Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Boost-Back and Landing of Falcon 9 Rockets, 57432-57453 [2018-24977]
Download as PDF
57432
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
10:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m.–12:15p.m. Review/Edit
Assessment Summary Report
(Summer Flounder), Robert Latour,
SARC Chair
12:15–1:15 p.m. Lunch
1:15 p.m.–2:45 p.m. Review/Edit
Assessment Summary Report
(Summer Flounder), Robert Latour,
SARC Chair
2:45 p.m.–3 p.m. Break
3 p.m.–6 p.m. Review/Edit Assessment
Summary Report (Striped Bass),
Robert Latour, SARC Chair
Friday, November 30, 2018
9 a.m.–5 p.m. SARC Report Writing
The meeting is open to the public;
however, during the ‘SARC Report
Writing’ session on Friday November
30th the public should not engage in
discussion with the SARC.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Special
requests should be directed to James
Weinberg at the NEFSC, 508–495–2352,
at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: November 2, 2018.
Karen H. Abrams,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–24956 Filed 11–14–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XG559
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Boost-Back and
Landing of Falcon 9 Rockets
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments on proposed authorization
and possible renewal.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from Space Exploration Technology
Corporation (SpaceX) for authorization
to take marine mammals incidental to
boost-back and landing of Falcon 9
rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base
(VAFB) in California, and at
contingency landing locations in the
Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is requesting comments on its proposal
to issue an incidental harassment
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take
marine mammals during the specified
activities. NMFS is also requesting
comments on a possible one-year
renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end
of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any
final decision on the issuance of the
requested MMPA authorizations and
agency responses will be summarized in
the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than December 17,
2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Physical
comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910
and electronic comments should be sent
to ITP.Fowler@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments received
electronically, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF
file formats only. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-researchand-other-activities without change. All
personal identifying information (e.g.,
name, address) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise
sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Fowler, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list
of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
incidental take authorization may be
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization)
with respect to potential impacts on the
human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental
harassment authorizations with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On August 30, 2018, NMFS received
a request from SpaceX for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities,
including in-air boost-back maneuvers
and landings of the First Stage of the
Falcon 9 rocket at VAFB in California,
and at contingency landing locations
offshore. A revised application was
received October 23, 2018. NMFS
deemed that request to be adequate and
complete. SpaceX’s request is for take of
a small number of six species by Level
B harassment only. Neither SpaceX nor
NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS has previously issued
regulations and Letters of Authorization
(LOA) that authorize the take of marine
mammals, by Level B harassment,
incidental to launches of up to 50
rockets per year (including the Falcon 9)
from VAFB (79 FR 18528; April 2,
2014). The regulations, titled Taking of
Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Air
Force Launches, Aircraft and Helicopter
Operations, and Harbor Activities
Related to Vehicles from Vandenberg
Air Force Base, California, published
February 24, 2014, are effective from
March 2014 to March 2019. The
activities proposed by SpaceX are
limited to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
events (Falcon 9 boost-back maneuvers
and landings); launches of the Falcon 9
rocket are not part of the proposed
activities, and incidental take (Level B
harassment) resulting from Falcon 9
rocket launches from VAFB is already
authorized in the above referenced LOA.
As such, NMFS does not propose to
authorize take of marine mammals
incidental to launches of the Falcon 9
rocket in this IHA; incidental take
resulting from Falcon 9 rocket launches
is therefore not analyzed further in this
document. The LOA application (USAF
2013a), and links to the Federal Register
notice of the final rule (79 FR 10016;
February 24, 2014) and the Federal
Register notice of issuance of the LOA
(79 FR 18528; April 2, 2014), can be
found online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities. After the expiration of the
existing LOA for VAFB, NMFS
anticipates that the entire suite of
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 activities at VAFB
(Falcon 9 rocket launches and First
Stage boost-backs and landings) will be
incorporated into future authorizations
for VAFB.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Additionally, NMFS has previously
issued two IHAs to SpaceX for similar
activities (81 FR 34984, June 1, 2016; 82
FR 60954, December 26, 2017). SpaceX
complied with all the requirements (e.g.,
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of
the previous IHAs and information
regarding their monitoring results may
be found in the Estimated Take section.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket
designed and manufactured by SpaceX
for transport of satellites and SpaceX’s
Dragon spacecraft into orbit. SpaceX
currently operates the Falcon Launch
Vehicle Program at Space Launch
Complex 4 East (SLC–4E) at VAFB.
SpaceX proposes regular employment of
First Stage recovery by returning the
Falcon 9 First Stage to SLC–4 West
(SLC–4W) at VAFB for potential reuse,
up to twelve times per year. This
includes performing boost-back
maneuvers (in-air) and landings of the
Falcon 9 First Stage on the pad at SLC–
4W. The reuse of the Falcon 9 First
Stage enables SpaceX to efficiently
conduct lower cost launch missions
from VAFB in support of commercial
and government clients.
During descent, a sonic boom
(overpressure of high-energy impulsive
sound) would be generated when the
First Stage reaches a rate of travel that
exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic
booms would occur in proximity to the
landing areas and may be heard during
or after the boost-back and landing,
depending on the location of the
observer. Sound from the sonic boom
would have the potential to result in
harassment of marine mammals, either
on the mainland at or near VAFB or at
the Northern Channel Islands (NCI), as
described in more detail later in this
document.
Dates and Duration
SpaceX’s activities are conducted
throughout the year. Up to twelve
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities
would occur per year. Precise dates of
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities
are not known. Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities may take place at any
time of year and at any time of day. The
IHA, if issued, would be valid for one
year from the date of issuance.
Specific Geographic Region
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities will originate at VAFB. Areas
potentially affected include VAFB, areas
on the coastline surrounding VAFB, and
the NCI. VAFB operates as a missile test
base and aerospace center, supporting
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57433
west coast space launch activities for
the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Department
of Defense, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and commercial
contractors. VAFB is the main west
coast launch facility for placing
commercial government, and military
satellites into polar orbit on expendable
(unmanned) launch vehicles, and for
testing and evaluating intercontinental
ballistic missiles and sub-orbital target
and interceptor missiles.
VAFB occupies approximately 99,100
acres of central Santa Barbara County,
California. VAFB is divided by the
Santa Ynez River and State Highway
246 into two distinct parts: North Base
and South Base. SLC–4W, the preferred
landing location for the Falcon 9 First
Stage, is located on South Base,
approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8
kilometers (km)) inland from the Pacific
Ocean (see Figure 1–2 in the IHA
application). SLC–4E, the launch facility
for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 program, is
located approximately 715 feet (ft) (218
meters (m)) to the east of SLC–4W.
Although SLC–4W is the preferred
landing location for the Falcon 9 First
Stage, SpaceX has identified two
contingency landing locations should it
not be feasible to land the First Stage at
SLC–4W. The first contingency landing
location is on a barge located at least 27
nautical miles (nmi) (50 km) offshore of
VAFB. The second contingency landing
location is on a barge within the Iridium
Landing Area, an approximately 12,800
square mile (mi2) (33,153 square
kilometers (km2)) area located
approximately 122 nmi (225 km)
southwest of San Nicolas Island and 133
nmi (245 km) southwest of San
Clemente Island (see Figure 1–3 in the
IHA application). The NCI are also
considered part of the project area for
the purposes of this proposed
authorization, as landings at VAFB
could result in sonic booms that impact
the NCI. The NCI are four islands (San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and
Anacapa) located approximately 31 mi
(50 km) south of Point Conception,
which is located on the mainland
approximately 4 mi (6.5 km) south of
the southern border of VAFB. The
closest part of the NCI to VAFB (Harris
Point on San Miguel Island) is located
more than 34 mi (55 km) southsoutheast of SLC–4E, the launch facility
for the Falcon 9 rocket.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket
designed and manufactured by SpaceX
for transport of satellites into orbit. The
First Stage of the Falcon 9 is designed
to be reusable, while the second stage is
not reusable. The Falcon 9 First Stage is
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
57434
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
12 ft (3.7 m) in diameter and 160 ft (48.8
m) in height, including the interstage
that would remain attached during
landing. The proposed action includes
up to twelve Falcon 9 First Stage
recoveries, including in-air boost-back
maneuvers and landings of the First
Stage, at VAFB or at a contingency
landing location as described above.
After launch of the Falcon 9, the
boost-back and landing sequence begins
when the rocket’s First Stage separates
from the second stage and the Merlin
engines of the First Stage cut off. After
First Stage engine cutoff, rather than
dropping the First Stage in the Pacific
Ocean, exoatmospheric cold gas
thrusters would be triggered to flip the
First Stage into position for retrograde
burn. Three of the nine First Stage
Merlin engines would be restarted to
conduct the retrograde burn in order to
reduce the velocity of the First Stage
and to place the First Stage in the
correct angle to land. Once the First
Stage is in position and approaching its
landing target, the three engines would
cut off to end the boost-back burn. The
First Stage would then perform a
controlled descent using atmospheric
resistance to slow the stage down and
guide it to the landing pad target. The
First Stage is outfitted with grid fins that
allow cross range corrections as needed.
The landing legs on the First Stage
would then deploy in preparation for a
final single engine burn that would slow
the First Stage to a velocity of zero
before landing on the landing pad at
SLC–4W.
Sonic Boom
During descent, a sonic boom
(overpressure of high-energy impulsive
sound) would be generated when the
First Stage reaches a rate of travel that
exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic
booms would occur in proximity to the
landing area with the highest sound
levels generated from sonic booms
generally focused in the direction of the
landing area, and may be heard during
or briefly after the boost-back and
landing, depending on the location of
the receiver. Sound from the sonic
booms would have the potential to
result in harassment of marine
mammals, as described in greater detail
later in this document. Based on model
results, a boost-back and landing of the
Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W would
produce sonic booms with
overpressures that would potentially be
as high as 8.5 pounds per square foot
(psf) at VAFB and potentially as high as
3.1 psf at the NCI (see Figures 2–2 and
2–5 in the IHA application). Sonic boom
modeling indicates that landings that
occur at either of the proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
contingency landing locations offshore
would result in sonic booms with
received overpressures below 1.0 psf at
VAFB and the NCI. Take of pinnipeds
that are hauled out of the water are
expected to occur only when those
hauled out pinnipeds experience sonic
booms greater than 1.0 psf (discussed in
greater detail below in the Estimated
Take section). Therefore, take of marine
mammals may occur as a result of
landings that occur at VAFB; however,
take of marine mammals is not expected
to occur as a result of landings that
occur at either of the proposed
contingency landing locations offshore.
Please see Figure 1–4 in the IHA
application for a graphical depiction of
the boost-back and landing sequence,
and see Figure 1–5 in the IHA
application for an example of the boostback trajectory of the First Stage and the
second stage trajectory.
As a contingency action to landing the
Falcon 9 First Stage on the SLC–4W pad
at VAFB, SpaceX proposes to return the
Falcon 9 First Stage booster to a barge
in the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1–6 in the
IHA application). The maneuvering and
landing process described above for a
pad landing would be the same for a
barge landing. Three vessels would be
required to support a barge landing, if
it were required: A barge/landing
platform (300 ft (91 m) long and 150 ft
(46 m) wide); a support vessel (165 ft
(50 m) long research vessel); and an
ocean tug (120 ft (37 m) long open water
commercial tug).
Landing Noise
Landing noise would be generated
during each boost-back event. SpaceX
proposes to use a three-engine burn
during landing. This engine burn,
lasting approximately 17 seconds,
would generate noise between 70 and
110 decibels (dB) re 20 micro Pascals
(mPa) (non-pulse, in-air noise) centered
on SLC–4W, but affecting an area up to
15 nmi (27.8 km) offshore of VAFB
(Figure 2–10 in the IHA application).
This landing noise event would be of
short duration (approximately 17
seconds). Although, during a landing
event at SLC–4W, landing noise
between 70 and 90 dB would be
expected to overlap pinniped haulout
areas at and near Point Arguello and
Purisima Point, no pinniped haulouts
would experience landing noises of 90
dB or greater (see Figure 2–10 in the
IHA application).
NMFS’s recommended acoustic
thresholds for in-air acoustic impacts
assume that Level B harassment of
harbor seals may occur at 90 dB root
mean square (rms) re 20 mPa and Level
B harassment of all other pinnipeds may
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
occur at 100 dB rms re 20 mPa.
Therefore, harassment of marine
mammals hauled out at VAFB from
engine noise generated during landings
is not expected to occur. Engine noise
would also be produced during a
contingency barge landing of the Falcon
9 First Stage. Engine noise during a
barge landing is expected to be between
70 and 110 dB re 20 mPa affecting a
radial area up to 15 nmi (27.8 km)
around the contingency landing location
(Figure 2–11 in the IHA application)
and the Iridium 38 Landing Area (Figure
2–12 in the IHA application). No
pinniped haulouts are located within
the areas predicted to experience engine
noise of 90 dB and above during Falcon
9 First Stage landings at contingency
landing locations and the Iridium
Landing Area (Figures 2–11 and 2–12 in
the IHA application). Therefore, the
likelihood of engine noise associated
with the landing of the Falcon 9 First
Stage resulting in take of marine
mammals is considered so low as to be
discountable, and landing noise is
therefore not discussed further in this
document.
Unsuccessful Barge Landing
In the event of an unsuccessful barge
landing, the First Stage would explode
upon impact with the barge. The direct
sound from an explosion would last less
than a second. Furthermore, the
proposed activities would be dispersed
in time, with maximum of twelve barge
landing attempts occurring within a
twelve month time period. If an
explosion occurred on the barge, as in
the case of an unsuccessful barge
landing attempt, some amount of the
explosive energy would be transferred
through the ship’s structure and would
enter the water and propagate away
from the ship.
There is very little published
literature on the ratio of explosive
energy that is absorbed by a ship’s hull
versus the amount of energy that is
transferred through the ship into the
water. However, based on the best
available information, we have
determined that exceptionally little of
the acoustic energy from the explosion
would transmit into the water (Yagla
and Stiegler, 2003). An explosion on the
barge would create an in-air blast that
propagates away in all directions,
including toward the water’s surface;
however the barge’s deck would act as
a barrier that would attenuate the energy
directed downward toward the water
(Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). Most sound
enters the water in a narrow cone
beneath the sound source (within 13
degrees of vertical) (National Research
Council 2003). Since the explosion
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
would occur on the barge, most of this
sound would be reflected by the barge’s
surface, and sound waves would
approach the water’s surface at angles
higher than 13 degrees, minimizing
transmission into the ocean. An
explosion on the barge would also send
energy through the barge’s structure,
into the water, and away from the barge.
This effect was investigated in
conjunction with the measurements
described in Yagla and Steigler (2003).
Yagla and Steigler (2003) reported that
the energy transmitted through a ship to
the water for the firing of a typical 5inch round was approximately six
percent of that from the in-air blast
impinging on the water (Yagla and
Stiegler, 2003). Therefore, sound
transmitted from the blast through the
hull into the water was a minimal
component of overall firing noise, and
would likewise be expected to be a
minimal component of an explosion
occurring on the surface of the barge.
Depending on the amount of fuel
remaining in the booster at the time of
the explosion, the intensity of the
explosion would likely vary. Based on
previous Falcon 9 boost-back and
landing activities, the explosive
equivalence of the First Stage with
maximum fuel and oxidizer would be
expected to be approximately 500 lb. of
trinitrotoluene (TNT). Explosion shock
theory has proposed specific
relationships for the peak pressure and
time constant in terms of the charge
weight and range from the detonation
position (Pater 1981; Plotkin et al.
2012). For an in-air explosion
equivalent to 500 lb. of TNT, at 0.5 ft the
explosion would be approximately 250
dB re 20 mPa. Based on the assumption
that the structure of the barge would
absorb and reflect approximately 94
percent of this energy, with
approximately 6 percent of the energy
from the explosion transmitted into the
water (Yagla and Stiegler 2003), the
amount of energy that would be
transmitted into the water would be far
less than the threshold for Level B
harassment for marine mammals based
on NMFS’s current acoustic criterion for
in-water explosive noise (160 dB re 1
mPa). As a result, the likelihood of inwater sound generated by an explosion
of the Falcon 9 First Stage during an
unsuccessful barge landing attempt
resulting in take of marine mammals is
considered so low as to be discountable
and is therefore not discussed further in
this document.
As discussed above, in the event of an
unsuccessful contingency landing
attempt, the First Stage would be
expected to explode upon impact with
the barge. SpaceX has experience
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
performing recovery operations after
water and unsuccessful barge landings
for previous Falcon 9 First Stage landing
attempts. This experience, in addition to
the debris catalog that identifies all
floating debris, has revealed that
approximately 25 pieces of debris
remain floating after an unsuccessful
barge landing. The approximately 25
pieces of debris would primarily be
made of Carbon Over Pressure Vessels
(COPVs), the liquid oxygen fill line, and
carbon fiber constructed legs. The vast
majority of debris would be recovered.
All other debris is expected to sink to
the bottom of the ocean. Denser debris
that would not float on the surface
would sink relatively quickly and is
composed of inert materials which
would not affect water quality or bottom
substrate potentially used by marine
mammals. The rate of deposition would
vary with the type of debris; however,
none of the debris is so dense or large
that benthic habitat would be
meaningfully degraded.
The surface area potentially impacted
with debris would be expected to be less
than 0.46 km2. Since the area impacted
by debris is very small, the likelihood of
adverse effects to marine mammals is
very low. During previous landing
attempts in other locations, SpaceX has
performed successful debris recovery.
All of the recovered debris would be
transported back to Long Beach Harbor
for proper disposal. Most of the fuel
remaining in the First Stage would be
released onto the barge deck at the
location of impact. Therefore, the
likelihood of take of marine mammals as
a result of contact with exploded First
Stage materials is considered so low as
to be discountable, and explosion of the
Falcon 9 First Stage is therefore not
discussed further in this document.
In the event that a contingency
landing action is required, there is the
potential that the Falcon 9 First Stage
would miss the barge entirely and land
instead in the ocean. However, the
likelihood of the First Stage missing the
barge entirely and landing in the Pacific
Ocean is considered so unlikely as to be
discountable. This is supported by
several previous attempts by SpaceX at
Falcon 9 First Stage barge landings,
none of which have missed the barge.
Therefore, the likelihood of take of
marine mammals associated with a
Falcon 9 First Stage landing in the
ocean is considered so low as to be
discountable, and landing of the Falcon
9 First Stage in the ocean is not
considered further in this document.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57435
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
There are six marine mammal species
with expected occurrence in the project
area (including at VAFB, on the NCI,
and in the waters surrounding VAFB,
the NCI and the contingency landing
location) that are expected to be affected
by the specified activities. These
include the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus), northern fur seal (Callorhinus
ursinus), northern elephant seal
(Mirounga angustirostris), Guadalupe
fur seal (Arctocephalus philippii
townsendi), California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), and Pacific
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii).
This section provides summary
information regarding local occurrence
of these species. We have reviewed
SpaceX’s detailed species descriptions,
including life history information, for
accuracy and completeness and refer the
reader to Section 3 of SpaceX’s IHA
application, as well as to NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR; https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/
population-assessments#marinemammals), rather than reprinting all of
the information here. Additional general
information about these species (e.g.,
physical and behavioral descriptions)
may be found on NMFS’s website
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies).
There are an additional 28 species of
cetaceans with expected or possible
occurrence in the project area. However,
we have determined that the only
potential stressor associated with the
activity that could result in take of
marine mammals (sonic booms) only
has the potential to result in harassment
of marine mammals that are hauled out
of the water (i.e., pinnipeds). Therefore,
we have concluded that the likelihood
of the proposed activities resulting in
the harassment of any cetacean to be so
low as to be discountable. As we have
concluded that the likelihood of any
cetacean being taken incidentally as a
result of SpaceX’s proposed activities to
be so low as to be discountable,
cetaceans are not considered further in
this proposed authorization. Please see
Table 3–1 in SpaceX’s IHA application
for a complete list of species with
expected or potential occurrence in the
project area.
Table 1 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence in the vicinity
of the project during the project
timeframe that are likely to be affected
by the specified activities, and
summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
57436
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
regulatory status under the MMPA and
ESA and potential biological removal
(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017).
PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS’s
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated
or authorized here, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here
as gross indicators of the status of the
species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’s stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’s U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs
(e.g., Carretta et al., 2018; Muto et al.,
2018). All values presented in Table 1
are the most recent available at the time
of publication and are available in the
2017 SARs (Carretta et al., 2018; Muto
et al., 2018) and draft 2018 SARs
(available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/
population-assessments#marinemammals).
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance
survey) 2
PBR
Annual
M/SI 3
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
California sea lion ...............
Zalophus californianus ..............
U.S. ...........................................
-; N
Northern fur seal .................
Steller sea lion ....................
Callorhinus ursinus ...................
Eumetopias jubatus ..................
California ...................................
Eastern U.S. .............................
-; N
-; N
Guadalupe fur seal .............
Arctocephalus philippii ..............
Mexico .......................................
T/D; Y
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Pacific harbor seal ..............
Phoca vitulina richardii ..............
California ...................................
-; N
Northern elephant seal .......
Mirounga angustirostris ............
California breeding ....................
-; N
257,606 (n/a, 233,515,
2014).
14,050 (n/a, 7,524, 2013)
41,638 (n/a, 41,638,
2015).
20,000 (n/a, 15,830,
2010).
30,968 (n/a, 27,348,
2012).
179,000 (n/a, 81,368,
2010).
14,011
≥197
451
2,498
≥0.8
108
542
≥3.2
1,641
30
4,882
4
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the
ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically
designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/population-assessments#marine-mammals. CV is coefficient of
variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated
mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
All species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas are
included in Table 1. As described
below, all six species (with six managed
stocks) temporally and spatially cooccur with the activity to the degree that
take is reasonably likely to occur, and
we have proposed authorizing it.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Pacific Harbor Seal
Harbor seals inhabit coastal and
estuarine waters and shoreline areas of
the northern hemisphere from temperate
to polar regions. The eastern North
Pacific subspecies is found from Baja
California north to the Aleutian Islands
and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines
of evidence support the existence of
geographic structure among harbor seal
populations from California to Alaska
(Carretta et al., 2016). However, because
stock boundaries are difficult to
meaningfully draw from a biological
perspective, three separate harbor seal
stocks are recognized for management
purposes along the west coast of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
continental United States: (1)
Washington inland waters (2) Oregon
and Washington coast, and (3)
California (Carretta et al., 2016). In
addition, harbor seals may occur in
Mexican waters, but these animals are
not considered part of the California
stock. Only the California stock is
considered in this proposed
authorization due to the distribution of
the stock and the geographic scope of
the proposed activities. Although the
need for stock boundaries for
management is real and is supported by
biological information, it should be
noted that the exact placement of a
boundary between California and
Oregon for stock delineation purposes
was largely a political/jurisdictional
convenience (Carretta et al. 2015).
Pacific harbor seals are nonmigratory,
with local movements associated with
such factors as tides, weather, season,
food availability, and reproduction
(Scheffer and Slipp 1944, Fisher 1952,
Bigg 1969, 1981, Hastings et al. 2004).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In California, over 500 harbor seal
haulout sites are widely distributed
along the mainland and offshore
islands, and include rocky shores,
beaches and intertidal sandbars (Lowry
et al. 2005). Harbor seals mate at sea and
females give birth during the spring and
summer, though the pupping season
varies with latitude. Harbor seal
pupping takes place at many locations
and rookery size varies from a few pups
to many hundreds of pups.
Harbor seals are the most common
marine mammal inhabiting VAFB,
congregating on multiple rocky haulout
sites along the VAFB coastline.
Biologists from the Center for
Environmental Management of Military
Lands (CEMML) and 30 SW, 30th Civil
Engineer Squadron (30 CES) survey
marine mammal haulout sites on VAFB
on a monthly basis (CEMML 2018).
There are 12 harbor seal haulout sites on
south VAFB; of these, 10 sites represent
an almost continuous haulout area
which is used by the same animals.
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
Virtually all of the haulout sites at
VAFB are used during low tides and are
wave-washed or submerged during high
tides. Additionally, the harbor seal is
the only species that regularly hauls out
near the VAFB harbor (CEMML 2018).
The main harbor seal haulouts on VAFB
are near Purisima Point and at Lion’s
Head (approximately 0.6 km south of
Point Sal) on north VAFB and between
the VAFB harbor north to South Rocky
Point Beach on south VAFB (ManTech
2009).
Pups are generally present in the
region from March through July. Within
the affected area on VAFB, a total of up
to 332 adults and 34 pups have been
recorded, at all haulouts combined, in
monthly counts from 2013 to 2015
(ManTech 2015). Harbor seals also haul
out, breed, and pup in isolated beaches
and coves throughout the coasts of San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Islands (Lowry 2002). During aerial
surveys conducted by NMFS in May
2002 and May and June of 2004,
between 521 and 1,004 harbors seals
were recorded at San Miguel Island,
between 605 and 972 at Santa Rosa
Island, and between 599 and 1,102 at
Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA
Fisheries, unpubl. data).
The harbor seal population at VAFB
has undergone an apparent decline in
recent years (USAF 2013b). This decline
has been attributed to a series of natural
landslides at south VAFB, resulting in
the abandonment of many haulout sites.
These slides have also resulted in
extensive down-current sediment
deposition, making these sites
accessible to coyotes, which are now
regularly seen in the area. Some of the
displaced seals have moved to other
sites at south VAFB, while others likely
have moved to Point Conception, about
6.5 km south of the southern boundary
of VAFB. Additionally, at one haulout,
harbor seals have been displaced by
elephant seals, who have begun using
the haulout for giving birth (CEMML
2018).
Pacific harbor seals frequently use
haulout sites on the NCI, including San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and
Anacapa islands. On San Miguel Island,
they occur along the north coast at Tyler
Bight and from Crook Point to Cardwell
Point. Additionally, they regularly breed
on San Miguel Island. On Santa Cruz
Island, they inhabit small coves and
rocky ledges along much of the coast.
Harbor seals are scattered throughout
Santa Rosa Island and also are observed
in small numbers on Anacapa Island.
California Sea Lion
California sea lions range from the
Gulf of California north to the Gulf of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Alaska, with breeding areas located in
the Gulf of California, western Baja
California, and southern California. Five
genetically distinct geographic
populations have been identified: (1)
Pacific Temperate, (2) Pacific
Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of
California, (4) Central Gulf of California,
and (5) Northern Gulf of California
(Schramm et al., 2009). Rookeries for
the Pacific Temperate population are
found within U.S. waters and just south
of the U.S.-Mexico border, and animals
belonging to this population may be
found from the Gulf of Alaska to
Mexican waters off Baja California.
Animals belonging to other populations
(e.g., Pacific Subtropical) may range into
U.S. waters during non-breeding
periods. For management purposes, a
stock of California sea lions comprising
those animals at rookeries within the
United States is defined (i.e., the U.S.
stock of California sea lions) (Carretta et
al., 2017). The carrying capacity of the
stock was estimated at 275,298 animals
in 2014 (Laake et al., 2018).
Beginning in January 2013, elevated
strandings of California sea lion pups
were observed in southern California,
with live sea lion strandings nearly
three times higher than the historical
average. Findings to date indicate that a
likely contributor to the large number of
stranded, malnourished pups was a
change in the availability of sea lion
prey for nursing mothers, especially
sardines. The Working Group on Marine
Mammal Unusual Mortality Events
determined that the ongoing stranding
event meets the criteria for an Unusual
Mortality Event (UME) and declared
California sea lion strandings from 2013
through 2017 to be one continuous
UME. The causes and mechanisms of
this event remain under investigation.
For more information on the UME, see:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-life-distress/2013-2017california-sea-lion-unusual-mortalityevent-california.
Rookery sites in southern California
are limited to San Miguel Island and the
southerly Channel Islands of San
Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San
Clemente (Carretta et al., 2015). Males
establish breeding territories during
May through July on both land and in
the water. Females come ashore in midMay and June where they give birth to
a single pup approximately four to five
days after arrival and will nurse pups
for about a week before going on their
first feeding trip. Adult and juvenile
males will migrate as far north as British
Columbia, Canada while females and
pups remain in southern California
waters in the non-breeding season. In
warm water (El Nin˜o) years, some
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57437
females are found as far north as
Washington and Oregon, presumably
following prey.
California sea lions are common
offshore of VAFB and haul out on rocks
and beaches along the coastline of
VAFB. At south VAFB, California sea
lions haul out on north Rocky Point,
with numbers often peaking in spring.
They have been reported at Point
Arguello and Point Pedernales (both on
south VAFB) in the past, although none
have been noted there over the past
several years. Individual sea lions have
been noted hauled out throughout the
VAFB coast; these were transient or
stranded specimens. They regularly
haul out on Lion Rock, north of VAFB
and immediately south of Point Sal, and
occasionally haul out on Point
Conception, south of VAFB. In 2014,
counts of California sea lions at
haulouts on VAFB ranged from 47 to
416 during monthly counts. Despite
their prevalence at haulout sites at
VAFB, California sea lions rarely pup on
the VAFB coastline (ManTech 2015); no
pups were observed in 2013 or 2014
(ManTech 2015) and 1 pup was
observed in 2015 (VAFB, unpubl. data).
Pupping occurs in large numbers on
San Miguel Island at the rookeries found
at Point Bennett on the west end of the
island and at Cardwell Point on the east
end of the island (Lowry 2002). Sea
lions haul out at the west end of Santa
Rosa Island at Ford Point and
Carrington Point. A few California sea
lions have been born on Santa Rosa
Island, but no rookery has been
established. On Santa Cruz Island,
California sea lions haul out from
Painted Cave almost to Fraser Point, on
the west end. Fair numbers haul out at
Gull Island, off the south shore near
Punta Arena. Pupping appears to be
increasing there. Sea lions also haul out
near Potato Harbor, on the northeast end
of Santa Cruz. California sea lions haul
out by the hundreds on the south side
of East Anacapa Island.
During aerial surveys conducted by
NMFS in February 2010 of the NCI,
21,192 total California sea lions (14,802
pups) were observed at haulouts on San
Miguel Island and 8,237 total (5,712
pups) at Santa Rosa Island (M. Lowry,
NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data). During
aerial surveys in July 2012, 65,660 total
California sea lions (28,289 pups) were
recorded at haulouts on San Miguel
Island, 1,584 total (3 pups) at Santa Rosa
Island, and 1,571 total (zero pups) at
Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA
Fisheries, unpubl. data).
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern elephant seals range in the
eastern and central North Pacific Ocean,
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
57438
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
from as far north as Alaska and as far
south as Mexico. They spend much of
the year, generally about nine months,
in the open ocean. They spend much of
their lives underwater, diving to depths
of about 1,000 to 2,500 ft (330–800 m)
for 20- to 30-minute intervals with only
short breaks at the surface, and are
rarely seen at sea for this reason.
Northern elephant seals breed and give
birth in California and Baja California
(Mexico), primarily on offshore islands,
from December to March (Stewart et al.
1994). Adults return to land between
March and August to molt, with males
returning later than females. Adults
return to their feeding areas again
between their spring/summer molting
and their winter breeding seasons.
Populations of northern elephant
seals in the U.S. and Mexico are derived
from a few tens or hundreds of
individuals surviving in Mexico after
being nearly hunted to extinction
(Stewart et al., 1994). Given the recent
derivation of most rookeries, no genetic
differentiation would be expected.
Although movement and genetic
exchange continues between rookeries,
most elephant seals return to their natal
rookeries when they start breeding
(Huber et al., 1991). The California
breeding population is now
demographically isolated from the Baja
California population and is considered
to be a separate stock.
Northern elephant seals haul out
sporadically on rocks and beaches along
the coastline of VAFB; monthly counts
in 2013 and 2014 recorded between 0
and 191 elephant seals within the
affected area (ManTech 2015) and
northern elephant seal pupping at VAFB
was documented for the first time in
January 2017 (Pers. comm., R. Evans,
USAF, to J. Carduner, NMFS, February
1, 2017). The nearest regularly used
haulout site on the mainland coast is at
Point Conception. Eleven northern
elephant seals were observed during
aerial surveys of the Point Conception
area by NMFS in February of 2010 (M.
Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
Point Bennett on the west end of San
Miguel Island is the primary northern
elephant seal rookery in the NCI, with
another rookery at Cardwell Point on
the east end of San Miguel Island
(Lowry 2002). They also pup and breed
on Santa Rosa Island, mostly on the
west end. Northern elephant seals are
rarely seen on Santa Cruz and Anacapa
Islands. During aerial surveys of the NCI
conducted by NMFS in February 2010,
21,192 total northern elephant seals
(14,802 pups) were recorded at haulouts
on San Miguel Island and 8,237 total
(5,712 pups) were observed at Santa
Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Fisheries, unpubl. data). None were
observed at Santa Cruz Island (M.
Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions are distributed
mainly around the coasts to the outer
continental shelf along the North Pacific
rim from northern Hokkaido, Japan
through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk
Sea, Aleutian Islands and central Bering
Sea, southern coast of Alaska and south
to California (Loughlin et al., 1984). The
species as a whole was ESA-listed as
threatened in 1990 (55 FR 49204,
November 26, 1990). In 1997, the
species was divided into western and
eastern distinct population segments
(DPS), with the western DPS reclassified
as endangered under the ESA and the
eastern DPS retaining its threatened
listing (62 FR 24345, May 5, 2997). On
October 23, 2013, NMFS found that the
eastern DPS has recovered; as a result of
the finding, NMFS removed the eastern
DPS from ESA listing. Only the eastern
DPS is considered in this proposed
authorization due to its distribution and
the geographic scope of the action.
Prior to 2012, there were no records
of Steller sea lions observed at VAFB. In
April and May 2012, Steller sea lions
were observed hauled out at North
Rocky Point on VAFB, representing the
first time the species had been observed
on VAFB during launch monitoring and
monthly surveys conducted over the
past two decades (Marine Mammal
Consulting Group and Science
Applications International Corporation
2013). Since 2012, Steller sea lions have
been observed frequently in routine
monthly surveys, with as many as 16
individuals recorded. In 2014, up to five
Steller sea lions were observed in the
affected area during monthly marine
mammal counts (ManTech 2015) and a
maximum of 12 individuals were
observed during monthly counts in 2015
(VAFB, unpublished data). However, up
to 16 individuals were observed in 2012
(SAIC 2012). Steller sea lions once had
two small rookeries on San Miguel
Island, but these were abandoned after
the 1982–1983 El Nin˜o event (DeLong
and Melin 2000; Lowry 2002); these
rookeries were once the southernmost
colonies of the eastern stock of this
species. In recent years, between two to
four juvenile and adult males have been
observed on a somewhat regular basis
on San Miguel Island (pers. comm.
Sharon Melin, NMFS Alaska Fisheries
Science Center, to J. Carduner, NMFS,
Feb 11, 2016). Steller sea lions are not
observed on the other NCI.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Northern Fur Seal
Northern fur seals occur from
southern California north to the Bering
Sea and west to the Okhotsk Sea and
Honshu Island, Japan. Due to differing
requirements during the annual
reproductive season, adult males and
females typically occur ashore at
different, though overlapping, times.
Adult males occur ashore and defend
reproductive territories during a three
month period from June through
August, though some may be present
until November (well after giving up
their territories). Adult females are
found ashore for as long as six months
(June–November). After their respective
times ashore, fur seals of both sexes
spend the next seven to eight months at
sea (Roppel 1984). Peak pupping is in
early July and pups are weaned at three
to four months. Some juveniles are
present year-round, but most juveniles
and adults head for the open ocean and
a pelagic existence until the next year.
Northern fur seals exhibit high site
fidelity to their natal rookeries. Two
stocks of northern fur seals are
recognized in U.S. waters: An eastern
Pacific stock and a California stock
(formerly referred to as the San Miguel
Island stock). While animals from the
eastern Pacific stock are known to travel
as far south as Oregon and California
(Muto et al., 2018), only the California
stock is considered in this proposed
authorization due to its geographic
distribution.
Northern fur seals have rookeries on
San Miguel Island at Point Bennett and
on Castle Rock. Comprehensive count
data for northern fur seals on San
Miguel Island are not available. San
Miguel Island is the only island in the
NCI on which northern fur seals have
been observed. Although the population
at San Miguel Island was established by
individuals from Alaska and Russian
Islands during the late 1960s, most
individuals currently found on San
Miguel are considered resident to the
island. No haulout or rookery sites exist
for northern fur seals on the mainland
coast. The only individuals that appear
on mainland beaches are stranded
animals.
Guadalupe Fur Seal
Guadalupe fur seals are found along
the west coast of the United States. They
were abundant prior to seal
exploitation, when they were likely the
most abundant pinniped species on the
Channel Islands, but are considered
uncommon in Southern California. They
are typically found on shores with
abundant large rocks, often at the base
of large cliffs (Belcher and Lee 2002).
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur
seals started occurring along the entire
coast of California in early 2015. This
event was declared a marine mammal
UME. Strandings were eight times
higher than the historical average,
peaking from April through June 2015,
and have since lessened but continue at
a rate that is well above average. Most
stranded individuals have been weaned
pups and juveniles (1–2 years old). For
more information on this ongoing UME,
see: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-life-distress/2015-2018guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortalityevent-california.
Comprehensive survey data on
Guadalupe fur seals in the NCI is not
readily available. On San Miguel Island,
one to several male Guadalupe fur seals
had been observed annually between
1969 and 2000 (DeLong and Melin 2000)
and juvenile animals of both sexes have
been seen occasionally over the years
(Stewart et al. 1987). The first adult
female at San Miguel Island was seen in
1997. In June 1997, she gave birth to a
pup in rocky habitat along the south
side of the island and, over the next
year, reared the pup to weaning age.
This was apparently the first pup born
in the Channel Islands in at least 150
years. Since 2008, individual adult
females, subadult males, and between
one and three pups have been observed
annually on San Miguel Island. There
are estimated to be approximately 20–25
individuals that have fidelity to San
Miguel, mostly inhabiting the southwest
and northwest ends of the island. A
total of 14 pups have been born on the
island since 2009, with no more than 3
born in any single season (pers. comm.,
S. Melin, NMFS National Marine
Mammal Laboratory, to J. Carduner,
NMFS, Aug. 28, 2015). Thirteen
individuals and two pups were
observed in 2015 (NMFS 2016). No
haulout or rookery sites exist for
Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland
coast, including VAFB. The only
individuals that do appear on mainland
beaches are stranded animals.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species
have equal hearing capabilities (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
recommended that marine mammals be
divided into functional hearing groups
based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral response data, audiograms
derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 dB
threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. The
functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note
that these frequency ranges correspond
to the range for the composite group,
with the entire range not necessarily
reflecting the capabilities of every
species within that group):
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true
seals): Generalized hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 50
hertz (Hz) to 86 kilohertz (kHz); and
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared
seals): Generalized hearing is estimated
to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information. Six species of
marine mammal (four otariid and two
phocid) species) have the reasonable
potential to co-occur with the proposed
activities. Please refer to Table 1.
57439
TABLE 2—RELEVANT MARINE MAMMAL
FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUPS AND
THEIR
GENERALIZED
HEARING
RANGES—Continued
Hearing group
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and
fur seals).
Generalized
hearing
range *
60 Hz to 39
kHz.
* Represents the generalized hearing range
for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all
species within the group), where individual
species’ hearing ranges are typically not as
broad. Generalized hearing range chosen
based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for
lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al.,
2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
of the specified activity may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take section later in this
document includes a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated
Take section, and the Proposed
Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and how
those impacts on individuals are likely
to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Acoustic Effects
This section contains a brief technical
background on sound, the
characteristics of certain sound types,
and on metrics used in this proposal
inasmuch as the information is relevant
to the specified activity and to a
discussion of the potential effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic
components of which are frequency,
wavelength, velocity, and amplitude.
Frequency is the number of pressure
waves that pass by a reference point per
TABLE 2—RELEVANT MARINE MAMMAL unit of time and is measured in Hz or
cycles per second. Wavelength is the
FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUPS AND distance between two peaks or
THEIR
GENERALIZED
HEARING corresponding points of a sound wave
RANGES
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency
sounds have shorter wavelengths than
Generalized
lower frequency sounds, and typically
Hearing group
hearing
attenuate (decrease) more rapidly,
range *
except in certain cases in shallower
water. Amplitude is the height of the
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (un50 Hz to 86
sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’
derwater) (true seals).
kHz.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
57440
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
of a sound and is typically described
using the relative unit of the dB. A
sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is
described as the ratio between a
measured pressure and a reference
pressure and is a logarithmic unit that
accounts for large variations in
amplitude; therefore, a relatively small
change in dB corresponds to large
changes in sound pressure. The source
level (SL) represents the SPL referenced
at a distance of 1 m from the source
while the received level is the SPL at
the listener’s position. Note that all
airborne sound levels in this document
are referenced to a pressure of 20 mPa.
Root mean square is the quadratic
mean sound pressure over the duration
of an impulse. Root mean square is
calculated by squaring all of the sound
amplitudes, averaging the squares, and
then taking the square root of the
average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square
accounts for both positive and negative
values; squaring the pressures makes all
values positive so that they may be
accounted for in the summation of
pressure levels (Hastings and Popper,
2005). This measurement is often used
in the context of discussing behavioral
effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory
cues, may be better expressed through
averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL;
represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents
the total energy contained within a
pulse and considers both intensity and
duration of exposure. Peak sound
pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak
sound pressure or 0–p) is the maximum
instantaneous sound pressure
measurable in the water at a specified
distance from the source and is
represented in the same units as the rms
sound pressure. Another common
metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure
(pk-pk), which is the algebraic
difference between the peak positive
and peak negative sound pressures.
Peak-to-peak pressure is typically
approximately 6 dB higher than peak
pressure (Southall et al., 2007).
A-weighting is applied to instrumentmeasured sound levels in an effort to
account for the relative loudness
perceived by the human ear, as the ear
is less sensitive to low audio
frequencies, and is commonly used in
measuring airborne noise. The relative
sensitivity of pinnipeds listening in air
to different frequencies is more-or-less
similar to that of humans (Richardson et
al. 1995), so A-weighting may, as a first
approximation, be relevant to pinnipeds
listening to moderate-level sounds.
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and human activity) but also
on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from a given activity
may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive
signal that may affect marine mammals.
Details of source types are described in
the following text.
Sounds are often considered as either
pulsed or non-pulsed (defined in the
following). The distinction between
these two sound types is important
because they have differing potential to
cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in
Southall et al., 2007). Please see
Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth
discussion of these concepts.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns,
explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals
that are brief (typically considered to be
less than one second), broadband, atonal
transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris,
1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and
occur either as isolated events or
repeated in some succession. Pulsed
sounds are all characterized by a
relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value
followed by a rapid decay period that
may include a period of diminishing,
oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an
increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that
lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal,
narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either
continuous or non-continuous (ANSI,
1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the
essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid
rise time). Examples of non-pulsed
sounds include those produced by
vessels, aircraft, machinery operations
such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems
(such as those used by the U.S. Navy).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The duration of such sounds, as
received at a distance, can be greatly
extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
The effects of sounds on marine
mammals are dependent on several
factors, including the species, size,
behavior (feeding, nursing, resting, etc.),
and, if underwater, depth of the animal;
the intensity and duration of the sound;
and the sound propagation properties of
the environment. Impacts to marine
species can result from physiological
and behavioral responses to both the
type and strength of the acoustic
signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type
and severity of behavioral impacts are
more difficult to define due to limited
studies addressing the behavioral effects
of sounds on marine mammals.
Potential effects from impulsive sound
sources can range in severity from
effects such as behavioral disturbance or
tactile perception to physical
discomfort, slight injury of the internal
organs and the auditory system, or
mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973).
The effects of sounds from the
proposed activities are expected to
result in behavioral disturbance of
marine mammals. Due to the expected
sound levels of the activities proposed
and the distance of the activity from
marine mammal habitat, the effects of
sounds from the proposed activities are
not expected to result in temporary or
permanent hearing impairment (TTS
and PTS, respectively), non-auditory
physical or physiological effects, or
masking in marine mammals. Therefore,
TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or
physiological effects, and masking are
not discussed further in this section.
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in
behavior, more conspicuous changes in
activities, and displacement. Behavioral
responses to sound are highly variable
and context-specific and reactions, if
any, depend on species, state of
maturity, experience, current activity,
reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day, and many other factors
(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al.,
2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Habituation can occur when an
animal’s response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the
absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most
likely to habituate to sounds that are
predictable and unvarying. The opposite
process is sensitization, when an
unpleasant experience leads to
subsequent responses, often in the form
of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. Behavioral state may affect
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
the type of response as well. For
example, animals that are resting may
show greater behavioral change in
response to disturbing sound levels than
animals that are highly motivated to
remain in an area for feeding
(Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003;
Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals have shown
pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud underwater
sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997;
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to
loud pulsed sound sources (typically
seismic guns or acoustic harassment
devices) have been varied but often
consist of avoidance behavior or other
behavioral changes suggesting
discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002;
Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also
Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al.,
2003; Nowacek et al., 2007).
The onset of noise can result in
temporary, short term changes in an
animal’s typical behavior and/or
avoidance of the affected area. These
behavioral changes may include:
Reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or
feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas
where sound sources are located; and/
or flight responses (Richardson et al.,
1995).
The biological significance of many of
these behavioral disturbances is difficult
to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However,
the consequences of behavioral
modification could potentially be
biologically significant if the change
affects growth, survival, or
reproduction. The onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic sound
depends on both external factors
(characteristics of sound sources and
their paths) and the specific
characteristics of the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography) and is difficult to predict
(Southall et al., 2007).
Marine mammals that occur in the
project area could be exposed to
airborne sounds associated with Falcon
9 boost-back and landing activities that
have the potential to result in behavioral
harassment, depending on an animal’s
distance from the sound. Airborne
sound could potentially affect
pinnipeds that are hauled out. Most
likely, airborne sound would cause
behavioral responses similar to those
discussed above in relation to
underwater sound. For instance,
anthropogenic sound could cause
hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
in their normal behavior, such as
reduction in vocalizations, or cause
them to temporarily abandon their
habitat and move further from the
source. Hauled out pinnipeds may flush
from a haulout into the water. Though
pup abandonment could theoretically
result from these reactions, site-specific
monitoring data indicate that pup
abandonment is not likely to occur as a
result of the specified activity. Not all
pinnipeds exposed to a sonic boom and/
or launch noise flushed from the
haulout, and those that did flush
returned to the haulout shortly after the
event.
Description of Effects From the
Specified Activity
This section includes a discussion of
the active acoustic sound sources
associated with SpaceX’s proposed
activity and the likelihood for these
sources to result in harassment of
marine mammals. Potential acoustic
sources associated with SpaceX’s
proposed activity include sonic booms,
Falcon 9 First Stage landings, and
potential explosions as a result of
unsuccessful Falcon 9 First Stage
landing attempts. Sounds produced by
the proposed activities may be
impulsive, due to sonic booms, and
non-pulse (but short-duration) noise,
due to combustion effects of the Falcon
9 First Stage. As described above,
sounds associated with Falcon 9 First
Stage landings and potential explosions
as a result of unsuccessful Falcon 9 First
Stage landing attempts are not expected
to result in take of marine mammals and
are therefore not addressed here.
Sonic Boom
As described above, during descent
when the First Stage is supersonic, a
sonic boom would be generated. The
USAF has monitored pinniped
responses to rocket launches from VAFB
for nearly 20 years. Though rocket
launches are not part of the proposed
activities (as described above), the
acoustic stimuli (sonic booms)
associated with launches is expected to
be substantially similar to those
expected to occur with Falcon 9 boostbacks and landings; therefore, we rely
on observational data on responses of
pinnipeds to sonic booms associated
with rocket launches from VAFB in
making assumptions about expected
pinniped responses to sonic booms
associated with Falcon 9 boost-backs
and landings.
Observed reactions of pinnipeds at
the NCI to sonic booms have ranged
from no response to heads-up alerts,
from startle responses to some
movements on land, and from some
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57441
movements into the water to very
occasional stampedes (especially
involving California sea lions on the
NCI). We therefore assume sonic booms
generated during the return flight of the
Falcon 9 First Stage may elicit an
alerting or other short-term behavioral
reaction, including flushing into the
water if hauled out.
Data from launch monitoring by the
USAF on the NCI has shown that
pinniped reactions to sonic booms are
correlated with the level of the sonic
boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0
psf) have typically resulted in little to
no behavioral responses, including head
raising and briefly alerting but returning
to normal behavior shortly after the
stimulus (Table 3). More powerful sonic
booms have sometimes resulted in some
species of pinnipeds flushing from
haulouts. No documented pinniped
mortalities have been associated with
sonic booms. No sustained decreases in
numbers of animals observed at
haulouts have been observed after the
stimulus. Table 3 presents a summary of
monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999
to 2017. These data show that reactions
to sonic booms tend to be insignificant
below 1.0 psf and that, even above 1.0
psf, only a portion of the animals
present have reacted to the sonic boom.
Time-lapse video photography during
four launch events revealed that harbor
seals that reacted to the rocket launch
noise but did not leave the haulout were
all adults.
Data from previous monitoring also
suggests that for those pinnipeds that
flush from haulouts in response to sonic
booms, the amount of time it takes for
those animals to begin returning to the
haulout site, and for numbers of animals
to return to pre-launch levels, is
correlated with sonic boom sound
levels. Pinnipeds may begin to return to
the haulout site within 2–55 min of the
launch disturbance, and the haulout site
usually returned to pre-launch levels
within 45–120 min. Monitoring data
from launches of the Athena IKONOS
rocket from VAFB, with 107.3 and 107.8
dB (A-weighted SEL) recorded at the
closest haulout site, showed seals that
flushed to the water on exposure to the
sonic boom began to return to the
haulout approximately 16–55 minutes
post-launch (Thorson et al., 1999a;
1999b). In contrast, in the cases of Atlas
rocket launches and several Titan II
rocket launches with SELs (A-weighted)
ranging from 86.7 to 95.7 dB recorded
at the closest haulout, seals began to
return to the haulout site within 2–8
minutes post-launch (Thorson and
Francine, 1997; Thorson et al., 2000).
Monitoring data has consistently
shown that reactions among pinnipeds
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
57442
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
to sonic booms vary between species,
with harbor seals tending to be the most
sensitive to disturbance, followed by
California sea lions, with northern
elephant seals and northern fur seals
generally being much less responsive
(Table 3). Because Steller sea lions and
Guadalupe fur seals occur in the project
area relatively infrequently, no data has
been recorded on their reactions to
sonic booms. At VAFB, harbor seals
generally alert to nearby launch noises,
with some or all of the animals going
into the water. Usually the animals haul
out again from within minutes to two
hours or so of the launch, provided
rising tides or breakers have not
submerged the haulout sites. Postlaunch surveys often indicate as many
or more animals hauled out than were
present at the time of the launch, unless
rising tides, breakers or other
disturbances are involved (SAIC 2012).
When launches occurred during high
tides at VAFB, no impacts have been
recorded because virtually all haulout
sites were submerged.
At the Channel Islands, harbor seals
have been observed to react more
strongly to sonic booms than other
species present there, with some
animals startling and fleeing into the
water (Table 3). California sea lions
have also sometimes shown reactiveness
to sonic booms, with pups sometimes
reacting more than adults, either
because they are more easily frightened
or because their hearing is more acute
(Table 3). Northern fur seals generally
show little or no reaction. Northern
elephant seals generally exhibit no
reaction at all, except perhaps a headsup response or some stirring, especially
if sea lions in the same area or mingled
with the elephant seals react strongly to
the boom. Post-launch monitoring
generally reveals a return to normal
patterns within minutes up to an hour
or two of each launch, regardless of
species (SAIC 2012).
Table 3 summarizes monitoring
efforts at San Miguel Island during
which acoustic measurements were
successfully recorded and during which
pinnipeds were observed. Monitoring
was conducted at the haulout closest to
the predicted sonic boom. During more
recent launches, night vision equipment
was used. The table shows only
launches during which sonic booms
were heard and recorded. Many
launches from VAFB do not result in
sonic booms that are detectable at the
NCI due to the westward trajectory of
the rockets. To date, SpaceX has landed
only one Falcon 9 First Stage at VAFB
and the monitoring results are not yet
available. The table shows that little or
no reaction from the four species
usually occurs when overpressures are
below 1.0 psf, and sometimes higher. In
general, as described above, elephant
seals do not react unless other animals
around them react strongly or if the
sonic boom is extremely loud, and
northern fur seals seem to react
similarly.
TABLE 3—OBSERVED PINNIPED RESPONSES TO SONIC BOOMS AT SAN MIGUEL ISLAND
Sonic
boom
level
(psf)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Launch event
Monitoring location
Species and associated reactions
California sea lion: 866 alerted; 232 (27%) flushed into water.
Northern elephant seal: Alerted but did not flush.
Northern fur seal: Alerted but did not flush.
California sea lion: 12 of 600 (2%) flushed into water.
Northern elephant seal: Alerted but did not flush.
Northern fur seal: Alerted but did not flush.
California sea lion: 60 pups flushed into water; no reaction from focal
group.
Northern elephant seal: No reaction.
California sea lion (Group 1): No reaction (1,200 animals).
California sea lion (Group 2): No reaction (247 animals).
Northern elephant seal: No reaction.
Harbor seal: 2 of 4 flushed into water.
California sea lion and northern fur seal: No reaction among 485 animals
in 3 groups.
Northern elephant seal: No reaction among 424 animals in 2 groups.
California sea lion: Approximately 40% alerted; several flushed to water
(number unknown—night launch).
Northern elephant seal: No reaction.
California sea lion: 10% alerted (number unknown—night launch).
Northern elephant seal: No reaction (109 pups).
California sea lion: No reaction (784 animals).
Northern elephant seal: No reaction (445 animals).
California sea lion: No reaction (460 animals).
Northern elephant seal: No reaction (68 animals).
Harbor seal: 20 of 36 (56%) flushed into water.
Harbor seal: 1 of ∼25 flushed into water; no reaction from others.
Calif. sea lion: 5 of ∼225 alerted; none flushed.
Calif. sea lion: Pre-launch counts for California sea lions at the San
Miguel Island monitoring location ranged from 42 to 166. ∼60% of CSL
alerted and raised their heads. None flushed.
Northern elephant seal: Pre-launch counts ranged from 107 to 159. No
visible response to sonic boom, none flushed.
Northern fur seal: Pre-launch counts from 129 to 262. ∼60% of NFS alerted and raised their heads. None flushed.
Northern elephant seal: pre-launch counts 235–352. 13 alerted; none
flushed.
Athena II (April 27, 1999) ...................
1.0
Adams Cove .....................................
Athena II (September 24, 1999) ........
0.95
Point Bennett ....................................
Delta II 20 (November 20, 2000) .......
0.4
Point Bennett ....................................
Atlas II (September 8, 2001) ..............
0.75
Cardwell Point ...................................
Delta II (February 11, 2002) ...............
0.64
Point Bennett ....................................
Atlas II (December 2, 2003) ...............
0.88
Point Bennett ....................................
Delta II
Atlas V
Delta II
Atlas V
Atlas V
(July 15, 2004) .......................
(March 13, 2008) ...................
(May 5, 2009) ........................
(April 14, 2011) ......................
(September 13, 2012) ...........
1.34
1.24
0.76
1.01
2.10
Adams Cove .....................................
Cardwell Point ...................................
West of Judith Rock ..........................
Cuyler Harbor ....................................
Cardwell Point ...................................
Atlas V (April 3, 2014) ........................
Atlas V (December 12, 2014) ............
Atlas V (October 8, 2015) ..................
0.74
1.18
1.96
Cardwell Point ...................................
Point Bennett ....................................
East Adams Cove of Point Bennett ..
Atlas V (March 1, 2017) .....................
a ∼0.8
Cuyler Harbor on San Miguel Island
a Peak sonic boom at the monitoring site was ∼2.2 psf, but was in infrasonic range—not audible to pinnipeds. Within the audible frequency spectrum, boom at monitoring site estimated at ∼0.8 psf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
Physiological Responses to Sonic Booms
To determine if harbor seals
experience changes in their hearing
sensitivity as a result of sounds
associated with rocket launches
(including sonic booms), Auditory
Brainstem Response (ABR) testing was
conducted on 14 harbor seals following
four launches of the Titan IV rocket, one
launch of the Taurus rocket, and two
launches of the Delta IV rocket from
VAFB. ABR tests have not yet been
performed following Falcon 9 rocket
landings nor launches, however results
of ABR tests that followed launches of
other rockets from VAFB are
nonetheless informative as the sound
source (sonic boom) is expected to be
the same as that associated with the
activities proposed by SpaceX.
Following standard ABR testing
protocol, the ABR was measured from
one ear of each seal using sterile, subdermal, stainless steel electrodes. A
conventional electrode array was used,
and low-level white noise was
presented to the non-tested ear to
reduce any electrical potentials
generated by the non-tested ear. A
computer was used to produce the click
and an eight kHz tone burst stimuli,
through standard audiometric
headphones. Over 1,000 ABR
waveforms were collected and averaged
per trial. Initially the stimuli were
presented at SPLs loud enough to obtain
a clean reliable waveform, and then
decreased in 10 dB steps until the
response was no longer reliably
observed. Once response was no longer
reliably observed, the stimuli were then
increased in 10 dB steps to the original
SPL. By obtaining two ABR waveforms
at each SPL, it was possible to quantify
the variability in the measurements.
Good replicable responses were
measured from most of the seals, with
waveforms following the expected
pattern of an increase in latency and
decrease in amplitude of the peaks, as
the stimulus level was lowered. Detailed
analysis of the changes in waveform
latency and waveform replication of the
ABR measurements for the 14 seals
showed no detectable changes in the
seals’ hearing sensitivity as a result of
exposure to the launch noise. The
delayed start (1.75 to 3.5 hours after the
launches) for ABR testing allows for the
possibility that the seals may have
recovered from a TTS before testing
began. However, it can be said with
confidence that the post-launch tested
animals did not have permanent hearing
changes due to exposure to the launch
noise from the sonic booms associated
with launches of the rockets from VAFB
(SAIC 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
We also note that stress from longterm cumulative sound exposures can
result in physiological effects on
reproduction, metabolism, and general
health, or on the animals’ resistance to
disease. However, this is not likely to
occur as a result of the proposed
activities because of the infrequent
nature and short duration of the noise
(up to twelve sonic booms annually).
Research indicates that population
levels at these haulout sites have
remained constant in recent years (with
decreases only noted in some areas after
coastal erosion), giving support to this
conclusion.
In conclusion, based on data from
numerous years of monitoring of similar
activities to the activities proposed by
SpaceX, in the same geographic area as
the geographic area of the SpaceX’s
proposed activities, we expect that any
behavioral responses by pinnipeds to
sonic booms resulting from the
proposed activities would range from no
response to heads-up alerts, startle
responses, some movements on land,
and some movements into the water
(flushing).
Non-Acoustic Effects of the Proposed
Activity
This section includes a discussion of
potential effects of SpaceX’s proposed
activity other than those related to
sound.
Visual Stimuli
Visual stimuli resulting from Falcon 9
First Stage landings would have the
potential to cause pinnipeds to lift their
heads, move towards the water, or enter
the water. However, SpaceX has
determined that the trajectory of the
return flight includes a nearly vertical
descent to the SLC–4W landing pad (see
Figure 1–7 and 1–8 in the IHA
application) and the contingency
landing location (see Figure 1–5 in the
IHA application). As a result, the
descending Falcon 9 First Stage would
either be shielded by coastal bluffs (for
a SLC–4W landing) or would be too far
away from any pinniped haulouts to
result in significant stimuli (in the case
of a barge landing). Further, the visual
stimulus of the Falcon 9 First Stage
would not be coupled with the sonic
boom, since the First Stage would be at
significant altitude when the
overpressure is produced, further
decreasing the likelihood of a behavioral
response. Therefore, the likelihood of
takes of marine mammals resulting from
visual stimuli associated with the
proposed activity is so low as to be
considered discountable. As such,
visual stimuli associated with the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57443
proposed activity is not discussed
further in this document.
Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
We do not anticipate that the
proposed activities would result in any
temporary or permanent effects on the
habitats used by the marine mammals in
the proposed area, including the food
sources they use (i.e., fish and
invertebrates). Behavioral disturbance
caused by in-air acoustic stimuli may
result in marine mammals temporarily
moving away from or avoiding the
exposure area but are not expected to
have long term impacts, as supported by
over two decades of launch monitoring
studies on the NCI by the USAF (MMCG
and SAIC 2012).
The proposed activities would not
result in in-water acoustic stimuli that
would cause significant injury or
mortality to prey species and would not
create barriers to movement for marine
mammal prey. As described above, in
the event of an unsuccessful barge
landing and a resulting explosion of the
Falcon 9 First Stage, up to 25 pieces of
debris would likely remain floating.
SpaceX would recover all floating
debris. Denser debris that would not
float on the surface is anticipated to sink
relatively quickly and would be
composed of inert materials. The area of
benthic habitat impacted by falling
debris would be very small
(approximately 0.000706 km2)
(ManTech 2015) and all debris that
would sink are composed of inert
materials that would not affect water
quality or bottom substrate potentially
used by marine mammals. None of the
debris would be so dense or large that
benthic habitat would be meaningfully
degraded. As a result, debris from an
unsuccessful barge landing that enters
the ocean environment approximately
50 km offshore of VAFB would not have
a significant effect on marine mammal
habitat.
In summary, since the acoustic
impacts associated with the proposed
activities are of short duration and
infrequent (up to twelve events
annually), the associated behavioral
responses in marine mammals are
expected to be temporary. Therefore, the
proposed activities are unlikely to result
in long term or permanent avoidance of
the exposure areas or loss of habitat.
The proposed activities are also not
expected to result in any reduction in
foraging habitat or adverse impacts to
marine mammal prey. Thus, any
impacts to marine mammal habitat are
not expected to cause significant or
long-term consequences for individual
marine mammals or their populations.
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
57444
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
Estimated Take
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through this IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and
the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i) has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B
harassment only, in the form of
potential disruption of behavioral
patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to sounds
associated with the planned activities.
Based on the nature of the activity,
Level A harassment is neither
anticipated nor proposed to be
authorized.
As described previously, no mortality
is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take
by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds
above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally harassed
or incur some degree of permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of
activities. We note that while these
basic factors can contribute to a basic
calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional
information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes
available (e.g., previous monitoring
results or average group size). Below, we
describe the factors considered here in
more detail and present the proposed
take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science,
NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received
level of underwater sound above which
exposed marine mammals would be
reasonably expected to be behaviorally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
harassed (equated to Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Thresholds have also been developed
identifying the received level of in-air
sound above which exposed pinnipeds
would likely be behaviorally harassed.
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on
what the available science indicates and
the practical need to use a threshold
based on a factor that is both predictable
and measurable for most activities,
NMFS uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. As described above, for inair sounds, NMFS predicts that harbor
seals exposed above received levels of
90 dB re 20 mPa (rms) will be
behaviorally harassed, and other
pinnipeds will be harassed when
exposed above 100 dB re 20 mPa (rms).
Typically, NMFS relies on the
acoustic criteria described above to
estimate take as a result of exposure to
airborne sound from a given activity.
However, in this case we have the
benefit of more than 20 years of
observational data on pinniped
responses to the stimuli associated with
the proposed activity that we expect to
result in harassment (sonic booms) in
the particular geographic area of the
proposed activity (VAFB and the NCI).
Therefore, we consider these data to be
the best available information in regard
to estimating take based on modeled
exposures among pinnipeds to sounds
associated with the proposed activities.
These data suggest that pinniped
reactions to sonic booms are dependent
on the species and the intensity of the
sonic boom (Table 3).
As described above, data from launch
monitoring by the USAF on the NCI and
at VAFB have shown that pinniped
reactions to sonic booms are correlated
to the level of the sonic boom. Low
energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) have
typically resulted in little to no
behavioral responses, including head
raising and briefly alerting but returning
to normal behavior shortly after the
stimulus. More powerful sonic booms
have sometimes resulted in animals
flushing from haulouts (but not resulted
in any mortality or sustained decreased
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in numbers after the stimulus). Table 3
presents a summary of monitoring
efforts at the NCI from 1999 to 2017.
These data show that reactions to sonic
booms tend to be insignificant below 1.0
psf and that, even above 1.0 psf, only a
portion of the animals present react to
the sonic boom. Therefore, for the
purposes of estimating the extent of take
that is likely to occur as a result of the
proposed activities, we conservatively
assume that Level B harassment may
occur when a pinniped (on land) is
exposed to a sonic boom at or above 1.0
psf. Thus, the number of expected takes
by Level B harassment is based on
estimates of the numbers of animals that
would be within the areas exposed to
sonic booms at levels at or above 1.0 psf.
The data recorded by USAF at VAFB
and the NCI over the past 20 years has
also shown that pinniped reactions to
sonic booms vary between species. As
described above, little or no reaction has
been observed in northern fur seals and
northern elephant seals when
overpressures were below 1.0 psf. At the
NCI harbor seals have reacted more
strongly to sonic booms than most other
species. Sea lions also appear to be
somewhat more sensitive to sonic
booms than some of the other pinniped
species, sometimes startling and
flushing. Northern fur seals generally
show little or no reaction, and northern
elephant seals generally exhibit no
reaction at all, except perhaps a headsup response or some stirring, especially
if sea lions in the same area mingled
with the elephant seals react strongly to
the boom. No data is available on Steller
sea lion or Guadalupe fur seal responses
to sonic booms.
Ensonified Area
As described above, modeling was
performed to estimate overpressure
levels that would be created during the
return flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage.
Previous acoustic modeling
underestimated the near-field
overpressures from sonic booms so
SpaceX used actual observations from
past Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and
landing events. SpaceX and the USAF
developed new estimates to better
predict the potential overpressures from
sonic booms resulting from Falcon 9
First Stage boost-back and landing
events. The highest modeled
overpressure on the mainland (at or near
VAFB and Point Conception) was
between 1 and 8.5 psf at SLC–4W.
However, the overpressure at known
pinniped haulout sites on VAFB would
likely be closer to 1 to 3 psf (Figure 6–
1 in the IHA application). SpaceX used
the Wyle model to predict the far-field
sonic boom contours from sonic booms
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
produced by boost-back and landing
events of Falcon 9 First Stage rockets
with light and heavy payloads (Figures
2–4 and 2–5 in the IHA application).
With a heavy payload, Wyle predicted
that a boost-back and landing of the
Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W would
produce a sonic boom with
overpressures up to 3.1 psf on the
northern coast of San Miguel Island
(Figure 2–5 in the IHA application). The
Wyle model for a heavy payload (Figure
205 in the IHA application) shows a
sonic boom with overpressure above 1.0
psf will only impact San Miguel Island,
with no sonic booms over 1.0 psf
impacting the other NCI. Therefore,
takes are estimated based on only the
animals hauled out at San Miguel Island
and the mainland (VAFB and Point
Conception).
As stated in the ‘‘Description of
Proposed Activity’’ section above, no
takes are anticipated for landings of
Falcon 9 First Stage rockets at either of
the two contingency landing sites.
Estimated takes are therefore based on
the possibility of boost-back and landing
activities occurring at SLC–4W.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the
information about the presence, density,
or group dynamics of marine mammals
that will inform the take calculations.
Data collected from marine mammal
surveys, including monthly marine
mammal surveys conducted by the
USAF at VAFB (beginning in 1993) as
well as data collected by NMFS,
represent the best available information
on the occurrence of the six pinniped
species expected to occur in the project
area. The quality and amount of
information available on pinnipeds in
the project area varies depending on
species. California sea lions, Steller sea
lions, harbor seals, and northern
elephant seals are regularly observed at
known haulouts during monthly
surveys at VAFB (CEMML 2018). Data
on pinniped numbers at the NCI is
limited as surveys are not conducted as
frequently. However, the best available
data was used to estimate take numbers.
Take estimates for all species are shown
in Table 7.
Harbor Seal—Pacific harbor seals are
the most common marine mammal
inhabiting VAFB, congregating on
several rocky haulout sites along the
VAFB coastline. They also haul out,
breed, and pup in isolated beaches and
coves throughout the coasts of the NCI.
Harbor seals may be exposed to sonic
booms above 1.0 psf on the mainland
and San Miguel Island. Take of harbor
seals at VAFB was estimated based on
the maximum count totals from monthly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
surveys of VAFB haulout sites in 2017
(USAF, 2017). Take of harbor seals at
San Miguel Island and at Point
Conception was estimated based on the
maximum count totals from aerial
survey data collected from 2002 to 2012
by the NMFS SWFSC (M. Lowry, NMFS
SWFSC, unpubl. data).
California sea lion—California sea
lions are common offshore of VAFB and
haul out on rocks and beaches along the
coastline of VAFB, though pupping
rarely occurs on the VAFB coastline.
They haul out in large numbers on the
NCI and rookeries exist on San Miguel
and Santa Cruz islands. California sea
lions may be exposed to sonic booms
above 1.0 psf on the mainland and San
Miguel Island. Take of California sea
lions at VAFB was estimated based on
the maximum count totals from monthly
surveys of VAFB haulout sites in 2017
(USAF, 2017). Take of California sea
lions at San Miguel Island was
estimated based on the maximum count
totals from aerial survey data collected
from 2002 to 2012 by the NMFS
Southwest Fisheries Science Center
(SWFSC) (M. Lowry, NMFS SWFSC,
unpubl. data).
Steller Sea Lion—Steller sea lions
occur in small numbers at VAFB and on
San Miguel Island. They do not
currently have rookeries at VAFB or the
NCI. Steller sea lions may be exposed to
sonic booms above 1.0 psf on the
mainland and San Miguel Island. Take
of Steller sea lions at VAFB was
estimated based on the largest count
totals from monthly surveys of VAFB
haulout sites in 2017 (USAF, 2017).
Steller sea lions haul out in very small
numbers on San Miguel Island, and
comprehensive survey data for Steller
sea lions in the NCI is not available.
Take of Steller sea lions on San Miguel
Island was estimated based on subject
matter expert input suggesting that as
many as four Steller sea lions have been
observed on San Miguel Island at a time
(pers. comm., S. Melin, NMFS Marine
Mammal Laboratory (MML), to J.
Carduner, NMFS, Feb 11, 2016).
Northern elephant seal—Northern
elephant seals haul out sporadically on
rocks and beaches along the coastline of
VAFB and at Point Conception and have
rookeries on San Miguel Island and
Santa Rosa Island and at one location at
VAFB. Northern elephant seals may be
exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on
the mainland and San Miguel Island.
Take of northern elephant seals at VAFB
was estimated based on the largest
count totals from monthly surveys of
VAFB haulout sites in 2017 (USAF,
2017). Take of northern elephant seals
on San Miguel Island and at Point
Conception was estimated based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57445
maximum count totals from aerial
survey data collected from 2002 to 2012
by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries
Science Center (SWFSC) (M. Lowry,
NMFS SWFSC, unpubl. data).
Northern fur seal—Northern fur seals
have rookeries on San Miguel Island,
the only island in the NCI on which
they have been observed. No haulouts or
rookeries exist for northern fur seals on
the mainland coast, including VAFB,
thus they may be exposed to sonic
booms above 1.0 psf on San Miguel
Island but not on the mainland.
Comprehensive survey data for northern
fur seals in the project area is not
available. Estimated take of northern fur
seals was based on subject matter expert
input which suggested a maximum of
approximately 6,000–8,000 northern fur
seals may be present on San Miguel
Island at the height of breeding/pupping
season (early July). After the height of
the breeding/pupping season, numbers
fluctuate but decrease as females go on
foraging trips and males begin to
migrate in late July/August. Numbers
continue to decrease until November
when most of the population is absent
from the island until the following
breeding/pupping period (starting the
following June) (pers. comm., T. Orr,
NMFS NMML, to J. Carduner, NMFS
OPR, February 27, 2016). It was
therefore conservatively estimated that
numbers peak at 8,000 animals hauled
out at any given time in July and
decrease to a minimum of 2,000 animals
hauled out at any given time in the
winter, then increase again until the
following July. This results in an
average estimate of 5,000 northern fur
seals hauled out at San Miguel Island at
any given time over the course of the
entire year.
Guadalupe fur seal—There are
estimated to be approximately 20–25
individual Guadalupe fur seals that
have fidelity to San Miguel Island (pers.
comm. S. Mellin, NMFS NMML, to J.
Carduner, NMFS OPR, February 11,
2016). No haulouts or rookeries exist for
Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland
coast, including VAFB, thus they may
be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf
at the NCI but not on the mainland.
Comprehensive survey data on
Guadalupe fur seals in the project area
is not available. Estimated take of
Guadalupe fur seals was based on the
maximum number of Guadalupe fur
seals observed at any one time on San
Miguel Island (13) (pers. comm., J.
LaBonte, ManTech SRS Technologies
Inc., to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb. 29,
2016); it was therefore conservatively
assumed that 13 Guadalupe fur seals
may be hauled out at San Miguel Island
at any given time.
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
57446
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information
provided above is brought together to
produce a quantitative take estimate.
NMFS currently uses a three-tiered
scale to determine whether the response
of a pinniped on land to acoustic or
visual stimuli is considered an alert, a
movement, or a flush. NMFS considers
the behaviors that meet the definitions
of both movements and flushes to
qualify as behavioral harassment. Thus
a pinniped on land is considered by
NMFS to have been behaviorally
harassed if it moves greater than two
times its body length, or if the animal
is already moving and changes direction
and/or speed, or if the animal flushes
from land into the water. Animals that
become alert without such movements
are not considered harassed. See Table
4 for a summary of the pinniped
disturbance scale.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 4—LEVELS OF PINNIPED BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE ON LAND
Characterized
as behavioral
harassment by
NMFS
Level
Type of
response
Definition
1 .............
Alert ...............
2 .............
Movement ......
3 .............
Flush ..............
Seal head orientation or brief movement in response to disturbance, which may include turning
head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a ushaped position, changing from a lying to a sitting position, or brief movement of less than
twice the animal’s body length.
Movements away from the source of disturbance, ranging from short withdrawals at least twice
the animal’s body length to longer retreats over the beach, or if already moving a change of direction of greater than 90 degrees.
All retreats (flushes) to the water .......................................................................................................
If issued, this would be the second
IHA issued to SpaceX for the proposed
activity. SpaceX did not perform any
Falcon 9 boost-back and landing
activities that resulted in return flights
to VAFB nor that generated sonic booms
that impacted the NCI. SpaceX did
perform boost-back and landing
activities at a contingency landing
location located offshore during the
period of validity for the prior IHA,
however the contingency landing
location was located so far offshore that
there were no impacts predicted to
marine mammals by sonic boom
modeling, thus marine mammal
monitoring was not required. Therefore,
we have no activity-specific monitoring
data to inform take estimates. NMFS
relies on the past monitoring data
presented in Table 3 to estimate takes.
Take estimates were calculated by
overlaying the modeled acoustic
footprints of sonic booms from boostback and landing events at SLC–4W
with known pinniped haulouts on the
mainland (including those at VAFB) and
the NCI to determine the pinniped
haulouts that would potentially be
affected by sonic booms with
overpressures of 1.0 psf and above. Only
haulouts along northeastern San Miguel
Island would be expected to experience
overpressures greater than 1.0 psf
during a boost-back and landing at SLC–
4W (Figure 2–5 in the IHA application).
Take estimates also account for the
likely intensity of the sonic boom as
well as the relative sensitivity of the
marine mammal species present, based
on monitoring data as described above.
As described above, the likelihood of
pinnipeds exhibiting responses to sonic
booms that would be considered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
behavioral harassment (based on the
levels of pinniped disturbance as shown
in Table 4) is dependent on both the
species and on the intensity of the sonic
boom. Data from rocket launch
monitoring by the USAF at VAFB and
the NCI show that pinniped reactions to
sonic booms are correlated to the level
of the sonic boom, with low energy
sonic booms (<1.0 psf) typically
resulting in little to no behavioral
responses, and higher energy sonic
booms resulting in responses ranging
from no response to heads-up alerts,
startle responses, some movements on
land, and some movements into the
water (flushing). Based on model
results, a boost-back and landing of the
Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W would
produce a sonic boom with greater
intensity at VAFB (overpressures
potentially as high as 8.5 psf) than at
San Miguel Island (overpressures
potentially as high as 3.1 psf).
Responses of pinnipeds to sonic booms
are also highly dependent on species,
with harbor seals, California sea lions
and Steller sea lions generally
displaying greater sensitivity to sonic
booms than northern elephant seals and
northern fur seals (Table 3). We are not
aware of any data on Guadalupe fur seal
responses to sonic booms, but we
assume responses by Guadalupe fur seal
responses to be similar to those
observed in northern fur seals as the two
species are physiologically and
behaviorally very similar.
In their application, SpaceX assumed
that all of the California sea lions,
harbor seals, northern elephant seals,
Steller sea lions, northern fur seals, and
Guadalupe fur seals at or near VAFB
and Point Conception would be
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
No.
Yes.
Yes.
behaviorally harassed by a sonic boom
over 1.0 psf resulting from a Falcon 9
First Stage boost-back and landing at
SLC–4W. SpaceX also estimated that 5
percent of northern elephant seals,
northern fur seals, and Guadalupe fur
seals and 100 percent of California sea
lions, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions
hauled out in the NCI would be
behaviorally harassed by a sonic boom
over 1.0 psf. However, after reviewing
the monitoring information presented in
Table 3, NMFS has determined that
assuming 100 percent of California sea
lions, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions
would be behaviorally harassed is an
overestimate. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that assuming only a
fraction of marine mammals exposed to
sonic booms over 1.0 psf will be
behaviorally harassed represents a more
realistic estimate.
NMFS assumes that the minimum
sonic boom overpressure with the
potential to result in behavioral
harassment of pinnipeds is 1.0 psf.
However, sonic booms with higher
overpressures may result in a higher
proportion of exposed animals reacting
to the sound. Modeling indicates that
the maximum overpressure from a sonic
boom resulting from a Falcon 9 First
Stage boost-back and landing at SLC–
4W is likely to be greater at VAFB and
Point Conception than at the NCI
(Figures 2–2, 2–4, and 2–5 in the IHA
application). Thus, based on previous
monitoring data (Table 3), the
proportion of animals responding to the
sonic boom is likely to be greater at
VAFB and Point Conception than at the
NCI. Therefore, a boost-back and
landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at
SLC–4W that results in a sonic boom of
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
57447
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
1.0 psf and above at VAFB was
conservatively estimated to result in
behavioral harassment of 75 percent of
harbor seals hauled out at or near VAFB
and Point Conception. A sonic boom of
1.0 psf and above at the NCI was
conservatively estimated to result in
behavioral harassment of 50 percent of
harbor seals at San Miguel Island. A
sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at
VAFB was conservatively estimated to
result in behavioral harassment of 15
percent of northern elephant seals
hauled out at or near VAFB and Point
Conception while a sonic boom of 1.0
psf and above at the NCI was
conservatively estimated to result in
behavioral harassment of 5 percent of
northern elephant seals hauled out at
San Miguel Island. A sonic boom of 1.0
psf and above at VAFB was
conservatively estimated to result in
behavioral harassment of 50 percent of
California sea lions and Steller sea lions
hauled out at or near VAFB while a
sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at the
NCI was conservatively estimated to
result in behavioral harassment of 25
percent of California and Steller sea
lions hauled out at San Miguel Island.
A sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at the
NCI was conservatively estimated to
result in behavioral harassment of 5
percent of northern fur seals and
Guadalupe fur seals.
In their application, SpaceX
conservatively assumed 12 landings
would occur at SLC–4W. SpaceX
modeled sonic booms resulting from
rockets with both heavy and light
payloads. Modeling of sonic boom
contours indicates that light payloads
do not create sonic booms with
overpressures above 1.0 psf that would
impact the NCI. Only heavy payloads
have the potential to create sonic booms
with overpressures above 1.0 psf along
the northern coast of San Miguel Island.
SpaceX indicated that of the up to 12
Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and
landing events, up to six would be from
a light payload and up to six would be
from a heavy payload (pers. comm., M.
Thompson, SpaceX, to A. Fowler,
NMFS, Oct. 11, 2018). Therefore, to
determine the estimated number of
marine mammals that could be exposed
to a sonic boom over 1.0 psf, the number
of boost-back and landing events that
could impact each location (12 for the
mainland and 6 for the NCI) was
multiplied by the number of animals
likely to respond.
The take calculations presented in
Table 5 are based on the best available
information on marine mammal
populations in the project location and
responses among marine mammals to
the stimuli associated with the proposed
activities and are considered
conservative.
TABLE 5—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS, AND PERCENTAGE OF MARINE MAMMAL POPULATIONS,
POTENTIALLY TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Number at
location
Species
Location
Pacific Harbor Seal ...............
VAFB a ...................................
Pt. Conception b ....................
San Miguel Island b ...............
VAFB a ...................................
Pt. Conception b ....................
San Miguel Island b ...............
VAFB a ...................................
Pt. Conception b ....................
San Miguel Island b ...............
VAFB a ...................................
Pt. Conception b ....................
San Miguel Island b ...............
VAFB a ...................................
Pt. Conception b ....................
San Miguel Island c ...............
VAFB a ...................................
Pt. Conception b ....................
San Miguel Island d ...............
California Sea Lion ................
Northern Elephant Seal .........
Steller Sea Lion .....................
Northern Fur Seal ..................
Guadalupe Fur Seal ..............
Correction
factor
197
516
310
68
0
2,134
225
11
18
11
0
4
0
0
5,000
0
0
13
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
N/A
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.5
N/A
0.25
N/A
N/A
0.05
N/A
N/A
0.05
Takes per
event after
correction
factor
147.75
387
155
34
0
533.5
33.75
1.65
0.9
5.5
0
1
0
0
250
0
0
0.65
Number of
events at
location
Total takes
per
location
12
12
6
12
N/A
6
12
12
6
12
N/A
6
N/A
N/A
6
N/A
N/A
6
1,773
4,644
930
408
0
3,201
405
19.8
5.4
66
0
6
0
0
1,500
0
0
3.9
Total
takes
Percent of
stock
7,347
....................
....................
3,609
....................
....................
430.2
....................
....................
72
....................
....................
1,500
....................
....................
3.9
....................
....................
e 3.30
....................
....................
1.40
....................
....................
0.24
....................
....................
0.17
....................
....................
10.7
....................
....................
0.02
....................
....................
a
VAFB monthly marine mammal survey data 2017 (USAF, 2017).
Lowry (2017b).
Testa (2013, 2018); USAF (2013); pers. comm., T. Orr, NMFS NMML, to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb 27, 2016.
d DeLong and Melin (2000); J. Harris, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm.
e As the same individual harbor seals at are likely to be taken repeatedly over the course of the specified activities, we use the estimate of 1,023 individual animals
taken per Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activity for the purposes of estimating the percentage of stock abundance likely to be taken over the course of the entire
activity.
b
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
c
Take estimates are believed to be
conservative based on the assumption
that all twelve Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery actions would result in
landings at SLC–4W, with no landings
occurring at the contingency barge
landing location. However, some or all
actual landing events may ultimately
occur at the contingency landing
location or within the Iridium Landing
Area; as described above, landings at the
contingency landing location or within
the Iridium Landing Area would be
expected to result in no takes of marine
mammals. However, the number of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
landings at each location is not known
in advance, therefore we assume all
landings would occur at SLC–4W. In
addition, as described above, it is
conservatively assumed that a fraction
of marine mammals hauled out at
VAFB, Point Conception, and San
Miguel Island would be harassed (Level
B harassment only) by a Falcon 9 boostback and landing events at SLC–4W that
result in a psf of <1.0. However, it is
possible that a smaller number of
hauled out pinnipeds will be
behaviorally harassed by a Falcon 9
boost-back and landing at SLC–4W.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
While there may be some limited
behavioral harassment of pinnipeds that
occurs at psf levels <1.0, we account for
that in the overall conservativeness of
the total take number, as described
above.
Given the many uncertainties in
predicting the quantity and types of
impacts of sound on marine mammals,
it is common practice to estimate how
many animals are likely to be present
within a particular distance of a given
activity, or exposed to a particular level
of sound. In practice, depending on the
amount of information available to
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
57448
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
characterize daily and seasonal
movement and distribution of affected
marine mammals, it can be difficult to
distinguish between the number of
individuals harassed and the instances
of harassment and, when duration of the
activity is considered, it can result in a
take estimate that overestimates the
number of individuals harassed. For
instance, an individual animal may
accrue a number of incidences of
harassment over the duration of a
project, as opposed to each incident of
harassment accruing to a new
individual. This is especially likely if
individual animals display some degree
of residency or site fidelity and the
impetus to use the site is stronger than
the deterrence presented by the
harassing activity.
Take estimates shown in Table 5 are
considered reasonable estimates of the
number of instances of marine mammal
exposures to sound resulting in Level B
harassment that are likely to occur as a
result of the proposed activities, and not
necessarily the number of individual
animals exposed.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting
the least practicable 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 (latter not
applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting such activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, we carefully consider two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat, as well as
subsistence uses. This considers the
nature of the potential adverse impact
being mitigated (likelihood, scope,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) the likelihood
of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat
SpaceX’s IHA application contains
descriptions of the mitigation measures
proposed to be implemented during the
specified activities in order to effect the
least practicable adverse impact on the
affected marine mammal species and
stocks and their habitats.
It should be noted that it would not
be feasible to stop or divert an inbound
Falcon 9 First Stage booster. Once the
boost-back and landing sequence is
underway, there would be no way for
SpaceX to change the trajectory of the
Falcon 9 First Stage to avoid potential
impacts to marine mammals. The
proposed mitigation measures include
the following:
• Unless constrained by other factors
including human safety or national
security concerns (as determined by the
USAF), launches would be scheduled to
avoid boost-backs and landings during
the harbor seal pupping season of March
through June, when practicable.
Based on our evaluation of SpaceX’s
proposed mitigation measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) 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 authorizations 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
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
present in the proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density);
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring
SpaceX submitted a monitoring plan
as part of their IHA application.
SpaceX’s proposed marine mammal
monitoring plan was created with input
from NMFS and was based on similar
plans that have been successfully
implemented by other action
proponents under previous
authorizations for similar projects,
specifically the USAF’s monitoring of
rocket launches from VAFB. The plan
may be modified or supplemented based
on comments or new information
received from the public during the
public comment period.
Marine Mammal Monitoring
SpaceX would determine a
monitoring location for each boost-back
and landing activity, taking into
consideration predictions of the areas
likely to receive the greatest sonic boom
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
intensity as well as current haulout
locations and the distribution of
pinniped species and their behavior.
The selection of the monitoring location
would also be based on what species (if
any) have pups at haulouts and which
of those species would be expected to be
the most reactive to sonic booms.
SpaceX prioritizes the selection of
rookery locations if they are expected to
be impacted by a sonic boom and
prioritizes the most reactive species if
there are multiple species that are
expected to be hauled out in the
modeled sonic boom impact area. For
instance, if harbor seals were pupping,
SpaceX would select a harbor seal
rookery for monitoring because they
tend to be the most reactive species to
sonic booms. There is also thought
given to the geography and wind
exposure of the specific beaches that are
predicted to be impacted, to avoid
inadvertently selecting a portion of a
beach that tends to be abandoned by
pinnipeds every afternoon as a result
high winds. As VAFB is an active
military base, the selection of
appropriate monitoring locations must
also take into account security
restrictions and human safety as
unexploded ordnance is present in some
areas.
Marine mammal monitoring protocols
would vary based on modeled sonic
boom intensity, the location, and the
season. As described above, sonic boom
modeling would be performed prior to
all boost-back and landing activities.
Although the same rockets would be
used, other parameters specific to each
launch would be incorporated into each
model. These include direction and
trajectory, weight, length, engine thrust,
engine plume drag, position versus time
from initiating boost-back to additional
engine burns, among other aspects.
Various weather scenarios would be
analyzed from NOAA weather records
for the region, then run through the
model. Among other factors, these
would include the presence or absence
of the jet stream, and if present, its
direction, altitude and velocity. The
type, altitude, and density of clouds
would also be considered. From these
data, the models would predict peak
amplitudes and impact locations. As
described above, impacts to pinnipeds
on the NCI, including pups, have been
shown through more than two decades
of monitoring reports to be minimal and
temporary (MMCG and SAIC 2012a).
Therefore monitoring requirements at
the NCI would be dependent on
modeled sonic boom intensity and
would be based on the harbor seal
pupping season, such that monitoring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
requirements would be greater when
pups would be expected to be present.
At the height of the pupping season
(between March 1 and June 30)
monitoring is required if sonic boom
model results indicate a peak
overpressure of 2.0 psf or greater is
likely to impact the NCI. Between July
1 and September 30 monitoring is
required if sonic boom model results
indicate a peak overpressure of 3.0 psf
or greater is likely to impact the NCI.
Between October 1 and February 28,
monitoring is required if sonic boom
model results indicate a peak
overpressure of 4.0 psf or greater is
likely to impact the NCI.
Marine mammal monitoring
procedures would consist of the
following:
• To conduct monitoring of Falcon 9
First Stage boost-back and landing
activities, SpaceX would designate
qualified, on-site observers that would
be approved in advance by NMFS;
• If sonic boom model results
indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf
or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then
acoustic and biological monitoring at
VAFB would be implemented.
Monitoring would be conducted at the
haulout site closest to the predicted
sonic boom impact area that can be
safely accessed by observers;
• If sonic boom model results
indicate a peak overpressure of 2.0 psf
or greater is likely to impact one of the
NCI between March 1 and June 30; a
peak overpressure of greater than 3.0 psf
is likely to impact one of the NCI
between July 1 and September 30, or a
peak overpressure of greater than 4.0 psf
is likely to impact one of the NCI
between October 1 and February 28,
then monitoring of haulout sites on the
NCI would be implemented. Monitoring
would be conducted at the haulout site
closest to the predicted sonic boom
impact area;
• Monitoring would commence at
least 72 hours prior to the boost-back
and continue until at least 48 hours after
the event;
• Monitoring would include multiple
surveys each day that record the
species; number of animals; general
behavior; presence of pups; age class;
gender; and reaction to noise associated
with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities, sonic booms or other natural
or human caused disturbances, in
addition to recording environmental
conditions such as tide, wind speed, air
temperature, and swell;
• If the boost-back and landing is
scheduled during daylight, time lapse
photography or video recording would
be used to document the behavior of
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57449
marine mammals during Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery activities;
• For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities scheduled during harbor seal
pupping season (March through June),
follow-up surveys would be conducted
within two weeks of the boost-back and
landing; and
• New northern elephant seal
pupping location(s) at VAFB would be
prioritized for monitoring when
landings occur at SLC–4W during
northern elephant seal pupping season
(January through February) when
practicable.
Acoustic Monitoring
Acoustic measurements of the sonic
boom created during boost-back at the
monitoring location would be recorded
to determine the overpressure level.
Typically this would entail use of a
digital audio tape (DAT) recorder and a
high quality microphone to monitor the
sound environment and measure the
sonic boom. This system would be
specially tailored for recording the low
frequency sound associated with rocket
launches and sonic booms. The DAT
system would record the launch noise
and sonic boom digitally to tape, which
would allow for detailed post-analysis
of the frequency content, and the
calculation of other acoustic metrics,
and would record the ambient noise and
sonic boom. The DAT recorder would
be placed near the marine mammal
monitoring site when practicable.
Proposed Reporting
SpaceX would report data collected
during marine mammal monitoring and
acoustic monitoring as described above.
The monitoring report would include a
description of project related activities,
counts of marine mammals by species,
sex and age class, a summary of marine
mammal species/count data, and a
summary of observed marine mammal
responses to project-related activities.
A launch monitoring report would be
submitted by SpaceX to the NMFS
Office of Protected Resources within 60
days after each Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery action. This report would
contain information on the date(s) and
time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery action, the design of the
monitoring program; and results of the
monitoring program, including, but not
necessarily limited to the following:
• Numbers of pinnipeds present on
the monitored haulout prior to the
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery;
• Numbers of pinnipeds that may
have been harassed (based on
observations of pinniped responses and
the pinniped disturbance scale as
shown in Table 3);
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
57450
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
• The length of time pinnipeds
remained off the haulout or rookery for
pinnipeds estimated to have entered the
water as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery noise;
• Any other observed behavioral
modifications by pinnipeds that were
likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities, including sonic
boom; and
• Results of acoustic monitoring
including comparisons of modeled
sonic booms with actual acoustic
recordings of sonic booms.
In addition, a final monitoring report
would be submitted by SpaceX to the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources. A
draft of the report would be submitted
within 90 days of the expiration of the
IHA, or, within 45 days of the requested
renewal of the IHA (if applicable). A
final version of the report would be
submitted within 30 days following
resolution of comments on the draft
report from NMFS. The report would
summarize the information from the 60day post-activity reports (as described
above), including but not necessarily
limited to the following:
• Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9
First Stage recovery actions;
• Design of the monitoring program;
and
• Results of the monitoring program,
including the information components
contained in the 60-day launch reports,
as well as any documented cumulative
impacts on marine mammals as a result
of the activities, such as long term
reductions in the number of pinnipeds
at haulouts as a result of the activities.
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner not
authorized by the proposed IHA (if
issued), such as a Level A harassment,
or a take of a marine mammal species
other than those proposed for
authorization, SpaceX would
immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the
incident to the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources. The report would
include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities in the 48 hours
preceding the incident;
• Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 48 hours preceding
the incident;
• Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s) (if equipment is available).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
Activities would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS would work with SpaceX to
determine what is necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. SpaceX would not be able
to resume their activities until notified
by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that SpaceX discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines the cause
of the injury or death is unknown and
the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less
than a moderate state of decomposition),
SpaceX would immediately report the
incident to the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources and the NMFS
West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator. The report would include
the same information identified in the
paragraph above. Authorized activities
would be able to continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS would work with
SpaceX to determine whether
modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that SpaceX discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead MMO determines the injury or
death is not associated with or related
to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal,
carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage),
SpaceX would report the incident to the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources and
NMFS West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator, within 24 hours of the
discovery. SpaceX would provide
photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS and
the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
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
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any responses (e.g., intensity,
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the
number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’s implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, the discussion of
our analyses applies to all the species
listed in Table 1, given that the
anticipated effects of this activity on
these different marine mammal species
are expected to be similar. Activities
associated with the proposed Falcon 9
First Stage recovery activities, as
outlined previously, have the potential
to disturb or displace marine mammals.
Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level B
harassment (behavioral disturbance)
only, from airborne sounds of sonic
booms. Potential takes could occur if
marine mammals are hauled out in areas
where a sonic boom above 1.0 psf
occurs, which is considered likely given
the modeled sonic booms of the
proposed activities and the occurrence
of pinnipeds in the project area. Based
on the best available information,
including monitoring reports from
similar activities that have been
authorized by NMFS, behavioral
responses will likely be limited to
reactions such as alerting to the noise,
with some animals possibly moving
toward or entering the water, depending
on the species and the intensity of the
sonic boom. Repeated exposures of
individuals to levels of sound that may
cause Level B harassment are unlikely
to result in hearing impairment or to
significantly disrupt foraging behavior.
Thus, even repeated Level B harassment
of some small subset of an overall stock
is unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in fitness to those
individuals, and thus would not result
in any adverse impact to the stock as a
whole. Level B harassment would be
reduced to the level of least practicable
impact through use of mitigation
measures described above.
If a marine mammal responds to a
stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g.,
through relatively minor changes in
locomotion direction/speed), the
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
response may or may not constitute
taking at the individual level, and is
unlikely to affect the stock or the
species as a whole. However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from
an important feeding or breeding area
for a prolonged period, impacts on
animals or on the stock or species could
potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau
and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007).
Flushing of pinnipeds into the water has
the potential to result in mother-pup
separation, or could result in a
stampede, either of which could
potentially result in serious injury or
mortality and thereby could potentially
impact the stock or species. However,
based on the best available information,
including reports from over 20 years of
launch monitoring at VAFB and the
NCI, no serious injury or mortality of
marine mammals is anticipated as a
result of the proposed activities.
Even in the instances of pinnipeds
being behaviorally disturbed by sonic
booms from rocket launches at VAFB,
no evidence has been presented of
abnormal behavior, injuries or
mortalities, or pup abandonment as a
result of sonic booms (SAIC 2013).
These findings came as a result of more
than two decades of surveys at VAFB
and the NCI (MMCG and SAIC, 2012).
Post-launch monitoring generally
reveals a return to normal behavioral
patterns within minutes up to an hour
or two of each launch, regardless of
species. For instance, a total of eight
Delta II and Taurus space vehicle
launches occurred from north VAFB,
near the Spur Road and Purisima Point
haulout sites, from February, 2009
through February, 2014. Of these eight
launches, three occurred during the
harbor seal pupping season. The
continued use by harbor seals of the
Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout
sites indicates that it is unlikely that
these rocket launches (and associated
sonic booms) resulted in long-term
disturbances of pinnipeds using the
haulout sites. San Miguel Island
represents the most important pinniped
rookery in the continental United States,
and as such extensive research has been
conducted there for decades. From this
research, as well as stock assessment
reports, it is clear that VAFB operations
(including associated sonic booms) have
not had any significant impacts on San
Miguel Island rookeries and haulouts
(SAIC 2012).
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary determination that the
impacts resulting from this activity are
not expected to adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
• No injury, serious injury, or
mortality are anticipated or authorized;
• The anticipated incidences of Level
B harassment are expected to consist of,
at worst, temporary modifications in
behavior (i.e., short distance movements
and occasional flushing into the water
with return to haulouts shortly after
disturbance), which are not expected to
adversely affect the fitness of any
individuals;
• The proposed activities are
expected to result in no long-term
changes in the use by pinnipeds of
rookeries and haulouts in the project
area, based on over 20 years of
monitoring data; and
• The presumed efficacy of planned
mitigation measures in reducing the
effects of the specified activity to the
level of least practicable impact.
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
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of
the MMPA for specified activities other
than military readiness activities. The
MMPA does not define small numbers
and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares
the number of individuals taken to the
most appropriate estimation of
abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether
an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
The numbers of proposed authorized
takes are considered small relative to
the relevant stocks or populations (less
than 11 percent for all species and
stocks). It is important to note that the
number of expected takes does not
necessarily represent the number of
individual animals expected to be taken.
Our small numbers analysis accounts
for this fact. Multiple exposures to Level
B harassment can accrue to the same
individual animals over the course of an
activity that occurs multiple times in
the same area (such as SpaceX’s
proposed activity). This is especially
likely in the case of species that have
limited ranges and that have site fidelity
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57451
to a location within the project area, as
is the case with Pacific harbor seals.
As described above, harbor seals are
non-migratory, rarely traveling more
than 50 km from their haulout sites.
Thus, while the estimated abundance of
the California stock of Pacific harbor
seals is 30,968 (Carretta et al. 2017), a
substantially smaller number of
individual harbor seals is likely to occur
within the project area. We expect that,
because of harbor seals’ documented
site fidelity to haulout locations at
VAFB and the NCI, and because of their
limited ranges, the same individuals are
likely to be taken repeatedly over the
course of the proposed activities
(maximum of twelve Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery actions). Therefore, the
proposed number of instances of Level
B harassment among harbor seals over
the course of the proposed authorization
(i.e., the total number of takes shown in
Table 5) is expected to accrue to a much
smaller number of individuals
encompassing a small portion of the
overall regional stock. Thus while we
propose to authorize the instances of
incidental take of harbor seals shown in
Table 5, we believe that the number of
individual harbor seals that would be
incidentally taken by the proposed
activities would, in fact, be substantially
lower than this number. The maximum
number of harbor seals expected to be
taken by Level B harassment, per Falcon
9 First Stage recovery action, is 1,023.
As we believe the same individuals are
likely to be taken repeatedly over the
duration of the proposed activities, we
use the estimate of 1,023 individual
animals taken per Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activity for the purposes of
estimating the percentage of the stock
abundance likely to be taken.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
the total taking of affected species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
57452
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally when
we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
There is one marine mammal species
(Guadalupe fur seal) listed under the
ESA with confirmed occurrence in the
area expected to be impacted by the
proposed activities. The Permits and
Conservation Division has requested
initiation of section 7 consultation with
the West Coast Region Protected
Resources Division Office for the
issuance of this IHA. NMFS will
conclude the ESA consultation prior to
reaching a determination regarding the
proposed issuance of the authorization.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to SpaceX for conducting Falcon
9 First Stage recovery activities at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, in the
Pacific Ocean offshore Vandenberg Air
Force Base, and at the Northern Channel
Islands, California, for one year from the
date of issuance, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. This section contains
a draft of the IHA itself. The wording
contained in this section is proposed for
inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) is valid for one year
from the date of issuance.
(a) This IHA is valid only for Falcon
9 First Stage recovery activities at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,
and at auxiliary landing sites offshore.
2. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of SpaceX, its designees, and
work crew personnel operating under
the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking
are the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina richardii), California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), Steller sea
lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern
elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris),
northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus),
and Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus
philippii townsendi).
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment
only, is limited to the species listed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
condition 2(b). See Table 5 for numbers
of take authorized.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A
harassment), serious injury, or death of
any of the species listed in condition
2(b) of the Authorization or any taking
of any other species of marine mammal
is prohibited and may result in the
modification, suspension, or revocation
of this IHA.
3. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization must
implement the following mitigation
measure: Unless constrained by other
factors including human safety or
national security concerns, launches
must be scheduled to avoid, whenever
possible, boost-backs and landings
during the harbor seal pupping season
of March through June.
4. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization must
conduct marine mammal and acoustic
monitoring as described below.
(a) To conduct monitoring of Falcon
9 First Stage recovery activities, SpaceX
must designate qualified, on-site
individuals approved in advance by
NMFS;
(b) If sonic boom model results
indicate that a peak overpressure of 1.0
psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB,
then acoustic and biological monitoring
at VAFB must be implemented.
Monitoring must be conducted at the
haulout site closest to the predicted
sonic boom impact area that can be
safely accessed by observers;
(c) If sonic boom model results
indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf
or greater is likely to impact VAFB
during January and February, then
acoustic and biological monitoring must
be implemented at northern elephant
seal rookeries at VAFB, when
practicable;
(d) If sonic boom model results
indicate that a peak overpressure of 2.0
psf or greater is predicted to impact the
Channel Islands between March 1 and
June 30, greater than 3.0 psf between
July 1 and September 30, and greater
than 4.0 psf between October 1 and
February 28, monitoring of haulout sites
on the Channel Islands must be
implemented. Monitoring must be
conducted at the haulout site closest to
the predicted sonic boom impact area
that can be safely accessed by observers;
(e) Monitoring must be conducted for
at least 72 hours prior to any planned
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery and
continue until at least 48 hours after the
event;
(f) For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities that occur during March
through June, follow-up surveys of
harbor seal haulouts must be conducted
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
within two weeks of the Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery;
(g) If Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities are scheduled during daylight,
time-lapse photography or video
recording must be used to document the
behavior of marine mammals during
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities;
(h) Monitoring must include multiple
surveys each day that record the
species, number of animals, general
behavior, presence of pups, age class,
gender and reaction to noise associated
with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery, sonic
booms or other natural or human caused
disturbances, in addition to recording
environmental conditions such as tide,
wind speed, air temperature, and swell;
and
(i) Acoustic measurements of the
sonic boom created during boost-back at
the monitoring location must be
recorded to determine the overpressure
level.
5. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is
required to:
(a) Submit a report to the Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, within 60
days after each Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery action. This report must
contain the following information:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon
9 First Stage recovery action;
(2) Design of the monitoring program;
and
(3) Results of the monitoring program,
including, but not necessarily limited
to:
(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on
the haulout prior to the Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may
have been harassed as a result of Falcon
9 First Stage recovery activities;
(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have
been harassed as a result of Falcon 9
First Stage recovery noise, the length of
time pinnipeds remained off the haulout
or rookery;
(iv) Any other observed behavioral
modifications by pinnipeds that were
likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities, including sonic
boom; and
(v) Results of acoustic monitoring
including comparisons of modeled
sonic booms with actual acoustic
recordings of sonic booms.
(b) Submit an annual report on all
monitoring conducted under the IHA. A
draft of the annual report must be
submitted within 90 calendar days of
the expiration of this IHA, or, within 45
calendar days of the requested renewal
of the IHA (if applicable). A final annual
report must be prepared and submitted
within 30 days following resolution of
comments on the draft report from
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Notices
NMFS. The annual report will
summarize the information from the 60day post-activity reports, including but
not necessarily limited to:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon
9 First Stage recovery action;
(2) Design of the monitoring program;
and
(3) Results of the monitoring program,
including, but not necessarily limited
to:
(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on
the haulout prior to the Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds estimated
to have been harassed as a result of
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities
at the monitoring location;
(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have
been harassed as a result of Falcon 9
First Stage recovery noise, the length of
time pinnipeds remained off the haulout
or rookery;
(iv) Any other observed behavioral
modifications by pinnipeds that were
likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities, including sonic
boom;
(v) Any cumulative impacts on
marine mammals as a result of the
activities, such as long term reductions
in the number of pinnipeds at haulouts
as a result of the activities; and
(vi) Results of acoustic monitoring
including comparisons of modeled
sonic booms with actual acoustic
recordings of sonic booms.
(c) Reporting injured or dead marine
mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by this IHA (as determined
by the lead marine mammal observer),
such as an injury (Level A harassment),
serious injury, or mortality, SpaceX
must immediately cease the specified
activities and report the incident to the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources and
the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator. The report must include
the following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities in the 48 hours
preceding the incident;
D. Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 48 hours preceding
the incident;
E. Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
F. Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
G. Fate of the animal(s); and
H. Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
Activities may not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS will work with SpaceX to
determine what measures are necessary
to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. SpaceX may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS
via letter, email, or telephone.
(2) In the event that SpaceX discovers
an injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
cause of the injury or death is unknown
and the death is relatively recent (e.g.,
in less than a moderate state of
decomposition), SpaceX must
immediately report the incident to the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources and
the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator. The report must include
the same information identified in
5(c)(1) of this IHA. Activities may
continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident and
makes a final determination on the
cause of the reported injury or death.
NMFS will work with SpaceX to
determine whether additional
mitigation measures or modifications to
the activities are appropriate.
(3) In the event that SpaceX discovers
an injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
injury or death is not associated with or
related to the activities authorized in the
IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal,
carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, scavenger damage),
SpaceX must report the incident to the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources and
the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator, within 24 hours of the
discovery. SpaceX must provide
photographs or video footage or other
documentation of the stranded animal
sighting to NMFS. The cause of injury
or death may be subject to review and
a final determination by NMFS.
6. Modification and suspension
(a) This IHA may be modified,
suspended or withdrawn if the holder
fails to abide by the conditions
prescribed herein, or if NMFS
determines that the authorized taking is
having more than a negligible impact on
the species or stock of affected marine
mammals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this Notice of Proposed
IHA for the proposed boost-back and
landings of Falcon 9 First Stage rockets.
We also request comment on the
potential for renewal of this proposed
IHA as described in the paragraph
below. Please include with your
comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform our
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57453
final decision on the request for MMPA
authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a second one-year IHA without
additional notice when (1) another year
of identical or nearly identical activities
as described in the Specified Activities
section is planned or (2) the activities
would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a second IHA would
allow for completion of the activities
beyond that described in the Dates and
Duration section, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to expiration of
the current IHA.
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted beyond the initial dates
either are identical to the previously
analyzed activities or include changes
so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size)
that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, take estimates, or
mitigation and monitoring
requirements; and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for
renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
remain the same and appropriate, and
the original findings remain valid.
Dated: November 9, 2018.
Catherine Marzin,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–24977 Filed 11–14–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; International
Billfish Angler Survey
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57432-57453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24977]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XG559
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Boost-Back and Landing of Falcon 9
Rockets
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Space Exploration Technology
Corporation (SpaceX) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to boost-back and landing of Falcon 9 rockets at Vandenberg
Air Force Base (VAFB) in California, and at contingency landing
locations in the Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take
marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting
comments on a possible one-year renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will
consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the
issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will
be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than December
17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to [email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities without change. All
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Fowler, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with
no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality
of the human environment and for which we have not identified any
extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
[[Page 57433]]
or making a final decision on the IHA request.
Summary of Request
On August 30, 2018, NMFS received a request from SpaceX for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities, including in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings of the
First Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket at VAFB in California, and at
contingency landing locations offshore. A revised application was
received October 23, 2018. NMFS deemed that request to be adequate and
complete. SpaceX's request is for take of a small number of six species
by Level B harassment only. Neither SpaceX nor NMFS expects serious
injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA
is appropriate.
NMFS has previously issued regulations and Letters of Authorization
(LOA) that authorize the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment,
incidental to launches of up to 50 rockets per year (including the
Falcon 9) from VAFB (79 FR 18528; April 2, 2014). The regulations,
titled Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches,
Aircraft and Helicopter Operations, and Harbor Activities Related to
Vehicles from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, published February
24, 2014, are effective from March 2014 to March 2019. The activities
proposed by SpaceX are limited to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery events
(Falcon 9 boost-back maneuvers and landings); launches of the Falcon 9
rocket are not part of the proposed activities, and incidental take
(Level B harassment) resulting from Falcon 9 rocket launches from VAFB
is already authorized in the above referenced LOA. As such, NMFS does
not propose to authorize take of marine mammals incidental to launches
of the Falcon 9 rocket in this IHA; incidental take resulting from
Falcon 9 rocket launches is therefore not analyzed further in this
document. The LOA application (USAF 2013a), and links to the Federal
Register notice of the final rule (79 FR 10016; February 24, 2014) and
the Federal Register notice of issuance of the LOA (79 FR 18528; April
2, 2014), can be found online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. After the expiration of the existing LOA
for VAFB, NMFS anticipates that the entire suite of SpaceX's Falcon 9
activities at VAFB (Falcon 9 rocket launches and First Stage boost-
backs and landings) will be incorporated into future authorizations for
VAFB.
Additionally, NMFS has previously issued two IHAs to SpaceX for
similar activities (81 FR 34984, June 1, 2016; 82 FR 60954, December
26, 2017). SpaceX complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs and information
regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take
section.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by
SpaceX for transport of satellites and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft into
orbit. SpaceX currently operates the Falcon Launch Vehicle Program at
Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) at VAFB. SpaceX proposes regular
employment of First Stage recovery by returning the Falcon 9 First
Stage to SLC-4 West (SLC-4W) at VAFB for potential reuse, up to twelve
times per year. This includes performing boost-back maneuvers (in-air)
and landings of the Falcon 9 First Stage on the pad at SLC-4W. The
reuse of the Falcon 9 First Stage enables SpaceX to efficiently conduct
lower cost launch missions from VAFB in support of commercial and
government clients.
During descent, a sonic boom (overpressure of high-energy impulsive
sound) would be generated when the First Stage reaches a rate of travel
that exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic booms would occur in proximity
to the landing areas and may be heard during or after the boost-back
and landing, depending on the location of the observer. Sound from the
sonic boom would have the potential to result in harassment of marine
mammals, either on the mainland at or near VAFB or at the Northern
Channel Islands (NCI), as described in more detail later in this
document.
Dates and Duration
SpaceX's activities are conducted throughout the year. Up to twelve
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities would occur per year. Precise
dates of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities are not known. Falcon
9 First Stage recovery activities may take place at any time of year
and at any time of day. The IHA, if issued, would be valid for one year
from the date of issuance.
Specific Geographic Region
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities will originate at VAFB.
Areas potentially affected include VAFB, areas on the coastline
surrounding VAFB, and the NCI. VAFB operates as a missile test base and
aerospace center, supporting west coast space launch activities for the
U.S. Air Force (USAF), Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and commercial contractors. VAFB is the main west
coast launch facility for placing commercial government, and military
satellites into polar orbit on expendable (unmanned) launch vehicles,
and for testing and evaluating intercontinental ballistic missiles and
sub-orbital target and interceptor missiles.
VAFB occupies approximately 99,100 acres of central Santa Barbara
County, California. VAFB is divided by the Santa Ynez River and State
Highway 246 into two distinct parts: North Base and South Base. SLC-4W,
the preferred landing location for the Falcon 9 First Stage, is located
on South Base, approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8 kilometers (km))
inland from the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 1-2 in the IHA application).
SLC-4E, the launch facility for SpaceX's Falcon 9 program, is located
approximately 715 feet (ft) (218 meters (m)) to the east of SLC-4W.
Although SLC-4W is the preferred landing location for the Falcon 9
First Stage, SpaceX has identified two contingency landing locations
should it not be feasible to land the First Stage at SLC-4W. The first
contingency landing location is on a barge located at least 27 nautical
miles (nmi) (50 km) offshore of VAFB. The second contingency landing
location is on a barge within the Iridium Landing Area, an
approximately 12,800 square mile (mi\2\) (33,153 square kilometers
(km\2\)) area located approximately 122 nmi (225 km) southwest of San
Nicolas Island and 133 nmi (245 km) southwest of San Clemente Island
(see Figure 1-3 in the IHA application). The NCI are also considered
part of the project area for the purposes of this proposed
authorization, as landings at VAFB could result in sonic booms that
impact the NCI. The NCI are four islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa
Cruz, and Anacapa) located approximately 31 mi (50 km) south of Point
Conception, which is located on the mainland approximately 4 mi (6.5
km) south of the southern border of VAFB. The closest part of the NCI
to VAFB (Harris Point on San Miguel Island) is located more than 34 mi
(55 km) south-southeast of SLC-4E, the launch facility for the Falcon 9
rocket.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by
SpaceX for transport of satellites into orbit. The First Stage of the
Falcon 9 is designed to be reusable, while the second stage is not
reusable. The Falcon 9 First Stage is
[[Page 57434]]
12 ft (3.7 m) in diameter and 160 ft (48.8 m) in height, including the
interstage that would remain attached during landing. The proposed
action includes up to twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries, including
in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings of the First Stage, at VAFB or
at a contingency landing location as described above.
After launch of the Falcon 9, the boost-back and landing sequence
begins when the rocket's First Stage separates from the second stage
and the Merlin engines of the First Stage cut off. After First Stage
engine cutoff, rather than dropping the First Stage in the Pacific
Ocean, exoatmospheric cold gas thrusters would be triggered to flip the
First Stage into position for retrograde burn. Three of the nine First
Stage Merlin engines would be restarted to conduct the retrograde burn
in order to reduce the velocity of the First Stage and to place the
First Stage in the correct angle to land. Once the First Stage is in
position and approaching its landing target, the three engines would
cut off to end the boost-back burn. The First Stage would then perform
a controlled descent using atmospheric resistance to slow the stage
down and guide it to the landing pad target. The First Stage is
outfitted with grid fins that allow cross range corrections as needed.
The landing legs on the First Stage would then deploy in preparation
for a final single engine burn that would slow the First Stage to a
velocity of zero before landing on the landing pad at SLC-4W.
Sonic Boom
During descent, a sonic boom (overpressure of high-energy impulsive
sound) would be generated when the First Stage reaches a rate of travel
that exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic booms would occur in proximity
to the landing area with the highest sound levels generated from sonic
booms generally focused in the direction of the landing area, and may
be heard during or briefly after the boost-back and landing, depending
on the location of the receiver. Sound from the sonic booms would have
the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals, as described
in greater detail later in this document. Based on model results, a
boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would
produce sonic booms with overpressures that would potentially be as
high as 8.5 pounds per square foot (psf) at VAFB and potentially as
high as 3.1 psf at the NCI (see Figures 2-2 and 2-5 in the IHA
application). Sonic boom modeling indicates that landings that occur at
either of the proposed contingency landing locations offshore would
result in sonic booms with received overpressures below 1.0 psf at VAFB
and the NCI. Take of pinnipeds that are hauled out of the water are
expected to occur only when those hauled out pinnipeds experience sonic
booms greater than 1.0 psf (discussed in greater detail below in the
Estimated Take section). Therefore, take of marine mammals may occur as
a result of landings that occur at VAFB; however, take of marine
mammals is not expected to occur as a result of landings that occur at
either of the proposed contingency landing locations offshore. Please
see Figure 1-4 in the IHA application for a graphical depiction of the
boost-back and landing sequence, and see Figure 1-5 in the IHA
application for an example of the boost-back trajectory of the First
Stage and the second stage trajectory.
As a contingency action to landing the Falcon 9 First Stage on the
SLC-4W pad at VAFB, SpaceX proposes to return the Falcon 9 First Stage
booster to a barge in the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1-6 in the IHA
application). The maneuvering and landing process described above for a
pad landing would be the same for a barge landing. Three vessels would
be required to support a barge landing, if it were required: A barge/
landing platform (300 ft (91 m) long and 150 ft (46 m) wide); a support
vessel (165 ft (50 m) long research vessel); and an ocean tug (120 ft
(37 m) long open water commercial tug).
Landing Noise
Landing noise would be generated during each boost-back event.
SpaceX proposes to use a three-engine burn during landing. This engine
burn, lasting approximately 17 seconds, would generate noise between 70
and 110 decibels (dB) re 20 micro Pascals ([micro]Pa) (non-pulse, in-
air noise) centered on SLC-4W, but affecting an area up to 15 nmi (27.8
km) offshore of VAFB (Figure 2-10 in the IHA application). This landing
noise event would be of short duration (approximately 17 seconds).
Although, during a landing event at SLC-4W, landing noise between 70
and 90 dB would be expected to overlap pinniped haulout areas at and
near Point Arguello and Purisima Point, no pinniped haulouts would
experience landing noises of 90 dB or greater (see Figure 2-10 in the
IHA application).
NMFS's recommended acoustic thresholds for in-air acoustic impacts
assume that Level B harassment of harbor seals may occur at 90 dB root
mean square (rms) re 20 [micro]Pa and Level B harassment of all other
pinnipeds may occur at 100 dB rms re 20 [micro]Pa. Therefore,
harassment of marine mammals hauled out at VAFB from engine noise
generated during landings is not expected to occur. Engine noise would
also be produced during a contingency barge landing of the Falcon 9
First Stage. Engine noise during a barge landing is expected to be
between 70 and 110 dB re 20 [micro]Pa affecting a radial area up to 15
nmi (27.8 km) around the contingency landing location (Figure 2-11 in
the IHA application) and the Iridium 38 Landing Area (Figure 2-12 in
the IHA application). No pinniped haulouts are located within the areas
predicted to experience engine noise of 90 dB and above during Falcon 9
First Stage landings at contingency landing locations and the Iridium
Landing Area (Figures 2-11 and 2-12 in the IHA application). Therefore,
the likelihood of engine noise associated with the landing of the
Falcon 9 First Stage resulting in take of marine mammals is considered
so low as to be discountable, and landing noise is therefore not
discussed further in this document.
Unsuccessful Barge Landing
In the event of an unsuccessful barge landing, the First Stage
would explode upon impact with the barge. The direct sound from an
explosion would last less than a second. Furthermore, the proposed
activities would be dispersed in time, with maximum of twelve barge
landing attempts occurring within a twelve month time period. If an
explosion occurred on the barge, as in the case of an unsuccessful
barge landing attempt, some amount of the explosive energy would be
transferred through the ship's structure and would enter the water and
propagate away from the ship.
There is very little published literature on the ratio of explosive
energy that is absorbed by a ship's hull versus the amount of energy
that is transferred through the ship into the water. However, based on
the best available information, we have determined that exceptionally
little of the acoustic energy from the explosion would transmit into
the water (Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). An explosion on the barge would
create an in-air blast that propagates away in all directions,
including toward the water's surface; however the barge's deck would
act as a barrier that would attenuate the energy directed downward
toward the water (Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). Most sound enters the
water in a narrow cone beneath the sound source (within 13 degrees of
vertical) (National Research Council 2003). Since the explosion
[[Page 57435]]
would occur on the barge, most of this sound would be reflected by the
barge's surface, and sound waves would approach the water's surface at
angles higher than 13 degrees, minimizing transmission into the ocean.
An explosion on the barge would also send energy through the barge's
structure, into the water, and away from the barge. This effect was
investigated in conjunction with the measurements described in Yagla
and Steigler (2003). Yagla and Steigler (2003) reported that the energy
transmitted through a ship to the water for the firing of a typical 5-
inch round was approximately six percent of that from the in-air blast
impinging on the water (Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). Therefore, sound
transmitted from the blast through the hull into the water was a
minimal component of overall firing noise, and would likewise be
expected to be a minimal component of an explosion occurring on the
surface of the barge.
Depending on the amount of fuel remaining in the booster at the
time of the explosion, the intensity of the explosion would likely
vary. Based on previous Falcon 9 boost-back and landing activities, the
explosive equivalence of the First Stage with maximum fuel and oxidizer
would be expected to be approximately 500 lb. of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
Explosion shock theory has proposed specific relationships for the peak
pressure and time constant in terms of the charge weight and range from
the detonation position (Pater 1981; Plotkin et al. 2012). For an in-
air explosion equivalent to 500 lb. of TNT, at 0.5 ft the explosion
would be approximately 250 dB re 20 [micro]Pa. Based on the assumption
that the structure of the barge would absorb and reflect approximately
94 percent of this energy, with approximately 6 percent of the energy
from the explosion transmitted into the water (Yagla and Stiegler
2003), the amount of energy that would be transmitted into the water
would be far less than the threshold for Level B harassment for marine
mammals based on NMFS's current acoustic criterion for in-water
explosive noise (160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa). As a result, the likelihood of
in-water sound generated by an explosion of the Falcon 9 First Stage
during an unsuccessful barge landing attempt resulting in take of
marine mammals is considered so low as to be discountable and is
therefore not discussed further in this document.
As discussed above, in the event of an unsuccessful contingency
landing attempt, the First Stage would be expected to explode upon
impact with the barge. SpaceX has experience performing recovery
operations after water and unsuccessful barge landings for previous
Falcon 9 First Stage landing attempts. This experience, in addition to
the debris catalog that identifies all floating debris, has revealed
that approximately 25 pieces of debris remain floating after an
unsuccessful barge landing. The approximately 25 pieces of debris would
primarily be made of Carbon Over Pressure Vessels (COPVs), the liquid
oxygen fill line, and carbon fiber constructed legs. The vast majority
of debris would be recovered. All other debris is expected to sink to
the bottom of the ocean. Denser debris that would not float on the
surface would sink relatively quickly and is composed of inert
materials which would not affect water quality or bottom substrate
potentially used by marine mammals. The rate of deposition would vary
with the type of debris; however, none of the debris is so dense or
large that benthic habitat would be meaningfully degraded.
The surface area potentially impacted with debris would be expected
to be less than 0.46 km\2\. Since the area impacted by debris is very
small, the likelihood of adverse effects to marine mammals is very low.
During previous landing attempts in other locations, SpaceX has
performed successful debris recovery. All of the recovered debris would
be transported back to Long Beach Harbor for proper disposal. Most of
the fuel remaining in the First Stage would be released onto the barge
deck at the location of impact. Therefore, the likelihood of take of
marine mammals as a result of contact with exploded First Stage
materials is considered so low as to be discountable, and explosion of
the Falcon 9 First Stage is therefore not discussed further in this
document.
In the event that a contingency landing action is required, there
is the potential that the Falcon 9 First Stage would miss the barge
entirely and land instead in the ocean. However, the likelihood of the
First Stage missing the barge entirely and landing in the Pacific Ocean
is considered so unlikely as to be discountable. This is supported by
several previous attempts by SpaceX at Falcon 9 First Stage barge
landings, none of which have missed the barge. Therefore, the
likelihood of take of marine mammals associated with a Falcon 9 First
Stage landing in the ocean is considered so low as to be discountable,
and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage in the ocean is not considered
further in this document.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
There are six marine mammal species with expected occurrence in the
project area (including at VAFB, on the NCI, and in the waters
surrounding VAFB, the NCI and the contingency landing location) that
are expected to be affected by the specified activities. These include
the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern fur seal
(Callorhinus ursinus), northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris), Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus philippii
townsendi), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and Pacific
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii). This section provides summary
information regarding local occurrence of these species. We have
reviewed SpaceX's detailed species descriptions, including life history
information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to
Section 3 of SpaceX's IHA application, as well as to NMFS's Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/population-assessments#marine-mammals), rather than reprinting all of
the information here. Additional general information about these
species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on
NMFS's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
There are an additional 28 species of cetaceans with expected or
possible occurrence in the project area. However, we have determined
that the only potential stressor associated with the activity that
could result in take of marine mammals (sonic booms) only has the
potential to result in harassment of marine mammals that are hauled out
of the water (i.e., pinnipeds). Therefore, we have concluded that the
likelihood of the proposed activities resulting in the harassment of
any cetacean to be so low as to be discountable. As we have concluded
that the likelihood of any cetacean being taken incidentally as a
result of SpaceX's proposed activities to be so low as to be
discountable, cetaceans are not considered further in this proposed
authorization. Please see Table 3-1 in SpaceX's IHA application for a
complete list of species with expected or potential occurrence in the
project area.
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the vicinity of the project during the project timeframe that are
likely to be affected by the specified activities, and summarizes
information related to the population or stock, including
[[Page 57436]]
regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious
injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as
gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2018; Muto
et al., 2018). All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent
available at the time of publication and are available in the 2017 SARs
(Carretta et al., 2018; Muto et al., 2018) and draft 2018 SARs
(available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/population-assessments#marine-mammals).
Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
California sea lion............. Zalophus californianus. U.S.................... -; N 257,606 (n/a, 233,515, 14,011 >=197
2014).
Northern fur seal............... Callorhinus ursinus.... California............. -; N 14,050 (n/a, 7,524, 451 >=0.8
2013).
Steller sea lion................ Eumetopias jubatus..... Eastern U.S............ -; N 41,638 (n/a, 41,638, 2,498 108
2015).
Guadalupe fur seal.............. Arctocephalus philippii Mexico................. T/D; Y 20,000 (n/a, 15,830, 542 >=3.2
2010).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Pacific harbor seal............. Phoca vitulina California............. -; N 30,968 (n/a, 27,348, 1,641 30
richardii. 2012).
Northern elephant seal.......... Mirounga angustirostris California breeding.... -; N 179,000 (n/a, 81,368, 4,882 4
2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/population-assessments#marine-mammals. CV is coefficient
of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 1. As described below, all six species
(with six managed stocks) temporally and spatially co-occur with the
activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we
have proposed authorizing it.
Pacific Harbor Seal
Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters and shoreline
areas of the northern hemisphere from temperate to polar regions. The
eastern North Pacific subspecies is found from Baja California north to
the Aleutian Islands and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines of
evidence support the existence of geographic structure among harbor
seal populations from California to Alaska (Carretta et al., 2016).
However, because stock boundaries are difficult to meaningfully draw
from a biological perspective, three separate harbor seal stocks are
recognized for management purposes along the west coast of the
continental United States: (1) Washington inland waters (2) Oregon and
Washington coast, and (3) California (Carretta et al., 2016). In
addition, harbor seals may occur in Mexican waters, but these animals
are not considered part of the California stock. Only the California
stock is considered in this proposed authorization due to the
distribution of the stock and the geographic scope of the proposed
activities. Although the need for stock boundaries for management is
real and is supported by biological information, it should be noted
that the exact placement of a boundary between California and Oregon
for stock delineation purposes was largely a political/jurisdictional
convenience (Carretta et al. 2015).
Pacific harbor seals are nonmigratory, with local movements
associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food
availability, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944, Fisher 1952,
Bigg 1969, 1981, Hastings et al. 2004). In California, over 500 harbor
seal haulout sites are widely distributed along the mainland and
offshore islands, and include rocky shores, beaches and intertidal
sandbars (Lowry et al. 2005). Harbor seals mate at sea and females give
birth during the spring and summer, though the pupping season varies
with latitude. Harbor seal pupping takes place at many locations and
rookery size varies from a few pups to many hundreds of pups.
Harbor seals are the most common marine mammal inhabiting VAFB,
congregating on multiple rocky haulout sites along the VAFB coastline.
Biologists from the Center for Environmental Management of Military
Lands (CEMML) and 30 SW, 30th Civil Engineer Squadron (30 CES) survey
marine mammal haulout sites on VAFB on a monthly basis (CEMML 2018).
There are 12 harbor seal haulout sites on south VAFB; of these, 10
sites represent an almost continuous haulout area which is used by the
same animals.
[[Page 57437]]
Virtually all of the haulout sites at VAFB are used during low tides
and are wave-washed or submerged during high tides. Additionally, the
harbor seal is the only species that regularly hauls out near the VAFB
harbor (CEMML 2018). The main harbor seal haulouts on VAFB are near
Purisima Point and at Lion's Head (approximately 0.6 km south of Point
Sal) on north VAFB and between the VAFB harbor north to South Rocky
Point Beach on south VAFB (ManTech 2009).
Pups are generally present in the region from March through July.
Within the affected area on VAFB, a total of up to 332 adults and 34
pups have been recorded, at all haulouts combined, in monthly counts
from 2013 to 2015 (ManTech 2015). Harbor seals also haul out, breed,
and pup in isolated beaches and coves throughout the coasts of San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands (Lowry 2002). During aerial
surveys conducted by NMFS in May 2002 and May and June of 2004, between
521 and 1,004 harbors seals were recorded at San Miguel Island, between
605 and 972 at Santa Rosa Island, and between 599 and 1,102 at Santa
Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
The harbor seal population at VAFB has undergone an apparent
decline in recent years (USAF 2013b). This decline has been attributed
to a series of natural landslides at south VAFB, resulting in the
abandonment of many haulout sites. These slides have also resulted in
extensive down-current sediment deposition, making these sites
accessible to coyotes, which are now regularly seen in the area. Some
of the displaced seals have moved to other sites at south VAFB, while
others likely have moved to Point Conception, about 6.5 km south of the
southern boundary of VAFB. Additionally, at one haulout, harbor seals
have been displaced by elephant seals, who have begun using the haulout
for giving birth (CEMML 2018).
Pacific harbor seals frequently use haulout sites on the NCI,
including San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa islands. On
San Miguel Island, they occur along the north coast at Tyler Bight and
from Crook Point to Cardwell Point. Additionally, they regularly breed
on San Miguel Island. On Santa Cruz Island, they inhabit small coves
and rocky ledges along much of the coast. Harbor seals are scattered
throughout Santa Rosa Island and also are observed in small numbers on
Anacapa Island.
California Sea Lion
California sea lions range from the Gulf of California north to the
Gulf of Alaska, with breeding areas located in the Gulf of California,
western Baja California, and southern California. Five genetically
distinct geographic populations have been identified: (1) Pacific
Temperate, (2) Pacific Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of California,
(4) Central Gulf of California, and (5) Northern Gulf of California
(Schramm et al., 2009). Rookeries for the Pacific Temperate population
are found within U.S. waters and just south of the U.S.-Mexico border,
and animals belonging to this population may be found from the Gulf of
Alaska to Mexican waters off Baja California. Animals belonging to
other populations (e.g., Pacific Subtropical) may range into U.S.
waters during non-breeding periods. For management purposes, a stock of
California sea lions comprising those animals at rookeries within the
United States is defined (i.e., the U.S. stock of California sea lions)
(Carretta et al., 2017). The carrying capacity of the stock was
estimated at 275,298 animals in 2014 (Laake et al., 2018).
Beginning in January 2013, elevated strandings of California sea
lion pups were observed in southern California, with live sea lion
strandings nearly three times higher than the historical average.
Findings to date indicate that a likely contributor to the large number
of stranded, malnourished pups was a change in the availability of sea
lion prey for nursing mothers, especially sardines. The Working Group
on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events determined that the ongoing
stranding event meets the criteria for an Unusual Mortality Event (UME)
and declared California sea lion strandings from 2013 through 2017 to
be one continuous UME. The causes and mechanisms of this event remain
under investigation. For more information on the UME, see: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2013-2017-california-sea-lion-unusual-mortality-event-california.
Rookery sites in southern California are limited to San Miguel
Island and the southerly Channel Islands of San Nicolas, Santa Barbara,
and San Clemente (Carretta et al., 2015). Males establish breeding
territories during May through July on both land and in the water.
Females come ashore in mid-May and June where they give birth to a
single pup approximately four to five days after arrival and will nurse
pups for about a week before going on their first feeding trip. Adult
and juvenile males will migrate as far north as British Columbia,
Canada while females and pups remain in southern California waters in
the non-breeding season. In warm water (El Ni[ntilde]o) years, some
females are found as far north as Washington and Oregon, presumably
following prey.
California sea lions are common offshore of VAFB and haul out on
rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB. At south VAFB,
California sea lions haul out on north Rocky Point, with numbers often
peaking in spring. They have been reported at Point Arguello and Point
Pedernales (both on south VAFB) in the past, although none have been
noted there over the past several years. Individual sea lions have been
noted hauled out throughout the VAFB coast; these were transient or
stranded specimens. They regularly haul out on Lion Rock, north of VAFB
and immediately south of Point Sal, and occasionally haul out on Point
Conception, south of VAFB. In 2014, counts of California sea lions at
haulouts on VAFB ranged from 47 to 416 during monthly counts. Despite
their prevalence at haulout sites at VAFB, California sea lions rarely
pup on the VAFB coastline (ManTech 2015); no pups were observed in 2013
or 2014 (ManTech 2015) and 1 pup was observed in 2015 (VAFB, unpubl.
data).
Pupping occurs in large numbers on San Miguel Island at the
rookeries found at Point Bennett on the west end of the island and at
Cardwell Point on the east end of the island (Lowry 2002). Sea lions
haul out at the west end of Santa Rosa Island at Ford Point and
Carrington Point. A few California sea lions have been born on Santa
Rosa Island, but no rookery has been established. On Santa Cruz Island,
California sea lions haul out from Painted Cave almost to Fraser Point,
on the west end. Fair numbers haul out at Gull Island, off the south
shore near Punta Arena. Pupping appears to be increasing there. Sea
lions also haul out near Potato Harbor, on the northeast end of Santa
Cruz. California sea lions haul out by the hundreds on the south side
of East Anacapa Island.
During aerial surveys conducted by NMFS in February 2010 of the
NCI, 21,192 total California sea lions (14,802 pups) were observed at
haulouts on San Miguel Island and 8,237 total (5,712 pups) at Santa
Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data). During aerial
surveys in July 2012, 65,660 total California sea lions (28,289 pups)
were recorded at haulouts on San Miguel Island, 1,584 total (3 pups) at
Santa Rosa Island, and 1,571 total (zero pups) at Santa Cruz Island (M.
Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern elephant seals range in the eastern and central North
Pacific Ocean,
[[Page 57438]]
from as far north as Alaska and as far south as Mexico. They spend much
of the year, generally about nine months, in the open ocean. They spend
much of their lives underwater, diving to depths of about 1,000 to
2,500 ft (330-800 m) for 20- to 30-minute intervals with only short
breaks at the surface, and are rarely seen at sea for this reason.
Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California and Baja
California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands, from December to
March (Stewart et al. 1994). Adults return to land between March and
August to molt, with males returning later than females. Adults return
to their feeding areas again between their spring/summer molting and
their winter breeding seasons.
Populations of northern elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico are
derived from a few tens or hundreds of individuals surviving in Mexico
after being nearly hunted to extinction (Stewart et al., 1994). Given
the recent derivation of most rookeries, no genetic differentiation
would be expected. Although movement and genetic exchange continues
between rookeries, most elephant seals return to their natal rookeries
when they start breeding (Huber et al., 1991). The California breeding
population is now demographically isolated from the Baja California
population and is considered to be a separate stock.
Northern elephant seals haul out sporadically on rocks and beaches
along the coastline of VAFB; monthly counts in 2013 and 2014 recorded
between 0 and 191 elephant seals within the affected area (ManTech
2015) and northern elephant seal pupping at VAFB was documented for the
first time in January 2017 (Pers. comm., R. Evans, USAF, to J.
Carduner, NMFS, February 1, 2017). The nearest regularly used haulout
site on the mainland coast is at Point Conception. Eleven northern
elephant seals were observed during aerial surveys of the Point
Conception area by NMFS in February of 2010 (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries,
unpubl. data).
Point Bennett on the west end of San Miguel Island is the primary
northern elephant seal rookery in the NCI, with another rookery at
Cardwell Point on the east end of San Miguel Island (Lowry 2002). They
also pup and breed on Santa Rosa Island, mostly on the west end.
Northern elephant seals are rarely seen on Santa Cruz and Anacapa
Islands. During aerial surveys of the NCI conducted by NMFS in February
2010, 21,192 total northern elephant seals (14,802 pups) were recorded
at haulouts on San Miguel Island and 8,237 total (5,712 pups) were
observed at Santa Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
None were observed at Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries,
unpubl. data).
Steller Sea Lion
Steller sea lions are distributed mainly around the coasts to the
outer continental shelf along the North Pacific rim from northern
Hokkaido, Japan through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, Aleutian
Islands and central Bering Sea, southern coast of Alaska and south to
California (Loughlin et al., 1984). The species as a whole was ESA-
listed as threatened in 1990 (55 FR 49204, November 26, 1990). In 1997,
the species was divided into western and eastern distinct population
segments (DPS), with the western DPS reclassified as endangered under
the ESA and the eastern DPS retaining its threatened listing (62 FR
24345, May 5, 2997). On October 23, 2013, NMFS found that the eastern
DPS has recovered; as a result of the finding, NMFS removed the eastern
DPS from ESA listing. Only the eastern DPS is considered in this
proposed authorization due to its distribution and the geographic scope
of the action.
Prior to 2012, there were no records of Steller sea lions observed
at VAFB. In April and May 2012, Steller sea lions were observed hauled
out at North Rocky Point on VAFB, representing the first time the
species had been observed on VAFB during launch monitoring and monthly
surveys conducted over the past two decades (Marine Mammal Consulting
Group and Science Applications International Corporation 2013). Since
2012, Steller sea lions have been observed frequently in routine
monthly surveys, with as many as 16 individuals recorded. In 2014, up
to five Steller sea lions were observed in the affected area during
monthly marine mammal counts (ManTech 2015) and a maximum of 12
individuals were observed during monthly counts in 2015 (VAFB,
unpublished data). However, up to 16 individuals were observed in 2012
(SAIC 2012). Steller sea lions once had two small rookeries on San
Miguel Island, but these were abandoned after the 1982-1983 El
Ni[ntilde]o event (DeLong and Melin 2000; Lowry 2002); these rookeries
were once the southernmost colonies of the eastern stock of this
species. In recent years, between two to four juvenile and adult males
have been observed on a somewhat regular basis on San Miguel Island
(pers. comm. Sharon Melin, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, to J.
Carduner, NMFS, Feb 11, 2016). Steller sea lions are not observed on
the other NCI.
Northern Fur Seal
Northern fur seals occur from southern California north to the
Bering Sea and west to the Okhotsk Sea and Honshu Island, Japan. Due to
differing requirements during the annual reproductive season, adult
males and females typically occur ashore at different, though
overlapping, times. Adult males occur ashore and defend reproductive
territories during a three month period from June through August,
though some may be present until November (well after giving up their
territories). Adult females are found ashore for as long as six months
(June-November). After their respective times ashore, fur seals of both
sexes spend the next seven to eight months at sea (Roppel 1984). Peak
pupping is in early July and pups are weaned at three to four months.
Some juveniles are present year-round, but most juveniles and adults
head for the open ocean and a pelagic existence until the next year.
Northern fur seals exhibit high site fidelity to their natal rookeries.
Two stocks of northern fur seals are recognized in U.S. waters: An
eastern Pacific stock and a California stock (formerly referred to as
the San Miguel Island stock). While animals from the eastern Pacific
stock are known to travel as far south as Oregon and California (Muto
et al., 2018), only the California stock is considered in this proposed
authorization due to its geographic distribution.
Northern fur seals have rookeries on San Miguel Island at Point
Bennett and on Castle Rock. Comprehensive count data for northern fur
seals on San Miguel Island are not available. San Miguel Island is the
only island in the NCI on which northern fur seals have been observed.
Although the population at San Miguel Island was established by
individuals from Alaska and Russian Islands during the late 1960s, most
individuals currently found on San Miguel are considered resident to
the island. No haulout or rookery sites exist for northern fur seals on
the mainland coast. The only individuals that appear on mainland
beaches are stranded animals.
Guadalupe Fur Seal
Guadalupe fur seals are found along the west coast of the United
States. They were abundant prior to seal exploitation, when they were
likely the most abundant pinniped species on the Channel Islands, but
are considered uncommon in Southern California. They are typically
found on shores with abundant large rocks, often at the base of large
cliffs (Belcher and Lee 2002).
[[Page 57439]]
Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur seals started occurring along the
entire coast of California in early 2015. This event was declared a
marine mammal UME. Strandings were eight times higher than the
historical average, peaking from April through June 2015, and have
since lessened but continue at a rate that is well above average. Most
stranded individuals have been weaned pups and juveniles (1-2 years
old). For more information on this ongoing UME, see: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2015-2018-guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortality-event-california.
Comprehensive survey data on Guadalupe fur seals in the NCI is not
readily available. On San Miguel Island, one to several male Guadalupe
fur seals had been observed annually between 1969 and 2000 (DeLong and
Melin 2000) and juvenile animals of both sexes have been seen
occasionally over the years (Stewart et al. 1987). The first adult
female at San Miguel Island was seen in 1997. In June 1997, she gave
birth to a pup in rocky habitat along the south side of the island and,
over the next year, reared the pup to weaning age. This was apparently
the first pup born in the Channel Islands in at least 150 years. Since
2008, individual adult females, subadult males, and between one and
three pups have been observed annually on San Miguel Island. There are
estimated to be approximately 20-25 individuals that have fidelity to
San Miguel, mostly inhabiting the southwest and northwest ends of the
island. A total of 14 pups have been born on the island since 2009,
with no more than 3 born in any single season (pers. comm., S. Melin,
NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, to J. Carduner, NMFS, Aug. 28,
2015). Thirteen individuals and two pups were observed in 2015 (NMFS
2016). No haulout or rookery sites exist for Guadalupe fur seals on the
mainland coast, including VAFB. The only individuals that do appear on
mainland beaches are stranded animals.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall
et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges
correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range
not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within
that group):
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 hertz (Hz) to 86
kilohertz (kHz); and
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized
hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Six species of marine mammal (four otariid and two phocid) species)
have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed activities.
Please refer to Table 1.
Table 2--Relevant Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Groups and Their
Generalized Hearing Ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
Acoustic Effects
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance
between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of
one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower
frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly,
except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness''
[[Page 57440]]
of a sound and is typically described using the relative unit of the
dB. A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio
between a measured pressure and a reference pressure and is a
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude;
therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes
in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the SPL referenced
at a distance of 1 m from the source while the received level is the
SPL at the listener's position. Note that all airborne sound levels in
this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 [micro]Pa.
Root mean square is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the
duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all
of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the
square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for
both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all
values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of
pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often
used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because
behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be
better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s)
represents the total energy contained within a pulse and considers both
intensity and duration of exposure. Peak sound pressure (also referred
to as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-p) is the maximum instantaneous
sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the
source and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure.
Another common metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure (pk-pk), which is
the algebraic difference between the peak positive and peak negative
sound pressures. Peak-to-peak pressure is typically approximately 6 dB
higher than peak pressure (Southall et al., 2007).
A-weighting is applied to instrument-measured sound levels in an
effort to account for the relative loudness perceived by the human ear,
as the ear is less sensitive to low audio frequencies, and is commonly
used in measuring airborne noise. The relative sensitivity of pinnipeds
listening in air to different frequencies is more-or-less similar to
that of humans (Richardson et al. 1995), so A-weighting may, as a first
approximation, be relevant to pinnipeds listening to moderate-level
sounds.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through
the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from a given
activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could
form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals. Details of
source types are described in the following text.
Sounds are often considered as either pulsed or non-pulsed (defined
in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is
important because they have differing potential to cause physical
effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in
Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-
depth discussion of these concepts.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds
are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure
to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g.,
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as
those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received
at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
The effects of sounds on marine mammals are dependent on several
factors, including the species, size, behavior (feeding, nursing,
resting, etc.), and, if underwater, depth of the animal; the intensity
and duration of the sound; and the sound propagation properties of the
environment. Impacts to marine species can result from physiological
and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic
signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type and severity of behavioral
impacts are more difficult to define due to limited studies addressing
the behavioral effects of sounds on marine mammals. Potential effects
from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as
behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort,
slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or
mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973).
The effects of sounds from the proposed activities are expected to
result in behavioral disturbance of marine mammals. Due to the expected
sound levels of the activities proposed and the distance of the
activity from marine mammal habitat, the effects of sounds from the
proposed activities are not expected to result in temporary or
permanent hearing impairment (TTS and PTS, respectively), non-auditory
physical or physiological effects, or masking in marine mammals.
Therefore, TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or physiological effects,
and masking are not discussed further in this section.
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes
in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement.
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific
and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. Behavioral state may affect
[[Page 57441]]
the type of response as well. For example, animals that are resting may
show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels
than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding
(Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have shown
pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud underwater
sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices) have been
varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral
changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; Thorson and
Reyff, 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 2003;
Nowacek et al., 2007).
The onset of noise can result in temporary, short term changes in
an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area.
These behavioral changes may include: Reduced/increased vocal
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive
behavior; avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or
flight responses (Richardson et al., 1995).
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could potentially be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. The onset of
behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both
external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and
the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing,
motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict
(Southall et al., 2007).
Marine mammals that occur in the project area could be exposed to
airborne sounds associated with Falcon 9 boost-back and landing
activities that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment,
depending on an animal's distance from the sound. Airborne sound could
potentially affect pinnipeds that are hauled out. Most likely, airborne
sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above
in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound
could cause hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal
behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to
temporarily abandon their habitat and move further from the source.
Hauled out pinnipeds may flush from a haulout into the water. Though
pup abandonment could theoretically result from these reactions, site-
specific monitoring data indicate that pup abandonment is not likely to
occur as a result of the specified activity. Not all pinnipeds exposed
to a sonic boom and/or launch noise flushed from the haulout, and those
that did flush returned to the haulout shortly after the event.
Description of Effects From the Specified Activity
This section includes a discussion of the active acoustic sound
sources associated with SpaceX's proposed activity and the likelihood
for these sources to result in harassment of marine mammals. Potential
acoustic sources associated with SpaceX's proposed activity include
sonic booms, Falcon 9 First Stage landings, and potential explosions as
a result of unsuccessful Falcon 9 First Stage landing attempts. Sounds
produced by the proposed activities may be impulsive, due to sonic
booms, and non-pulse (but short-duration) noise, due to combustion
effects of the Falcon 9 First Stage. As described above, sounds
associated with Falcon 9 First Stage landings and potential explosions
as a result of unsuccessful Falcon 9 First Stage landing attempts are
not expected to result in take of marine mammals and are therefore not
addressed here.
Sonic Boom
As described above, during descent when the First Stage is
supersonic, a sonic boom would be generated. The USAF has monitored
pinniped responses to rocket launches from VAFB for nearly 20 years.
Though rocket launches are not part of the proposed activities (as
described above), the acoustic stimuli (sonic booms) associated with
launches is expected to be substantially similar to those expected to
occur with Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings; therefore, we rely on
observational data on responses of pinnipeds to sonic booms associated
with rocket launches from VAFB in making assumptions about expected
pinniped responses to sonic booms associated with Falcon 9 boost-backs
and landings.
Observed reactions of pinnipeds at the NCI to sonic booms have
ranged from no response to heads-up alerts, from startle responses to
some movements on land, and from some movements into the water to very
occasional stampedes (especially involving California sea lions on the
NCI). We therefore assume sonic booms generated during the return
flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage may elicit an alerting or other
short-term behavioral reaction, including flushing into the water if
hauled out.
Data from launch monitoring by the USAF on the NCI has shown that
pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated with the level of the
sonic boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) have typically resulted
in little to no behavioral responses, including head raising and
briefly alerting but returning to normal behavior shortly after the
stimulus (Table 3). More powerful sonic booms have sometimes resulted
in some species of pinnipeds flushing from haulouts. No documented
pinniped mortalities have been associated with sonic booms. No
sustained decreases in numbers of animals observed at haulouts have
been observed after the stimulus. Table 3 presents a summary of
monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999 to 2017. These data show that
reactions to sonic booms tend to be insignificant below 1.0 psf and
that, even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the animals present have
reacted to the sonic boom. Time-lapse video photography during four
launch events revealed that harbor seals that reacted to the rocket
launch noise but did not leave the haulout were all adults.
Data from previous monitoring also suggests that for those
pinnipeds that flush from haulouts in response to sonic booms, the
amount of time it takes for those animals to begin returning to the
haulout site, and for numbers of animals to return to pre-launch
levels, is correlated with sonic boom sound levels. Pinnipeds may begin
to return to the haulout site within 2-55 min of the launch
disturbance, and the haulout site usually returned to pre-launch levels
within 45-120 min. Monitoring data from launches of the Athena IKONOS
rocket from VAFB, with 107.3 and 107.8 dB (A-weighted SEL) recorded at
the closest haulout site, showed seals that flushed to the water on
exposure to the sonic boom began to return to the haulout approximately
16-55 minutes post-launch (Thorson et al., 1999a; 1999b). In contrast,
in the cases of Atlas rocket launches and several Titan II rocket
launches with SELs (A-weighted) ranging from 86.7 to 95.7 dB recorded
at the closest haulout, seals began to return to the haulout site
within 2-8 minutes post-launch (Thorson and Francine, 1997; Thorson et
al., 2000).
Monitoring data has consistently shown that reactions among
pinnipeds
[[Page 57442]]
to sonic booms vary between species, with harbor seals tending to be
the most sensitive to disturbance, followed by California sea lions,
with northern elephant seals and northern fur seals generally being
much less responsive (Table 3). Because Steller sea lions and Guadalupe
fur seals occur in the project area relatively infrequently, no data
has been recorded on their reactions to sonic booms. At VAFB, harbor
seals generally alert to nearby launch noises, with some or all of the
animals going into the water. Usually the animals haul out again from
within minutes to two hours or so of the launch, provided rising tides
or breakers have not submerged the haulout sites. Post-launch surveys
often indicate as many or more animals hauled out than were present at
the time of the launch, unless rising tides, breakers or other
disturbances are involved (SAIC 2012). When launches occurred during
high tides at VAFB, no impacts have been recorded because virtually all
haulout sites were submerged.
At the Channel Islands, harbor seals have been observed to react
more strongly to sonic booms than other species present there, with
some animals startling and fleeing into the water (Table 3). California
sea lions have also sometimes shown reactiveness to sonic booms, with
pups sometimes reacting more than adults, either because they are more
easily frightened or because their hearing is more acute (Table 3).
Northern fur seals generally show little or no reaction. Northern
elephant seals generally exhibit no reaction at all, except perhaps a
heads-up response or some stirring, especially if sea lions in the same
area or mingled with the elephant seals react strongly to the boom.
Post-launch monitoring generally reveals a return to normal patterns
within minutes up to an hour or two of each launch, regardless of
species (SAIC 2012).
Table 3 summarizes monitoring efforts at San Miguel Island during
which acoustic measurements were successfully recorded and during which
pinnipeds were observed. Monitoring was conducted at the haulout
closest to the predicted sonic boom. During more recent launches, night
vision equipment was used. The table shows only launches during which
sonic booms were heard and recorded. Many launches from VAFB do not
result in sonic booms that are detectable at the NCI due to the
westward trajectory of the rockets. To date, SpaceX has landed only one
Falcon 9 First Stage at VAFB and the monitoring results are not yet
available. The table shows that little or no reaction from the four
species usually occurs when overpressures are below 1.0 psf, and
sometimes higher. In general, as described above, elephant seals do not
react unless other animals around them react strongly or if the sonic
boom is extremely loud, and northern fur seals seem to react similarly.
Table 3--Observed Pinniped Responses to Sonic Booms at San Miguel Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic
boom Species and associated
Launch event level Monitoring location reactions
(psf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athena II (April 27, 1999).............. 1.0 Adams Cove................ California sea lion: 866
alerted; 232 (27%) flushed
into water.
Northern elephant seal: Alerted
but did not flush.
Northern fur seal: Alerted but
did not flush.
Athena II (September 24, 1999).......... 0.95 Point Bennett............. California sea lion: 12 of 600
(2%) flushed into water.
Northern elephant seal: Alerted
but did not flush.
Northern fur seal: Alerted but
did not flush.
Delta II 20 (November 20, 2000)......... 0.4 Point Bennett............. California sea lion: 60 pups
flushed into water; no
reaction from focal group.
Northern elephant seal: No
reaction.
Atlas II (September 8, 2001)............ 0.75 Cardwell Point............ California sea lion (Group 1):
No reaction (1,200 animals).
California sea lion (Group 2):
No reaction (247 animals).
Northern elephant seal: No
reaction.
Harbor seal: 2 of 4 flushed
into water.
Delta II (February 11, 2002)............ 0.64 Point Bennett............. California sea lion and
northern fur seal: No reaction
among 485 animals in 3 groups.
Northern elephant seal: No
reaction among 424 animals in
2 groups.
Atlas II (December 2, 2003)............. 0.88 Point Bennett............. California sea lion:
Approximately 40% alerted;
several flushed to water
(number unknown--night
launch).
Northern elephant seal: No
reaction.
Delta II (July 15, 2004)................ 1.34 Adams Cove................ California sea lion: 10%
alerted (number unknown--night
launch).
Atlas V (March 13, 2008)................ 1.24 Cardwell Point............ Northern elephant seal: No
reaction (109 pups).
Delta II (May 5, 2009).................. 0.76 West of Judith Rock....... California sea lion: No
reaction (784 animals).
Atlas V (April 14, 2011)................ 1.01 Cuyler Harbor............. Northern elephant seal: No
reaction (445 animals).
Atlas V (September 13, 2012)............ 2.10 Cardwell Point............ California sea lion: No
reaction (460 animals).
Northern elephant seal: No
reaction (68 animals).
Harbor seal: 20 of 36 (56%)
flushed into water.
Atlas V (April 3, 2014)................. 0.74 Cardwell Point............ Harbor seal: 1 of ~25 flushed
into water; no reaction from
others.
Atlas V (December 12, 2014)............. 1.18 Point Bennett............. Calif. sea lion: 5 of ~225
alerted; none flushed.
Atlas V (October 8, 2015)............... 1.96 East Adams Cove of Point Calif. sea lion: Pre-launch
Bennett. counts for California sea
lions at the San Miguel Island
monitoring location ranged
from 42 to 166. ~60% of CSL
alerted and raised their
heads. None flushed.
Northern elephant seal: Pre-
launch counts ranged from 107
to 159. No visible response to
sonic boom, none flushed.
Northern fur seal: Pre-launch
counts from 129 to 262. ~60%
of NFS alerted and raised
their heads. None flushed.
Atlas V (March 1, 2017)................. \a\ ~0.8 Cuyler Harbor on San Northern elephant seal: pre-
Miguel Island. launch counts 235-352. 13
alerted; none flushed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Peak sonic boom at the monitoring site was ~2.2 psf, but was in infrasonic range--not audible to pinnipeds.
Within the audible frequency spectrum, boom at monitoring site estimated at ~0.8 psf.
[[Page 57443]]
Physiological Responses to Sonic Booms
To determine if harbor seals experience changes in their hearing
sensitivity as a result of sounds associated with rocket launches
(including sonic booms), Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) testing was
conducted on 14 harbor seals following four launches of the Titan IV
rocket, one launch of the Taurus rocket, and two launches of the Delta
IV rocket from VAFB. ABR tests have not yet been performed following
Falcon 9 rocket landings nor launches, however results of ABR tests
that followed launches of other rockets from VAFB are nonetheless
informative as the sound source (sonic boom) is expected to be the same
as that associated with the activities proposed by SpaceX.
Following standard ABR testing protocol, the ABR was measured from
one ear of each seal using sterile, sub-dermal, stainless steel
electrodes. A conventional electrode array was used, and low-level
white noise was presented to the non-tested ear to reduce any
electrical potentials generated by the non-tested ear. A computer was
used to produce the click and an eight kHz tone burst stimuli, through
standard audiometric headphones. Over 1,000 ABR waveforms were
collected and averaged per trial. Initially the stimuli were presented
at SPLs loud enough to obtain a clean reliable waveform, and then
decreased in 10 dB steps until the response was no longer reliably
observed. Once response was no longer reliably observed, the stimuli
were then increased in 10 dB steps to the original SPL. By obtaining
two ABR waveforms at each SPL, it was possible to quantify the
variability in the measurements.
Good replicable responses were measured from most of the seals,
with waveforms following the expected pattern of an increase in latency
and decrease in amplitude of the peaks, as the stimulus level was
lowered. Detailed analysis of the changes in waveform latency and
waveform replication of the ABR measurements for the 14 seals showed no
detectable changes in the seals' hearing sensitivity as a result of
exposure to the launch noise. The delayed start (1.75 to 3.5 hours
after the launches) for ABR testing allows for the possibility that the
seals may have recovered from a TTS before testing began. However, it
can be said with confidence that the post-launch tested animals did not
have permanent hearing changes due to exposure to the launch noise from
the sonic booms associated with launches of the rockets from VAFB (SAIC
2013).
We also note that stress from long-term cumulative sound exposures
can result in physiological effects on reproduction, metabolism, and
general health, or on the animals' resistance to disease. However, this
is not likely to occur as a result of the proposed activities because
of the infrequent nature and short duration of the noise (up to twelve
sonic booms annually). Research indicates that population levels at
these haulout sites have remained constant in recent years (with
decreases only noted in some areas after coastal erosion), giving
support to this conclusion.
In conclusion, based on data from numerous years of monitoring of
similar activities to the activities proposed by SpaceX, in the same
geographic area as the geographic area of the SpaceX's proposed
activities, we expect that any behavioral responses by pinnipeds to
sonic booms resulting from the proposed activities would range from no
response to heads-up alerts, startle responses, some movements on land,
and some movements into the water (flushing).
Non-Acoustic Effects of the Proposed Activity
This section includes a discussion of potential effects of SpaceX's
proposed activity other than those related to sound.
Visual Stimuli
Visual stimuli resulting from Falcon 9 First Stage landings would
have the potential to cause pinnipeds to lift their heads, move towards
the water, or enter the water. However, SpaceX has determined that the
trajectory of the return flight includes a nearly vertical descent to
the SLC-4W landing pad (see Figure 1-7 and 1-8 in the IHA application)
and the contingency landing location (see Figure 1-5 in the IHA
application). As a result, the descending Falcon 9 First Stage would
either be shielded by coastal bluffs (for a SLC-4W landing) or would be
too far away from any pinniped haulouts to result in significant
stimuli (in the case of a barge landing). Further, the visual stimulus
of the Falcon 9 First Stage would not be coupled with the sonic boom,
since the First Stage would be at significant altitude when the
overpressure is produced, further decreasing the likelihood of a
behavioral response. Therefore, the likelihood of takes of marine
mammals resulting from visual stimuli associated with the proposed
activity is so low as to be considered discountable. As such, visual
stimuli associated with the proposed activity is not discussed further
in this document.
Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
We do not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in
any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine
mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use
(i.e., fish and invertebrates). Behavioral disturbance caused by in-air
acoustic stimuli may result in marine mammals temporarily moving away
from or avoiding the exposure area but are not expected to have long
term impacts, as supported by over two decades of launch monitoring
studies on the NCI by the USAF (MMCG and SAIC 2012).
The proposed activities would not result in in-water acoustic
stimuli that would cause significant injury or mortality to prey
species and would not create barriers to movement for marine mammal
prey. As described above, in the event of an unsuccessful barge landing
and a resulting explosion of the Falcon 9 First Stage, up to 25 pieces
of debris would likely remain floating. SpaceX would recover all
floating debris. Denser debris that would not float on the surface is
anticipated to sink relatively quickly and would be composed of inert
materials. The area of benthic habitat impacted by falling debris would
be very small (approximately 0.000706 km\2\) (ManTech 2015) and all
debris that would sink are composed of inert materials that would not
affect water quality or bottom substrate potentially used by marine
mammals. None of the debris would be so dense or large that benthic
habitat would be meaningfully degraded. As a result, debris from an
unsuccessful barge landing that enters the ocean environment
approximately 50 km offshore of VAFB would not have a significant
effect on marine mammal habitat.
In summary, since the acoustic impacts associated with the proposed
activities are of short duration and infrequent (up to twelve events
annually), the associated behavioral responses in marine mammals are
expected to be temporary. Therefore, the proposed activities are
unlikely to result in long term or permanent avoidance of the exposure
areas or loss of habitat. The proposed activities are also not expected
to result in any reduction in foraging habitat or adverse impacts to
marine mammal prey. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not
expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual
marine mammals or their populations.
[[Page 57444]]
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of potential disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine
mammals resulting from exposure to sounds associated with the planned
activities. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is
neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is
estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take
estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS
of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also
been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above
which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed.
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates
and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is
both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a
generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. As described above, for in-air sounds,
NMFS predicts that harbor seals exposed above received levels of 90 dB
re 20 [mu]Pa (rms) will be behaviorally harassed, and other pinnipeds
will be harassed when exposed above 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms).
Typically, NMFS relies on the acoustic criteria described above to
estimate take as a result of exposure to airborne sound from a given
activity. However, in this case we have the benefit of more than 20
years of observational data on pinniped responses to the stimuli
associated with the proposed activity that we expect to result in
harassment (sonic booms) in the particular geographic area of the
proposed activity (VAFB and the NCI). Therefore, we consider these data
to be the best available information in regard to estimating take based
on modeled exposures among pinnipeds to sounds associated with the
proposed activities. These data suggest that pinniped reactions to
sonic booms are dependent on the species and the intensity of the sonic
boom (Table 3).
As described above, data from launch monitoring by the USAF on the
NCI and at VAFB have shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are
correlated to the level of the sonic boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0
psf) have typically resulted in little to no behavioral responses,
including head raising and briefly alerting but returning to normal
behavior shortly after the stimulus. More powerful sonic booms have
sometimes resulted in animals flushing from haulouts (but not resulted
in any mortality or sustained decreased in numbers after the stimulus).
Table 3 presents a summary of monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999
to 2017. These data show that reactions to sonic booms tend to be
insignificant below 1.0 psf and that, even above 1.0 psf, only a
portion of the animals present react to the sonic boom. Therefore, for
the purposes of estimating the extent of take that is likely to occur
as a result of the proposed activities, we conservatively assume that
Level B harassment may occur when a pinniped (on land) is exposed to a
sonic boom at or above 1.0 psf. Thus, the number of expected takes by
Level B harassment is based on estimates of the numbers of animals that
would be within the areas exposed to sonic booms at levels at or above
1.0 psf.
The data recorded by USAF at VAFB and the NCI over the past 20
years has also shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms vary
between species. As described above, little or no reaction has been
observed in northern fur seals and northern elephant seals when
overpressures were below 1.0 psf. At the NCI harbor seals have reacted
more strongly to sonic booms than most other species. Sea lions also
appear to be somewhat more sensitive to sonic booms than some of the
other pinniped species, sometimes startling and flushing. Northern fur
seals generally show little or no reaction, and northern elephant seals
generally exhibit no reaction at all, except perhaps a heads-up
response or some stirring, especially if sea lions in the same area
mingled with the elephant seals react strongly to the boom. No data is
available on Steller sea lion or Guadalupe fur seal responses to sonic
booms.
Ensonified Area
As described above, modeling was performed to estimate overpressure
levels that would be created during the return flight of the Falcon 9
First Stage. Previous acoustic modeling underestimated the near-field
overpressures from sonic booms so SpaceX used actual observations from
past Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and landing events. SpaceX and the
USAF developed new estimates to better predict the potential
overpressures from sonic booms resulting from Falcon 9 First Stage
boost-back and landing events. The highest modeled overpressure on the
mainland (at or near VAFB and Point Conception) was between 1 and 8.5
psf at SLC-4W. However, the overpressure at known pinniped haulout
sites on VAFB would likely be closer to 1 to 3 psf (Figure 6-1 in the
IHA application). SpaceX used the Wyle model to predict the far-field
sonic boom contours from sonic booms
[[Page 57445]]
produced by boost-back and landing events of Falcon 9 First Stage
rockets with light and heavy payloads (Figures 2-4 and 2-5 in the IHA
application). With a heavy payload, Wyle predicted that a boost-back
and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce a sonic
boom with overpressures up to 3.1 psf on the northern coast of San
Miguel Island (Figure 2-5 in the IHA application). The Wyle model for a
heavy payload (Figure 205 in the IHA application) shows a sonic boom
with overpressure above 1.0 psf will only impact San Miguel Island,
with no sonic booms over 1.0 psf impacting the other NCI. Therefore,
takes are estimated based on only the animals hauled out at San Miguel
Island and the mainland (VAFB and Point Conception).
As stated in the ``Description of Proposed Activity'' section
above, no takes are anticipated for landings of Falcon 9 First Stage
rockets at either of the two contingency landing sites. Estimated takes
are therefore based on the possibility of boost-back and landing
activities occurring at SLC-4W.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations. Data collected from marine mammal surveys, including
monthly marine mammal surveys conducted by the USAF at VAFB (beginning
in 1993) as well as data collected by NMFS, represent the best
available information on the occurrence of the six pinniped species
expected to occur in the project area. The quality and amount of
information available on pinnipeds in the project area varies depending
on species. California sea lions, Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and
northern elephant seals are regularly observed at known haulouts during
monthly surveys at VAFB (CEMML 2018). Data on pinniped numbers at the
NCI is limited as surveys are not conducted as frequently. However, the
best available data was used to estimate take numbers. Take estimates
for all species are shown in Table 7.
Harbor Seal--Pacific harbor seals are the most common marine mammal
inhabiting VAFB, congregating on several rocky haulout sites along the
VAFB coastline. They also haul out, breed, and pup in isolated beaches
and coves throughout the coasts of the NCI. Harbor seals may be exposed
to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on the mainland and San Miguel Island.
Take of harbor seals at VAFB was estimated based on the maximum count
totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites in 2017 (USAF, 2017).
Take of harbor seals at San Miguel Island and at Point Conception was
estimated based on the maximum count totals from aerial survey data
collected from 2002 to 2012 by the NMFS SWFSC (M. Lowry, NMFS SWFSC,
unpubl. data).
California sea lion--California sea lions are common offshore of
VAFB and haul out on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB,
though pupping rarely occurs on the VAFB coastline. They haul out in
large numbers on the NCI and rookeries exist on San Miguel and Santa
Cruz islands. California sea lions may be exposed to sonic booms above
1.0 psf on the mainland and San Miguel Island. Take of California sea
lions at VAFB was estimated based on the maximum count totals from
monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites in 2017 (USAF, 2017). Take of
California sea lions at San Miguel Island was estimated based on the
maximum count totals from aerial survey data collected from 2002 to
2012 by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) (M. Lowry,
NMFS SWFSC, unpubl. data).
Steller Sea Lion--Steller sea lions occur in small numbers at VAFB
and on San Miguel Island. They do not currently have rookeries at VAFB
or the NCI. Steller sea lions may be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0
psf on the mainland and San Miguel Island. Take of Steller sea lions at
VAFB was estimated based on the largest count totals from monthly
surveys of VAFB haulout sites in 2017 (USAF, 2017). Steller sea lions
haul out in very small numbers on San Miguel Island, and comprehensive
survey data for Steller sea lions in the NCI is not available. Take of
Steller sea lions on San Miguel Island was estimated based on subject
matter expert input suggesting that as many as four Steller sea lions
have been observed on San Miguel Island at a time (pers. comm., S.
Melin, NMFS Marine Mammal Laboratory (MML), to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb
11, 2016).
Northern elephant seal--Northern elephant seals haul out
sporadically on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB and at
Point Conception and have rookeries on San Miguel Island and Santa Rosa
Island and at one location at VAFB. Northern elephant seals may be
exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on the mainland and San Miguel
Island. Take of northern elephant seals at VAFB was estimated based on
the largest count totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites in
2017 (USAF, 2017). Take of northern elephant seals on San Miguel Island
and at Point Conception was estimated based on the maximum count totals
from aerial survey data collected from 2002 to 2012 by the NMFS
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) (M. Lowry, NMFS SWFSC,
unpubl. data).
Northern fur seal--Northern fur seals have rookeries on San Miguel
Island, the only island in the NCI on which they have been observed. No
haulouts or rookeries exist for northern fur seals on the mainland
coast, including VAFB, thus they may be exposed to sonic booms above
1.0 psf on San Miguel Island but not on the mainland. Comprehensive
survey data for northern fur seals in the project area is not
available. Estimated take of northern fur seals was based on subject
matter expert input which suggested a maximum of approximately 6,000-
8,000 northern fur seals may be present on San Miguel Island at the
height of breeding/pupping season (early July). After the height of the
breeding/pupping season, numbers fluctuate but decrease as females go
on foraging trips and males begin to migrate in late July/August.
Numbers continue to decrease until November when most of the population
is absent from the island until the following breeding/pupping period
(starting the following June) (pers. comm., T. Orr, NMFS NMML, to J.
Carduner, NMFS OPR, February 27, 2016). It was therefore conservatively
estimated that numbers peak at 8,000 animals hauled out at any given
time in July and decrease to a minimum of 2,000 animals hauled out at
any given time in the winter, then increase again until the following
July. This results in an average estimate of 5,000 northern fur seals
hauled out at San Miguel Island at any given time over the course of
the entire year.
Guadalupe fur seal--There are estimated to be approximately 20-25
individual Guadalupe fur seals that have fidelity to San Miguel Island
(pers. comm. S. Mellin, NMFS NMML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR, February
11, 2016). No haulouts or rookeries exist for Guadalupe fur seals on
the mainland coast, including VAFB, thus they may be exposed to sonic
booms above 1.0 psf at the NCI but not on the mainland. Comprehensive
survey data on Guadalupe fur seals in the project area is not
available. Estimated take of Guadalupe fur seals was based on the
maximum number of Guadalupe fur seals observed at any one time on San
Miguel Island (13) (pers. comm., J. LaBonte, ManTech SRS Technologies
Inc., to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb. 29, 2016); it was therefore
conservatively assumed that 13 Guadalupe fur seals may be hauled out at
San Miguel Island at any given time.
[[Page 57446]]
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
NMFS currently uses a three-tiered scale to determine whether the
response of a pinniped on land to acoustic or visual stimuli is
considered an alert, a movement, or a flush. NMFS considers the
behaviors that meet the definitions of both movements and flushes to
qualify as behavioral harassment. Thus a pinniped on land is considered
by NMFS to have been behaviorally harassed if it moves greater than two
times its body length, or if the animal is already moving and changes
direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushes from land into the
water. Animals that become alert without such movements are not
considered harassed. See Table 4 for a summary of the pinniped
disturbance scale.
Table 4--Levels of Pinniped Behavioral Disturbance on Land
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characterized as behavioral
Level Type of response Definition harassment by NMFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................... Alert....................... Seal head orientation or No.
brief movement in response
to disturbance, which may
include turning head towards
the disturbance, craning
head and neck while holding
the body rigid in a u-shaped
position, changing from a
lying to a sitting position,
or brief movement of less
than twice the animal's body
length.
2..................... Movement.................... Movements away from the Yes.
source of disturbance,
ranging from short
withdrawals at least twice
the animal's body length to
longer retreats over the
beach, or if already moving
a change of direction of
greater than 90 degrees.
3..................... Flush....................... All retreats (flushes) to the Yes.
water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If issued, this would be the second IHA issued to SpaceX for the
proposed activity. SpaceX did not perform any Falcon 9 boost-back and
landing activities that resulted in return flights to VAFB nor that
generated sonic booms that impacted the NCI. SpaceX did perform boost-
back and landing activities at a contingency landing location located
offshore during the period of validity for the prior IHA, however the
contingency landing location was located so far offshore that there
were no impacts predicted to marine mammals by sonic boom modeling,
thus marine mammal monitoring was not required. Therefore, we have no
activity-specific monitoring data to inform take estimates. NMFS relies
on the past monitoring data presented in Table 3 to estimate takes.
Take estimates were calculated by overlaying the modeled acoustic
footprints of sonic booms from boost-back and landing events at SLC-4W
with known pinniped haulouts on the mainland (including those at VAFB)
and the NCI to determine the pinniped haulouts that would potentially
be affected by sonic booms with overpressures of 1.0 psf and above.
Only haulouts along northeastern San Miguel Island would be expected to
experience overpressures greater than 1.0 psf during a boost-back and
landing at SLC-4W (Figure 2-5 in the IHA application). Take estimates
also account for the likely intensity of the sonic boom as well as the
relative sensitivity of the marine mammal species present, based on
monitoring data as described above.
As described above, the likelihood of pinnipeds exhibiting
responses to sonic booms that would be considered behavioral harassment
(based on the levels of pinniped disturbance as shown in Table 4) is
dependent on both the species and on the intensity of the sonic boom.
Data from rocket launch monitoring by the USAF at VAFB and the NCI show
that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated to the level of
the sonic boom, with low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) typically
resulting in little to no behavioral responses, and higher energy sonic
booms resulting in responses ranging from no response to heads-up
alerts, startle responses, some movements on land, and some movements
into the water (flushing). Based on model results, a boost-back and
landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce a sonic
boom with greater intensity at VAFB (overpressures potentially as high
as 8.5 psf) than at San Miguel Island (overpressures potentially as
high as 3.1 psf). Responses of pinnipeds to sonic booms are also highly
dependent on species, with harbor seals, California sea lions and
Steller sea lions generally displaying greater sensitivity to sonic
booms than northern elephant seals and northern fur seals (Table 3). We
are not aware of any data on Guadalupe fur seal responses to sonic
booms, but we assume responses by Guadalupe fur seal responses to be
similar to those observed in northern fur seals as the two species are
physiologically and behaviorally very similar.
In their application, SpaceX assumed that all of the California sea
lions, harbor seals, northern elephant seals, Steller sea lions,
northern fur seals, and Guadalupe fur seals at or near VAFB and Point
Conception would be behaviorally harassed by a sonic boom over 1.0 psf
resulting from a Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and landing at SLC-4W.
SpaceX also estimated that 5 percent of northern elephant seals,
northern fur seals, and Guadalupe fur seals and 100 percent of
California sea lions, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions hauled out in
the NCI would be behaviorally harassed by a sonic boom over 1.0 psf.
However, after reviewing the monitoring information presented in Table
3, NMFS has determined that assuming 100 percent of California sea
lions, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions would be behaviorally
harassed is an overestimate. Therefore, NMFS has determined that
assuming only a fraction of marine mammals exposed to sonic booms over
1.0 psf will be behaviorally harassed represents a more realistic
estimate.
NMFS assumes that the minimum sonic boom overpressure with the
potential to result in behavioral harassment of pinnipeds is 1.0 psf.
However, sonic booms with higher overpressures may result in a higher
proportion of exposed animals reacting to the sound. Modeling indicates
that the maximum overpressure from a sonic boom resulting from a Falcon
9 First Stage boost-back and landing at SLC-4W is likely to be greater
at VAFB and Point Conception than at the NCI (Figures 2-2, 2-4, and 2-5
in the IHA application). Thus, based on previous monitoring data (Table
3), the proportion of animals responding to the sonic boom is likely to
be greater at VAFB and Point Conception than at the NCI. Therefore, a
boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W that
results in a sonic boom of
[[Page 57447]]
1.0 psf and above at VAFB was conservatively estimated to result in
behavioral harassment of 75 percent of harbor seals hauled out at or
near VAFB and Point Conception. A sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at
the NCI was conservatively estimated to result in behavioral harassment
of 50 percent of harbor seals at San Miguel Island. A sonic boom of 1.0
psf and above at VAFB was conservatively estimated to result in
behavioral harassment of 15 percent of northern elephant seals hauled
out at or near VAFB and Point Conception while a sonic boom of 1.0 psf
and above at the NCI was conservatively estimated to result in
behavioral harassment of 5 percent of northern elephant seals hauled
out at San Miguel Island. A sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at VAFB was
conservatively estimated to result in behavioral harassment of 50
percent of California sea lions and Steller sea lions hauled out at or
near VAFB while a sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at the NCI was
conservatively estimated to result in behavioral harassment of 25
percent of California and Steller sea lions hauled out at San Miguel
Island. A sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at the NCI was conservatively
estimated to result in behavioral harassment of 5 percent of northern
fur seals and Guadalupe fur seals.
In their application, SpaceX conservatively assumed 12 landings
would occur at SLC-4W. SpaceX modeled sonic booms resulting from
rockets with both heavy and light payloads. Modeling of sonic boom
contours indicates that light payloads do not create sonic booms with
overpressures above 1.0 psf that would impact the NCI. Only heavy
payloads have the potential to create sonic booms with overpressures
above 1.0 psf along the northern coast of San Miguel Island. SpaceX
indicated that of the up to 12 Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and
landing events, up to six would be from a light payload and up to six
would be from a heavy payload (pers. comm., M. Thompson, SpaceX, to A.
Fowler, NMFS, Oct. 11, 2018). Therefore, to determine the estimated
number of marine mammals that could be exposed to a sonic boom over 1.0
psf, the number of boost-back and landing events that could impact each
location (12 for the mainland and 6 for the NCI) was multiplied by the
number of animals likely to respond.
The take calculations presented in Table 5 are based on the best
available information on marine mammal populations in the project
location and responses among marine mammals to the stimuli associated
with the proposed activities and are considered conservative.
Table 5--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals, and Percentage of Marine Mammal Populations, Potentially Taken as a Result of the Proposed Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takes per
Number at Correction event after Number of Total takes Percent of
Species Location location factor correction events at per Total takes stock
factor location location
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Harbor Seal................. VAFB \a\............... 197 0.75 147.75 12 1,773 7,347 \e\ 3.30
Pt. Conception \b\..... 516 0.75 387 12 4,644 ........... ...........
San Miguel Island \b\.. 310 0.5 155 6 930 ........... ...........
California Sea Lion................. VAFB \a\............... 68 0.5 34 12 408 3,609 1.40
Pt. Conception \b\..... 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 ........... ...........
San Miguel Island \b\.. 2,134 0.25 533.5 6 3,201 ........... ...........
Northern Elephant Seal.............. VAFB \a\............... 225 0.15 33.75 12 405 430.2 0.24
Pt. Conception \b\..... 11 0.15 1.65 12 19.8 ........... ...........
San Miguel Island \b\.. 18 0.05 0.9 6 5.4 ........... ...........
Steller Sea Lion.................... VAFB \a\............... 11 0.5 5.5 12 66 72 0.17
Pt. Conception \b\..... 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 ........... ...........
San Miguel Island \b\.. 4 0.25 1 6 6 ........... ...........
Northern Fur Seal................... VAFB \a\............... 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 1,500 10.7
Pt. Conception \b\..... 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 ........... ...........
San Miguel Island \c\.. 5,000 0.05 250 6 1,500 ........... ...........
Guadalupe Fur Seal.................. VAFB \a\............... 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 3.9 0.02
Pt. Conception \b\..... 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 ........... ...........
San Miguel Island \d\.. 13 0.05 0.65 6 3.9 ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ VAFB monthly marine mammal survey data 2017 (USAF, 2017).
\b\ Lowry (2017b).
\c\ Testa (2013, 2018); USAF (2013); pers. comm., T. Orr, NMFS NMML, to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb 27, 2016.
\d\ DeLong and Melin (2000); J. Harris, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm.
\e\ As the same individual harbor seals at are likely to be taken repeatedly over the course of the specified activities, we use the estimate of 1,023
individual animals taken per Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activity for the purposes of estimating the percentage of stock abundance likely to be
taken over the course of the entire activity.
Take estimates are believed to be conservative based on the
assumption that all twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recovery actions would
result in landings at SLC-4W, with no landings occurring at the
contingency barge landing location. However, some or all actual landing
events may ultimately occur at the contingency landing location or
within the Iridium Landing Area; as described above, landings at the
contingency landing location or within the Iridium Landing Area would
be expected to result in no takes of marine mammals. However, the
number of landings at each location is not known in advance, therefore
we assume all landings would occur at SLC-4W. In addition, as described
above, it is conservatively assumed that a fraction of marine mammals
hauled out at VAFB, Point Conception, and San Miguel Island would be
harassed (Level B harassment only) by a Falcon 9 boost-back and landing
events at SLC-4W that result in a psf of <1.0. However, it is possible
that a smaller number of hauled out pinnipeds will be behaviorally
harassed by a Falcon 9 boost-back and landing at SLC-4W. While there
may be some limited behavioral harassment of pinnipeds that occurs at
psf levels <1.0, we account for that in the overall conservativeness of
the total take number, as described above.
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types
of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to
estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular
distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of
sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to
[[Page 57448]]
characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected
marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number
of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when
duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take
estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. For
instance, an individual animal may accrue a number of incidences of
harassment over the duration of a project, as opposed to each incident
of harassment accruing to a new individual. This is especially likely
if individual animals display some degree of residency or site fidelity
and the impetus to use the site is stronger than the deterrence
presented by the harassing activity.
Take estimates shown in Table 5 are considered reasonable estimates
of the number of instances of marine mammal exposures to sound
resulting in Level B harassment that are likely to occur as a result of
the proposed activities, and not necessarily the number of individual
animals exposed.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable 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 (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
SpaceX's IHA application contains descriptions of the mitigation
measures proposed to be implemented during the specified activities in
order to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected
marine mammal species and stocks and their habitats.
It should be noted that it would not be feasible to stop or divert
an inbound Falcon 9 First Stage booster. Once the boost-back and
landing sequence is underway, there would be no way for SpaceX to
change the trajectory of the Falcon 9 First Stage to avoid potential
impacts to marine mammals. The proposed mitigation measures include the
following:
Unless constrained by other factors including human safety
or national security concerns (as determined by the USAF), launches
would be scheduled to avoid boost-backs and landings during the harbor
seal pupping season of March through June, when practicable.
Based on our evaluation of SpaceX's proposed mitigation measures,
NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) 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
authorizations 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 in the
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring
SpaceX submitted a monitoring plan as part of their IHA
application. SpaceX's proposed marine mammal monitoring plan was
created with input from NMFS and was based on similar plans that have
been successfully implemented by other action proponents under previous
authorizations for similar projects, specifically the USAF's monitoring
of rocket launches from VAFB. The plan may be modified or supplemented
based on comments or new information received from the public during
the public comment period.
Marine Mammal Monitoring
SpaceX would determine a monitoring location for each boost-back
and landing activity, taking into consideration predictions of the
areas likely to receive the greatest sonic boom
[[Page 57449]]
intensity as well as current haulout locations and the distribution of
pinniped species and their behavior. The selection of the monitoring
location would also be based on what species (if any) have pups at
haulouts and which of those species would be expected to be the most
reactive to sonic booms. SpaceX prioritizes the selection of rookery
locations if they are expected to be impacted by a sonic boom and
prioritizes the most reactive species if there are multiple species
that are expected to be hauled out in the modeled sonic boom impact
area. For instance, if harbor seals were pupping, SpaceX would select a
harbor seal rookery for monitoring because they tend to be the most
reactive species to sonic booms. There is also thought given to the
geography and wind exposure of the specific beaches that are predicted
to be impacted, to avoid inadvertently selecting a portion of a beach
that tends to be abandoned by pinnipeds every afternoon as a result
high winds. As VAFB is an active military base, the selection of
appropriate monitoring locations must also take into account security
restrictions and human safety as unexploded ordnance is present in some
areas.
Marine mammal monitoring protocols would vary based on modeled
sonic boom intensity, the location, and the season. As described above,
sonic boom modeling would be performed prior to all boost-back and
landing activities. Although the same rockets would be used, other
parameters specific to each launch would be incorporated into each
model. These include direction and trajectory, weight, length, engine
thrust, engine plume drag, position versus time from initiating boost-
back to additional engine burns, among other aspects. Various weather
scenarios would be analyzed from NOAA weather records for the region,
then run through the model. Among other factors, these would include
the presence or absence of the jet stream, and if present, its
direction, altitude and velocity. The type, altitude, and density of
clouds would also be considered. From these data, the models would
predict peak amplitudes and impact locations. As described above,
impacts to pinnipeds on the NCI, including pups, have been shown
through more than two decades of monitoring reports to be minimal and
temporary (MMCG and SAIC 2012a). Therefore monitoring requirements at
the NCI would be dependent on modeled sonic boom intensity and would be
based on the harbor seal pupping season, such that monitoring
requirements would be greater when pups would be expected to be
present. At the height of the pupping season (between March 1 and June
30) monitoring is required if sonic boom model results indicate a peak
overpressure of 2.0 psf or greater is likely to impact the NCI. Between
July 1 and September 30 monitoring is required if sonic boom model
results indicate a peak overpressure of 3.0 psf or greater is likely to
impact the NCI. Between October 1 and February 28, monitoring is
required if sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of
4.0 psf or greater is likely to impact the NCI.
Marine mammal monitoring procedures would consist of the following:
To conduct monitoring of Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back
and landing activities, SpaceX would designate qualified, on-site
observers that would be approved in advance by NMFS;
If sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure
of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then acoustic and
biological monitoring at VAFB would be implemented. Monitoring would be
conducted at the haulout site closest to the predicted sonic boom
impact area that can be safely accessed by observers;
If sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure
of 2.0 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI between March
1 and June 30; a peak overpressure of greater than 3.0 psf is likely to
impact one of the NCI between July 1 and September 30, or a peak
overpressure of greater than 4.0 psf is likely to impact one of the NCI
between October 1 and February 28, then monitoring of haulout sites on
the NCI would be implemented. Monitoring would be conducted at the
haulout site closest to the predicted sonic boom impact area;
Monitoring would commence at least 72 hours prior to the
boost-back and continue until at least 48 hours after the event;
Monitoring would include multiple surveys each day that
record the species; number of animals; general behavior; presence of
pups; age class; gender; and reaction to noise associated with Falcon 9
First Stage recovery activities, sonic booms or other natural or human
caused disturbances, in addition to recording environmental conditions
such as tide, wind speed, air temperature, and swell;
If the boost-back and landing is scheduled during
daylight, time lapse photography or video recording would be used to
document the behavior of marine mammals during Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities;
For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities scheduled
during harbor seal pupping season (March through June), follow-up
surveys would be conducted within two weeks of the boost-back and
landing; and
New northern elephant seal pupping location(s) at VAFB
would be prioritized for monitoring when landings occur at SLC-4W
during northern elephant seal pupping season (January through February)
when practicable.
Acoustic Monitoring
Acoustic measurements of the sonic boom created during boost-back
at the monitoring location would be recorded to determine the
overpressure level. Typically this would entail use of a digital audio
tape (DAT) recorder and a high quality microphone to monitor the sound
environment and measure the sonic boom. This system would be specially
tailored for recording the low frequency sound associated with rocket
launches and sonic booms. The DAT system would record the launch noise
and sonic boom digitally to tape, which would allow for detailed
post[hyphen]analysis of the frequency content, and the calculation of
other acoustic metrics, and would record the ambient noise and sonic
boom. The DAT recorder would be placed near the marine mammal
monitoring site when practicable.
Proposed Reporting
SpaceX would report data collected during marine mammal monitoring
and acoustic monitoring as described above. The monitoring report would
include a description of project related activities, counts of marine
mammals by species, sex and age class, a summary of marine mammal
species/count data, and a summary of observed marine mammal responses
to project-related activities.
A launch monitoring report would be submitted by SpaceX to the NMFS
Office of Protected Resources within 60 days after each Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery action. This report would contain information on the
date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action, the
design of the monitoring program; and results of the monitoring
program, including, but not necessarily limited to the following:
Numbers of pinnipeds present on the monitored haulout
prior to the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery;
Numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed (based on
observations of pinniped responses and the pinniped disturbance scale
as shown in Table 3);
[[Page 57450]]
The length of time pinnipeds remained off the haulout or
rookery for pinnipeds estimated to have entered the water as a result
of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise;
Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds
that were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities, including sonic boom; and
Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of
modeled sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.
In addition, a final monitoring report would be submitted by SpaceX
to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. A draft of the report would
be submitted within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, or, within 45
days of the requested renewal of the IHA (if applicable). A final
version of the report would be submitted within 30 days following
resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. The report would
summarize the information from the 60-day post-activity reports (as
described above), including but not necessarily limited to the
following:
Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
actions;
Design of the monitoring program; and
Results of the monitoring program, including the
information components contained in the 60-day launch reports, as well
as any documented cumulative impacts on marine mammals as a result of
the activities, such as long term reductions in the number of pinnipeds
at haulouts as a result of the activities.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not authorized by the
proposed IHA (if issued), such as a Level A harassment, or a take of a
marine mammal species other than those proposed for authorization,
SpaceX would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately
report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. The
report would include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities in
the 48 hours preceding the incident;
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 48
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with SpaceX to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SpaceX would not be able to
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition), SpaceX would immediately report the
incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS West
Coast Region Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same
information identified in the paragraph above. Authorized activities
would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS would work with SpaceX to determine whether
modifications in the activities are appropriate.
In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), SpaceX would report the incident
to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and NMFS West Coast Region
Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. SpaceX would
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact 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 (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all
the species listed in Table 1, given that the anticipated effects of
this activity on these different marine mammal species are expected to
be similar. Activities associated with the proposed Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery activities, as outlined previously, have the potential
to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified
activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment
(behavioral disturbance) only, from airborne sounds of sonic booms.
Potential takes could occur if marine mammals are hauled out in areas
where a sonic boom above 1.0 psf occurs, which is considered likely
given the modeled sonic booms of the proposed activities and the
occurrence of pinnipeds in the project area. Based on the best
available information, including monitoring reports from similar
activities that have been authorized by NMFS, behavioral responses will
likely be limited to reactions such as alerting to the noise, with some
animals possibly moving toward or entering the water, depending on the
species and the intensity of the sonic boom. Repeated exposures of
individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are
unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt
foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small
subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant
realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus would not
result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B
harassment would be reduced to the level of least practicable impact
through use of mitigation measures described above.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed),
the
[[Page 57451]]
response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and
is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if
a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the
stock or species could potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Flushing of pinnipeds into the water has
the potential to result in mother-pup separation, or could result in a
stampede, either of which could potentially result in serious injury or
mortality and thereby could potentially impact the stock or species.
However, based on the best available information, including reports
from over 20 years of launch monitoring at VAFB and the NCI, no serious
injury or mortality of marine mammals is anticipated as a result of the
proposed activities.
Even in the instances of pinnipeds being behaviorally disturbed by
sonic booms from rocket launches at VAFB, no evidence has been
presented of abnormal behavior, injuries or mortalities, or pup
abandonment as a result of sonic booms (SAIC 2013). These findings came
as a result of more than two decades of surveys at VAFB and the NCI
(MMCG and SAIC, 2012). Post-launch monitoring generally reveals a
return to normal behavioral patterns within minutes up to an hour or
two of each launch, regardless of species. For instance, a total of
eight Delta II and Taurus space vehicle launches occurred from north
VAFB, near the Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout sites, from
February, 2009 through February, 2014. Of these eight launches, three
occurred during the harbor seal pupping season. The continued use by
harbor seals of the Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout sites
indicates that it is unlikely that these rocket launches (and
associated sonic booms) resulted in long-term disturbances of pinnipeds
using the haulout sites. San Miguel Island represents the most
important pinniped rookery in the continental United States, and as
such extensive research has been conducted there for decades. From this
research, as well as stock assessment reports, it is clear that VAFB
operations (including associated sonic booms) have not had any
significant impacts on San Miguel Island rookeries and haulouts (SAIC
2012).
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No injury, serious injury, or mortality are anticipated or
authorized;
The anticipated incidences of Level B harassment are
expected to consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior
(i.e., short distance movements and occasional flushing into the water
with return to haulouts shortly after disturbance), which are not
expected to adversely affect the fitness of any individuals;
The proposed activities are expected to result in no long-
term changes in the use by pinnipeds of rookeries and haulouts in the
project area, based on over 20 years of monitoring data; and
The presumed efficacy of planned mitigation measures in
reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least
practicable impact.
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 proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative
factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or
spatial scale of the activities.
The numbers of proposed authorized takes are considered small
relative to the relevant stocks or populations (less than 11 percent
for all species and stocks). It is important to note that the number of
expected takes does not necessarily represent the number of individual
animals expected to be taken. Our small numbers analysis accounts for
this fact. Multiple exposures to Level B harassment can accrue to the
same individual animals over the course of an activity that occurs
multiple times in the same area (such as SpaceX's proposed activity).
This is especially likely in the case of species that have limited
ranges and that have site fidelity to a location within the project
area, as is the case with Pacific harbor seals.
As described above, harbor seals are non-migratory, rarely
traveling more than 50 km from their haulout sites. Thus, while the
estimated abundance of the California stock of Pacific harbor seals is
30,968 (Carretta et al. 2017), a substantially smaller number of
individual harbor seals is likely to occur within the project area. We
expect that, because of harbor seals' documented site fidelity to
haulout locations at VAFB and the NCI, and because of their limited
ranges, the same individuals are likely to be taken repeatedly over the
course of the proposed activities (maximum of twelve Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery actions). Therefore, the proposed number of instances of
Level B harassment among harbor seals over the course of the proposed
authorization (i.e., the total number of takes shown in Table 5) is
expected to accrue to a much smaller number of individuals encompassing
a small portion of the overall regional stock. Thus while we propose to
authorize the instances of incidental take of harbor seals shown in
Table 5, we believe that the number of individual harbor seals that
would be incidentally taken by the proposed activities would, in fact,
be substantially lower than this number. The maximum number of harbor
seals expected to be taken by Level B harassment, per Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery action, is 1,023. As we believe the same individuals are
likely to be taken repeatedly over the duration of the proposed
activities, we use the estimate of 1,023 individual animals taken per
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activity for the purposes of estimating
the percentage of the stock abundance likely to be taken.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size
of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
[[Page 57452]]
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally when we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
There is one marine mammal species (Guadalupe fur seal) listed
under the ESA with confirmed occurrence in the area expected to be
impacted by the proposed activities. The Permits and Conservation
Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the
West Coast Region Protected Resources Division Office for the issuance
of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching
a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to SpaceX for conducting Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base, in the Pacific Ocean offshore
Vandenberg Air Force Base, and at the Northern Channel Islands,
California, for one year from the date of issuance, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The
wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA
(if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for one
year from the date of issuance.
(a) This IHA is valid only for Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, and at auxiliary
landing sites offshore.
2. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of SpaceX, its
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of
this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are the Pacific harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina richardii), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern
elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), northern fur seal (Callorhinus
ursinus), and Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus philippii townsendi).
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species listed in condition 2(b). See Table 5 for numbers of take
authorized.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or
death of any of the species listed in condition 2(b) of the
Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is
prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this IHA.
3. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization must implement the following
mitigation measure: Unless constrained by other factors including human
safety or national security concerns, launches must be scheduled to
avoid, whenever possible, boost-backs and landings during the harbor
seal pupping season of March through June.
4. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization must conduct marine mammal and
acoustic monitoring as described below.
(a) To conduct monitoring of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities, SpaceX must designate qualified, on-site individuals
approved in advance by NMFS;
(b) If sonic boom model results indicate that a peak overpressure
of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then acoustic and
biological monitoring at VAFB must be implemented. Monitoring must be
conducted at the haulout site closest to the predicted sonic boom
impact area that can be safely accessed by observers;
(c) If sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0
psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB during January and February,
then acoustic and biological monitoring must be implemented at northern
elephant seal rookeries at VAFB, when practicable;
(d) If sonic boom model results indicate that a peak overpressure
of 2.0 psf or greater is predicted to impact the Channel Islands
between March 1 and June 30, greater than 3.0 psf between July 1 and
September 30, and greater than 4.0 psf between October 1 and February
28, monitoring of haulout sites on the Channel Islands must be
implemented. Monitoring must be conducted at the haulout site closest
to the predicted sonic boom impact area that can be safely accessed by
observers;
(e) Monitoring must be conducted for at least 72 hours prior to any
planned Falcon 9 First Stage recovery and continue until at least 48
hours after the event;
(f) For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities that occur during
March through June, follow-up surveys of harbor seal haulouts must be
conducted within two weeks of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery;
(g) If Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities are scheduled
during daylight, time-lapse photography or video recording must be used
to document the behavior of marine mammals during Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities;
(h) Monitoring must include multiple surveys each day that record
the species, number of animals, general behavior, presence of pups, age
class, gender and reaction to noise associated with Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery, sonic booms or other natural or human caused
disturbances, in addition to recording environmental conditions such as
tide, wind speed, air temperature, and swell; and
(i) Acoustic measurements of the sonic boom created during boost-
back at the monitoring location must be recorded to determine the
overpressure level.
5. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a report to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
within 60 days after each Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action. This
report must contain the following information:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
action;
(2) Design of the monitoring program; and
(3) Results of the monitoring program, including, but not
necessarily limited to:
(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to the Falcon
9 First Stage recovery;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed as a result
of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities;
(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have been harassed as a result of
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise, the length of time pinnipeds
remained off the haulout or rookery;
(iv) Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that
were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities,
including sonic boom; and
(v) Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of modeled
sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.
(b) Submit an annual report on all monitoring conducted under the
IHA. A draft of the annual report must be submitted within 90 calendar
days of the expiration of this IHA, or, within 45 calendar days of the
requested renewal of the IHA (if applicable). A final annual report
must be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of
comments on the draft report from
[[Page 57453]]
NMFS. The annual report will summarize the information from the 60-day
post-activity reports, including but not necessarily limited to:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
action;
(2) Design of the monitoring program; and
(3) Results of the monitoring program, including, but not
necessarily limited to:
(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to the Falcon
9 First Stage recovery;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds estimated to have been harassed as a
result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities at the monitoring
location;
(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have been harassed as a result of
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise, the length of time pinnipeds
remained off the haulout or rookery;
(iv) Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that
were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities,
including sonic boom;
(v) Any cumulative impacts on marine mammals as a result of the
activities, such as long term reductions in the number of pinnipeds at
haulouts as a result of the activities; and
(vi) Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of
modeled sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.
(c) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA
(as determined by the lead marine mammal observer), such as an injury
(Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, SpaceX must
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to
the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS West Coast Region
Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following
information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities in the 48
hours preceding the incident;
D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 48 hours
preceding the incident;
E. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
F. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
G. Fate of the animal(s); and
H. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities may not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with SpaceX to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SpaceX may not
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
(2) In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less
than a moderate state of decomposition), SpaceX must immediately report
the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS
West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the
same information identified in 5(c)(1) of this IHA. Activities may
continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident and makes
a final determination on the cause of the reported injury or death.
NMFS will work with SpaceX to determine whether additional mitigation
measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(3) In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, scavenger damage), SpaceX must report the incident to
the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS West Coast Region
Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. SpaceX must
provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS. The cause of injury or death may be
subject to review and a final determination by NMFS.
6. Modification and suspension
(a) This IHA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder
fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS
determines that the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed boost-
back and landings of Falcon 9 First Stage rockets. We also request
comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described
in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final
decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA
without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section
is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section,
provided all of the following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the
initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed
activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size)
that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates,
or mitigation and monitoring requirements; and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities,
the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate,
and the original findings remain valid.
Dated: November 9, 2018.
Catherine Marzin,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-24977 Filed 11-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P