment and willnot also be counted as a Level B harassment.The acoustic effects analysis is based on primary exposures of the action. Secondary, orindirect, effects, such as susceptibility to predation following injury and injury resulting fromdisrupted behavior, while possible, can only be reliably predicted in circumstances where theresponses have been well documented. Consideration of secondary effects would result inmuch Level A harassment being considered Level B harassment, and vice versa, since muchinjury (Level A harassment) has the potential to disrupt behavior (Level B harassment), andmuch behavioral disruption (Level B) could be conjectured to have the potential for injury(Level A). Consideration of secondary effects would lead to circular definitions ofharassment.Integration of Regulatory and Biological FrameworksThis section presents a biological framework within which potential effects can be categorized and thenrelated to the existing regulatory framework of injury (Level A) and behavioral disruption (Level B).Physiological and Behavioral EffectsSound exposure may affect multiple biological traits of a marine animal; however, MMPA and ESAregulations provide guidance as to which traits should be used when determining effects. Specifically,effects that qualify as Level A harassment (and ESA harm) should address injury. Effects that qualify asLevel B harassment (and ESA harassment) should address behavioral disruption. This guidance reducesthe number of traits that must be considered in establishing a biological framework of effect assessment.The biological framework proposed here is structured according to potential physiological and behavioraleffects resulting from sound exposure. The range of effects may then be assessed to determine whichqualify as harm or harassment under MMPA and ESA regulations. Physiology and behavior are chosenover other biological traits because:4-19 February 2007