Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches and Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 321-346 [2019-00090]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(b) * * *
(1)The QHP issuer must comply with
applicable requirements in § 155.221 of
this subchapter.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 14, 2018.
Seema Verma,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Dated: December 18, 2018.
Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2019–00077 Filed 1–17–19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 217
RIN 0648–BI44
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches
and Operations at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, California
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the U.S. Air Force (USAF) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to launching space launch
vehicles, intercontinental ballistic and
small missiles, and aircraft and
helicopter operations at Vandenberg Air
Force Base (VAFB) from March 2019 to
March 2024. As required by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is proposing regulations to govern that
take, and requests comments on the
proposed regulations. NMFS will
consider public comments prior to
making any final decision on the
issuance of the requested incidental take
regulations and agency responses will
be summarized in the final notice of our
decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than February 22,
2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2018–0047,
by any of the following methods:
• Electronic submissions: submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, Go to
www.regulations.gov/
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20180047, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments. Alternately,
electronic comments may be emailed to
ITP.laws@noaa.gov.
• Mail: Submit comments to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–
3225.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender may
be publicly accessible. Do not submit
Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427–
8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of the USAF’s application and
any supporting documents, as well as a
list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case
of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Purpose and Need for Regulatory
Action
This proposed rule would establish a
framework under the authority of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow
for the authorization of take of marine
mammals incidental to launching space
launch vehicles, intercontinental
ballistic and small missiles, and aircraft
and helicopter operations at VAFB.
We received an application from the
USAF requesting the five-year
regulations and authorization to take
marine mammals. Take would occur by
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
321
Level B harassment incidental to launch
noise and sonic booms. Please see
‘‘Background’’ below for definitions of
harassment.
Legal Authority for the Proposed Action
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the
Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region for up to five years
if, after notice and public comment, the
agency makes certain findings and
issues regulations that set forth
permissible methods of taking pursuant
to that activity and other means of
effecting the ‘‘least practicable adverse
impact’’ on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (see the
discussion below in the ‘‘Proposed
Mitigation’’ section), as well as
monitoring and reporting requirements.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and
the implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 216, subpart I, provide the legal
basis for issuing this proposed rule
containing five-year regulations, and for
any subsequent LOAs. As directed by
this legal authority, this proposed rule
contains mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements.
Summary of Major Provisions Within
the Proposed Rule
Following is a summary of the major
provisions of this proposed rule
regarding space launch activities. These
measures include:
• Required acoustic monitoring to
measure the sound levels associated
with the proposed activities.
• Required biological monitoring to
record the presence of marine mammals
during the proposed activities and to
document responses to the proposed
activities.
• Mitigation measures to minimize
harassment of the most sensitive marine
mammal species.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
322
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth.
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’
means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
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 evaluate our
proposed action (i.e., the promulgation
of regulations and subsequent issuance
of incidental take authorization) and
alternatives with respect to potential
impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 of the
Companion Manual for NAO 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 proposed action qualifies to be
categorically excluded from further
NEPA review.
Information in the USAF’s application
and this proposed rule collectively
provide the environmental information
related to proposed issuance of these
regulations and subsequent incidental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
take authorization for public review and
comment. We will review all comments
submitted in response to this proposed
rule prior to concluding our NEPA
process or making a final decision on
the request for incidental take
authorization.
Summary of Request
On August 10, 2018, NMFS received
an application from the USAF, 30th
Space Wing, requesting authorization
for the take of six species of pinnipeds
incidental to launch, aircraft, and
helicopter operations from VAFB
launch complexes. On December 4,
2018, NMFS received a supplement to
the application from USAF that
included a request to include activities
associated with the recovery of Space
Exploration Technologies (SpaceX)
Falcon 9 First Stage rockets in VAFB’s
request. NMFS proposes regulations to
govern the authorization of take
incidental to these activities. On
September 13, 2017 (83 FR 46483), we
published a notice of receipt of the
USAF’s application in the Federal
Register, requesting comments and
information related to the request for
thirty days. We received comments from
the Marine Mammal Commission. The
comments were considered in
development of this proposed rule and
are available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act.
The take of marine mammals
incidental to activities related to the
launching of space launch vehicles and
missiles, and aircraft and helicopter
operations at VAFB, have been
previously authorized by NMFS via
Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued
under current incidental take
regulations, which are effective from
March 26, 2014 through March 26, 2019
(79 FR 10016). To date, we have issued
nine LOAs to USAF for these activities,
under the current and prior incidental
take regulations.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
VAFB contains 7 active missile
launch facilities and 6 active space
launch facilities and supports launch
activities for the U.S. Air Force,
Department of Defense, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration,
and commercial entities. It is the
primary west coast launch facility for
placing commercial, government and
military satellites into polar orbit on
unmanned launch vehicles, and for the
testing and evaluation of
intercontinental ballistic missiles
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(ICBMs) and sub-orbital target and
interceptor missiles. In addition to the
launching of rockets, certain rocket
components are returned to VAFB for
reuse, using in-air ‘‘boost-back’’
maneuvers and landings at the base. In
addition to space vehicle and missile
launch activities at VAFB, occasional
helicopter and aircraft operations occur
at VAFB that involve search-and-rescue,
delivery of space vehicle components,
launch mission support, security
reconnaissance, and training flights. The
use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS,
also known as ‘‘drones’’) also occurs at
VAFB.
The USAF anticipates that no more
than 110 rocket launches and 15 missile
launches would occur in any year
during the period of authorized
activities (Table 1). This number of
launches would represent an increase
compared to historical launch activity at
VAFB, but the USAF anticipates an
increase in the number of launches in
the near future and has based their
estimate of planned rocket launches on
this anticipated increase.
There are six species of marine
mammals that may be affected by the
USAF’s proposed activities: California
sea lion, Steller sea lion, northern fur
seal, Guadalupe fur seal, northern
elephant seal, and harbor seal. Hauled
out pinnipeds may be disturbed by
launch noises and/or sonic booms
(overpressure of high-energy impulsive
sound) from launch vehicles. Aircraft
that are noisy and/or flying at low
altitudes can also have the potential to
disturb hauled out pinnipeds. Pinniped
responses to these stimuli have been
monitored at VAFB for the past 25
years.
Dates and Duration
The activities proposed by USAF
would occur for five years, from March
2019 through March 2024. Activities
would occur year-round throughout the
period of validity for the proposed rule.
Specified Geographical Region
All launches and aircraft activities
would occur at VAFB. The areas
potentially affected by noise from these
activities includes VAFB and the
Northern Channel Islands (NCI). VAFB
occupies approximately 99,100 acres of
land and approximately 42 miles of
coastline in central Santa Barbara
County, California and is divided by the
Santa Ynez River and State Highway
246 into two distinct parts: North Base
and South Base. The NCI are considered
part of the project area for the purposes
of this proposed rule, as rocket launches
and landings at VAFB may result in
sonic booms that impact the NCI. The
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
323
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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
(Harris Point on San Miguel Island) is
located more than 30 nautical miles
south-southeast of the nearest launch
facility.
Rocket and missile launches occur
from several locations on VAFB, on both
North Base and South Base. Please refer
to Figure 2 and Figure 3 in the USAF’s
application for a depiction of launch
locations on VAFB. Rocket landings by
SpaceX would occur at the landing area
on VAFB referred to as Space Launch
Complex (SLC) 4W, located on South
Base, approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8
kilometers (km)) inland from the Pacific
Ocean. 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 (nm) (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 nm (225 km)
southwest of San Nicolas Island (SNI)
and 133 nm (245 km) southwest of San
Clemente Island.
Detailed Description of Specified
Activities
As described above, the USAF has
requested incidental take regulations for
its operations at VAFB, which include
rocket and missile launches, rocket
recovery activities, and aircraft and
helicopter operations. VAFB is
headquarters to the 30th Space Wing,
the Air Force Space Command unit that
operates VAFB and the Western Range.
VAFB operates as a missile test base and
aerospace center, supporting west coast
space launch activities for the USAF,
Department of Defense, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), 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
evaluation of intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBM) and sub-orbital target
and interceptor missiles. In addition to
space vehicle and missile launch
activities at VAFB, helicopter and
aircraft operations are undertaken for
purposes such as search-and-rescue,
delivery of space vehicle components,
launch mission support, security
reconnaissance, and training flights.
From VAFB, space vehicles are
launched into polar orbits on azimuths
from 147 to 201 degrees, with suborbital flights to 281 degrees. Missile
launches are directed west toward
Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific. This
over-water sector, from 147 to 281
degrees, comprises the Western Range.
Part of the Western Range encompasses
the NCI.
Rocket Launch Activities
There are currently six active facilities
at VAFB used to launch satellites into
polar orbit. One existing launch facility
(TP–01), on north VAFB, has not been
used in several years but is being
reactivated. These facilities support
launch programs for the Atlas V, Delta
II, Delta IV, Falcon 9 and Minotaur
rockets. Various booster and fuel
packages can be configured to
accommodate payloads of different sizes
and weights.
Table 1 shows estimates of the
numbers and sizes of rocket launches
from VAFB during calendar years 2019
through 2024. The numbers of
anticipated launches shown in Table 1
are higher than the historical number of
launches that have occurred from
VAFB, and are considered conservative
estimates; the actual number of
launches that occurs in these years may
be lower. However, the USAF
anticipates an increase in the number of
launches by non-commercial entities
from VAFB over the next 5 years and
the numbers shown in Table 1 are based
on this expectation. A large percentage
of this anticipated increase will be
comprised of smaller launch payloads
and rockets than previously utilized at
VAFB.
TABLE 1—PREDICTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ROCKET LAUNCHES IN CALENDAR YEARS 2019 THROUGH 2024 FROM VAFB
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024*
Small rockets ...................................................................................................................
Medium rockets ................................................................................................................
Large rockets ...................................................................................................................
5
10
5
10
15
5
25
20
10
40
20
15
50
30
20
60
30
20
Total launches ..........................................................................................................
20
30
45
75
100
110
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
* The proposed rule would be valid for only 3 months in 2024 (January through March) therefore not all launches in 2024 would be covered
under the proposed rule.
Rocket launches from VAFB have the
potential to result in the harassment of
pinnipeds that are hauled out of the
water as a result of exposure to sound
from launch noise (on VAFB) or as a
result of exposure to sound from sonic
booms (on the NCI only). Based on
several years of monitoring data,
harassment of marine mammals is
unlikely to occur when the intensity of
a sonic boom is below 1.0 pounds per
square foot (psf) (see further discussion
in the ‘‘estimated take’’ section below).
The likelihood of a sonic boom with a
measured psf above 1.0 impacting the
NCI is dependent on the size of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
rocket (i.e., larger rockets are more
likely to result in a sonic boom on the
NCI than smaller rockets). The USAF
estimated that 33 percent of large
rockets, 25 percent of medium sized
rockets, and 10 percent of small sized
rockets would result in sonic booms on
the NCI. The estimated numbers of
sonic booms on the NCI per year from
rocket launches is shown in Table 2;
these numbers are based on the
expected number of launches (Table 1)
and the percentages described above.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED SONIC BOOMS
ABOVE 1.0 psf PER YEAR IMPACTING THE NCI
Year
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
24JAP1
Estimated
sonic
booms per
year *
5
*7
11
14
19
324
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Table 3 shows types of rockets that
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED SONIC BOOMS
ABOVE 1.0 psf PER YEAR IMPACT- are anticipated for launch from VAFB
over the next 5 years and the nearest
ING THE NCI—Continued
Year
Estimated
sonic
booms per
year *
2024 ..........................................
20
* All numbers are calculated based on the
number of each rocket size expected to be
launched in that year (Table 1) and the percentages of each rocket size expected to result in a sonic boom impacting the NCI based
on USAF estimates. The calculated number of
sonic booms in 2020 is 6.4, however we
rounded up to 7 to be conservative.
locations of pinniped haulouts to the
launch locations for those rockets. Other
small rockets may also be launched
from VAFB over the next 5 years but the
exact specifications and launch
locations for those rockets are unknown
at this time.
TABLE 3—ROCKET TYPES LAUNCHED FROM VAFB AND NEAREST LOCATIONS OF PINNIPED HAULOUTS TO LAUNCH
LOCATIONS
Launch
facility
Rocket
Distance to
haulout
Nearest pinniped haulout
Current launch programs
Atlas V ..............................................
Delta II 1 ............................................
Delta IV ............................................
Falcon 9 ...........................................
Minotaur ...........................................
Minotaur/Taurus ...............................
SLC–3E
SLC–2W
SLC–6
SLC–4E
SLC–8
LF–576E
North Rocky Point .....................................................................................
Purisima Point ...........................................................................................
North Rocky Point .....................................................................................
North Rocky Point .....................................................................................
North Rocky Point .....................................................................................
North Spur Road .......................................................................................
9.9
2.3
2.3
8.2
1.6
0.8
km.
km.
km.
km.
km.
km.
Future launch programs 2
Vector ...............................................
Firefly ................................................
New Glenn .......................................
Vulcan ..............................................
TBD ..................................................
SLC–8
SLC–2
TBD
SLC–3E
TP–01
North Rocky Point .....................................................................................
Purisima Point ...........................................................................................
TBD ...........................................................................................................
North Rocky Point .....................................................................................
Purisima Point ...........................................................................................
1.6 km.
2.3 km.
TBD.
9.9 km.
7.6 km.
1 The
2 All
final launch of the Delta II rocket occurred in September 2018, however a new corporate entity has proposed to reutilize SLC–2W.
future launch program specifications should be considered notional and subject to change.
As described above, launch facilities
at VAFB support launch programs for
rockets including the Atlas V, Delta II,
Delta IV, Falcon 9, Minotaur, and
Taurus rockets. Details on these vehicle
types are described below.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
(1) Atlas V
The Atlas V vehicle is launched from
Space Launch Complex-3E on south
VAFB. This Space Launch Complex
(SLC) is approximately 9.9 km (6.2 mi)
from one of the main haulout areas on
VAFB, known as North Rocky Point (see
Figure 2 in the application), which
encompasses several smaller haulouts.
SLC–3E is approximately 11.1 km (6.9
mi) from the closest north VAFB
haulout, known as the Spur Road
haulout site (Figure 3 in the application)
and 13.5 km (8.4 mi) from the next
closest haulout, the nearby Purisima
Point haulout site (Figure 3 in the
application).
The Atlas V is a medium lift vehicle
that can be flown in two series of
configurations—the Atlas V400 series
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
and the Atlas V500 series. Both series
use the Standard Booster as the single
body booster. The V400 series
accommodates a 4.2 m (13.8 ft) payload
fairing (a nose cone used to protect a
spacecraft (launch vehicle payload)
against the impact of dynamic pressure
and aerodynamic heating during launch
through an atmosphere) and as many as
three solid rocket boosters. The V500
series accommodates a 5.4 m (17.7 ft)
fairing and as many as five solid rocket
boosters. The Atlas V400 series will lift
as much as 7,800 kg (17,196 lbs) into
geosynchronous transfer orbit or as
much as 13,620 kg (30,027 lbs) into low
earth orbit. The Atlas V500 series will
lift as much as 8,700 kg (19,180 lbs) into
geosynchronous transfer orbit or as
much as 21,050 kg (46,407 lbs) into low
earth orbit. The Atlas V consists of a
common booster core (CBC) 3.8 m (12.5
ft) in diameter and 32.5 m (106.6 ft)
high) powered by an RD180 engine that
burns a liquid propellant fuel consisting
of liquid oxygen and RP1 fuel
(kerosene). The RD180 engine provides
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
840,000 lbs of thrust on liftoff. There is
a Centaur upper stage (3.1 m (10.2 ft) in
diameter and 12.7 m (41.7 ft) high)
powered by a liquid oxygen and liquid
hydrogen fuel.
(2) Delta IV
The Delta IV is launched from SLC–
6, which is 2.3 km (1.4 mi) north of the
main harbor seal haulout site at North
Rocky Point (see Figure 2 in the USAF
application). The Delta IV family of
launch vehicles consists of five launch
vehicle configurations utilizing a CBC
first stage (liquid fueled) and zero, two,
or four strap on solid rocket GEMs. The
Delta IV comes in four medium lift
configurations and one heavy lift
configuration consisting of multiple
CBCs. The Delta IV can carry payloads
from 4,210 to 13,130 kg (9,281 to 28,947
lbs) into geosynchronous transfer orbit.
(3) Falcon 9
The Falcon 9 is SpaceX’s launch
vehicle. The Falcon 9 is a two-stage
rocket designed and manufactured by
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 12 ft (3.7 m) in diameter
and 160 ft (48.8 m) in height, including
the interstage that would remain
attached during landing.
(4) Minotaur
The Minotaur I is a four stage, all
solid propellant ground launch vehicle
and is launched from SLC–8 on south
VAFB (Figure 2 in the USAF
application), approximately 1.6 km (1
mi) from the North Rocky Point haulout
site. The launch vehicle consists of
modified Minuteman II Stage I and
Stage II segments, mated with Pegasus
upper stages (Orbital Sciences
Corporation, 2006). The Minotaur is a
small vehicle, approximately 19.2 m (63
ft) tall (Orbital Sciences Corporation
2006b), with approximately 215,000 lbs
of thrust.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
(5) Taurus
The standard Taurus is a small launch
vehicle, at approximately 24.7 m (81 ft)
tall and is launched in two different
configurations (Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and
standard) with different first stages
providing 500,000 or 400,000 lbs of
thrust, respectively. The different
vehicle configurations have different
thrust characteristics, with the standard
configuration providing less thrust than
DARPA. The Taurus is launched from
576E on north VAFB, approximately 0.5
km (0.3 mi) from the Spur Road harbor
seal haulout site and 2.3 km (1.4 mi)
from the Purisima Point haulout site
(see Figure 3 in the USAF application).
SpaceX Falcon 9 First Stage Recovery
Activities
As described above, 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 proposed action includes up to
twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries
per year. The Falcon 9 First Stage is
recovered via an in-air boost-back
maneuver and landings at VAFB or at a
contingency landing location offshore.
The Falcon 9 First Stage is the only
rocket type that may be recovered via
boost-back and landing as part of the
proposed action.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
dropping the First Stage in the Pacific
Ocean, exoatmospheric cold gas
thrusters are triggered to flip the First
Stage into position for retrograde burn.
Three of the nine First Stage Merlin
engines are 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 cut off to end the boostback burn. The First Stage then
performs 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 then deploy in
preparation for a final single engine
burn that slow the First Stage to a
velocity of zero before landing on the
landing pad at SLC–4W.
During the First Stage’s descent, a
sonic boom 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. Model results have
indicated a boost-back and landing of
the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W
could produce sonic booms with
overpressures that would potentially be
as high as 8.5 psf at VAFB and
potentially as high as 3.1 psf at the NCI
(ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc, 2018).
At the time of this proposed rule, only
one recovery of the Falcon 9 First Stage,
including the boost-back and landing of
the Falcon 9 First Stage, had occurred
at VAFB. Acoustic monitoring data from
that event demonstrated that the sonic
boom at the haulout nearest the landing
location was measured at 1.78 psf and
the maximum landing engine noise was
estimated at 96.66 dB (ManTech SRS
Technologies, Inc, 2018). Monitoring at
the NCI was not required during this
activity as sonic boom modeling prior to
the activity indicated no sonic boom
would impact the NCI (ManTech SRS
Technologies, Inc, 2018).
As a contingency action to landing the
Falcon 9 First Stage on the SLC–4W pad
at VAFB, SpaceX may return the Falcon
9 First Stage booster to a barge in the
Pacific Ocean. The barge is specifically
designed to be used as a First Stage
landing platform and would be located
at least 27 nm (50 km) offshore of VAFB
or within an area even further offshore
called the Iridium Landing Area. These
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
325
contingency landing locations would be
used when landing at SLC–4W would
not be feasible. The maneuvering and
landing process described above for a
pad landing would be the same for a
barge landing. Sonic boom modeling
indicates that landings that occur at
either of the proposed contingency
landing locations offshore would result
in sonic booms below 1.0 psf at any
pinniped haulouts, thus marine
mammal harassment is not an expected
outcome from landings at those
contingency landing locations offshore.
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. 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
noise of 90 dB or greater.
The boost-back and landing of the
Falcon 9 First Stage occurs less than 10
minutes after the Falcon 9 launches
from VAFB (USAF, 2018). Hauled out
pinnipeds may respond to a sonic boom
associated with a Falcon 9 First Stage
boost-back and landing by alerting,
moving or flushing to the water.
However, any pinnipeds that respond to
a Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and
landing by moving or flushing to the
water are expected to be the same
individuals that responded in such a
way to the initial launch of the rocket,
less than 10 minutes prior to the boostback and landing. NMFS would
consider those individual marine
mammals to have been taken by the
stimuli associated with the initial
launch, and would therefore not
consider them as taken again by the
boost-back and landing less than 10
minutes later, as we do not consider an
individual marine mammal to be taken
given noise exposure more than once
within a 24 hour period. We expect that
individual marine mammals that do not
respond to the stimuli associated with
the launch of the rocket will also not
respond to the stimuli associated with
the boost-back and landing of the Falcon
9 First Stage less than 10 minutes later.
Therefore, Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities will not result in any
additional marine mammals being
taken, beyond those taken by the
launch. As the potential for take
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
326
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
resulting from the boost-back and
landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage is so
low as to be discountable, Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery is not analyzed further in
this document.
Missile Launch Activities
A variety of small missiles are
launched from various facilities on
north VAFB, including Minuteman III,
an ICBM which is launched from
underground silos. In addition, several
types of interceptor and target vehicles
are launched for the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA). The MDA develops
various systems and elements, including
the Ballistic Missile Defense System
(BMDS).
The BMDS test plans, including those
involving tests from VAFB, are subject
to constant change as the BMDS is being
developed. It is difficult for the MDA to
predict its launch schedule or number
of launches over the next five years.
However, due to test resource
limitations, MDA does not envision
conducting more than three missile tests
per quarter (on average) over the next
five years from VAFB, and none of the
missiles would be larger than the
Minuteman III. As described above, the
USAF anticipates not more than 15
missile launches would occur in any
year between 2019 through 2024.
LF–09 is the closest active missile
launch facility to a haulout area, located
about 0.5 km from Little Sal (see Figure
3 in the application). The trajectories of
all missile launches are nearly due
westward; thus, they do not cause sonic
boom impacts on the NCI and therefore
take of marine mammals on the NCI
from missile launches is not an
expected outcome of the specified
activities.
Aircraft and Helicopter Operations
The VAFB airfield, located on north
VAFB, supports various aircraft
operations. Aircraft operations include
tower operations, such as take-offs and
landings (training operations), and range
operations such as overflights and flight
tests. Over the past five years, an
average of slightly more than 600 flights
has occurred each year.
Fixed-wing aircraft use VAFB for
various purposes, including delivering
rocket or missile components, highaltitude launches of space vehicles and
emergency landings. VAFB is also used
for flight testing, evaluation of fixedwing aircraft and training exercises,
including touch and goes. Three
approved routes are used that avoid
established pinniped haulout sites.
Aircraft flown through VAFB airspace
and supported by 30th Space Wing
include, but are not limited to: B–1 and
B–2 bombers, F–15, F–16 and F–22
fighters, V/X–22s, and KC–135 tankers.
Helicopter operations also occur at
VAFB, but the number of helicopter
operations at VAFB has decreased
considerably since 2008 when the
deactivation of the VAFB helicopter
squadron occurred. Other squadrons
and units occasionally use VAFB for
purposes such as transiting through the
area, exercises and launch mission
support. Emergency helicopter
operations, including but not limited to
search-and-rescue and wildfire
containment actions, also occur
occasionally.
Unmanned Aerial Systems (also
known as ‘‘drone’’) operations at VAFB
represent a relatively new activity but
may increase over the next five years.
UAS operations may include either
rotary or fixed wing aircraft. These are
typically divided into as many as six
classes which graduate in size from
class 0 (which are often smaller than 5
inches in diameter and always weigh
less than one pound) to Class 5 (which
can be as large as a small piloted
aircraft) (Table 5). UAs classes 0, 1, 2
and 3 can be used in almost any
location, while classes 4 and 5 typically
require a runway and for that reason
would only be operated from the VAFB
airfield.
TABLE 5—CLASSES OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS
Weight
(pounds)
Minimum
dimension
Maximum
dimension
Typical
operating
altitude
(feet)
<1 .................................
1–20 .............................
21–55 ...........................
<1,320 ..........................
>1,320 ..........................
>1,320 ..........................
‘‘large insect’’ ............
>50 cm ......................
>2 m ..........................
>10 meters ................
>10 meters ................
>10 meters ................
50 cm ........................
2 meters ....................
10 meters ..................
n/a .............................
n/a .............................
n/a .............................
Any ............................
<1,200 .......................
<3,500 .......................
<18,000 .....................
<18,000 .....................
<18,000 .....................
Class
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
0
1
2
3
4
5
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
Take of hauled out pinnipeds from
aircraft operations may occur as a result
of visual or auditory stimuli in limited
instances where the aircraft operate at
low altitudes near pinniped haulouts.
While harassment of hauled out
pinnipeds from Class 0, 1 or 2 UAS is
unlikely to occur at altitudes of 200 feet
and above (Erbe et al., 2017; Pomeroy et
al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2016; Sweeney
and Gelatt, 2017), information on
pinniped responses to larger UASs is
not widely available. However, based on
the specifications of Class 3, 4 and 5
UASs (Table 5), the likelihood of
harassment resulting from overflights by
UASs of that size would likely depend
on several factors including noise
signature and means of propulsion (i.e.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
rocket propelled or engine propelled).
Except for take-off and landing actions,
a minimum altitude of 300 feet will be
maintained for Class 0–2 UAS over all
known marine mammal haulouts when
marine mammals are present. Class 3
UAS will maintain a minimum altitude
of 500 feet, except at take-off and
landing. No Class 4 or 5 UAS will be
flown below 1,000 feet over haulouts.
The USAF anticipates that take of
marine mammals from aircraft
operations would be minimal; however,
to be conservative, the USAF has
requested authorization for incidental
take as a result of aircraft operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Typical airspeed
(knots)
any.
<100.
<250.
<250.
Any.
Any.
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
and the NCI) that are expected to be
affected by the specified activities.
These are listed in Table 6. This section
provides summary information
regarding local occurrence of these
species. We have reviewed USAF’s
species descriptions, including life
history information, for accuracy and
completeness and refer the reader to
Section 3 of the USAF’s application, as
well as to NMFS’ Stock Assessment
Reports (SAR; https://
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
327
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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’ 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 stressors associated with the
specified activities that could result in
take of marine mammals (i.e., launch
noise, sonic booms and aircraft
operations) only have the potential to
result in harassment of marine
mammals that are hauled out of the
water. 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 USAF’s
proposed activities to be so low as to be
discountable, cetaceans are not
considered further in this proposed rule.
Table 6 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
regulatory status under the MMPA and
ESA and potential biological removal
(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2018).
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 proposed for authorization 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 6
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/populationassessments#marine-mammals).
TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
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
townsendi.
philippii
Mexico .......................................
T/D; Y
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).
14,011
≥197
451
2,498
≥0.8
108
542
≥3.2
1,641
30
4,882
4
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
30,968 (n/a, 27,348,
2012).
179,000 (n/a, 81,368,
2010).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
All species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas and
that may be affected by the proposed
activities are included in Table 6. 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.
Pacific Harbor Seal
Harbor seals inhabit coastal and
estuarine waters and shoreline areas of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 these proposed
regulations due to the distribution of the
stock and the geographic scope of the
proposed activities. Although the need
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
328
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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. They are
local to the area, rarely traveling more
than 50 km from haulout sites (pers
comm., M. Lowry, NMFS SWFSC, to J.
Carduner, NMFS OPR). 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. 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. 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) (see Figure
2 in the USAF’s application).
Pups are generally present in the
region from March through July (USAF,
2018). The best available information of
harbor seal abundance on VAFB is
USAF monthly survey data. 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). The harbor seal
population at VAFB has undergone an
apparent decline in recent years (USAF,
2018). 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 (USAF, 2018).
Harbor seals also haul out, breed, and
pup in isolated beaches and coves
throughout the coasts of San Miguel
Island (SMI), Santa Rosa Island (SRI),
San Nicolas Island (SNI) and Santa Cruz
Island (SCI) (Lowry, 2002). The best
available information of harbor seal
abundance on the NCI is NMFS aerial
survey data from 2011–2015 (Lowry et
al., 2017). During aerial surveys
conducted by NMFS from 2011–2015, a
mean of 589 harbors seals was recorded
at SMI, a mean of 181 was recorded at
SCI, and a mean of 247 was recorded at
SRI (Lowry et al., 2017). On SMI, they
occur along the north coast at Tyler
Bight and from Crook Point to Cardwell
Point. Additionally, they regularly breed
on SMI. 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).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 SMI 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
Nin˜o) years, some females are found as
far north as Washington and Oregon,
presumably following prey.
The best available information on
California sea lion abundance on VAFB
is USAF monthly survey data. 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 increased
substantially, ranging 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, unpub. data).
Successful pupping has never been
observed on VAFB; one possible
explanation is that only California sea
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
lions affected by domoic acid toxicity
give birth at VAFB. These pups are
either stillborn or very likely do not
survive long (USAF, 2018).
Pupping occurs in large numbers on
SMI 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. California sea
lions also 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
(Lowry et al., 2017).
The best available information on
California sea lion abundance on the
NCI is NMFS aerial survey data from
2011–2015 (Lowry et al., 2017). During
aerial surveys from 2011–2015, a mean
of 62,150 California sea lions were
recorded at haulouts on SMI, a mean of
1322 was recorded at SCI and a mean
of 944 was recorded at SRI (Lowry et al.,
2017).
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern elephant seals range in the
eastern and central North Pacific Ocean,
from as far north as Alaska and as far
south as Mexico. They spend much of
the year, generally about nine months,
in the 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
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.
The best available information on
northern elephant seal abundance on
VAFB is USAF monthly survey data.
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). Northern
elephant seal pupping at VAFB was
documented for the first time in January
2017 with 18 pups born and weaned. In
January 2018, a total of 25 pups were
observed born and weaned. (USAF,
2018).
The best available information on
northern elephant seal abundance on
the NCI is NMFS aerial survey data from
2011–2015 (Lowry et al., 2017). Point
Bennett on the west end of SMI is the
primary northern elephant seal rookery
in the NCI, with another rookery at
Cardwell Point on the east end of SMI
(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 from 2011–2015, a
mean of 2,350 northern elephant seals
was recorded at SMI, and a mean of 816
was recorded at SRI. None were
observed at Santa Cruz Island (Lowry et
al., 2017).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
329
were observed hauled out at North
Rocky Point on VAFB, representing the
first time the species had been observed
at VAFB during launch monitoring and
monthly surveys conducted over the
past two decades (MMCG and SAIC,
2013). The best available information on
Steller sea lion abundance on VAFB is
USAF monthly surveys. Since 2012,
Steller sea lions have been observed
frequently in routine monthly surveys,
with as many as 16 individuals
recorded. In 2017, the highest number
observed at VAFB was 11, in July
(CEMML, 2018). Steller sea lions once
had two small rookeries on SMI, 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. Due to
their very limited numbers on the NCI,
survey data for Steller sea lions on the
NCI is not available, therefore the best
available information on abundance on
the NCI is anecdotal information from
subject matter experts. 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 Marine Mammal Center (MML),
to J. Carduner, NMFS). Steller sea lions
have not been observed on the other
Channel Islands.
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). Only the California stock
is considered in this proposed
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
330
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
authorization due to its geographic
distribution.
Northern fur seals have rookeries on
SMI at Point Bennett and on Castle
Rock. Comprehensive count data for
northern fur seals on San Miguel Island
are not available, therefore the best
available information on northern fur
seal abundance on the NCI comes from
subject matter experts which indicates
the population is at its maximum in
summer (June–August) with an
estimated 13,384 animals at SMI, with
approximately half that number present
in the fall (September and October) and
approximately 50–200 animals present
from November through May (pers.
comm. Sharon Melin, NMFS MML, to J.
Carduner, NMFS OPR). SMI is the only
island in the NCI on which northern fur
seals have been observed, and on SMI
they only occur at the west end of the
island and on Castle Rock (a small
offshore rock on the northwest side of
the island) (pers. comm. Sharon Melin,
NMFS MML, to J. Carduner, NMFS
OPR). Although the population at SMI
was established by individuals from
Alaska and Russian Islands during the
late 1960s, most individuals currently
found on SMI 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, with
the majority of the population found on
islands in Mexico. 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). 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
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, therefore the best
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
available information on Guadalupe fur
seal abundance is from subject matter
experts. On SMI, 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 SMI.
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 MML, to
J. Carduner, NMFS OPR). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 Hz
to 86 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 6.
TABLE 4—RELEVANT MARINE MAMMAL
FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUPS AND
GENERALIZED
HEARING
THEIR
RANGES
Hearing group
Generalized
hearing range *
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals).
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
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
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Description of Sound Sources
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 hertz
(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’’
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 (rms) 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
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 to fall
into one of two general types: Pulsed
and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
331
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).
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, and
behavior (feeding, nursing, resting, etc.)
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
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
332
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
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. Data from
monitoring reports associated with
authorizations issued by NMFS
previously for similar activities in the
same location as the planned activities
(described further below) provides
further support for the assertion that
TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or
physiological effects, and masking are
not likely to occur (USAF 2013b; SAIC
2012). Therefore, TTS, PTS, nonauditory 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
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). These may be of
limited relevance to the proposed
activities given that airborne sound, and
not underwater sound, may result in
harassment of marine mammals as a
result of the proposed activities;
however we present this information as
background on the potential impacts of
sound on marine mammals. Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to
loud pulsed sound sources (typically
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 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 temporarily abandoning their habitat.
Hauled out pinnipeds may flush from a
haulout into the water. Though pup
abandonment could theoretically result
from these reactions, site-specific
monitoring data (described below)
indicate that pup abandonment is not
likely to occur as a result of the
specified activity.
Potential Effects From the Specified
Activity
This section includes a discussion of
the active acoustic sound sources
associated with the USAF’s proposed
activity and the likelihood for these
sources to result in harassment of
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
marine mammals. Potential acoustic
sources associated with the USAF’s
proposed activity include launch noise,
sonic booms, and aircraft noise. Marine
mammals on the NCI would be
impacted only by sonic booms
associated with the proposed activities
(i.e., launch noise and aircraft noise are
not expected to impact marine
mammals on the NCI), while marine
mammals on VAFB would be impacted
by launch noise, aircraft noise and sonic
booms from Falcon 9 boost-backs and
landings (however, as described above,
sounds associated with Falcon 9 First
Stage boost-backs and landings are not
expected to result in additional take of
marine mammals and are therefore not
addressed here). Sounds produced by
the proposed activities are expected to
be impulsive, due to sonic booms, and
non-pulse noise, due to aircraft sounds.
All noises resulting from the USAF’s
proposed activities that may impact
marine mammals are airborne.
Sonic Boom
Sonic booms may disturb pinnipeds
that are hauled out of the water in the
area of exposure, depending on the
species exposed and the level of the
sonic boom. The USAF has monitored
pinniped responses to rocket launches
on VAFB and the NCI during numerous
launches over the past two decades.
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 rare stampedes.
Data from launch monitoring reports
by the USAF on the NCI have shown
that pinniped reactions to sonic booms
are correlated with the level of the sonic
boom. Table 7 presents a summary of
monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999
to 2017 during which acoustic
measurements were successfully
recorded and during which pinnipeds
were observed. Monitoring data has
consistently shown that reactions
among pinnipeds to sonic booms vary
between species, with harbor seals
typically responding at the highest rates,
followed by California sea lions, with
northern elephant seals and northern fur
seals generally being much less
responsive (Table 7). 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 the NCI,
harbor seals have been observed to
respond at higher rates to sonic booms
than other species present there (Table
7). California sea lions have also
sometimes shown reactiveness to sonic
booms, with pups sometimes reacting
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
more than adults, (Table 7). 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).
Monitoring data also 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 depending on the species.
333
Lower 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 7). More powerful sonic
booms have sometimes resulted in some
species of pinnipeds flushing from
haulouts.
TABLE 7—OBSERVED PINNIPED RESPONSES TO SONIC BOOMS AT SAN MIGUEL ISLAND, BASED ON USAF LAUNCH
MONITORING REPORTS
Sonic
boom
level
(psf)
Launch event
Monitoring location
Species observed and responses
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 lions and northern fur seals: 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: ∼60% of CSL alerted and raised their heads.
None flushed.
Northern elephant seal: No visible response to sonic boom,
none flushed.
Northern fur seal: 60% alerted and raised their heads. None
flushed.
Northern elephant seal: 13 of 235 (6%) 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 (July 15, 2004) ..............
1.34
Adams Cove .............................
Atlas V
Delta II
Atlas V
Atlas V
(March 13, 2008) ...........
(May 5, 2009) ................
(April 14, 2011) .............
(September 13, 2012) ...
1.24
0.76
1.01
2.10
Cardwell Point ..........................
West of Judith Rock .................
Cuyler Harbor ...........................
Cardwell Point ..........................
Atlas V (April 3, 2014) ...............
0.74
Cardwell Point ..........................
Atlas V (December 12, 2014) ....
Atlas V (October 8, 2015) ..........
1.18
1.96
Point Bennett ............................
East Adams Cove of Point
Bennett.
Atlas V (March 1, 2017) .............
a ∼0.8
Cuyler Harbor on San Miguel
Island.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
Monitoring data also suggests that, for
those pinnipeds that flush from
haulouts in response to sonic booms,
the amount of time it takes 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 levels.
Pinnipeds may begin to return to the
haulout site within 2–55 minutes of the
launch disturbance, and the haulout site
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
usually returned to pre-launch levels
within 45–120 minutes. Monitoring data
from launch of the Athena IKONOS
rocket in 2012 showed harbor seals that
flushed to the water on exposure to the
sonic boom at SMI began to return to the
haulout approximately 16–55 minutes
post-launch (Thorson et al., 1999).
Monitoring data from the launch of the
Delta IV in 2012 showed harbor seals
that flushed to the water at VAFB in
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
response to the launch noise returned to
the haulout approximately 30 minutes
later (ManTech SRS Technologies,
2012).
Based on two decades of monitoring
reports, pinniped responses to sonic
booms range from no response, to head
raises and movements in response to the
stimuli, to flushing to the water. Injury
and mortality are not expected to result
from exposure to sonic booms and this
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
334
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
is supported by two decades of
monitoring reports which have shown
no documented pinniped mortalities or
serious associated with sonic booms,
and no pup abandonment as a result of
sonic booms. No sustained decreases in
numbers of animals observed at
haulouts have been observed after the
stimulus. These findings came as a
result of more than two decades of
research by numerous qualified,
independent researchers, from 1991
through 2018. These patterns are
anticipated to continue.
Launch Noise
Whereas sonic booms represent the
primary source of noise on the NCI from
the USAF’s proposed activities, on
VAFB the sound associated with
launches represents the primary source
of noise from the USAF’s proposed
activities. The operation of launch
vehicle engines produces significant
sound levels. Generally, noise is
generated from three sources during
launches: (1) Combustion noise from
launch vehicle chambers; (2) jet noise
generated by the interaction of the
exhaust jet and the atmosphere; (3)
combustion noise from the post-burning
of combustion products. Launch noise
levels are highly dependent on the type
of first-stage booster and the fuel used
to propel the vehicle.
Pre- and post-launch pinniped
monitoring by marine mammal
observers occurs at haulouts near
launch sites. Pre- and post-launch data
has shown that as many or more
animals are typically hauled out after
the launch than were present prior to
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. As with
sonic booms, observed reactions of
pinnipeds at VAFB to launch noise has
included startle responses and
movements into the water. No pinniped
mortalities and no pup abandonment
have been documented as a result of
launch noise. These patterns are
anticipated to continue.
Available monitoring data on
pinniped behavior during launches is
more limited than pre- and post-launch
data as marine mammal observers are
not able to access pinniped haulouts
near launch sites during launches due to
safety concerns. Video monitoring of
pinnipeds during launches is not always
feasible due to launches occurring in
darkness or poor visibility conditions
but has been used successfully during a
limited number of launches that
occurred in daylight and with good
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
visibility conditions. Data from the
limited number of launches where video
monitoring during launches was
successful indicates that all harbor seals
and California sea lions have flushed to
the water during launches while 10
percent or less of northern elephant
seals have flushed to the water during
launch. However, it should be noted
that available video monitoring data is
very limited so it is difficult to draw
broad conclusions on responses to
launches based on the small sample
sizes of available data (i.e., there is only
one launch for which video monitoring
data is available for California sea lions).
We also note that video monitoring
during launches is typically conducted
at haulouts on VAFB close to the launch
location, thus the rate at which
pinnipeds respond to launches at
haulouts on VAFB that are further away
from the launch location remain largely
unknown, further complicating our
ability to draw conclusions on pinniped
response rates during launches.
To determine if harbor seals
experience changes in their hearing
sensitivity as a result of launch noise,
ABR testing was previously conducted
on 21 harbor seals during four Titan IV
launches, one Taurus launch, and two
Delta IV launches by the USAF in
accordance with issued scientific
research permits. 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 8 kilohertz (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. One
seal had substantial decreased acuity to
the 8 kHz tone-burst stimuli prior to the
launch. The cause of this hearing loss
was unknown but was most likely
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
congenital or from infection. Another
seal had a great deal of variability in
waveform latencies in response to
identical stimuli. This animal moved
repeatedly during testing, which may
have reduced the sensitivity of the ABR
testing on this animal for both the click
and 8 kHz tone burst stimuli. Two of the
seals were released after pre-launch
testing but prior to the launch of the
Titan IV B–34, as the launch was
delayed for over five days, with five
days being the maximum duration
permitted to hold the seals for testing.
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 hr
after the launches) for ABR testing
allows for the possibility that the seals
may have recovered from a temporary
threshold shift (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 Titan IV, Taurus, or Delta
IV SLVs.
No sustained decreases in numbers of
animals observed at haulouts have been
observed after launches. No pup
abandonment has been documented as a
result of launch noise and no
documented pinniped mortalities have
been associated with launch noise on
VAFB. These patterns are expected to
continue.
Aircraft and Helicopter Operations
The USAF does not monitor pinniped
responses to aircraft and helicopter
operations, including UAS operations,
on VAFB. As described above, except
for take-off and landing actions, a
minimum altitude of 300 feet will be
maintained for Class 0–2 UAS over all
known marine mammal haulouts when
marine mammals are present. Class 3
UAS will maintain a minimum altitude
of 500 feet, except at take-off and
landing. No Class 4 or 5 UAS will be
flown below 1,000 feet over haulouts.
The available literature indicates that
harassment of hauled out pinnipeds, as
a result of visual or auditory stimuli,
from Class 0–2 UAS is unlikely to occur
at altitudes of 300 feet and above (Erbe
et al., 2017; Pomeroy et al., 2015;
Sweeney et al., 2016; Sweeney and
Gelatt, 2017). Information on pinniped
responses to larger UASs, including
Class 3 UASs, is not available. However,
based on the specifications of Class 3
UASs (Table 5), the likelihood of marine
mammal harassment resulting from
overflights by UASs of that size would
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
likely depend on several factors
including noise signature and means of
propulsion (i.e., rocket propelled or
engine propelled). The specifications for
potential Class 3 UASs that would be
used by USAF are not known at this
time as this is a relatively new activity
at VAFB and as UAS technology is
changing rapidly it is difficult for the
USAF to predict which types of UAS
will be used between 2019 and 2024.
While unlikely, it is possible that take
of marine mammals could occur as a
result of Class 3 UASs flown at 500 feet
or above, depending on noise signature
and means of propulsion of the UAS. In
addition, occasional helicopter and
aircraft operations involving search-andrescue missions, delivery of space
vehicle components, launch mission
support, security reconnaissance, and
training flights occur at VAFB and have
the potential to result in harassment of
hauled out pinnipeds. While monitoring
data is not available, we anticipate that
pinniped responses to aircraft and
helicopter operations will be similar to
those exhibited in response to sonic
booms and launch noise (i.e., some head
raises, movements in response to the
stimulus, and possibly flushing to the
water).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat
Impacts on marine mammal habitat
are part of the consideration in making
a finding of negligible impact on the
species and stocks of marine mammals.
Habitat includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, rookeries, mating grounds,
feeding areas, and areas of similar
significance. We do not anticipate that
the proposed operations 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). While it is
anticipated that the specified activity
may result in marine mammals avoiding
certain areas due to temporary
ensonification, this impact to habitat is
temporary and reversible and was
considered in further detail earlier in
this document, as behavioral
modification. The main impact
associated with the proposed activity
will be temporarily elevated noise levels
and the associated direct effects on
marine mammals, previously discussed
in this proposed rule.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through this proposed
rule, which will inform both NMFS’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
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 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 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
335
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. For in-air 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)
(Table 8).
TABLE 8—NMFS CRITERIA FOR
PINNIPED HARASSMENT FROM EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE SOUND
Species
Harbor seals ..........................
All other pinniped species .....
Level B
harassment
threshold
90 dB re 20
μPa.
100 dB re 20
μPa.
In the absence of site-specific data,
NMFS typically relies on the acoustic
criteria shown in Table 8 to estimate
take as a result of exposure to airborne
sound. However, in this case, more than
20 years of monitoring data exists on
pinniped responses to the stimuli
associated with the proposed activities
in the particular geographic area of the
proposed activities. Therefore, we
consider these data to be the best
available information in regard to
estimating take of pinnipeds to stimuli
associated with the proposed activities.
These data suggest that pinniped
responses to the stimuli associated with
the proposed activities are dependent
on species and intensity of the stimuli.
The data recorded by USAF at VAFB
and the NCI over the past 20 years has
shown that pinniped reactions to sonic
booms and launch noise vary depending
on the species, the intensity of the
stimulus, and the location (i.e., on
VAFB or the NCI). At the NCI, harbor
seals have tended to react more strongly
to sonic booms than most other species,
with California sea lions also appearing
to be somewhat more sensitive to sonic
booms than some other pinniped
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
336
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
species (Table 7). 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 (Table
7). No data is available on Steller sea
lion or Guadalupe fur seal responses to
sonic booms. There is less data available
on pinniped responses during launches,
but the available data indicates that all
harbor seals and California sea lions
have tended to flush to the water during
launches while 10 percent or less of
northern elephant seals have flushed to
the water during launch.
Ensonified Area
The USAF is not able to predict the
exact areas that will be impacted by
noise associated with the specified
activities, including sonic booms,
launch noise and aircraft noise.
Numerous launch locations are utilized
on VAFB, each of which results in
different parts of the base (and different
haulouts) being ensonified by launch
noise during launches. Different space
launch vehicles have varying
trajectories which result in different
sonic boom ‘‘footprints’’, which are
likely to impact different areas on the
NCI. In addition, rocket launches by
private entities on VAFB are expected to
increase over the next 5 years and the
USAF is not able to predict the
trajectories of these future rocket launch
programs. Therefore, for the purposes of
estimating take, we conservatively
estimate that all haulouts on VAFB will
be ensonified by launch noise during a
rocket or missile launch. On the NCI,
sonic booms from launches sometimes
impact San Miguel Island (SMI) and
occasionally Santa Rosa Island (SRI);
Santa Cruz and Anacapa Islands are not
expected to be impacted by sonic booms
in excess of 1.0 psf (USAF, 2018)
therefore only marine mammals on San
Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands may
potentially be taken by sonic booms. We
estimate that, when a sonic boom
impacts the NCI, 25 percent of pinniped
haulouts on San Miguel and Santa Rosa
Islands will be ensonified by a sonic
boom above 1.0 psf. We consider this to
be a conservative assumption based on
sonic boom models which show that
areas predicted to be impacted by a
sonic boom with peak overpressures of
1.0 psf and above are typically limited
to isolated parts of a single island, and
sonic boom model results tend to
overestimate actual recorded sonic
booms on the NCI (pers. comm. R.
Evans, USAF, to J. Carduner, NMFS
OPR).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 as well as data collected
by NMFS at NCI, represent the best
available information on the occurrence
of the six pinniped species expected to
occur in the project area. Monthly
marine mammal surveys at VAFB are
conducted to document the abundance,
distribution and status of pinnipeds at
VAFB. When possible, these surveys are
timed to coincide with the lowest
afternoon tides of each month, when the
greatest numbers of animals are usually
hauled out. Data gathered during
monthly surveys include: Species,
number, general behavior, presence of
pups, age class, gender, reactions to
natural or human-caused disturbances,
and environmental conditions. The
quality and amount of information
available on pinnipeds in the project
area varies depending on species; some
species are surveyed regularly at VAFB
and the NCI (e.g., California sea lion),
while other species are surveyed less
frequently (e.g., northern fur seals and
Guadalupe fur seals). However, the best
available data was used to estimate take
numbers. Take estimates for all species
are shown in Table 13.
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.
Data from VAFB monthly surveys for
the three most recent years for which
data is available (2015, 2016 and 2017)
shows the mean number of harbor seals
recorded on VAFB during those years
was 255 (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018).
The USAF estimated the number of
harbor seals that may be hauled out at
VAFB during all months of the year
from 2019–2024 to be 300; we think this
is a reasonable estimate given the
monthly survey data as described above
and the fluctuations in harbor seal
numbers observed on VAFB; therefore,
take of harbor seals at VAFB was
estimated based on a conservative
estimate of 300 harbor seals hauled out
during any month on VAFB. Take of
harbor seals at the NCI was estimated
based on the mean count totals from
survey data collected on SMI, SRI, and
Richardson Rock (located 10 km
northwest of SMI), from 2011 to 2015 by
the NMFS SWFSC (Lowry et al., 2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
California sea lion—California sea
lions are common offshore of VAFB and
haul out on rocks and beaches along the
coastline of VAFB where their numbers
have been increasing in recent years,
though pupping rarely occurs on the
VAFB coastline. They haul out in large
numbers on the NCI and rookeries exist
on SMI. The data from monthly marine
mammal surveys at VAFB from 2015,
2016 and 2017 shows a mean of 11
California sea lions recorded at VAFB
(CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018). However,
numbers of California sea lions appear
to be increasing at VAFB, with a mean
of 21 recorded during surveys in 2017
including 68 recorded in September
2017 (CEMML, 2018). The USAF
estimated in their application that up to
125 California sea lions may be hauled
out at VAFB during any month of the
year; however, based on the monthly
survey data, for the purposes of
estimating take we conservatively
estimate that up to 75 California sea
lions may be hauled out during any
month of the year. Take of California sea
lions at the NCI was estimated based on
the mean count totals from survey data
collected on SMI, SRI, and Richardson
Rock from 2011 to 2015 by the NMFS
SWFSC (Lowry et al., 2017).
Steller Sea Lion—Steller sea lions
occur in very small numbers at VAFB
and on SMI. They do not currently have
rookeries at VAFB or the NCI. Data from
monthly marine mammal surveys at
VAFB from 2015, 2016 and 2017 show
a mean of 2.4 Steller sea lions recorded
at VAFB (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018).
The USAF estimated the number of
Steller sea lions that may be hauled out
at VAFB during all months of the year
from 2019–2024 to be 3. We consider
this a reasonable estimate based on
monthly survey data. Steller sea lions
haul out in very small numbers on SMI,
and comprehensive survey data for
Steller sea lions in the NCI is not
available. Take of Steller sea lions on
the NCI was estimated based on subject
matter expert input indicating that a
maximum of 4 Steller sea lions have
been observed on SMI at any time (pers.
comm., S. Melin, NMFS Marine
Mammal Laboratory (MML), to J.
Carduner, NMFS OPR).
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 SMI and SRI and at one
location at VAFB. Data from monthly
marine mammal surveys at VAFB from
2015, 2016 and 2017 show a mean of
39.4 northern elephant seals recorded at
VAFB (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018). The
USAF estimated the number of northern
elephant seals that may be hauled out at
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
337
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
VAFB during all months of the year
from 2019–2024 to be 60. However, a
mean of 76.3 northern elephant seals
was recorded at VAFB in 2017 (CEMML,
2018), suggesting northern elephant seal
numbers at VAFB may be increasing.
For the purposes of estimating take on
VAFB, we therefore conservatively
estimate that the number of northern
elephant seals that may be hauled out at
VAFB during all months of the year
from 2019–2024 to be 100. Take of
northern elephant seals at the NCI was
estimated based on the mean count
totals from survey data collected on
SMI, SRI, and Richardson Rock from
2011 to 2015 by the NMFS SWFSC
(Lowry et al., 2017).
Northern fur seal—Northern fur seals
have rookeries on SMI, 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, therefore no take
of northern fur seals is expected at
VAFB. Comprehensive survey data for
northern fur seals in the project area is
not available. Estimated take of northern
fur seals was therefore based on subject
matter expert input which indicated
that from June through August, the
population at SMI is at its maximum,
with an estimated 13,384 animals at
SMI (Carretta et al., 2015), with
approximately 7,000 present from
September through November, and
approximately 125 present from
November through May (pers. comm., S.
Melin, NMFS Marine Mammal
Laboratory (MML) to J. Carduner, NMFS
OPR).
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. Melin, NMFS MML, to J.
Carduner, NMFS OPR). No haulouts or
rookeries exist for Guadalupe fur seals
on the mainland coast, including VAFB,
therefore no take of Guadalupe fur seals
is expected at VAFB. 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 time on SMI (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
the NCI at any given time.
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 stimuli rises to
the level of behavioral harassment
under the MMPA (Table 9). NMFS
considers the behaviors that meet the
definitions of both movements and
flushes in Table 9 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 9 for a summary of the
pinniped disturbance scale.
TABLE 9—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 u-shaped position, changing from a lying to a sitting position, or brief movement
of less than twice the animal’s body length.
Movements in response to 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 ........................................................
Take estimates were calculated
separately for each stock in each year
the proposed regulations would be valid
(from 2019–2024), on both VAFB and
the NCI, based on the number of
animals assumed hauled out at each
location that are expected to be
behaviorally harassed by the stimuli
associated with the specified activities
(i.e., launch, sonic boom, or aircraft
noise). First, the number of hauled out
animals per month was estimated at
both VAFB and the NCI for each stock,
based on survey data and subject matter
expert input as described above. Then
we estimated the number of hauled out
animals per month that would be
behaviorally harassed, by applying a
correction factor to account for the
likelihood that the animals would
No.
Yes.
Yes.
respond at a Level 2 or 3 response
(Table 9). Those correction factors differ
depending on the location (i.e. VAFB or
the NCI) and on the reactiveness of each
species to the stimuli (Table 10), and are
based on the best available information
(in this case, several years of monitoring
data on both VAFB and the NCI (Table
7)).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE 10—PROPORTION OF EACH SPECIES ASSUMED TO BE HARASSED BY LAUNCH OR SONIC BOOM ON VAFB AND THE
NCI
Proportion of
individuals
assumed
taken per
sonic
boom (NCI)
(percent)
Species (stock)
Harbor seal (CA) ......................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
50
Proportion
of individuals
assumed
taken
per launch
(VAFB)
(percent)
100
338
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—PROPORTION OF EACH SPECIES ASSUMED TO BE HARASSED BY LAUNCH OR SONIC BOOM ON VAFB AND THE
NCI—Continued
Proportion of
individuals
assumed
taken per
sonic
boom (NCI)
(percent)
Species (stock)
CA sea lion (US) ......................................................................................................................................................
NES (CA breeding) ..................................................................................................................................................
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern) .......................................................................................................................................
Northern fur seal (CA) .............................................................................................................................................
Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico) ...................................................................................................................................
As described above, for pinnipeds on
VAFB, we conservatively assumed that
all pinnipeds at all haulouts would be
impacted by launch noise. This is a
conservative assumption, as some
haulouts are separated by several miles
from launch locations, and presumably
pinnipeds at haulouts further from the
launch location would not react at the
same rates as those located near the
launch. For pinnipeds on the NCI, as
described above we conservatively
assume that 25% of haulouts would be
impacted by a sonic boom with a psf
above 1.0, if such a sonic boom were to
impact the NCI (not all launches result
in sonic booms on the NCI). Thus, for
pinnipeds on the NCI, an additional .25
correction factor was applied to the take
estimate, to account for the fact that
approximately 25 percent of haulouts on
the NCI are expected to be impacted by
a sonic boom with a psf above 1.0, if
such a sonic boom were to impact the
NCI, while for launches on VAFB, we
conservatively assume all pinnipeds
will be exposed to launch noise. Take
was calculated monthly, as abundance
estimates for some species vary on
VAFB and the NCI depending on
season.
The resulting numbers were then
multiplied by the number of activities
(sonic booms or launches) estimated to
occur in a month, and then summed to
get total numbers of each stock
estimated to be taken at each location
per year. The USAF provided estimates
of rocket and missile launches
anticipated per year (Table 1), and the
number of sonic booms above 1.0 psf
estimated to impact the NCI per year
(Table 2). Thus for pinnipeds on VAFB,
the number of launches estimated per
year was used to estimate take in each
year (e.g., in 2023, the USAF expects
100 rocket and 15 missile launches will
occur, thus 115 launches was used to
estimate takes on VAFB in 2023). For
pinnipeds on the NCI, the number of
sonic booms above 1.0 psf estimated per
year was used to estimate take in each
year (e.g., in 2023, the USAF expects 19
sonic booms above 1.0 to impact the
NCI, thus 19 sonic booms was used to
estimate takes on the NCI in 2023). Note
that the proposed rule would only be
valid for 3 months in the year 2024, thus
the highest number of launches and
sonic booms anticipated to occur in any
single year during the period of validity
for the proposed rule would be in 2023,
despite the fact that more launches are
anticipated to occur in calendar year
2024.
Proportion
of individuals
assumed
taken
per launch
(VAFB)
(percent)
25
5
50
25
50
100
15
100
(n/a)
(n/a)
Monitoring data on pinniped
responses to aircraft, helicopter and
UAS related stimuli is not available.
The USAF estimated that 3,000
instances of harbor seal harassment and
500 instances of California sea lion
harassment would occur over the 5
years that the proposed regulations
would be valid, thus we divided those
numbers (3,000 instances of harbor seal
harassment and 500 instances of
California sea lion harassment) by 5 to
estimate the numbers of take per year
and we propose to authorize the
numbers shown in Table 11.
The numbers of incidental take
expected to occur on VAFB as a result
of the specified activities is shown in
Table 11. The numbers of incidental
take expected to occur on the NCI as a
result of the specified activities is
shown in Table 12. The total numbers
of incidental take expected to occur and
proposed for authorization are shown in
Table 13. The take estimates presented
in Tables 11, 12 and 13 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 11—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS TAKEN ON VAFB PER YEAR, AS A RESULT OF ROCKET AND
MISSILE LAUNCHES AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024 *
Species (stock)
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Launches
Harbor seal (CA)
CA sea lion (US)
NES (CA breeding) .................
Steller Sea Lion
(Eastern) ........
Northern fur seal
(CA) ...............
Guadalupe fur
seal (Mexico)
Aircraft
Launches
Aircraft
Launches
Aircraft
Launches
Aircraft
Launches
Aircraft
Launches
9,000
3,000
600
100
11,250
3,750
600
100
14,625
4,875
600
100
20,250
6,750
600
100
34,500
8,625
600
100
7,031
2,344
600
100
600
0
750
0
975
0
1,350
0
1,725
0
469
0
120
0
150
0
195
0
270
0
345
0
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Based on launches and aircraft operations occurring during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only in 2024).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Aircraft
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
339
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 12—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS TAKEN ON THE NCI PER YEAR
Species (stock)
2019
Harbor seal (CA) ......................................................................................
CA sea lion (US) ......................................................................................
NES (CA breeding) ..................................................................................
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern) .......................................................................
Northern fur seal (CA) .............................................................................
Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico) ...................................................................
523
17,705
2,412
10
850
33
2020
732
24,787
3,377
14
1,190
46
2021
2022
1,151
38,951
5,306
22
1,870
72
2023
1,464
49,573
6,754
28
2,380
91
1,987
67,278
9,165
38
3,231
124
2024
523
16,419
4,516
10
23
33
* Based on sonic booms occurring during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only in 2024).
TABLE 13—TOTAL ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS, AND PERCENTAGE OF MARINE MAMMAL POPULATIONS,
POTENTIALLY TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Species (stock)
Harbor seal (CA) .......................
CA sea lion (US) .......................
NES (CA breeding) ...................
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern) .........
Northern fur seal (CA) ...............
Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico) .....
2019
2020
10,123
20,805
3,012
130
850
33
2021
12,582
28,637
4,127
164
1,190
46
2022
16,376
43,926
6,281
217
1,870
72
22,314
56,423
8,104
298
2,380
91
2023
37,087
76,003
10,890
383
3,231
124
Highest
total take
over a
single year
2024 1
8,154
18,863
4,985
104
23
33
37,087
76,003
10,890
383
3,231
124
Stock
abundance
Percentage
of stock
taken 2
30,968
257,606
179,000
52,139
14,050
20,000
3 7.1
29.5
6.1
0.7
23.0
0.6
1 Take
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
numbers shown reflect only the takes that would occur during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only in 2024).
2 As numbers of take proposed for authorization vary by year, the estimates shown for percentages of stock taken are based on takes proposed for authorization in
2023 which has the highest take numbers proposed for authorization in any single year.
3 Take totals shown for harbor seals reflect the number of instances of harassment proposed for authorization, however, for purposes of determining the percent of
stock taken we use the number of individual animals estimated to be taken (2,188 per year). See further explanation in the section on ‘‘small numbers’’ below.
Proposed Mitigation
Under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
permissible methods of taking pursuant
to such activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’).
NMFS does not have a regulatory
definition for ‘‘least practicable adverse
impact.’’ However, NMFS’s
implementing 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, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, implementation of the
measure(s) is expected to reduce
impacts to marine mammal species or
stocks, their habitat, and their
availability for subsistence uses. This
analysis will consider such things as the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
nature of the potential adverse impact
(such as likelihood, scope, and range),
the likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented, and the
likelihood of successful
implementation.
(2) The practicability of the measure
for applicant implementation.
Practicability of implementation may
consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, personnel safety, and
practicality of implementation.
Launch Mitigation
For missile and rocket launches,
unless constrained by other factors
(including, but not limited to, human
safety, national security concerns or
launch trajectories), launches will be
scheduled to avoid the harbor seal
pupping season (e.g., March through
June) when feasible. The USAF would
also avoid, whenever possible, launches
which are predicted to produce a sonic
boom on the NCI during the harbor seal
pupping season (e.g., March through
June).
Aircraft Operation Mitigation
All aircraft and helicopter flight paths
must maintain a minimum distance of
1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized seal
haulouts and rookeries (e.g., Point Sal,
Purisima Point, Rocky Point), except in
emergencies or for real-time security
incidents (i.e., search-and-rescue, firefighting) and except for one area near
the VAFB harbor over which aircraft
may be flown to within 500 ft of a
haulout. Except for take-off and landing
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
actions, a minimum altitude of 300 feet
will be maintained for Class 0–2 UAS
over all known marine mammal
haulouts when marine mammals are
present. Class 3 will maintain a
minimum altitude of 500 feet, except at
take-off and landing. A minimum
altitude of 1,000 feet will be maintained
over haulouts for Class 4 or 5 UAS.
We have carefully evaluated the
USAF’s proposed mitigation measures
and considered a range of other
measures in the context of ensuring that
we prescribed the means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on the
affected marine mammal species and
stocks and their habitat. Based on our
evaluation of these measures, we have
preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on marine
mammal 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 stock for
subsistence uses.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an LOA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of the
authorized taking. NMFS’s MMPA
implementing regulations further
describe the information that an
applicant should provide when
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
340
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
requesting an authorization (50 CFR
216.104(a)(13)), including the means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in
increased knowledge of the species and
the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of significant
interactions with marine mammal
species in action area (e.g., animals that
came close to the vessel, contacted the
gear, or are otherwise rare or displaying
unusual behavior).
• 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 important physical
components of marine mammal habitat).
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
The USAF has proposed a suite of
monitoring measures on both VAFB and
the NCI to document impacts of the
specified activities on marine mammals.
These proposed monitoring measures
are described below.
Monitoring at VAFB
Monitoring requirements for launches
and landings at VAFB would be
dependent on the season and on the
type of rocket or missile being launched
(or landed in the case of the Falcon 9)
(Table 14). Acoustic and biological
monitoring at VAFB would be required
for all rocket types during the harbor
seal and elephant seal pupping seasons
at VAFB (e.g., January 1 through July 31)
to ensure that responses of pups to the
specified activities are monitored and
recorded. Acoustic and biological
monitoring at VAFB would also be
required for all launches of any space
launch vehicle types that have not been
previously monitored three times, for
any space launch vehicle types that
have been previously monitored but for
which the launch is predicted to be
louder than previous launches of that
rocket type (based on modeling by
USAF) and, for new types of missiles,
regardless of the time of year. Falcon 9
First Stage recovery activities (i.e.,
boost-back and landings) with sonic
booms that have a predicted psf of >1.0
on VAFB (based on sonic boom
modeling performed prior to launch)
would be monitored at VAFB, at any
time of year.
TABLE 14—PROPOSED MONITORING MEASURES AT VAFB
Dates
Monitoring requirement on VAFB
Year round ......................................
• Launches of new space launch vehicles that have not been monitored 3 previous times.
• Launches of existing space launch vehicles that are expected to be louder than previous launches of the
same vehicle type.
• Launches of new types of missiles that have not been monitored 3 previous times.
• Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries with a predicted psf of >1.0 on VAFB.
• Launches of all space launch vehicles.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Jan 1–July 31 ..................................
Marine mammal monitoring at VAFB
must be conducted by at least one
NMFS-approved marine mammal
observer trained in marine mammal
science. Authorized marine mammal
observers must have demonstrated
proficiency in the identification of all
age and sex classes of both common and
uncommon pinniped species found at
VAFB and must be knowledgeable of
approved count methodology and have
experience in observing pinniped
behavior, especially in response to
human disturbances.
Monitoring at the haulout site closest
to the facility where the space launch
vehicle will be launched would begin at
least 72 hours prior to the launch and
would continue until at least 48 hours
after the launch. Monitoring for each
launch would include multiple surveys
during each day of monitoring (typically
between 4–6 surveys per day) that
would record: Species, number, general
behavior, presence of pups, age class,
gender, and reaction to launch noise, or
to natural or other human-caused
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
disturbances. Environmental conditions
would also be recorded, including:
Visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind
speed and direction, tides, and swell
height and direction.
For launches that occur during the
elephant seal and harbor seal pupping
seasons (January 1 through July 31) a
follow-up survey would be conducted
within two weeks of the launch to
monitor for any potential adverse
impacts to pups. For launches that
occur during daylight, time-lapse photo
and/or video recordings would occur
during launch, as marine mammal
observers are not allowed to be present
within the launch area or at haulouts on
VAFB at the time of launch for safety
reasons. The USAF would also use night
video monitoring to record responses of
pinnipeds to launches that occur in
darkness, if feasible. Night video
monitoring may not be practical
depending on whether technology is
available that can reliably and remotely
record responses of pinnipeds at remote
haulout locations.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In addition to monitoring pinniped
responses to the proposed activities on
VAFB, the USAF proposes to continue
to conduct monthly marine mammal
surveys on VAFB. Monthly surveys
have been carried out at VAFB for
several years and have provided
valuable data on abundance, habitat use,
and seasonality of pinnipeds on VAFB.
The goals of the monthly surveys
include assessing haulout patterns and
relative abundance over time, resulting
in improved understanding of pinniped
population trends at VAFB and better
enabling assessment of potential longterm impacts of USAF operations. When
possible, these surveys would be timed
to coincide with the lowest afternoon
tides of each month, when the greatest
numbers of animals are typically hauled
out. During the monthly surveys, a
NMFS-approved observer would record:
Species, number, general behavior,
presence of pups, age class, gender, and
any reactions to natural or humancaused disturbances. Environmental
conditions would also be recorded,
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
including: Visibility, air temperature,
clouds, wind speed and direction, tides,
and swell height and direction.
Monitoring at the NCI
As described previously, sonic booms
are the only stimuli associated with the
proposed activities that have the
potential to result in harassment of
marine mammals on the NCI. As
pinniped responses on the NCI are
dependent on the species and on the
intensity of the sonic boom (Table 7),
requirements for monitoring on the NCI
would vary by season and would
depend on the expected sonic boom
level and the pupping seasons of the
species expected to be present. Sonic
boom modeling would be performed
prior to all rocket launches and Falcon
9 recoveries. Acoustic and biological
monitoring would be conducted on the
NCI if the sonic boom model indicates
that pressures from a sonic boom are
expected to reach or exceed the levels
shown in Table 15. These dates have
been determined based on seasons when
pups may be present for the species that
are most responsive to sonic booms on
the NCI based on several years of
monitoring data (e.g., harbor seals and
California sea lions) (Table 7).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE 15—MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ON THE NORTHERN CHANNEL
ISLANDS BY SEASON
Sonic boom level
(modeled)
Dates
>2 psf ...................
>3 psf ...................
>4 psf ...................
March 1–July 31.
August 1–September 30.
October 1–February 28.
Marine mammal monitoring would be
conducted at the closest significant
haulout site to the modeled sonic boom
impact area. The monitoring site would
be selected based upon the model
results, with emphasis placed on
selecting a location where the maximum
sound pressures are predicted and
where pinnipeds are expected to be
present that are considered most
sensitive in terms of responses to sonic
booms. Monitoring the responses of
mother-pup pairs of any species would
also be prioritized. Given the large
numbers of pinnipeds found on some
island beaches, smaller focal groups
would be monitored. Estimates of the
numbers of pinnipeds present on the
entire beach would be made and their
reactions to the launch noise would be
documented. Specialized acoustic
instruments would also be used to
record sonic booms at the marine
mammal monitoring location.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
Monitoring would be conducted by at
least one NMFS-approved marine
mammal observer, trained in marine
mammal science. Monitors would be
deployed to the monitoring location
before, during and after the launch, with
monitoring commencing at least 72
hours prior to the launch, occurring
during the launch and continuing until
48 hours after the launch (unless no
sonic boom is detected by the monitors
during the launch and/or by the
acoustic recording equipment, at which
time monitoring would be
discontinued). If the launch occurs in
darkness, night vision equipment would
be used. The USAF would also conduct
video monitoring, including the use of
night video monitoring, when feasible
(video monitoring is not always
practicable due to conditions such as
fog, glare, and a lack of animals within
view from a single observation point).
During the pupping season of any
species potentially affected by a sonic
boom, a follow-up survey would occur
within two weeks of the launch to
assess any potential adverse effects on
pups.
Monitoring for each launch would
include multiple surveys each day that
record, when possible: Species, number,
general behavior, presence of pups, age
class, gender, and reaction to sonic
booms or natural or human-caused
disturbances. Remarks would be
recorded, including the nature and
cause of any natural or human-related
disturbance, including response to the
sonic boom. When flushing behavior is
observed, the amount of time it takes for
hauled out animals to return to the
beach is recorded, if length of recording
allows. Environmental conditions
would also be recorded, including:
Visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind
speed and direction, tides, and swell
height and direction.
The USAF has complied with the
monitoring requirements under the
previous LOAs issued from 2013
through 2018.
Reporting
Proposed reporting requirements
would include launch monitoring
reports submitted after each launch and
annual reports describing all activities
conducted at VAFB that are covered
under this proposed rule during each
year.
A launch monitoring report
containing the following information
would be submitted to NMFS within 90
days after each rocket launch: Species
present, number(s), general behavior,
presence of pups, age class, gender,
numbers of pinnipeds present on the
haulout prior to commencement of the
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
341
launch, numbers of pinnipeds that
responded at a level that would be
considered harassment (based on the
description of responses in Table 9),
length of time(s) pinnipeds remained off
the haulout (for pinnipeds that flushed),
and any behavioral responses by
pinnipeds that were likely in response
to the specified activities, including in
response to launch noise or sonic boom.
Launch reports would also include
date(s) and time(s) of each launch (and
sonic boom, if applicable); date(s) and
location(s) of marine mammal
monitoring, and environmental
conditions including: Visibility, air
temperature, clouds, wind speed and
direction, tides, and swell height and
direction. If a dead or seriously injured
pinniped is found during post-launch
monitoring, the incident must be
reported to the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources and the NMFS
West Coast Regional Office
immediately. Results of acoustic
monitoring, including the recorded
sound levels associated with the launch
and/or sonic boom (if applicable) would
also be included in the report.
An annual report would be submitted
to NMFS on March 1 of each year that
would summarize the data reported in
all launch reports for the previous
calendar year (as described above)
including a summary of documented
numbers of instances of harassment
incidental to the specified activities.
Annual reports would also describe any
documented takings incidental to the
specified activities not included in the
launch reports (e.g., takes incidental to
aircraft or helicopter operations).
A final comprehensive report would
be submitted to NMFS no later than 180
days prior to expiration of these
regulations. This report must summarize
the findings made in all previous
reports and assess both the impacts at
each of the major rookeries and an
assessment of any cumulative impacts
on marine mammals from the specified
activities.
The USAF has complied with the
reporting requirements under the
previous LOAs issued from 2013
through 2018.
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
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
342
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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,
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’ 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 6, given that the
anticipated effects of this activity on
these different marine mammal species
are expected to be similar. Activities
associated with the proposed 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 rocket launches and sonic booms and
from sounds or visual stimuli associated
with aircraft. 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 or launch noise. 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 instances of 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
practicable adverse 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
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. 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,
CEMML 2018). 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 lower 48 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 the
numbers of animals observed at San
Miguel Island rookeries and haulouts
(SAIC 2012). The number of California
sea lions documented on VAFB via
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
monthly marine mammal surveys
increased substantially in 2017
compared to the numbers recorded in
previous years, and northern elephant
seal pupping was documented on VAFB
for the first time in 2017, providing
further evidence that the proposed
activities, which are ongoing, have not
negatively impacted annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
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 within
approximately 90 minutes), 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 adverse 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.
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
See Table 13 for information relating
to this small numbers analysis (i.e.,
numbers of take proposed for
authorization on an annual basis). We
propose to authorize incidental take of
6 marine mammal stocks. The amount
of taking proposed for authorization on
an annual basis is less than one-third of
the most appropriate abundance
estimate for five of these species or
stocks; therefore, the numbers of take
proposed for authorization would be
considered small relative to those
relevant stocks or populations.
The estimated taking for harbor seals
comprises greater than one-third of the
best available stock abundance.
However, due to the nature of the
specified activity—launch activities
occurring at specific locations, rather
than a mobile activity occurring
throughout the stock range—the
available information shows that only a
portion of the stock would likely be
impacted. It is important to note that the
number of expected takes does not
necessarily represent the number of
individual animals expected to be taken,
and that 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
the USAF’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 number of
annual instances of take may not be
considered small relative to the
estimated abundance of the California
stock of Pacific harbor seals of 30,968
(Carretta et al. 2017), a substantially
smaller number of individual harbor
seals is expected 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 individual harbor seals are likely
to be taken repeatedly over the course
of the proposed activities. Therefore, the
proposed number of instances of Level
B harassment that could be authorized
for harbor seals per year over the 5-year
period of validity of the proposed
regulations is expected to accrue to a
much smaller number of individual
harbor seals encompassing a small
portion of the overall stock. Thus, while
we propose to authorize the instances of
incidental take of harbor seals shown in
Table 13, we believe that the number of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
individual harbor seals that would be
incidentally taken by the proposed
activities would, in fact, be substantially
lower than this number. We base the
small numbers determination on the
number of individuals taken versus the
number of instances of take, as is
appropriate when the information is
available.
To estimate the number of individual
harbor seals expected to be taken by
Level B harassment by the proposed
activities, we estimated the maximum
number of individual harbor seals that
could potentially be taken per activity
(i.e., launch, landing, or aircraft
activity), both on the NCI and at VAFB.
As described above, due to harbor seals’
limited ranges and site fidelity to
haulout locations at VAFB and the NCI,
we believe the maximum number of
individual harbor seals that could be
taken per activity (i.e., launch, landing,
or aircraft activity) represents a
conservative estimate of the number of
individual harbor seals that would be
taken over the course of a year. On
VAFB, monthly marine mammal
surveys conducted by the USAF
represent the best available information
on harbor seal abundance. The
maximum number of harbor seals
documented during monthly marine
mammal surveys at VAFB in the years
2015, 2016 and 2017 was 821 seals (in
October, 2015). On the NCI, marine
mammal surveys conducted from 2011–
2015 (Lowry et al., 2017) represents the
best available information on harbor
seal abundance. The maximum number
of seals documented in surveys from
2011 through 2015 (the most recent
information available) was 1,367 seals
(in July, 2015) (Lowry et al., 2017).
Therefore, we conservatively estimate
that the maximum number of harbor
seals that could potentially be taken per
activity (i.e., lunch, landing, or aircraft
activity) is 2,188 harbor seals, which
represents the combined maximum
number of seals expected to be present
on the NCI and VAFB during any given
activity. As we believe the same
individuals are likely to be taken
repeatedly over the duration of the
proposed activities, we use this estimate
of 2,188 individual animals taken per
activity (i.e., launch, landing, or aircraft
activity) for the purposes of estimating
the percentage of the stock abundance
likely to be taken (7.1 percent).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
343
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.
Adaptive Management
The regulations governing the take of
marine mammals incidental to the
USAF’s activities at VAFB would
contain an adaptive management
component.
The reporting requirements associated
with this proposed rule are designed to
provide NMFS with monitoring data
from the previous year to allow
consideration of whether any changes
are appropriate. The use of adaptive
management allows NMFS to consider
new information from different sources
to determine (with input from the Navy
regarding practicability) on an annual or
biennial basis if mitigation or
monitoring measures should be
modified (including additions or
deletions). Mitigation measures could be
modified if new data suggests that such
modifications would have a reasonable
likelihood of reducing adverse effects to
marine mammals and if the measures
are practicable.
The following are some of the
possible sources of applicable data to be
considered through the adaptive
management process: (1) Results from
monitoring reports, as required by
MMPA authorizations; (2) results from
general marine mammal and sound
research; and (3) any information which
reveals that marine mammals may have
been taken in a manner, extent, or
number not authorized by these
regulations or subsequent LOAs.
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
ITAs, NMFS consults internally, in this
case with the NMFS West Coast Region
Protected Resources Division Office,
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
344
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
whenever 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 ITA. NMFS will
conclude the ESA consultation prior to
reaching a determination regarding the
proposed issuance of the authorization.
Request for Information
NMFS requests interested persons to
submit comments, information, and
suggestions concerning the USAF’s
request and the proposed regulations
(see ADDRESSES). All comments will be
reviewed and evaluated as we prepare a
final rule and make final determinations
on whether to issue the requested
authorization. This proposed rule and
referenced documents provide all
environmental information relating to
our proposed action for public review.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Classification
Pursuant to the procedures
established to implement Executive
Order 12866, the Office of Management
and Budget has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Chief Counsel for Regulation of the
Department of Commerce has certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The U.S. Air Force is the sole entity that
would be subject to the requirements in
these proposed regulations, and the U.S.
Air Force is not a small governmental
jurisdiction, small organization, or small
business, as defined by the RFA.
Because of this certification, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required and none has been prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) unless that
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
However, this rule does not contain a
collection-of-information requirement
subject to the provisions of the PRA
because the applicant is a Federal
agency.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217
Exports, Fish, Imports, Marine
mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Dated: January 17, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
50 CFR part 217 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 217—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE
MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO
SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
1. The authority citation for part 217
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless
otherwise noted.
■
2. Revise subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G—Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches and
Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
California
Sec.
217.60 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
217.61 Effective dates.
217.62 Permissible methods of taking.
217.63 Prohibitions.
217.64 Mitigation.
217.65 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
217.66 Letters of Authorization.
217.67 Renewals and modifications of
Letters of Authorization.
217.68–217.69 [Reserved]
§ 217.60 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply
only to the 30th Space Wing, United
States Air Force (USAF) and those
persons it authorizes to conduct
activities on its behalf for the taking of
marine mammals that occurs in the
areas outlined in paragraph (b) of this
section and that occurs incidental to
rocket and missile launches and aircraft
and helicopter operations.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by
the USAF may be authorized in a Letter
of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs
from activities originating at
Vandenberg Air Force Base.
§ 217.61
Effective dates.
Regulations in this subpart are
effective from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], through [DATE 5 YEARS
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
§ 217.62
Permissible methods of taking.
Under LOA issued pursuant to
§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.60
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Holder of the Letter of Authorization
(herein after the USAF) may
incidentally, but not intentionally, take
marine mammals by Level B
harassment, within the area described in
§ 217.60(b), provided the activity is in
compliance with all terms, conditions,
and requirements of the regulations in
this subpart and the appropriate Letter
of Authorization.
§ 217.63
Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding takings
contemplated in § 217.62 and
authorized by a Letter of Authorization
issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter
and 217.66, no person in connection
with the activities described in § 217.60
may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the
terms, conditions, and requirements of
this subpart or a LOA issued under
§§ 216.106 and 218.26 of this chapter;
(b) Take any marine mammal not
specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal
specified in such LOAs in any manner
other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified
in such LOAs if NMFS determines such
taking results in more than a negligible
impact on the species or stocks of such
marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified
in such LOAs if NMFS determines such
taking results in an unmitigable adverse
impact on the species or stock of such
marine mammal for taking for
subsistence uses.
§ 217.64
Mitigation.
When conducting the activities
identified in § 217.60(a), the mitigation
measures contained in any Letter of
Authorization issued under §§ 216.106
of this chapter and 217.66 must be
implemented. These mitigation
measures include (but are not limited
to):
(a) For missile and rocket launches,
the USAF must avoid, whenever
possible, launches during the harbor
seal pupping season of March through
June, unless constrained by factors
including, but not limited to, human
safety, national security, or launch
mission objectives.
(b) For rocket launches, the USAF
must avoid, whenever possible,
launches which are predicted to
produce a sonic boom on the Northern
Channel Islands from March through
June.
(c) Aircraft and helicopter flight paths
must maintain a minimum distance of
1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized
pinniped haulouts and rookeries,
whenever possible, except for one area
near the VAFB harbor over which
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
aircraft may be flown to within 500 ft
of a haulout, and except in emergencies
or for real-time security incidents,
which may require approaching
pinniped haulouts and rookeries closer
than 1,000 ft (305 m).
(d) If post-launch surveys determine
that an injurious or lethal take of a
marine mammal has occurred, the
launch procedure and the monitoring
methods must be reviewed, in
cooperation with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and
appropriate changes must be made
through modification to a Letter of
Authorization, prior to conducting the
next launch under that Letter of
Authorization.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 217.65 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
(a) To conduct monitoring of rocket
launch activities, the USAF must either
use video recording, or must designate
a qualified on-site individual approved
in advance by NMFS, with
demonstrated proficiency in the
identification of all age and sex classes
of both common and uncommon
pinniped species found at VAFB and
knowledge of approved count
methodology and experience in
observing pinniped behavior, as
specified in the Letter of Authorization,
to monitor and document pinniped
activity as described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (9) of this section:
(1) For any launches of space launch
vehicles or recoveries of the Falcon 9
First Stage occurring from 1 January
through 31 July, pinniped activity at
VAFB must be monitored in the vicinity
of the haulout nearest the launch
platform, or, in the absence of pinnipeds
at that location, at another nearby
haulout, for at least 72 hours prior to
any planned launch, and continue for a
period of time not less than 48 hours
subsequent to the launch;
(2) For any launches of new space
launch vehicles that have not been
monitored during at least 3 previous
launches occurring from 1 August
through 31 December, pinniped activity
at VAFB must be monitored in the
vicinity of the haulout nearest the
launch or landing platform, or, in the
absence of pinnipeds at that location, at
another nearby haulout, for at least 72
hours prior to any planned launch, and
continue for a period of time not less
than 48 hours subsequent to launching;
(3) For any launches of existing space
launch vehicles that are expected to
result in louder launch noise or sonic
booms than previous launches of the
same vehicle type occurring from 1
August through 31 December, pinniped
activity at VAFB must be monitored in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
the vicinity of the haulout nearest the
launch or landing platform, or, in the
absence of pinnipeds at that location, at
another nearby haulout, for at least 72
hours prior to any planned launch, and
continue for a period of time not less
than 48 hours subsequent to launching;
(4) For any launches of new types of
missiles occurring from 1 August
through 31 December, pinniped activity
at VAFB must be monitored in the
vicinity of the haulout nearest the
launch or landing platform, or, in the
absence of pinnipeds at that location, at
another nearby haulout, for at least 72
hours prior to any planned launch, and
continue for a period of time not less
than 48 hours subsequent to launching;
(5) For any recoveries of the Falcon 9
First Stage occurring from 1 August
through 31 December that are predicted
to result in a sonic boom of 1.0 psf or
above on VAFB, pinniped activity at
VAFB must be monitored in the vicinity
of the haulout nearest the launch or
landing platform, or, in the absence of
pinnipeds at that location, at another
nearby haulout, for at least 72 hours
prior to any planned launch, and
continue for a period of time not less
than 48 hours subsequent to launching;
(6) For any launches or rocket
recoveries occurring from March 1
through July 31), follow-up surveys
must be conducted within 2 weeks of
the launch;
(7) For any launches or Falcon 9
recoveries, pinniped activity at the
Northern Channel Islands must be
monitored, if it is determined by
modeling that a sonic boom of greater
than 2.0 psf is predicted to impact one
of the islands between March 1 and July
31, greater than 3.0 psf between August
1 and September 30, and greater than
4.0 psf between October 1 and February
28. Monitoring will be conducted at the
haulout site closest to the predicted
sonic boom impact area, or, in the
absence of pinnipeds at that location, at
another nearby haulout;
(8) For any launches or Falcon 9
recoveries during which marine
mammal monitoring is required,
acoustic measurements must be made of
those launch vehicles that have not had
sound pressure level measurements
documented previously; and
(9) Marine mammal 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 launch
noise, sonic booms or other natural or
human caused disturbances, in addition
to recording environmental conditions
such as tide, wind speed, air
temperature, and swell.
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
345
(b) The USAF must submit a report to
the Administrator, West Coast Region,
NMFS, and Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, within 90 days after
each launch. This report must contain
the following information:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the launch;
(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 commencement of
the launch;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may
have been harassed as noted by the
number of pinnipeds estimated to have
moved in response to 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 degree, or,
entered the water as a result of launch
noise;
(iii) For any marine mammals that
entered the water, the length of time
they remained off the haulout; and
(iv) Behavioral modifications by
pinnipeds that were likely the result of
launch noise or the sonic boom.
(c) If the authorized activity identified
in § 217.60(a) is thought to have resulted
in the mortality or injury of any marine
mammals or in any take of marine
mammals not identified in § 217.62,
then the USAF must notify the Director,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the stranding coordinator, West
Coast Region, NMFS, within 48 hours of
the discovery of the injured or dead
marine mammal.
(d) An annual report must be
submitted on March 1 of each year to
the Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS.
(e) A final report must be submitted
at least 180 days prior to [DATE 5
YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS. This report will:
(1) Summarize the activities
undertaken and the results reported in
all previous reports;
(2) Assess the impacts at each of the
major rookeries;
(3) Assess the cumulative impacts on
pinnipeds and other marine mammals
from the activities specified in
§ 217.60(a); and
(4) State the date(s), location(s), and
findings of any research activities
related to monitoring the effects on
launch noise, sonic booms, and harbor
activities on marine mammal
populations.
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
346
§ 217.66
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Letters of Authorization.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
(a) To incidentally take marine
mammals pursuant to these regulations,
the USAF must apply for and obtain a
Letter of Authorization.
(b) A Letter of Authorization, unless
suspended or revoked, may be effective
for a period of time not to exceed [DATE
5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(c) If a Letter of Authorization expires
prior to [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the USAF may apply for and obtain a
renewal of the Letter of Authorization.
(d) In the event of projected changes
to the activity or to mitigation and
monitoring measures required by a
Letter of Authorization, the USAF must
apply for and obtain a modification of
the Letter of Authorization as described
in § 217.67.
(e) The Letter of Authorization will
set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species, its habitat,
and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
(f) Issuance of the Letter of
Authorization shall be based on a
determination that the level of taking
will be consistent with the findings
made for the total taking allowable
under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of a
Letter of Authorization shall be
published in the Federal Register
within 30 days of a determination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
§ 217.67 Renewals and modifications of
Letters of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued
under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and
217.66 for the activity identified in
§ 217.60(a) shall be renewed or modified
upon request by the applicant, provided
that:
(1) The proposed specified activity
and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the
anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for these
regulations (excluding changes made
pursuant to the adaptive management
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous
Letter of Authorization under these
regulations were implemented.
(b) For Letter of Authorization
modification or renewal requests by the
applicant that include changes to the
activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting (excluding changes made
pursuant to the adaptive management
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section) that do not change the findings
made for the regulations or result in no
more than a minor change in the total
estimated number of takes (or
distribution by species or years), NMFS
may publish a notice of proposed Letter
of Authorization in the Federal
Register, including the associated
analysis of the change, and solicit
public comment before issuing the
Letter of Authorization.
(c) A Letter of Authorization issued
under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and
217.66 for the activity identified in
§ 217.60(a) may be modified by NMFS
under the following circumstances:
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
(1) Adaptive management. NMFS may
modify (including augment) the existing
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures (after consulting with the
USAF regarding the practicability of the
modifications) if doing so creates a
reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of
the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures in a Letter of Authorization:
(A) Results from the USAF’s
monitoring from the previous year(s).
(B) Results from other marine
mammal and/or sound research or
studies.
(C) Any information that reveals
marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent or number not
authorized by these regulations or
subsequent Letters of Authorization.
(ii) If, through adaptive management,
the modifications to the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures are
substantial, NMFS will publish a notice
of proposed Letter of Authorization in
the Federal Register and solicit public
comment.
(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines
that an emergency exists that poses a
significant risk to the well-being of the
species or stocks of marine mammals
specified in § 217.62, a Letter of
Authorization may be modified without
prior notice or opportunity for public
comment. Notice would be published in
the Federal Register within 30 days of
the action.
§§ 217.68–217.69
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2019–00090 Filed 1–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 321-346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00090]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 217
RIN 0648-BI44
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches and Operations at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Air Force (USAF) for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to launching space
launch vehicles, intercontinental ballistic and small missiles, and
aircraft and helicopter operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB)
from March 2019 to March 2024. As required by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that
take, and requests comments on the proposed regulations. NMFS will
consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the
issuance of the requested incidental take regulations and agency
responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than February
22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0047,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic submissions: submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0047, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Alternately, electronic comments may be emailed to ITP.laws@noaa.gov.
Mail: Submit comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910-3225.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file
formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of the USAF's application and any supporting documents, as
well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be
obtained online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Purpose and Need for Regulatory Action
This proposed rule would establish a framework under the authority
of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow for the authorization of
take of marine mammals incidental to launching space launch vehicles,
intercontinental ballistic and small missiles, and aircraft and
helicopter operations at VAFB.
We received an application from the USAF requesting the five-year
regulations and authorization to take marine mammals. Take would occur
by Level B harassment incidental to launch noise and sonic booms.
Please see ``Background'' below for definitions of harassment.
Legal Authority for the Proposed Action
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but
not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years
if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings
and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking
pursuant to that activity and other means of effecting the ``least
practicable adverse impact'' on the affected species or stocks and
their habitat (see the discussion below in the ``Proposed Mitigation''
section), as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 216, subpart I, provide the legal basis for issuing this proposed
rule containing five-year regulations, and for any subsequent LOAs. As
directed by this legal authority, this proposed rule contains
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Rule
Following is a summary of the major provisions of this proposed
rule regarding space launch activities. These measures include:
Required acoustic monitoring to measure the sound levels
associated with the proposed activities.
Required biological monitoring to record the presence of
marine mammals during the proposed activities and to document responses
to the proposed activities.
Mitigation measures to minimize harassment of the most
sensitive marine mammal species.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
[[Page 322]]
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
The MMPA states that the term ``take'' means to harass, hunt,
capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine
mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
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 evaluate our proposed action (i.e., the promulgation of
regulations and subsequent issuance of incidental take authorization)
and alternatives with respect to potential impacts on the human
environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 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 proposed action qualifies to be
categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Information in the USAF's application and this proposed rule
collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed
issuance of these regulations and subsequent incidental take
authorization for public review and comment. We will review all
comments submitted in response to this proposed rule prior to
concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the request
for incidental take authorization.
Summary of Request
On August 10, 2018, NMFS received an application from the USAF,
30th Space Wing, requesting authorization for the take of six species
of pinnipeds incidental to launch, aircraft, and helicopter operations
from VAFB launch complexes. On December 4, 2018, NMFS received a
supplement to the application from USAF that included a request to
include activities associated with the recovery of Space Exploration
Technologies (SpaceX) Falcon 9 First Stage rockets in VAFB's request.
NMFS proposes regulations to govern the authorization of take
incidental to these activities. On September 13, 2017 (83 FR 46483), we
published a notice of receipt of the USAF's application in the Federal
Register, requesting comments and information related to the request
for thirty days. We received comments from the Marine Mammal
Commission. The comments were considered in development of this
proposed rule and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.
The take of marine mammals incidental to activities related to the
launching of space launch vehicles and missiles, and aircraft and
helicopter operations at VAFB, have been previously authorized by NMFS
via Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued under current incidental take
regulations, which are effective from March 26, 2014 through March 26,
2019 (79 FR 10016). To date, we have issued nine LOAs to USAF for these
activities, under the current and prior incidental take regulations.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
VAFB contains 7 active missile launch facilities and 6 active space
launch facilities and supports launch activities for the U.S. Air
Force, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and commercial entities. It is the primary west coast
launch facility for placing commercial, government and military
satellites into polar orbit on unmanned launch vehicles, and for the
testing and evaluation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
and sub-orbital target and interceptor missiles. In addition to the
launching of rockets, certain rocket components are returned to VAFB
for reuse, using in-air ``boost-back'' maneuvers and landings at the
base. In addition to space vehicle and missile launch activities at
VAFB, occasional helicopter and aircraft operations occur at VAFB that
involve search-and-rescue, delivery of space vehicle components, launch
mission support, security reconnaissance, and training flights. The use
of unmanned aerial systems (UAS, also known as ``drones'') also occurs
at VAFB.
The USAF anticipates that no more than 110 rocket launches and 15
missile launches would occur in any year during the period of
authorized activities (Table 1). This number of launches would
represent an increase compared to historical launch activity at VAFB,
but the USAF anticipates an increase in the number of launches in the
near future and has based their estimate of planned rocket launches on
this anticipated increase.
There are six species of marine mammals that may be affected by the
USAF's proposed activities: California sea lion, Steller sea lion,
northern fur seal, Guadalupe fur seal, northern elephant seal, and
harbor seal. Hauled out pinnipeds may be disturbed by launch noises
and/or sonic booms (overpressure of high-energy impulsive sound) from
launch vehicles. Aircraft that are noisy and/or flying at low altitudes
can also have the potential to disturb hauled out pinnipeds. Pinniped
responses to these stimuli have been monitored at VAFB for the past 25
years.
Dates and Duration
The activities proposed by USAF would occur for five years, from
March 2019 through March 2024. Activities would occur year-round
throughout the period of validity for the proposed rule.
Specified Geographical Region
All launches and aircraft activities would occur at VAFB. The areas
potentially affected by noise from these activities includes VAFB and
the Northern Channel Islands (NCI). VAFB occupies approximately 99,100
acres of land and approximately 42 miles of coastline in central Santa
Barbara County, California and is divided by the Santa Ynez River and
State Highway 246 into two distinct parts: North Base and South Base.
The NCI are considered part of the project area for the purposes of
this proposed rule, as rocket launches and landings at VAFB may result
in sonic booms that impact the NCI. The
[[Page 323]]
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 (Harris Point on
San Miguel Island) is located more than 30 nautical miles south-
southeast of the nearest launch facility.
Rocket and missile launches occur from several locations on VAFB,
on both North Base and South Base. Please refer to Figure 2 and Figure
3 in the USAF's application for a depiction of launch locations on
VAFB. Rocket landings by SpaceX would occur at the landing area on VAFB
referred to as Space Launch Complex (SLC) 4W, located on South Base,
approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8 kilometers (km)) inland from the
Pacific Ocean. 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 (nm) (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 nm (225 km) southwest of San
Nicolas Island (SNI) and 133 nm (245 km) southwest of San Clemente
Island.
Detailed Description of Specified Activities
As described above, the USAF has requested incidental take
regulations for its operations at VAFB, which include rocket and
missile launches, rocket recovery activities, and aircraft and
helicopter operations. VAFB is headquarters to the 30th Space Wing, the
Air Force Space Command unit that operates VAFB and the Western Range.
VAFB operates as a missile test base and aerospace center, supporting
west coast space launch activities for the USAF, Department of Defense,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 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 evaluation
of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and sub-orbital target
and interceptor missiles. In addition to space vehicle and missile
launch activities at VAFB, helicopter and aircraft operations are
undertaken for purposes such as search-and-rescue, delivery of space
vehicle components, launch mission support, security reconnaissance,
and training flights. From VAFB, space vehicles are launched into polar
orbits on azimuths from 147 to 201 degrees, with sub-orbital flights to
281 degrees. Missile launches are directed west toward Kwajalein Atoll
in the Pacific. This over-water sector, from 147 to 281 degrees,
comprises the Western Range. Part of the Western Range encompasses the
NCI.
Rocket Launch Activities
There are currently six active facilities at VAFB used to launch
satellites into polar orbit. One existing launch facility (TP-01), on
north VAFB, has not been used in several years but is being
reactivated. These facilities support launch programs for the Atlas V,
Delta II, Delta IV, Falcon 9 and Minotaur rockets. Various booster and
fuel packages can be configured to accommodate payloads of different
sizes and weights.
Table 1 shows estimates of the numbers and sizes of rocket launches
from VAFB during calendar years 2019 through 2024. The numbers of
anticipated launches shown in Table 1 are higher than the historical
number of launches that have occurred from VAFB, and are considered
conservative estimates; the actual number of launches that occurs in
these years may be lower. However, the USAF anticipates an increase in
the number of launches by non-commercial entities from VAFB over the
next 5 years and the numbers shown in Table 1 are based on this
expectation. A large percentage of this anticipated increase will be
comprised of smaller launch payloads and rockets than previously
utilized at VAFB.
Table 1--Predicted Maximum Number of Rocket Launches in Calendar Years 2019 Through 2024 From VAFB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small rockets............................................. 5 10 25 40 50 60
Medium rockets............................................ 10 15 20 20 30 30
Large rockets............................................. 5 5 10 15 20 20
-----------------------------------------------------
Total launches........................................ 20 30 45 75 100 110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The proposed rule would be valid for only 3 months in 2024 (January through March) therefore not all launches
in 2024 would be covered under the proposed rule.
Rocket launches from VAFB have the potential to result in the
harassment of pinnipeds that are hauled out of the water as a result of
exposure to sound from launch noise (on VAFB) or as a result of
exposure to sound from sonic booms (on the NCI only). Based on several
years of monitoring data, harassment of marine mammals is unlikely to
occur when the intensity of a sonic boom is below 1.0 pounds per square
foot (psf) (see further discussion in the ``estimated take'' section
below). The likelihood of a sonic boom with a measured psf above 1.0
impacting the NCI is dependent on the size of the rocket (i.e., larger
rockets are more likely to result in a sonic boom on the NCI than
smaller rockets). The USAF estimated that 33 percent of large rockets,
25 percent of medium sized rockets, and 10 percent of small sized
rockets would result in sonic booms on the NCI. The estimated numbers
of sonic booms on the NCI per year from rocket launches is shown in
Table 2; these numbers are based on the expected number of launches
(Table 1) and the percentages described above.
Table 2--Estimated Sonic Booms Above 1.0 psf Per Year Impacting the NCI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Year sonic booms
per year *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019....................................................... 5
2020....................................................... * 7
2021....................................................... 11
2022....................................................... 14
2023....................................................... 19
[[Page 324]]
2024....................................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All numbers are calculated based on the number of each rocket size
expected to be launched in that year (Table 1) and the percentages of
each rocket size expected to result in a sonic boom impacting the NCI
based on USAF estimates. The calculated number of sonic booms in 2020
is 6.4, however we rounded up to 7 to be conservative.
Table 3 shows types of rockets that are anticipated for launch from
VAFB over the next 5 years and the nearest locations of pinniped
haulouts to the launch locations for those rockets. Other small rockets
may also be launched from VAFB over the next 5 years but the exact
specifications and launch locations for those rockets are unknown at
this time.
Table 3--Rocket Types Launched From VAFB and Nearest Locations of Pinniped Haulouts to Launch Locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Launch facility Nearest pinniped haulout Distance to haulout
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current launch programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas V............................. SLC-3E North Rocky Point.......... 9.9 km.
Delta II \1\........................ SLC-2W Purisima Point............. 2.3 km.
Delta IV............................ SLC-6 North Rocky Point.......... 2.3 km.
Falcon 9............................ SLC-4E North Rocky Point.......... 8.2 km.
Minotaur............................ SLC-8 North Rocky Point.......... 1.6 km.
Minotaur/Taurus..................... LF-576E North Spur Road............ 0.8 km.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future launch programs \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vector.............................. SLC-8 North Rocky Point.......... 1.6 km.
Firefly............................. SLC-2 Purisima Point............. 2.3 km.
New Glenn........................... TBD TBD........................ TBD.
Vulcan.............................. SLC-3E North Rocky Point.......... 9.9 km.
TBD................................. TP-01 Purisima Point............. 7.6 km.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The final launch of the Delta II rocket occurred in September 2018, however a new corporate entity has
proposed to reutilize SLC-2W.
\2\ All future launch program specifications should be considered notional and subject to change.
As described above, launch facilities at VAFB support launch
programs for rockets including the Atlas V, Delta II, Delta IV, Falcon
9, Minotaur, and Taurus rockets. Details on these vehicle types are
described below.
(1) Atlas V
The Atlas V vehicle is launched from Space Launch Complex-3E on
south VAFB. This Space Launch Complex (SLC) is approximately 9.9 km
(6.2 mi) from one of the main haulout areas on VAFB, known as North
Rocky Point (see Figure 2 in the application), which encompasses
several smaller haulouts. SLC-3E is approximately 11.1 km (6.9 mi) from
the closest north VAFB haulout, known as the Spur Road haulout site
(Figure 3 in the application) and 13.5 km (8.4 mi) from the next
closest haulout, the nearby Purisima Point haulout site (Figure 3 in
the application).
The Atlas V is a medium lift vehicle that can be flown in two
series of configurations--the Atlas V400 series and the Atlas V500
series. Both series use the Standard Booster as the single body
booster. The V400 series accommodates a 4.2 m (13.8 ft) payload fairing
(a nose cone used to protect a spacecraft (launch vehicle payload)
against the impact of dynamic pressure and aerodynamic heating during
launch through an atmosphere) and as many as three solid rocket
boosters. The V500 series accommodates a 5.4 m (17.7 ft) fairing and as
many as five solid rocket boosters. The Atlas V400 series will lift as
much as 7,800 kg (17,196 lbs) into geosynchronous transfer orbit or as
much as 13,620 kg (30,027 lbs) into low earth orbit. The Atlas V500
series will lift as much as 8,700 kg (19,180 lbs) into geosynchronous
transfer orbit or as much as 21,050 kg (46,407 lbs) into low earth
orbit. The Atlas V consists of a common booster core (CBC) 3.8 m (12.5
ft) in diameter and 32.5 m (106.6 ft) high) powered by an RD180 engine
that burns a liquid propellant fuel consisting of liquid oxygen and RP1
fuel (kerosene). The RD180 engine provides 840,000 lbs of thrust on
liftoff. There is a Centaur upper stage (3.1 m (10.2 ft) in diameter
and 12.7 m (41.7 ft) high) powered by a liquid oxygen and liquid
hydrogen fuel.
(2) Delta IV
The Delta IV is launched from SLC-6, which is 2.3 km (1.4 mi) north
of the main harbor seal haulout site at North Rocky Point (see Figure 2
in the USAF application). The Delta IV family of launch vehicles
consists of five launch vehicle configurations utilizing a CBC first
stage (liquid fueled) and zero, two, or four strap on solid rocket
GEMs. The Delta IV comes in four medium lift configurations and one
heavy lift configuration consisting of multiple CBCs. The Delta IV can
carry payloads from 4,210 to 13,130 kg (9,281 to 28,947 lbs) into
geosynchronous transfer orbit.
(3) Falcon 9
The Falcon 9 is SpaceX's launch vehicle. The Falcon 9 is a two-
stage rocket designed and manufactured by
[[Page 325]]
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 12 ft (3.7 m) in diameter and 160
ft (48.8 m) in height, including the interstage that would remain
attached during landing.
(4) Minotaur
The Minotaur I is a four stage, all solid propellant ground launch
vehicle and is launched from SLC-8 on south VAFB (Figure 2 in the USAF
application), approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) from the North Rocky Point
haulout site. The launch vehicle consists of modified Minuteman II
Stage I and Stage II segments, mated with Pegasus upper stages (Orbital
Sciences Corporation, 2006). The Minotaur is a small vehicle,
approximately 19.2 m (63 ft) tall (Orbital Sciences Corporation 2006b),
with approximately 215,000 lbs of thrust.
(5) Taurus
The standard Taurus is a small launch vehicle, at approximately
24.7 m (81 ft) tall and is launched in two different configurations
(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and standard) with
different first stages providing 500,000 or 400,000 lbs of thrust,
respectively. The different vehicle configurations have different
thrust characteristics, with the standard configuration providing less
thrust than DARPA. The Taurus is launched from 576E on north VAFB,
approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) from the Spur Road harbor seal haulout
site and 2.3 km (1.4 mi) from the Purisima Point haulout site (see
Figure 3 in the USAF application).
SpaceX Falcon 9 First Stage Recovery Activities
As described above, 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 proposed action includes up to twelve
Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries per year. The Falcon 9 First Stage is
recovered via an in-air boost-back maneuver and landings at VAFB or at
a contingency landing location offshore. The Falcon 9 First Stage is
the only rocket type that may be recovered via boost-back and landing
as part of the proposed action.
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 are triggered to flip the
First Stage into position for retrograde burn. Three of the nine First
Stage Merlin engines are 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 cut off to end
the boost-back burn. The First Stage then performs 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 then deploy in preparation for a final single engine burn that
slow the First Stage to a velocity of zero before landing on the
landing pad at SLC-4W.
During the First Stage's descent, a sonic boom 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. Model results have indicated a boost-back and landing of
the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W could produce sonic booms with
overpressures that would potentially be as high as 8.5 psf at VAFB and
potentially as high as 3.1 psf at the NCI (ManTech SRS Technologies,
Inc, 2018). At the time of this proposed rule, only one recovery of the
Falcon 9 First Stage, including the boost-back and landing of the
Falcon 9 First Stage, had occurred at VAFB. Acoustic monitoring data
from that event demonstrated that the sonic boom at the haulout nearest
the landing location was measured at 1.78 psf and the maximum landing
engine noise was estimated at 96.66 dB (ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc,
2018). Monitoring at the NCI was not required during this activity as
sonic boom modeling prior to the activity indicated no sonic boom would
impact the NCI (ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc, 2018).
As a contingency action to landing the Falcon 9 First Stage on the
SLC-4W pad at VAFB, SpaceX may return the Falcon 9 First Stage booster
to a barge in the Pacific Ocean. The barge is specifically designed to
be used as a First Stage landing platform and would be located at least
27 nm (50 km) offshore of VAFB or within an area even further offshore
called the Iridium Landing Area. These contingency landing locations
would be used when landing at SLC-4W would not be feasible. The
maneuvering and landing process described above for a pad landing would
be the same for a barge landing. Sonic boom modeling indicates that
landings that occur at either of the proposed contingency landing
locations offshore would result in sonic booms below 1.0 psf at any
pinniped haulouts, thus marine mammal harassment is not an expected
outcome from landings at those contingency landing locations offshore.
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. 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 noise of
90 dB or greater.
The boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage occurs less
than 10 minutes after the Falcon 9 launches from VAFB (USAF, 2018).
Hauled out pinnipeds may respond to a sonic boom associated with a
Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and landing by alerting, moving or
flushing to the water. However, any pinnipeds that respond to a Falcon
9 First Stage boost-back and landing by moving or flushing to the water
are expected to be the same individuals that responded in such a way to
the initial launch of the rocket, less than 10 minutes prior to the
boost-back and landing. NMFS would consider those individual marine
mammals to have been taken by the stimuli associated with the initial
launch, and would therefore not consider them as taken again by the
boost-back and landing less than 10 minutes later, as we do not
consider an individual marine mammal to be taken given noise exposure
more than once within a 24 hour period. We expect that individual
marine mammals that do not respond to the stimuli associated with the
launch of the rocket will also not respond to the stimuli associated
with the boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage less than
10 minutes later. Therefore, Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities
will not result in any additional marine mammals being taken, beyond
those taken by the launch. As the potential for take
[[Page 326]]
resulting from the boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage
is so low as to be discountable, Falcon 9 First Stage recovery is not
analyzed further in this document.
Missile Launch Activities
A variety of small missiles are launched from various facilities on
north VAFB, including Minuteman III, an ICBM which is launched from
underground silos. In addition, several types of interceptor and target
vehicles are launched for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The MDA
develops various systems and elements, including the Ballistic Missile
Defense System (BMDS).
The BMDS test plans, including those involving tests from VAFB, are
subject to constant change as the BMDS is being developed. It is
difficult for the MDA to predict its launch schedule or number of
launches over the next five years. However, due to test resource
limitations, MDA does not envision conducting more than three missile
tests per quarter (on average) over the next five years from VAFB, and
none of the missiles would be larger than the Minuteman III. As
described above, the USAF anticipates not more than 15 missile launches
would occur in any year between 2019 through 2024.
LF-09 is the closest active missile launch facility to a haulout
area, located about 0.5 km from Little Sal (see Figure 3 in the
application). The trajectories of all missile launches are nearly due
westward; thus, they do not cause sonic boom impacts on the NCI and
therefore take of marine mammals on the NCI from missile launches is
not an expected outcome of the specified activities.
Aircraft and Helicopter Operations
The VAFB airfield, located on north VAFB, supports various aircraft
operations. Aircraft operations include tower operations, such as take-
offs and landings (training operations), and range operations such as
overflights and flight tests. Over the past five years, an average of
slightly more than 600 flights has occurred each year.
Fixed-wing aircraft use VAFB for various purposes, including
delivering rocket or missile components, high-altitude launches of
space vehicles and emergency landings. VAFB is also used for flight
testing, evaluation of fixed-wing aircraft and training exercises,
including touch and goes. Three approved routes are used that avoid
established pinniped haulout sites. Aircraft flown through VAFB
airspace and supported by 30th Space Wing include, but are not limited
to: B-1 and B-2 bombers, F-15, F-16 and F-22 fighters, V/X-22s, and KC-
135 tankers.
Helicopter operations also occur at VAFB, but the number of
helicopter operations at VAFB has decreased considerably since 2008
when the deactivation of the VAFB helicopter squadron occurred. Other
squadrons and units occasionally use VAFB for purposes such as
transiting through the area, exercises and launch mission support.
Emergency helicopter operations, including but not limited to search-
and-rescue and wildfire containment actions, also occur occasionally.
Unmanned Aerial Systems (also known as ``drone'') operations at
VAFB represent a relatively new activity but may increase over the next
five years. UAS operations may include either rotary or fixed wing
aircraft. These are typically divided into as many as six classes which
graduate in size from class 0 (which are often smaller than 5 inches in
diameter and always weigh less than one pound) to Class 5 (which can be
as large as a small piloted aircraft) (Table 5). UAs classes 0, 1, 2
and 3 can be used in almost any location, while classes 4 and 5
typically require a runway and for that reason would only be operated
from the VAFB airfield.
Table 5--Classes of Unmanned Aerial Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical operating
Class Weight (pounds) Minimum dimension Maximum dimension altitude (feet) Typical airspeed (knots)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................................ <1.................. ``large insect''.... 50 cm............... Any................. any.
1................................ 1-20................ >50 cm.............. 2 meters............ <1,200.............. <100.
2................................ 21-55............... >2 m................ 10 meters........... <3,500.............. <250.
3................................ <1,320.............. >10 meters.......... n/a................. <18,000............. <250.
4................................ >1,320.............. >10 meters.......... n/a................. <18,000............. Any.
5................................ >1,320.............. >10 meters.......... n/a................. <18,000............. Any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take of hauled out pinnipeds from aircraft operations may occur as
a result of visual or auditory stimuli in limited instances where the
aircraft operate at low altitudes near pinniped haulouts. While
harassment of hauled out pinnipeds from Class 0, 1 or 2 UAS is unlikely
to occur at altitudes of 200 feet and above (Erbe et al., 2017; Pomeroy
et al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2016; Sweeney and Gelatt, 2017),
information on pinniped responses to larger UASs is not widely
available. However, based on the specifications of Class 3, 4 and 5
UASs (Table 5), the likelihood of harassment resulting from overflights
by UASs of that size would likely depend on several factors including
noise signature and means of propulsion (i.e., rocket propelled or
engine propelled). Except for take-off and landing actions, a minimum
altitude of 300 feet will be maintained for Class 0-2 UAS over all
known marine mammal haulouts when marine mammals are present. Class 3
UAS will maintain a minimum altitude of 500 feet, except at take-off
and landing. No Class 4 or 5 UAS will be flown below 1,000 feet over
haulouts.
The USAF anticipates that take of marine mammals from aircraft
operations would be minimal; however, to be conservative, the USAF has
requested authorization for incidental take as a result of aircraft
operations.
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 and the NCI) that are expected to be affected by the
specified activities. These are listed in Table 6. This section
provides summary information regarding local occurrence of these
species. We have reviewed USAF's species descriptions, including life
history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader
to Section 3 of the USAF's application, as well as to NMFS' Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR; https://
[[Page 327]]
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' 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 stressors associated with the specified
activities that could result in take of marine mammals (i.e., launch
noise, sonic booms and aircraft operations) only have the potential to
result in harassment of marine mammals that are hauled out of the
water. 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 USAF's proposed
activities to be so low as to be discountable, cetaceans are not
considered further in this proposed rule.
Table 6 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 regulatory
status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR),
where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2018). 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 proposed for authorization 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 6 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 6--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area That May Be Affected by the Proposed Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance (CV,
ESA/ MMPA status; Nmin, most recent Annual M/
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) abundance survey) \2\ PBR SI \3\
\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
townsendi. 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.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas and that may be affected by the proposed activities are included
in Table 6. 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.
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 these proposed regulations due to the
distribution of the stock and the geographic scope of the proposed
activities. Although the need
[[Page 328]]
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.
They are local to the area, rarely traveling more than 50 km from
haulout sites (pers comm., M. Lowry, NMFS SWFSC, to J. Carduner, NMFS
OPR). 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. 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. 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) (see Figure 2 in the
USAF's application).
Pups are generally present in the region from March through July
(USAF, 2018). The best available information of harbor seal abundance
on VAFB is USAF monthly survey data. 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).
The harbor seal population at VAFB has undergone an apparent decline in
recent years (USAF, 2018). 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 (USAF, 2018).
Harbor seals also haul out, breed, and pup in isolated beaches and
coves throughout the coasts of San Miguel Island (SMI), Santa Rosa
Island (SRI), San Nicolas Island (SNI) and Santa Cruz Island (SCI)
(Lowry, 2002). The best available information of harbor seal abundance
on the NCI is NMFS aerial survey data from 2011-2015 (Lowry et al.,
2017). During aerial surveys conducted by NMFS from 2011-2015, a mean
of 589 harbors seals was recorded at SMI, a mean of 181 was recorded at
SCI, and a mean of 247 was recorded at SRI (Lowry et al., 2017). On
SMI, they occur along the north coast at Tyler Bight and from Crook
Point to Cardwell Point. Additionally, they regularly breed on SMI. 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).
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 SMI 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.
The best available information on California sea lion abundance on
VAFB is USAF monthly survey data. 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 increased
substantially, ranging 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, unpub.
data). Successful pupping has never been observed on VAFB; one possible
explanation is that only California sea
[[Page 329]]
lions affected by domoic acid toxicity give birth at VAFB. These pups
are either stillborn or very likely do not survive long (USAF, 2018).
Pupping occurs in large numbers on SMI 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. California sea lions also 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 (Lowry et al., 2017).
The best available information on California sea lion abundance on
the NCI is NMFS aerial survey data from 2011-2015 (Lowry et al., 2017).
During aerial surveys from 2011-2015, a mean of 62,150 California sea
lions were recorded at haulouts on SMI, a mean of 1322 was recorded at
SCI and a mean of 944 was recorded at SRI (Lowry et al., 2017).
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern elephant seals range in the eastern and central North
Pacific Ocean, from as far north as Alaska and as far south as Mexico.
They spend much of the year, generally about nine months, in the 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.
The best available information on northern elephant seal abundance
on VAFB is USAF monthly survey data. 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). Northern elephant seal pupping
at VAFB was documented for the first time in January 2017 with 18 pups
born and weaned. In January 2018, a total of 25 pups were observed born
and weaned. (USAF, 2018).
The best available information on northern elephant seal abundance
on the NCI is NMFS aerial survey data from 2011-2015 (Lowry et al.,
2017). Point Bennett on the west end of SMI is the primary northern
elephant seal rookery in the NCI, with another rookery at Cardwell
Point on the east end of SMI (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 from 2011-2015, a mean of 2,350 northern
elephant seals was recorded at SMI, and a mean of 816 was recorded at
SRI. None were observed at Santa Cruz Island (Lowry et al., 2017).
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 at VAFB during launch monitoring and monthly
surveys conducted over the past two decades (MMCG and SAIC, 2013). The
best available information on Steller sea lion abundance on VAFB is
USAF monthly surveys. Since 2012, Steller sea lions have been observed
frequently in routine monthly surveys, with as many as 16 individuals
recorded. In 2017, the highest number observed at VAFB was 11, in July
(CEMML, 2018). Steller sea lions once had two small rookeries on SMI,
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. Due to
their very limited numbers on the NCI, survey data for Steller sea
lions on the NCI is not available, therefore the best available
information on abundance on the NCI is anecdotal information from
subject matter experts. 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 Marine Mammal Center
(MML), to J. Carduner, NMFS). Steller sea lions have not been observed
on the other Channel Islands.
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). Only the California stock is considered
in this proposed
[[Page 330]]
authorization due to its geographic distribution.
Northern fur seals have rookeries on SMI at Point Bennett and on
Castle Rock. Comprehensive count data for northern fur seals on San
Miguel Island are not available, therefore the best available
information on northern fur seal abundance on the NCI comes from
subject matter experts which indicates the population is at its maximum
in summer (June-August) with an estimated 13,384 animals at SMI, with
approximately half that number present in the fall (September and
October) and approximately 50-200 animals present from November through
May (pers. comm. Sharon Melin, NMFS MML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR). SMI
is the only island in the NCI on which northern fur seals have been
observed, and on SMI they only occur at the west end of the island and
on Castle Rock (a small offshore rock on the northwest side of the
island) (pers. comm. Sharon Melin, NMFS MML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR).
Although the population at SMI was established by individuals from
Alaska and Russian Islands during the late 1960s, most individuals
currently found on SMI 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, with the majority of the population found on islands in Mexico.
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). 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 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, therefore the best available information on
Guadalupe fur seal abundance is from subject matter experts. On SMI,
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
SMI. 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 MML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR). 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 Hz to 86 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 6.
Table 4--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
[[Page 331]]
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.
Description of Sound Sources
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 hertz (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'' 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 (rms) 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 to fall into one of two general types:
Pulsed and 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, and behavior (feeding, nursing,
resting, etc.) 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
[[Page 332]]
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. Data from monitoring reports associated with authorizations
issued by NMFS previously for similar activities in the same location
as the planned activities (described further below) provides further
support for the assertion that TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or
physiological effects, and masking are not likely to occur (USAF 2013b;
SAIC 2012). 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 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). These may
be of limited relevance to the proposed activities given that airborne
sound, and not underwater sound, may result in harassment of marine
mammals as a result of the proposed activities; however we present this
information as background on the potential impacts of sound on marine
mammals. 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 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 temporarily abandoning their habitat.
Hauled out pinnipeds may flush from a haulout into the water. Though
pup abandonment could theoretically result from these reactions, site-
specific monitoring data (described below) indicate that pup
abandonment is not likely to occur as a result of the specified
activity.
Potential Effects From the Specified Activity
This section includes a discussion of the active acoustic sound
sources associated with the USAF's proposed activity and the likelihood
for these sources to result in harassment of marine mammals. Potential
acoustic sources associated with the USAF's proposed activity include
launch noise, sonic booms, and aircraft noise. Marine mammals on the
NCI would be impacted only by sonic booms associated with the proposed
activities (i.e., launch noise and aircraft noise are not expected to
impact marine mammals on the NCI), while marine mammals on VAFB would
be impacted by launch noise, aircraft noise and sonic booms from Falcon
9 boost-backs and landings (however, as described above, sounds
associated with Falcon 9 First Stage boost-backs and landings are not
expected to result in additional take of marine mammals and are
therefore not addressed here). Sounds produced by the proposed
activities are expected to be impulsive, due to sonic booms, and non-
pulse noise, due to aircraft sounds. All noises resulting from the
USAF's proposed activities that may impact marine mammals are airborne.
Sonic Boom
Sonic booms may disturb pinnipeds that are hauled out of the water
in the area of exposure, depending on the species exposed and the level
of the sonic boom. The USAF has monitored pinniped responses to rocket
launches on VAFB and the NCI during numerous launches over the past two
decades. 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
rare stampedes.
Data from launch monitoring reports by the USAF on the NCI have
shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated with the
level of the sonic boom. Table 7 presents a summary of monitoring
efforts at the NCI from 1999 to 2017 during which acoustic measurements
were successfully recorded and during which pinnipeds were observed.
Monitoring data has consistently shown that reactions among pinnipeds
to sonic booms vary between species, with harbor seals typically
responding at the highest rates, followed by California sea lions, with
northern elephant seals and northern fur seals generally being much
less responsive (Table 7). 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 the NCI, harbor
seals have been observed to respond at higher rates to sonic booms than
other species present there (Table 7). California sea lions have also
sometimes shown reactiveness to sonic booms, with pups sometimes
reacting
[[Page 333]]
more than adults, (Table 7). 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).
Monitoring data also 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 depending
on the species. Lower 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 7). More powerful sonic booms have sometimes resulted
in some species of pinnipeds flushing from haulouts.
Table 7--Observed Pinniped Responses to Sonic Booms at San Miguel Island, Based on USAF Launch Monitoring
Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic
boom
Launch event level Monitoring location Species observed and responses
(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 lions and
northern fur seals: 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: ~60% of CSL
Bennett. alerted and raised their
heads. None flushed.
......... Northern elephant seal: No
visible response to sonic
boom, none flushed.
......... Northern fur seal: 60% alerted
and raised their heads. None
flushed.
Atlas V (March 1, 2017)................. \a\ ~0.8 Cuyler Harbor on San Northern elephant seal: 13 of
Miguel Island. 235 (6%) 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.
Monitoring data also suggests that, for those pinnipeds that flush
from haulouts in response to sonic booms, the amount of time it takes
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
levels. Pinnipeds may begin to return to the haulout site within 2-55
minutes of the launch disturbance, and the haulout site usually
returned to pre-launch levels within 45-120 minutes. Monitoring data
from launch of the Athena IKONOS rocket in 2012 showed harbor seals
that flushed to the water on exposure to the sonic boom at SMI began to
return to the haulout approximately 16-55 minutes post-launch (Thorson
et al., 1999). Monitoring data from the launch of the Delta IV in 2012
showed harbor seals that flushed to the water at VAFB in response to
the launch noise returned to the haulout approximately 30 minutes later
(ManTech SRS Technologies, 2012).
Based on two decades of monitoring reports, pinniped responses to
sonic booms range from no response, to head raises and movements in
response to the stimuli, to flushing to the water. Injury and mortality
are not expected to result from exposure to sonic booms and this
[[Page 334]]
is supported by two decades of monitoring reports which have shown no
documented pinniped mortalities or serious associated with sonic booms,
and no pup abandonment as a result of sonic booms. No sustained
decreases in numbers of animals observed at haulouts have been observed
after the stimulus. These findings came as a result of more than two
decades of research by numerous qualified, independent researchers,
from 1991 through 2018. These patterns are anticipated to continue.
Launch Noise
Whereas sonic booms represent the primary source of noise on the
NCI from the USAF's proposed activities, on VAFB the sound associated
with launches represents the primary source of noise from the USAF's
proposed activities. The operation of launch vehicle engines produces
significant sound levels. Generally, noise is generated from three
sources during launches: (1) Combustion noise from launch vehicle
chambers; (2) jet noise generated by the interaction of the exhaust jet
and the atmosphere; (3) combustion noise from the post-burning of
combustion products. Launch noise levels are highly dependent on the
type of first-stage booster and the fuel used to propel the vehicle.
Pre- and post-launch pinniped monitoring by marine mammal observers
occurs at haulouts near launch sites. Pre- and post-launch data has
shown that as many or more animals are typically hauled out after the
launch than were present prior to 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. As with sonic
booms, observed reactions of pinnipeds at VAFB to launch noise has
included startle responses and movements into the water. No pinniped
mortalities and no pup abandonment have been documented as a result of
launch noise. These patterns are anticipated to continue.
Available monitoring data on pinniped behavior during launches is
more limited than pre- and post-launch data as marine mammal observers
are not able to access pinniped haulouts near launch sites during
launches due to safety concerns. Video monitoring of pinnipeds during
launches is not always feasible due to launches occurring in darkness
or poor visibility conditions but has been used successfully during a
limited number of launches that occurred in daylight and with good
visibility conditions. Data from the limited number of launches where
video monitoring during launches was successful indicates that all
harbor seals and California sea lions have flushed to the water during
launches while 10 percent or less of northern elephant seals have
flushed to the water during launch. However, it should be noted that
available video monitoring data is very limited so it is difficult to
draw broad conclusions on responses to launches based on the small
sample sizes of available data (i.e., there is only one launch for
which video monitoring data is available for California sea lions). We
also note that video monitoring during launches is typically conducted
at haulouts on VAFB close to the launch location, thus the rate at
which pinnipeds respond to launches at haulouts on VAFB that are
further away from the launch location remain largely unknown, further
complicating our ability to draw conclusions on pinniped response rates
during launches.
To determine if harbor seals experience changes in their hearing
sensitivity as a result of launch noise, ABR testing was previously
conducted on 21 harbor seals during four Titan IV launches, one Taurus
launch, and two Delta IV launches by the USAF in accordance with issued
scientific research permits. 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 8 kilohertz (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. One seal had substantial decreased acuity to the 8 kHz tone-
burst stimuli prior to the launch. The cause of this hearing loss was
unknown but was most likely congenital or from infection. Another seal
had a great deal of variability in waveform latencies in response to
identical stimuli. This animal moved repeatedly during testing, which
may have reduced the sensitivity of the ABR testing on this animal for
both the click and 8 kHz tone burst stimuli. Two of the seals were
released after pre-launch testing but prior to the launch of the Titan
IV B-34, as the launch was delayed for over five days, with five days
being the maximum duration permitted to hold the seals for testing.
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 hr after
the launches) for ABR testing allows for the possibility that the seals
may have recovered from a temporary threshold shift (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 Titan IV, Taurus, or Delta IV
SLVs.
No sustained decreases in numbers of animals observed at haulouts
have been observed after launches. No pup abandonment has been
documented as a result of launch noise and no documented pinniped
mortalities have been associated with launch noise on VAFB. These
patterns are expected to continue.
Aircraft and Helicopter Operations
The USAF does not monitor pinniped responses to aircraft and
helicopter operations, including UAS operations, on VAFB. As described
above, except for take-off and landing actions, a minimum altitude of
300 feet will be maintained for Class 0-2 UAS over all known marine
mammal haulouts when marine mammals are present. Class 3 UAS will
maintain a minimum altitude of 500 feet, except at take-off and
landing. No Class 4 or 5 UAS will be flown below 1,000 feet over
haulouts. The available literature indicates that harassment of hauled
out pinnipeds, as a result of visual or auditory stimuli, from Class 0-
2 UAS is unlikely to occur at altitudes of 300 feet and above (Erbe et
al., 2017; Pomeroy et al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2016; Sweeney and
Gelatt, 2017). Information on pinniped responses to larger UASs,
including Class 3 UASs, is not available. However, based on the
specifications of Class 3 UASs (Table 5), the likelihood of marine
mammal harassment resulting from overflights by UASs of that size would
[[Page 335]]
likely depend on several factors including noise signature and means of
propulsion (i.e., rocket propelled or engine propelled). The
specifications for potential Class 3 UASs that would be used by USAF
are not known at this time as this is a relatively new activity at VAFB
and as UAS technology is changing rapidly it is difficult for the USAF
to predict which types of UAS will be used between 2019 and 2024. While
unlikely, it is possible that take of marine mammals could occur as a
result of Class 3 UASs flown at 500 feet or above, depending on noise
signature and means of propulsion of the UAS. In addition, occasional
helicopter and aircraft operations involving search-and-rescue
missions, delivery of space vehicle components, launch mission support,
security reconnaissance, and training flights occur at VAFB and have
the potential to result in harassment of hauled out pinnipeds. While
monitoring data is not available, we anticipate that pinniped responses
to aircraft and helicopter operations will be similar to those
exhibited in response to sonic booms and launch noise (i.e., some head
raises, movements in response to the stimulus, and possibly flushing to
the water).
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
Impacts on marine mammal habitat are part of the consideration in
making a finding of negligible impact on the species and stocks of
marine mammals. Habitat includes, but is not necessarily limited to,
rookeries, mating grounds, feeding areas, and areas of similar
significance. We do not anticipate that the proposed operations 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). While it is anticipated that
the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain
areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat is
temporary and reversible and was considered in further detail earlier
in this document, as behavioral modification. The main impact
associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated
noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals,
previously discussed in this proposed rule.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this proposed rule, 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 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 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 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 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. 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) (Table 8).
Table 8--NMFS Criteria for Pinniped Harassment From Exposure to Airborne
Sound
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment
Species threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seals.............................. 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa.
All other pinniped species................ 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of site-specific data, NMFS typically relies on the
acoustic criteria shown in Table 8 to estimate take as a result of
exposure to airborne sound. However, in this case, more than 20 years
of monitoring data exists on pinniped responses to the stimuli
associated with the proposed activities in the particular geographic
area of the proposed activities. Therefore, we consider these data to
be the best available information in regard to estimating take of
pinnipeds to stimuli associated with the proposed activities. These
data suggest that pinniped responses to the stimuli associated with the
proposed activities are dependent on species and intensity of the
stimuli.
The data recorded by USAF at VAFB and the NCI over the past 20
years has shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms and launch noise
vary depending on the species, the intensity of the stimulus, and the
location (i.e., on VAFB or the NCI). At the NCI, harbor seals have
tended to react more strongly to sonic booms than most other species,
with California sea lions also appearing to be somewhat more sensitive
to sonic booms than some other pinniped
[[Page 336]]
species (Table 7). 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 (Table 7). No data is available on Steller sea
lion or Guadalupe fur seal responses to sonic booms. There is less data
available on pinniped responses during launches, but the available data
indicates that all harbor seals and California sea lions have tended to
flush to the water during launches while 10 percent or less of northern
elephant seals have flushed to the water during launch.
Ensonified Area
The USAF is not able to predict the exact areas that will be
impacted by noise associated with the specified activities, including
sonic booms, launch noise and aircraft noise. Numerous launch locations
are utilized on VAFB, each of which results in different parts of the
base (and different haulouts) being ensonified by launch noise during
launches. Different space launch vehicles have varying trajectories
which result in different sonic boom ``footprints'', which are likely
to impact different areas on the NCI. In addition, rocket launches by
private entities on VAFB are expected to increase over the next 5 years
and the USAF is not able to predict the trajectories of these future
rocket launch programs. Therefore, for the purposes of estimating take,
we conservatively estimate that all haulouts on VAFB will be ensonified
by launch noise during a rocket or missile launch. On the NCI, sonic
booms from launches sometimes impact San Miguel Island (SMI) and
occasionally Santa Rosa Island (SRI); Santa Cruz and Anacapa Islands
are not expected to be impacted by sonic booms in excess of 1.0 psf
(USAF, 2018) therefore only marine mammals on San Miguel and Santa Rosa
Islands may potentially be taken by sonic booms. We estimate that, when
a sonic boom impacts the NCI, 25 percent of pinniped haulouts on San
Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands will be ensonified by a sonic boom above
1.0 psf. We consider this to be a conservative assumption based on
sonic boom models which show that areas predicted to be impacted by a
sonic boom with peak overpressures of 1.0 psf and above are typically
limited to isolated parts of a single island, and sonic boom model
results tend to overestimate actual recorded sonic booms on the NCI
(pers. comm. R. Evans, USAF, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR).
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 as well as
data collected by NMFS at NCI, represent the best available information
on the occurrence of the six pinniped species expected to occur in the
project area. Monthly marine mammal surveys at VAFB are conducted to
document the abundance, distribution and status of pinnipeds at VAFB.
When possible, these surveys are timed to coincide with the lowest
afternoon tides of each month, when the greatest numbers of animals are
usually hauled out. Data gathered during monthly surveys include:
Species, number, general behavior, presence of pups, age class, gender,
reactions to natural or human-caused disturbances, and environmental
conditions. The quality and amount of information available on
pinnipeds in the project area varies depending on species; some species
are surveyed regularly at VAFB and the NCI (e.g., California sea lion),
while other species are surveyed less frequently (e.g., northern fur
seals and Guadalupe fur seals). However, the best available data was
used to estimate take numbers. Take estimates for all species are shown
in Table 13.
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. Data from VAFB monthly
surveys for the three most recent years for which data is available
(2015, 2016 and 2017) shows the mean number of harbor seals recorded on
VAFB during those years was 255 (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018). The USAF
estimated the number of harbor seals that may be hauled out at VAFB
during all months of the year from 2019-2024 to be 300; we think this
is a reasonable estimate given the monthly survey data as described
above and the fluctuations in harbor seal numbers observed on VAFB;
therefore, take of harbor seals at VAFB was estimated based on a
conservative estimate of 300 harbor seals hauled out during any month
on VAFB. Take of harbor seals at the NCI was estimated based on the
mean count totals from survey data collected on SMI, SRI, and
Richardson Rock (located 10 km northwest of SMI), from 2011 to 2015 by
the NMFS SWFSC (Lowry et al., 2017).
California sea lion--California sea lions are common offshore of
VAFB and haul out on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB
where their numbers have been increasing in recent years, though
pupping rarely occurs on the VAFB coastline. They haul out in large
numbers on the NCI and rookeries exist on SMI. The data from monthly
marine mammal surveys at VAFB from 2015, 2016 and 2017 shows a mean of
11 California sea lions recorded at VAFB (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018).
However, numbers of California sea lions appear to be increasing at
VAFB, with a mean of 21 recorded during surveys in 2017 including 68
recorded in September 2017 (CEMML, 2018). The USAF estimated in their
application that up to 125 California sea lions may be hauled out at
VAFB during any month of the year; however, based on the monthly survey
data, for the purposes of estimating take we conservatively estimate
that up to 75 California sea lions may be hauled out during any month
of the year. Take of California sea lions at the NCI was estimated
based on the mean count totals from survey data collected on SMI, SRI,
and Richardson Rock from 2011 to 2015 by the NMFS SWFSC (Lowry et al.,
2017).
Steller Sea Lion--Steller sea lions occur in very small numbers at
VAFB and on SMI. They do not currently have rookeries at VAFB or the
NCI. Data from monthly marine mammal surveys at VAFB from 2015, 2016
and 2017 show a mean of 2.4 Steller sea lions recorded at VAFB (CEMML
2016, 2017, 2018). The USAF estimated the number of Steller sea lions
that may be hauled out at VAFB during all months of the year from 2019-
2024 to be 3. We consider this a reasonable estimate based on monthly
survey data. Steller sea lions haul out in very small numbers on SMI,
and comprehensive survey data for Steller sea lions in the NCI is not
available. Take of Steller sea lions on the NCI was estimated based on
subject matter expert input indicating that a maximum of 4 Steller sea
lions have been observed on SMI at any time (pers. comm., S. Melin,
NMFS Marine Mammal Laboratory (MML), to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR).
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 SMI and SRI and at one location
at VAFB. Data from monthly marine mammal surveys at VAFB from 2015,
2016 and 2017 show a mean of 39.4 northern elephant seals recorded at
VAFB (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018). The USAF estimated the number of
northern elephant seals that may be hauled out at
[[Page 337]]
VAFB during all months of the year from 2019-2024 to be 60. However, a
mean of 76.3 northern elephant seals was recorded at VAFB in 2017
(CEMML, 2018), suggesting northern elephant seal numbers at VAFB may be
increasing. For the purposes of estimating take on VAFB, we therefore
conservatively estimate that the number of northern elephant seals that
may be hauled out at VAFB during all months of the year from 2019-2024
to be 100. Take of northern elephant seals at the NCI was estimated
based on the mean count totals from survey data collected on SMI, SRI,
and Richardson Rock from 2011 to 2015 by the NMFS SWFSC (Lowry et al.,
2017).
Northern fur seal--Northern fur seals have rookeries on SMI, 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, therefore no take of northern fur seals is expected at VAFB.
Comprehensive survey data for northern fur seals in the project area is
not available. Estimated take of northern fur seals was therefore based
on subject matter expert input which indicated that from June through
August, the population at SMI is at its maximum, with an estimated
13,384 animals at SMI (Carretta et al., 2015), with approximately 7,000
present from September through November, and approximately 125 present
from November through May (pers. comm., S. Melin, NMFS Marine Mammal
Laboratory (MML) to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR).
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. Melin, NMFS MML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR). No haulouts
or rookeries exist for Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland coast,
including VAFB, therefore no take of Guadalupe fur seals is expected at
VAFB. 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 time on SMI (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 the NCI at any given
time.
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 stimuli rises to the level of
behavioral harassment under the MMPA (Table 9). NMFS considers the
behaviors that meet the definitions of both movements and flushes in
Table 9 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 9 for a summary of the
pinniped disturbance scale.
Table 9--Levels of Pinniped Behavioral Disturbance on Land
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characterized as
Level Type of response Definition behavioral 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 in response to Yes.
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.
3.................................. Flush................. All retreats (flushes) to Yes.
the water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take estimates were calculated separately for each stock in each
year the proposed regulations would be valid (from 2019-2024), on both
VAFB and the NCI, based on the number of animals assumed hauled out at
each location that are expected to be behaviorally harassed by the
stimuli associated with the specified activities (i.e., launch, sonic
boom, or aircraft noise). First, the number of hauled out animals per
month was estimated at both VAFB and the NCI for each stock, based on
survey data and subject matter expert input as described above. Then we
estimated the number of hauled out animals per month that would be
behaviorally harassed, by applying a correction factor to account for
the likelihood that the animals would respond at a Level 2 or 3
response (Table 9). Those correction factors differ depending on the
location (i.e. VAFB or the NCI) and on the reactiveness of each species
to the stimuli (Table 10), and are based on the best available
information (in this case, several years of monitoring data on both
VAFB and the NCI (Table 7)).
Table 10--Proportion of Each Species Assumed To Be Harassed by Launch or
Sonic Boom on VAFB and the NCI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proportion of Proportion of
individuals individuals
assumed taken assumed taken
Species (stock) per sonic boom per launch
(NCI) (VAFB)
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (CA)........................ 50 100
[[Page 338]]
CA sea lion (US)........................ 25 100
NES (CA breeding)....................... 5 15
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern).............. 50 100
Northern fur seal (CA).................. 25 (n/a)
Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico)............. 50 (n/a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, for pinnipeds on VAFB, we conservatively
assumed that all pinnipeds at all haulouts would be impacted by launch
noise. This is a conservative assumption, as some haulouts are
separated by several miles from launch locations, and presumably
pinnipeds at haulouts further from the launch location would not react
at the same rates as those located near the launch. For pinnipeds on
the NCI, as described above we conservatively assume that 25% of
haulouts would be impacted by a sonic boom with a psf above 1.0, if
such a sonic boom were to impact the NCI (not all launches result in
sonic booms on the NCI). Thus, for pinnipeds on the NCI, an additional
.25 correction factor was applied to the take estimate, to account for
the fact that approximately 25 percent of haulouts on the NCI are
expected to be impacted by a sonic boom with a psf above 1.0, if such a
sonic boom were to impact the NCI, while for launches on VAFB, we
conservatively assume all pinnipeds will be exposed to launch noise.
Take was calculated monthly, as abundance estimates for some species
vary on VAFB and the NCI depending on season.
The resulting numbers were then multiplied by the number of
activities (sonic booms or launches) estimated to occur in a month, and
then summed to get total numbers of each stock estimated to be taken at
each location per year. The USAF provided estimates of rocket and
missile launches anticipated per year (Table 1), and the number of
sonic booms above 1.0 psf estimated to impact the NCI per year (Table
2). Thus for pinnipeds on VAFB, the number of launches estimated per
year was used to estimate take in each year (e.g., in 2023, the USAF
expects 100 rocket and 15 missile launches will occur, thus 115
launches was used to estimate takes on VAFB in 2023). For pinnipeds on
the NCI, the number of sonic booms above 1.0 psf estimated per year was
used to estimate take in each year (e.g., in 2023, the USAF expects 19
sonic booms above 1.0 to impact the NCI, thus 19 sonic booms was used
to estimate takes on the NCI in 2023). Note that the proposed rule
would only be valid for 3 months in the year 2024, thus the highest
number of launches and sonic booms anticipated to occur in any single
year during the period of validity for the proposed rule would be in
2023, despite the fact that more launches are anticipated to occur in
calendar year 2024.
Monitoring data on pinniped responses to aircraft, helicopter and
UAS related stimuli is not available. The USAF estimated that 3,000
instances of harbor seal harassment and 500 instances of California sea
lion harassment would occur over the 5 years that the proposed
regulations would be valid, thus we divided those numbers (3,000
instances of harbor seal harassment and 500 instances of California sea
lion harassment) by 5 to estimate the numbers of take per year and we
propose to authorize the numbers shown in Table 11.
The numbers of incidental take expected to occur on VAFB as a
result of the specified activities is shown in Table 11. The numbers of
incidental take expected to occur on the NCI as a result of the
specified activities is shown in Table 12. The total numbers of
incidental take expected to occur and proposed for authorization are
shown in Table 13. The take estimates presented in Tables 11, 12 and 13
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 11--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Taken on VAFB per Year, as a Result of Rocket and Missile Launches and Aircraft Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 *
Species (stock) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (CA)............................................ 9,000 600 11,250 600 14,625 600 20,250 600 34,500 600 7,031 600
CA sea lion (US)............................................ 3,000 100 3,750 100 4,875 100 6,750 100 8,625 100 2,344 100
NES (CA breeding)........................................... 600 0 750 0 975 0 1,350 0 1,725 0 469 0
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern).................................. 120 0 150 0 195 0 270 0 345 0 94 0
Northern fur seal (CA)...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico)................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on launches and aircraft operations occurring during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only in 2024).
[[Page 339]]
Table 12--Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Taken on the NCI per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species (stock) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (CA).............................. 523 732 1,151 1,464 1,987 523
CA sea lion (US).............................. 17,705 24,787 38,951 49,573 67,278 16,419
NES (CA breeding)............................. 2,412 3,377 5,306 6,754 9,165 4,516
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern).................... 10 14 22 28 38 10
Northern fur seal (CA)........................ 850 1,190 1,870 2,380 3,231 23
Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico)................... 33 46 72 91 124 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on sonic booms occurring during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only
in 2024).
Table 13--Total Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals, and Percentage of Marine Mammal Populations, Potentially Taken as a Result of the Proposed
Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest
total take Stock Percentage
Species (stock) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 \1\ over a abundance of stock
single year taken \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal (CA)................... 10,123 12,582 16,376 22,314 37,087 8,154 37,087 30,968 \3\ 7.1
CA sea lion (US)................... 20,805 28,637 43,926 56,423 76,003 18,863 76,003 257,606 29.5
NES (CA breeding).................. 3,012 4,127 6,281 8,104 10,890 4,985 10,890 179,000 6.1
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern)......... 130 164 217 298 383 104 383 52,139 0.7
Northern fur seal (CA)............. 850 1,190 1,870 2,380 3,231 23 3,231 14,050 23.0
Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico)........ 33 46 72 91 124 33 124 20,000 0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Take numbers shown reflect only the takes that would occur during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only in 2024).
\2\ As numbers of take proposed for authorization vary by year, the estimates shown for percentages of stock taken are based on takes proposed for
authorization in 2023 which has the highest take numbers proposed for authorization in any single year.
\3\ Take totals shown for harbor seals reflect the number of instances of harassment proposed for authorization, however, for purposes of determining
the percent of stock taken we use the number of individual animals estimated to be taken (2,188 per year). See further explanation in the section on
``small numbers'' below.
Proposed Mitigation
Under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species
or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (``least practicable adverse impact''). NMFS does not
have a regulatory definition for ``least practicable adverse impact.''
However, NMFS's implementing 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, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of
the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammal species
or stocks, their habitat, and their availability for subsistence uses.
This analysis will consider such things as the nature of the potential
adverse impact (such as likelihood, scope, and range), the likelihood
that the measure will be effective if implemented, and the likelihood
of successful implementation.
(2) The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Practicability of implementation may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, personnel safety, and practicality of
implementation.
Launch Mitigation
For missile and rocket launches, unless constrained by other
factors (including, but not limited to, human safety, national security
concerns or launch trajectories), launches will be scheduled to avoid
the harbor seal pupping season (e.g., March through June) when
feasible. The USAF would also avoid, whenever possible, launches which
are predicted to produce a sonic boom on the NCI during the harbor seal
pupping season (e.g., March through June).
Aircraft Operation Mitigation
All aircraft and helicopter flight paths must maintain a minimum
distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized seal haulouts and
rookeries (e.g., Point Sal, Purisima Point, Rocky Point), except in
emergencies or for real-time security incidents (i.e., search-and-
rescue, fire-fighting) and except for one area near the VAFB harbor
over which aircraft may be flown to within 500 ft of a haulout. Except
for take-off and landing actions, a minimum altitude of 300 feet will
be maintained for Class 0-2 UAS over all known marine mammal haulouts
when marine mammals are present. Class 3 will maintain a minimum
altitude of 500 feet, except at take-off and landing. A minimum
altitude of 1,000 feet will be maintained over haulouts for Class 4 or
5 UAS.
We have carefully evaluated the USAF's proposed mitigation measures
and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring
that we prescribed the means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their
habitat. Based on our evaluation of these measures, we have
preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine
mammal 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 stock for subsistence uses.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an LOA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of the authorized taking. NMFS's MMPA
implementing regulations further describe the information that an
applicant should provide when
[[Page 340]]
requesting an authorization (50 CFR 216.104(a)(13)), including the
means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will
result in increased knowledge of the species and the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine mammals.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of significant interactions with marine mammal
species in action area (e.g., animals that came close to the vessel,
contacted the gear, or are otherwise rare or displaying unusual
behavior).
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 important physical components of marine
mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The USAF has proposed a suite of monitoring measures on both VAFB
and the NCI to document impacts of the specified activities on marine
mammals. These proposed monitoring measures are described below.
Monitoring at VAFB
Monitoring requirements for launches and landings at VAFB would be
dependent on the season and on the type of rocket or missile being
launched (or landed in the case of the Falcon 9) (Table 14). Acoustic
and biological monitoring at VAFB would be required for all rocket
types during the harbor seal and elephant seal pupping seasons at VAFB
(e.g., January 1 through July 31) to ensure that responses of pups to
the specified activities are monitored and recorded. Acoustic and
biological monitoring at VAFB would also be required for all launches
of any space launch vehicle types that have not been previously
monitored three times, for any space launch vehicle types that have
been previously monitored but for which the launch is predicted to be
louder than previous launches of that rocket type (based on modeling by
USAF) and, for new types of missiles, regardless of the time of year.
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities (i.e., boost-back and
landings) with sonic booms that have a predicted psf of >1.0 on VAFB
(based on sonic boom modeling performed prior to launch) would be
monitored at VAFB, at any time of year.
Table 14--Proposed Monitoring Measures at VAFB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Monitoring requirement on VAFB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year round........................ Launches of new space
launch vehicles that have not been
monitored 3 previous times.
Launches of existing space
launch vehicles that are expected
to be louder than previous launches
of the same vehicle type.
Launches of new types of
missiles that have not been
monitored 3 previous times.
Falcon 9 First Stage
recoveries with a predicted psf of
>1.0 on VAFB.
Jan 1-July 31..................... Launches of all space
launch vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine mammal monitoring at VAFB must be conducted by at least one
NMFS-approved marine mammal observer trained in marine mammal science.
Authorized marine mammal observers must have demonstrated proficiency
in the identification of all age and sex classes of both common and
uncommon pinniped species found at VAFB and must be knowledgeable of
approved count methodology and have experience in observing pinniped
behavior, especially in response to human disturbances.
Monitoring at the haulout site closest to the facility where the
space launch vehicle will be launched would begin at least 72 hours
prior to the launch and would continue until at least 48 hours after
the launch. Monitoring for each launch would include multiple surveys
during each day of monitoring (typically between 4-6 surveys per day)
that would record: Species, number, general behavior, presence of pups,
age class, gender, and reaction to launch noise, or to natural or other
human-caused disturbances. Environmental conditions would also be
recorded, including: Visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind speed
and direction, tides, and swell height and direction.
For launches that occur during the elephant seal and harbor seal
pupping seasons (January 1 through July 31) a follow-up survey would be
conducted within two weeks of the launch to monitor for any potential
adverse impacts to pups. For launches that occur during daylight, time-
lapse photo and/or video recordings would occur during launch, as
marine mammal observers are not allowed to be present within the launch
area or at haulouts on VAFB at the time of launch for safety reasons.
The USAF would also use night video monitoring to record responses of
pinnipeds to launches that occur in darkness, if feasible. Night video
monitoring may not be practical depending on whether technology is
available that can reliably and remotely record responses of pinnipeds
at remote haulout locations.
In addition to monitoring pinniped responses to the proposed
activities on VAFB, the USAF proposes to continue to conduct monthly
marine mammal surveys on VAFB. Monthly surveys have been carried out at
VAFB for several years and have provided valuable data on abundance,
habitat use, and seasonality of pinnipeds on VAFB. The goals of the
monthly surveys include assessing haulout patterns and relative
abundance over time, resulting in improved understanding of pinniped
population trends at VAFB and better enabling assessment of potential
long-term impacts of USAF operations. When possible, these surveys
would be timed to coincide with the lowest afternoon tides of each
month, when the greatest numbers of animals are typically hauled out.
During the monthly surveys, a NMFS-approved observer would record:
Species, number, general behavior, presence of pups, age class, gender,
and any reactions to natural or human-caused disturbances.
Environmental conditions would also be recorded,
[[Page 341]]
including: Visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind speed and
direction, tides, and swell height and direction.
Monitoring at the NCI
As described previously, sonic booms are the only stimuli
associated with the proposed activities that have the potential to
result in harassment of marine mammals on the NCI. As pinniped
responses on the NCI are dependent on the species and on the intensity
of the sonic boom (Table 7), requirements for monitoring on the NCI
would vary by season and would depend on the expected sonic boom level
and the pupping seasons of the species expected to be present. Sonic
boom modeling would be performed prior to all rocket launches and
Falcon 9 recoveries. Acoustic and biological monitoring would be
conducted on the NCI if the sonic boom model indicates that pressures
from a sonic boom are expected to reach or exceed the levels shown in
Table 15. These dates have been determined based on seasons when pups
may be present for the species that are most responsive to sonic booms
on the NCI based on several years of monitoring data (e.g., harbor
seals and California sea lions) (Table 7).
Table 15--Monitoring Requirements on the Northern Channel Islands by
Season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic boom level (modeled) Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2 psf............................ March 1-July 31.
>3 psf............................ August 1-September 30.
>4 psf............................ October 1-February 28.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine mammal monitoring would be conducted at the closest
significant haulout site to the modeled sonic boom impact area. The
monitoring site would be selected based upon the model results, with
emphasis placed on selecting a location where the maximum sound
pressures are predicted and where pinnipeds are expected to be present
that are considered most sensitive in terms of responses to sonic
booms. Monitoring the responses of mother-pup pairs of any species
would also be prioritized. Given the large numbers of pinnipeds found
on some island beaches, smaller focal groups would be monitored.
Estimates of the numbers of pinnipeds present on the entire beach would
be made and their reactions to the launch noise would be documented.
Specialized acoustic instruments would also be used to record sonic
booms at the marine mammal monitoring location.
Monitoring would be conducted by at least one NMFS-approved marine
mammal observer, trained in marine mammal science. Monitors would be
deployed to the monitoring location before, during and after the
launch, with monitoring commencing at least 72 hours prior to the
launch, occurring during the launch and continuing until 48 hours after
the launch (unless no sonic boom is detected by the monitors during the
launch and/or by the acoustic recording equipment, at which time
monitoring would be discontinued). If the launch occurs in darkness,
night vision equipment would be used. The USAF would also conduct video
monitoring, including the use of night video monitoring, when feasible
(video monitoring is not always practicable due to conditions such as
fog, glare, and a lack of animals within view from a single observation
point). During the pupping season of any species potentially affected
by a sonic boom, a follow-up survey would occur within two weeks of the
launch to assess any potential adverse effects on pups.
Monitoring for each launch would include multiple surveys each day
that record, when possible: Species, number, general behavior, presence
of pups, age class, gender, and reaction to sonic booms or natural or
human-caused disturbances. Remarks would be recorded, including the
nature and cause of any natural or human-related disturbance, including
response to the sonic boom. When flushing behavior is observed, the
amount of time it takes for hauled out animals to return to the beach
is recorded, if length of recording allows. Environmental conditions
would also be recorded, including: Visibility, air temperature, clouds,
wind speed and direction, tides, and swell height and direction.
The USAF has complied with the monitoring requirements under the
previous LOAs issued from 2013 through 2018.
Reporting
Proposed reporting requirements would include launch monitoring
reports submitted after each launch and annual reports describing all
activities conducted at VAFB that are covered under this proposed rule
during each year.
A launch monitoring report containing the following information
would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after each rocket launch:
Species present, number(s), general behavior, presence of pups, age
class, gender, numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to
commencement of the launch, numbers of pinnipeds that responded at a
level that would be considered harassment (based on the description of
responses in Table 9), length of time(s) pinnipeds remained off the
haulout (for pinnipeds that flushed), and any behavioral responses by
pinnipeds that were likely in response to the specified activities,
including in response to launch noise or sonic boom. Launch reports
would also include date(s) and time(s) of each launch (and sonic boom,
if applicable); date(s) and location(s) of marine mammal monitoring,
and environmental conditions including: Visibility, air temperature,
clouds, wind speed and direction, tides, and swell height and
direction. If a dead or seriously injured pinniped is found during
post-launch monitoring, the incident must be reported to the NMFS
Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS West Coast Regional Office
immediately. Results of acoustic monitoring, including the recorded
sound levels associated with the launch and/or sonic boom (if
applicable) would also be included in the report.
An annual report would be submitted to NMFS on March 1 of each year
that would summarize the data reported in all launch reports for the
previous calendar year (as described above) including a summary of
documented numbers of instances of harassment incidental to the
specified activities. Annual reports would also describe any documented
takings incidental to the specified activities not included in the
launch reports (e.g., takes incidental to aircraft or helicopter
operations).
A final comprehensive report would be submitted to NMFS no later
than 180 days prior to expiration of these regulations. This report
must summarize the findings made in all previous reports and assess
both the impacts at each of the major rookeries and an assessment of
any cumulative impacts on marine mammals from the specified activities.
The USAF has complied with the reporting requirements under the
previous LOAs issued from 2013 through 2018.
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
[[Page 342]]
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' 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 6, given that the anticipated effects of
this activity on these different marine mammal species are expected to
be similar. Activities associated with the proposed 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 rocket launches and sonic booms and from sounds or
visual stimuli associated with aircraft. 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 or launch noise. 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 instances of 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 adverse
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 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. 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, CEMML 2018). 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 lower 48 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 the numbers of animals observed at San Miguel
Island rookeries and haulouts (SAIC 2012). The number of California sea
lions documented on VAFB via monthly marine mammal surveys increased
substantially in 2017 compared to the numbers recorded in previous
years, and northern elephant seal pupping was documented on VAFB for
the first time in 2017, providing further evidence that the proposed
activities, which are ongoing, have not negatively impacted annual
rates of recruitment or survival.
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 within approximately 90 minutes), 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 adverse 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.
[[Page 343]]
See Table 13 for information relating to this small numbers
analysis (i.e., numbers of take proposed for authorization on an annual
basis). We propose to authorize incidental take of 6 marine mammal
stocks. The amount of taking proposed for authorization on an annual
basis is less than one-third of the most appropriate abundance estimate
for five of these species or stocks; therefore, the numbers of take
proposed for authorization would be considered small relative to those
relevant stocks or populations.
The estimated taking for harbor seals comprises greater than one-
third of the best available stock abundance. However, due to the nature
of the specified activity--launch activities occurring at specific
locations, rather than a mobile activity occurring throughout the stock
range--the available information shows that only a portion of the stock
would likely be impacted. It is important to note that the number of
expected takes does not necessarily represent the number of individual
animals expected to be taken, and that 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 the USAF'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 number of annual instances of take may not be considered
small relative to the estimated abundance of the California stock of
Pacific harbor seals of 30,968 (Carretta et al. 2017), a substantially
smaller number of individual harbor seals is expected 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 individual harbor seals are likely to be
taken repeatedly over the course of the proposed activities. Therefore,
the proposed number of instances of Level B harassment that could be
authorized for harbor seals per year over the 5-year period of validity
of the proposed regulations is expected to accrue to a much smaller
number of individual harbor seals encompassing a small portion of the
overall stock. Thus, while we propose to authorize the instances of
incidental take of harbor seals shown in Table 13, 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. We base the small numbers determination on the number of
individuals taken versus the number of instances of take, as is
appropriate when the information is available.
To estimate the number of individual harbor seals expected to be
taken by Level B harassment by the proposed activities, we estimated
the maximum number of individual harbor seals that could potentially be
taken per activity (i.e., launch, landing, or aircraft activity), both
on the NCI and at VAFB. As described above, due to harbor seals'
limited ranges and site fidelity to haulout locations at VAFB and the
NCI, we believe the maximum number of individual harbor seals that
could be taken per activity (i.e., launch, landing, or aircraft
activity) represents a conservative estimate of the number of
individual harbor seals that would be taken over the course of a year.
On VAFB, monthly marine mammal surveys conducted by the USAF represent
the best available information on harbor seal abundance. The maximum
number of harbor seals documented during monthly marine mammal surveys
at VAFB in the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 was 821 seals (in October,
2015). On the NCI, marine mammal surveys conducted from 2011-2015
(Lowry et al., 2017) represents the best available information on
harbor seal abundance. The maximum number of seals documented in
surveys from 2011 through 2015 (the most recent information available)
was 1,367 seals (in July, 2015) (Lowry et al., 2017). Therefore, we
conservatively estimate that the maximum number of harbor seals that
could potentially be taken per activity (i.e., lunch, landing, or
aircraft activity) is 2,188 harbor seals, which represents the combined
maximum number of seals expected to be present on the NCI and VAFB
during any given activity. As we believe the same individuals are
likely to be taken repeatedly over the duration of the proposed
activities, we use this estimate of 2,188 individual animals taken per
activity (i.e., launch, landing, or aircraft activity) for the purposes
of estimating the percentage of the stock abundance likely to be taken
(7.1 percent).
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.
Adaptive Management
The regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to
the USAF's activities at VAFB would contain an adaptive management
component.
The reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule are
designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to
allow consideration of whether any changes are appropriate. The use of
adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from
different sources to determine (with input from the Navy regarding
practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation or
monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or
deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests
that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing
adverse effects to marine mammals and if the measures are practicable.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data
to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results
from monitoring reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2)
results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (3) any
information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a
manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOAs.
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 ITAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the NMFS West Coast Region
Protected Resources Division Office,
[[Page 344]]
whenever 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 ITA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching
a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
Request for Information
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information,
and suggestions concerning the USAF's request and the proposed
regulations (see ADDRESSES). All comments will be reviewed and
evaluated as we prepare a final rule and make final determinations on
whether to issue the requested authorization. This proposed rule and
referenced documents provide all environmental information relating to
our proposed action for public review.
Classification
Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order
12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The U.S. Air Force is the sole entity that would be subject to the
requirements in these proposed regulations, and the U.S. Air Force is
not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small
business, as defined by the RFA. Because of this certification, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been
prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, this rule does
not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to the
provisions of the PRA because the applicant is a Federal agency.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217
Exports, Fish, Imports, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Dated: January 17, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 217--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS
INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Revise subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G--Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches and Operations at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, California
Sec.
217.60 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
217.61 Effective dates.
217.62 Permissible methods of taking.
217.63 Prohibitions.
217.64 Mitigation.
217.65 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
217.66 Letters of Authorization.
217.67 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
217.68-217.69 [Reserved]
Sec. 217.60 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the 30th Space Wing,
United States Air Force (USAF) and those persons it authorizes to
conduct activities on its behalf for the taking of marine mammals that
occurs in the areas outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that
occurs incidental to rocket and missile launches and aircraft and
helicopter operations.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the USAF may be authorized in a
Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs from activities
originating at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Sec. 217.61 Effective dates.
Regulations in this subpart are effective from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], through [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
Sec. 217.62 Permissible methods of taking.
Under LOA issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this chapter and
217.60 the Holder of the Letter of Authorization (herein after the
USAF) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by
Level B harassment, within the area described in Sec. 217.60(b),
provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and
requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate
Letter of Authorization.
Sec. 217.63 Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec. 217.62 and authorized
by a Letter of Authorization issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this
chapter and 217.66, no person in connection with the activities
described in Sec. 217.60 may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and
requirements of this subpart or a LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106
and 218.26 of this chapter;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner
other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines
such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or
stocks of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines
such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or
stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.
Sec. 217.64 Mitigation.
When conducting the activities identified in Sec. 217.60(a), the
mitigation measures contained in any Letter of Authorization issued
under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of this chapter and 217.66 must be
implemented. These mitigation measures include (but are not limited
to):
(a) For missile and rocket launches, the USAF must avoid, whenever
possible, launches during the harbor seal pupping season of March
through June, unless constrained by factors including, but not limited
to, human safety, national security, or launch mission objectives.
(b) For rocket launches, the USAF must avoid, whenever possible,
launches which are predicted to produce a sonic boom on the Northern
Channel Islands from March through June.
(c) Aircraft and helicopter flight paths must maintain a minimum
distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized pinniped haulouts and
rookeries, whenever possible, except for one area near the VAFB harbor
over which
[[Page 345]]
aircraft may be flown to within 500 ft of a haulout, and except in
emergencies or for real-time security incidents, which may require
approaching pinniped haulouts and rookeries closer than 1,000 ft (305
m).
(d) If post-launch surveys determine that an injurious or lethal
take of a marine mammal has occurred, the launch procedure and the
monitoring methods must be reviewed, in cooperation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and appropriate changes must be made
through modification to a Letter of Authorization, prior to conducting
the next launch under that Letter of Authorization.
Sec. 217.65 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(a) To conduct monitoring of rocket launch activities, the USAF
must either use video recording, or must designate a qualified on-site
individual approved in advance by NMFS, with demonstrated proficiency
in the identification of all age and sex classes of both common and
uncommon pinniped species found at VAFB and knowledge of approved count
methodology and experience in observing pinniped behavior, as specified
in the Letter of Authorization, to monitor and document pinniped
activity as described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section:
(1) For any launches of space launch vehicles or recoveries of the
Falcon 9 First Stage occurring from 1 January through 31 July, pinniped
activity at VAFB must be monitored in the vicinity of the haulout
nearest the launch platform, or, in the absence of pinnipeds at that
location, at another nearby haulout, for at least 72 hours prior to any
planned launch, and continue for a period of time not less than 48
hours subsequent to the launch;
(2) For any launches of new space launch vehicles that have not
been monitored during at least 3 previous launches occurring from 1
August through 31 December, pinniped activity at VAFB must be monitored
in the vicinity of the haulout nearest the launch or landing platform,
or, in the absence of pinnipeds at that location, at another nearby
haulout, for at least 72 hours prior to any planned launch, and
continue for a period of time not less than 48 hours subsequent to
launching;
(3) For any launches of existing space launch vehicles that are
expected to result in louder launch noise or sonic booms than previous
launches of the same vehicle type occurring from 1 August through 31
December, pinniped activity at VAFB must be monitored in the vicinity
of the haulout nearest the launch or landing platform, or, in the
absence of pinnipeds at that location, at another nearby haulout, for
at least 72 hours prior to any planned launch, and continue for a
period of time not less than 48 hours subsequent to launching;
(4) For any launches of new types of missiles occurring from 1
August through 31 December, pinniped activity at VAFB must be monitored
in the vicinity of the haulout nearest the launch or landing platform,
or, in the absence of pinnipeds at that location, at another nearby
haulout, for at least 72 hours prior to any planned launch, and
continue for a period of time not less than 48 hours subsequent to
launching;
(5) For any recoveries of the Falcon 9 First Stage occurring from 1
August through 31 December that are predicted to result in a sonic boom
of 1.0 psf or above on VAFB, pinniped activity at VAFB must be
monitored in the vicinity of the haulout nearest the launch or landing
platform, or, in the absence of pinnipeds at that location, at another
nearby haulout, for at least 72 hours prior to any planned launch, and
continue for a period of time not less than 48 hours subsequent to
launching;
(6) For any launches or rocket recoveries occurring from March 1
through July 31), follow-up surveys must be conducted within 2 weeks of
the launch;
(7) For any launches or Falcon 9 recoveries, pinniped activity at
the Northern Channel Islands must be monitored, if it is determined by
modeling that a sonic boom of greater than 2.0 psf is predicted to
impact one of the islands between March 1 and July 31, greater than 3.0
psf between August 1 and September 30, and greater than 4.0 psf between
October 1 and February 28. Monitoring will be conducted at the haulout
site closest to the predicted sonic boom impact area, or, in the
absence of pinnipeds at that location, at another nearby haulout;
(8) For any launches or Falcon 9 recoveries during which marine
mammal monitoring is required, acoustic measurements must be made of
those launch vehicles that have not had sound pressure level
measurements documented previously; and
(9) Marine mammal 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 launch noise, sonic booms or
other natural or human caused disturbances, in addition to recording
environmental conditions such as tide, wind speed, air temperature, and
swell.
(b) The USAF must submit a report to the Administrator, West Coast
Region, NMFS, and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 days
after each launch. This report must contain the following information:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the launch;
(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
commencement of the launch;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed as noted by
the number of pinnipeds estimated to have moved in response to 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 degree, or,
entered the water as a result of launch noise;
(iii) For any marine mammals that entered the water, the length of
time they remained off the haulout; and
(iv) Behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that were likely the
result of launch noise or the sonic boom.
(c) If the authorized activity identified in Sec. 217.60(a) is
thought to have resulted in the mortality or injury of any marine
mammals or in any take of marine mammals not identified in Sec.
217.62, then the USAF must notify the Director, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the stranding coordinator, West Coast Region,
NMFS, within 48 hours of the discovery of the injured or dead marine
mammal.
(d) An annual report must be submitted on March 1 of each year to
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS.
(e) A final report must be submitted at least 180 days prior to
[DATE 5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] to the Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS. This report will:
(1) Summarize the activities undertaken and the results reported in
all previous reports;
(2) Assess the impacts at each of the major rookeries;
(3) Assess the cumulative impacts on pinnipeds and other marine
mammals from the activities specified in Sec. 217.60(a); and
(4) State the date(s), location(s), and findings of any research
activities related to monitoring the effects on launch noise, sonic
booms, and harbor activities on marine mammal populations.
[[Page 346]]
Sec. 217.66 Letters of Authorization.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these
regulations, the USAF must apply for and obtain a Letter of
Authorization.
(b) A Letter of Authorization, unless suspended or revoked, may be
effective for a period of time not to exceed [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(c) If a Letter of Authorization expires prior to [DATE 5 YEARS
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the USAF may apply for and obtain
a renewal of the Letter of Authorization.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to
mitigation and monitoring measures required by a Letter of
Authorization, the USAF must apply for and obtain a modification of the
Letter of Authorization as described in Sec. 217.67.
(e) The Letter of Authorization will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the
species for subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of the Letter of Authorization shall be based on a
determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of a Letter of Authorization shall
be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.
Sec. 217.67 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of
this chapter and 217.66 for the activity identified in Sec. 217.60(a)
shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided
that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous Letter of Authorization under these
regulations were implemented.
(b) For Letter of Authorization modification or renewal requests by
the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the
adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that
do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no
more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or
distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of
proposed Letter of Authorization in the Federal Register, including the
associated analysis of the change, and solicit public comment before
issuing the Letter of Authorization.
(c) A Letter of Authorization issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 of
this chapter and 217.66 for the activity identified in Sec. 217.60(a)
may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive management. NMFS may modify (including augment) the
existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after
consulting with the USAF regarding the practicability of the
modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in a Letter
of Authorization:
(A) Results from the USAF's monitoring from the previous year(s).
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or
studies.
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or
subsequent Letters of Authorization.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS
will publish a notice of proposed Letter of Authorization in the
Federal Register and solicit public comment.
(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of
marine mammals specified in Sec. 217.62, a Letter of Authorization may
be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment.
Notice would be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the
action.
Sec. Sec. 217.68-217.69 [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2019-00090 Filed 1-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P