Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Weapons Testing at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 762-776 [2022-00032]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 762-776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00032]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB619]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Weapons Testing at Vandenberg Air 
Force Base, California

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorizations; request 
for comments on proposed authorizations and possible renewals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the United States Department 
of the Air Force (DAF) for authorization to take marine mammals 
incidental to 2 years of activity related to testing of the Extended 
Range Cannon Artillery II (ERCA II) system at Vandenberg Air Force Base 
(VAFB), California. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue two 
consecutive one-year incidental harassment authorizations (IHA) to 
incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS 
is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, one-year renewal 
for each IHA that could be issued under certain circumstances and if 
all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments 
at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to 
making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA 
authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final 
notice of our decision. The DAF's activities are considered military 
readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA).

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than February 
7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted 
via email to [email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must 
not exceed a 25-

[[Page 763]]

megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and will generally be posted online at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, 
address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental harassment authorization is provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
    The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and 
``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and 
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as applied to a ``military 
readiness activity.'' The activity for which incidental take of marine 
mammals is being requested addressed here qualifies as a military 
readiness activity. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory 
terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA) 
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
    This action is consistent with categories of activities identified 
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or 
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for 
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for 
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would 
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHAs 
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
    We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice 
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the 
IHA request.

Summary of Request

    On July 15, 2021, NMFS received a request from the DAF for two 
consecutive IHAs to take marine mammals incidental to ERCA II testing 
at VAFB, California. The application was deemed adequate and complete 
on November 19, 2021. The DAF's request is for take of California sea 
lions, Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals by 
Level B harassment. Neither the DAF nor NMFS expects serious injury or 
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 
appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The DAF is proposing to conduct test activities of the ERCA II 
system at VAFB over 2 years and requested the issuance of two 
consecutive one-year IHAs. The ERCA II system is a multi-element, 
multi-phase test program of the U.S. Army's (Army's) next-generation 
artillery systems. Major components of the artillery system include the 
cannon, gun mount, artillery projectile, and propelling charges. These 
components would be sited at the existing deactivated Launch Facility 
(LF)-05 site on VAFB. The proposed activities would include testing of 
ERCA II by firing non-explosive projectiles over the Pacific Ocean at 
distances ranging from the shoreline to approximately 1,180 miles (mi) 
(1,900 kilometers (km)) from the VAFB shoreline onto and beyond the 
Point Mugu Sea Range (PMSR). A total of 77 projectiles are proposed to 
be fired over 51 test event days (39 events in year 1 and 12 events in 
year 2).

Dates and Duration

    The DAF anticipates that testing will occur over 2 years. The first 
proposed IHA would be effective from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 
2024, which would include 39 days of testing activities, and the second 
proposed IHA would be effective from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 
2025, which would include 12 days of testing activities.

Geographic Region

    VAFB occupies approximately 99,100 acres (400 square kilometers 
[km\2\]) of central Santa Barbara County, California (Figure 1), 
approximately halfway between San Diego and San Francisco. The base 
includes 42 miles (mi.) (68 km) of coastline with a variety of natural 
communities, including beaches, coastal salt marshes, rocky intertidal, 
kelp forests, and hard and soft bottom substrates. ERCA II would be 
installed at LF-05 which is an existing deactivated launch facility 
located on the northern end of VAFB, 4.5 mi. (7.2 km) southeast of 
Point Sal. The site is located approximately 400 meters (m) from the 
cliffs, beach, and rocky shoreline. Test activities would require 
firing non-explosive projectiles over the Pacific Ocean with splash-
down locations for the projectiles and components of the projectiles at 
distances ranging from the shoreline to approximately 1,180 mi (1,900 
km) from the shoreline of VAFB, onto and beyond the PMSR. The PMSR is 
36,000-square-miles (93,200 km\2\) in size and is located adjacent to 
Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties along 
the Pacific Coast of Southern California. PMSR includes controlled sea 
and associated airspace.

[[Page 764]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06JA22.000

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    ERCA II testing consists of 77 test events that would be conducted 
over 51 days within a 24-month period starting in the late calendar 
year 2023 and continuing into calendar year 2025 (Table 1). In addition 
to the projectiles, there are components of the projectiles that would 
land in the water at varying distances from LF-05. Three types of 
projectiles would be tested. The majority would be the Mass Simulant 
(Projectile A). Two other projectiles are the Terminal Flight Body Pre-
Programmed Maneuver (PPM) Projectile (Projectile B) and the Boost Demo, 
Capture Demo, and Final Demo projectile (Projectile C). Major 
components of the artillery system include the cannon, gun mount, 
artillery projectile, and propelling charges; these components would be 
sited at the existing deactivated LF-05 site on VAFB. The proposed 
activities would include testing ERCA II by firing non-explosive 
projectiles over the Pacific Ocean at distances ranging from the 
shoreline to approximately 1,180 mi (1,900 km) from the shoreline of 
VAFB onto and beyond the PMSR.

                                         Table 1--ERCA II Test Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Number of
                Test event                          Test schedule          Projectile    Number of    test event
                                                                              type         tests         days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapon Strength of Design.................  4QCY23 (4th Quarter,                    A            35           30
                                             Calendar Year 2023).
Pre-Programmed Maneuver...................  2QCY24......................            A             3            3
                                                                                    B             3

[[Page 765]]

 
Boost Demo................................  2QCY24......................            A             6            6
                                                                                     C            6
Capture Test..............................  1QCY25......................            A             6            6
                                                                                     C            6
Final Demo................................  2QCY25......................            A             6            6
                                                                                     C            6
                                                                                       -------------------------
    Total.................................  ............................  ............           77           51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There would be a total of 35 Weapons Strength of Design (WSD) test 
events over the course of 30 test days with a maximum of two to three 
mass simulant (Projectile A) test firings per day. There would be three 
PPM test days over a 2-week period. For each PPM test day, there would 
be one mass simulant (Projectile A) fired to confirm instrumentation is 
working and one PPM configuration (Projectile B) fired. Each of the 
Boost Demo, Capture Test, and Final Demo test events would involve 6 
days of testing over a 2 week period. For each test day, there would be 
one mass simulant (Projectile A) fired to confirm instrumentation and 
one Boost Demo, Capture Test, or Final Demo configuration (Projectile 
C) fired.
    In addition to the projectiles, there are components of the 
projectiles that would land in the water. With the exception of the WSD 
tests, all other tests include a ``pusher plate'' (having an 
approximate 12 inches [in.] diameter) that exits the muzzle along with 
the rest of the projectile and will splash down in the ocean. There is 
a chance that during PPM testing, sabot petals (5 in. x 5 in. x 45 in. 
and made of either aluminum or a carbon fiber composite) that fall from 
the projectile may fall into nearshore waters from the shoreline to 
approximately 1,150 feet (ft) (350 m) from shore.
    Figure 1-2 through Figure 1-7 in the Navy's application (available 
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities) show the 
potential impact or splash-down areas where the projectile and 
component parts for each test event are likely to fall. The potential 
splash-down area associated with Projectile A is mostly within 3 
nautical miles (NM) from shore (Figure 1-2). During the PPM test (using 
Projectile B), the splash-down area is defined by the longer range and 
estimated dispersal area of the pusher plate, sabot petals, and the 
terminal flight body, which would splash down at different locations 
along the projectile flightpath (Figure 1-3, Figure 1-4, and Figure 1-5 
in the application). For the Boost Demo, Capture Test, and Final Demo 
(using Projectile C), the potential splash-down area associated with 
the pusher plate is shown in Figure 1-7 in the application, and the 
potential splash-down area for all other component parts are shown in 
Figure 1-6 in the application.
    Characteristics of the debris, such as the size, weight, and 
composition of materials associated with each test, will determine the 
potential for debris recovery. The three projectiles and their physical 
characteristics are provided in Table 1-1 in the application.
    The weapon would fire all projectiles due west from the established 
gun position on the LF-05 site at VAFB (Figure 1-8 in the application). 
No nighttime tests would be conducted. The flightpath of the 
projectiles would transit within a narrow corridor into the PMSR 
(approximately 3 NM from the VAFB shoreline), with impact sites ranging 
from 3 NM offshore through the extent of the PMSR and beyond (Figure 1-
2, Figure 1-3, and Figure 1-6 in the application). However, only 
Projectile C, used in the Final Demo test, would impact beyond the 
PMSR, and of the six Final Demo tests, only two the projectiles would 
impact beyond the PMSR (Figure 1-6 in the application). The impact site 
would be monitored as part of the testing and include video impact 
scoring. Off-range DoD assets would participate in later scheduled test 
events and include the Pacific Tracker, RG-4 Global Hawks or MQ-9 
Reapers, and Wave Gliders.
    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed 
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and 
proposed to be authorized for this action, and summarizes information 
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under 
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological 
removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 
Taxonomy (2021). 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 
serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS's U.S. SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2021a). All values presented 
in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and 
are available in the 2020 U.S. Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 2021a) 
and 2021 draft Pacific and

[[Page 766]]

Alaska SARs (Carretta et al., 2021b, Muto et al., 2021) available 
online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports.

                 Table 2--Marine Mammal Species Potentially Present in the Project Area That May Be Affected by the Proposed Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California sea lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -, -, N             257,606 (n/a, 233,515,     14,011       >320
                                                                                                             2014).
    Steller sea lion................  Eumetopias jubatus.....  Eastern U.S............  -, -, N             43,201 (43,201, 2017).      2,592        112
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor seal.....................  Phoca vitulina           California.............  -, -, N             30,968 (N/A, 27,348,        1,641         43
                                       richardsi.                                                            2012).
    Northern Elephant seal..........  Mirounga angustirostris  California Breeding....  -, -, N             187,386 (N/A, 85,369,       5,122       13.7
                                                                                                             2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports. 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.

    As indicated above, all four pinniped species (with four managed 
stocks) in Table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity 
to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have 
proposed authorizing it. Additional pinniped species and numerous 
cetacean species are also known to inhabit the waters near VAFB. The 
Guadalupe fur seal can be expected to occur in both deeper waters of 
the open ocean and coastal waters within the ERCA II Project Area. 
Satellite tracking data from Guadalupe fur seals tagged at Guadalupe 
Island have demonstrated movements into the offshore waters between 50 
and 300 km from the U.S. West Coast (Norris et al. 2015; Norris 2017b, 
2017a; Norris & Elorriaga-Verplancken 2020). Based on that data, the 
seals could occur in both deeper waters of the open ocean and coastal 
waters within the ERCA II Project Area. However, Guadalupe fur seals 
have not been observed at any VAFB haulout locations (U.S. Air Force 
2020; Evans 2020) and are not expected to be within the area exposed to 
in-air noise levels that may cause behavioral affects. The northern fur 
seal could occur in the ERCA II Project Area. Migrating seals and those 
along the U.S. West Coast are typically found over the edge of the 
continental shelf and slope (Kenyon & Wilke 1953; Sterling & Ream 2004; 
Gentry 2009; Adams et al. 2014). Northern fur seals have not been 
observed at any VAFB haulout location (National Marine Fisheries 
Service 2020b) and also are not expected to be within the area exposed 
to in-air noise levels that may cause behavioral affects. Given this 
information take was not requested by the DAF and is not proposed by 
NMFS for Guadalupe fur seals and Northern fur seals and these species 
will not be discussed further.
    The in-air noise created by the cannon firing and the supersonic 
flight of the projectile was analyzed by DAF for the potential transfer 
of sound energy through the air-water interface, resulting in 
underwater noise that could affect cetaceans in the Project Area. 
However, the potential for in-air noise to have any effect on at-sea 
marine mammals is extremely low. We have reviewed DAF's analysis and 
conclusions, and concur. Cetaceans spend their entire lives in the 
water and spend most of their time (>90 percent for most species) 
entirely submerged below the surface. When at the surface, cetacean 
bodies are almost entirely below the water's surface, with only the 
blowhole exposed to allow breathing. This minimizes in-air noise 
exposure, both natural and anthropogenic, essentially 100 percent of 
the time, because their ears are nearly always below the water's 
surface. Furthermore, due to the elevation of the LF-05 site 
approximately 95 ft. above sea level and the firing angle of the cannon 
upward and away from the water, the majority of the overpressure from 
the cannon blast and the sonic boom generated by the projectile would 
strike the water's surface at angles greater than 14 degrees, and, 
therefore, the majority of in-air acoustic energy would not be 
transmitted underwater. Since the majority of the pressure generated by 
an in-air detonation is reflected at the water's surface and remains in 
the air, peak pressure levels from the cannon blast and sonic boom from 
the projectile measured underwater are not likely to result in sound 
levels that would exceed marine mammal harassment thresholds underwater 
in the ERCA II Project Area.
    The DAF also analyzed the potential for a projectile or a component 
of a projectile to strike a marine mammal in one of the test-specific 
splash-down areas. The main variables used in the probability estimates 
include projectile and component dimensions, number of projectiles, 
size of the splash-down area, marine mammal presence and density within 
each splash-down area, season, and size (length and width) of 
representative adult marine mammals. The results of the probability 
calculations presented in Appendix A of the application show that, with 
a reasonably high degree of certainty due to the conservative 
assumptions made, marine mammals are highly unlikely to be struck by 
the projectiles or components from ERCA II testing. Given this 
information, the DAF and NMFS have determined that strikes from 
projectiles as well as underwater noise associated with cannon blasts 
and sonic booms would have a discountable effect on cetaceans in the 
ERCA II Project Area.
    Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) include areas of known 
importance for reproduction, feeding, or migration, or areas where 
small and resident populations are known to occur (Van

[[Page 767]]

Parijs, 2015). An interactive map of the BIAs may be found here: 
https://cetsound.noaa.gov/biologically-important-area-map. There are 
three BIAs off the West Coast of the continental United States with the 
potential to overlap portions of the PMSR. These include a designated 
blue whale feeding BIA from June to October, a humpback whale feeding 
BIA from April to November, and a gray whale migratory BIA from January 
to July and then from October to December. However, and as stated 
previously, neither strikes from projectiles nor underwater noise 
associated with cannon blasts and sonic booms are likely to impact 
these cetacean species and associated BIAs.

California Sea Lion

    The California sea lion occurs in the eastern north Pacific from 
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, through the Gulf of California and north along 
the west coast of North America to the Gulf of Alaska (Barlow et al., 
2008; DeLong et al., 2017b; Jefferson et al., 2008). Typically, during 
the summer, California sea lions congregate near rookery islands and 
specific open-water areas. The primary rookeries off the coast of the 
United States are on San Nicolas (SNI), San Miguel, Santa Barbara, and 
San Clemente Islands (Le Boeuf & Bonnell 1980; Lowry et al., 1992; 
Carretta et al., 2000; Lowry & Forney 2005; Lowry et al., 2017). 
Haulout sites are also found on Anacapa Island, Richardson Rock, Santa 
Catalina Island, Santa Cruz Island, and Santa Rosa Island in the 
Southern California Bight (Le Boeuf 2002; Lowry et al., 2017). In the 
nonbreeding season, beginning in late summer, adult and subadult males 
migrate northward along the coast of California to Washington and 
return south the following spring (Laake, 2017; Lowry & Forney, 2005). 
Females and juveniles also disperse somewhat but tend to stay in the 
Southern California area, although north and west of the Channel 
Islands (Lowry & Forney, 2005; Melin & DeLong, 2000; Thomas et al., 
2010).
    California sea lions can also be found in California open ocean and 
coastal waters (Barlow et al., 2008; Jefferson et al., 2008). Animals 
are usually found in waters over the continental shelf and slope; 
however, they are also known to occupy locations far offshore in deep, 
oceanic waters, such as Guadalupe Island and Alijos Rocks off Baja 
California (Jefferson et al., 2008; Melin et al., 2008; Urrutia & 
Dziendzielewski, 2012; Zavala-Gonzalez & Mellink, 2000). California sea 
lions are the most frequently sighted pinnipeds offshore of Southern 
California during the spring, and peak abundance is during the May 
through August breeding season (Green et al., 1992; Keiper et al., 
2005; Lowry et al., 2017).
    California sea lions haul out at sites in the southern portion of 
VAFB, which are located more than 20 mi. (32 km) south of LF-05, 
outside the area that would be impacted by any proposed activities. 
They have not been observed at any northern VAFB haulout locations, 
except for rare individuals affected by domoic acid poisoning (U.S. Air 
Force 2020; Evans 2020). In 2019 a significant die-off of California 
sea lions, presumed to be caused by domoic acid toxicity associated 
with red tide algal blooms, was noted--this mortality event included 
most of Southern and Central California and included more than 80 
deceased California sea lions observed on VAFB beaches (U.S. Air Force 
2020; Evans 2020). There is no known successful breeding of this 
species on VAFB. Approximately 3.2 mi. (5.9 km) north of LF-05 and 
beyond the VAFB boundary but within the Project Area, California sea 
lions have been observed at Lion Rock during the three most recent 
aerial surveys (2013, 2016, 2017) performed by NMFS (National Marine 
Fisheries Service 2020b).

Steller Sea Lion

    Steller sea lions range along the north Pacific from northern Japan 
to California (Perrin et al., 2009), with centers of abundance and 
distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 
2020). There have also been reports of Steller sea lions in waters off 
Mexico as far south as the various islands off the port of Manzanillo 
in Colima, Mexico (Gallo-Reynoso et al., 2020). The Eastern U.S. stock 
(or DPS) of Steller sea lion is defined as the population occurring 
east of 144[deg] W longitude. The locations and distribution of the 
Eastern population's breeding sites along the U.S. Pacific coast have 
shifted northward, with fewer breeding sites in Southern California and 
more sites established in Washington and Southeast Alaska (Pitcher et 
al., 2007; Wiles 2015). San Miguel Island and Santa Rosa Island were, 
in the past, the southernmost rookeries and haulouts for the Steller 
sea lions, but their range contracted northward in the 20th century, 
and now A[ntilde]o Nuevo Island off central California is currently the 
southernmost rookery. Steller sea lions pups were known to be born at 
San Miguel Island up until 1981 (Pitcher et al., 2007; National Marine 
Fisheries Service 2008; Muto et al., 2020), and so, as the population 
continues to increase, it is anticipated that the Steller sea lions may 
re-establish a breeding colony on San Miguel Island in the future. In 
the Channel Islands and vicinity and despite the species' general 
absence from the area, a consistent but small number of Steller sea 
lions (one to two individuals at a time) have been sighted in recent 
years. Approximately one to two adult and subadult male Steller sea 
lions have been seen hauled out at San Miguel Island each year during 
the fall and winter over the last decade, and adult and subadult males 
have occasionally been seen on rocks north of Northwest Point at San 
Miguel Island during the part of the summer in the past few years 
(Delong 2019). In 2011, a vagrant Steller sea lion was observed hauled 
out at the Point Loma Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command facility 
in San Diego Bay, and a vagrant individual was observed in the water at 
the entrance channel during the monitoring of a pile driving project in 
2015 (U.S. Department of the Navy 2015). Aerial surveys for pinnipeds 
in the Channel Islands from 2011 to 2015 encountered a single Steller 
sea lion at SNI in 2013 (Lowry et al., 2017). Additional sightings have 
included a single male that was seen hauled out on an oil production 
structure off Long Beach during the winter of 2015 and 2016, a Steller 
observed in 2018 hauled out on a buoy outside Ventura Harbor, and a 
lone adult female who gave birth to and reared a pup on San Miguel 
Island in the summer of 2017 (Delong 2019).
    In April and May 2012 Steller sea lions were observed at VAFB which 
was the first time this species had been reported at the Base over the 
past two decades. Since 2012, Steller sea lions have been observed 
occasionally in routine monthly surveys, with as many as 16 individuals 
recorded. In 2019, up to four Steller sea lions were observed on south 
VAFB during monthly marine mammal counts (U.S. Air Force 2020), and 
none have been observed during monthly counts in 2020 (U.S. Air Force 
In Prep.). Note that these locations are more than 20 mi. (32 km) south 
of LF-05 and are not within an area that would be impacted by any 
proposed activities. While flying to VAFB from Santa Maria for an 
unrelated project, contract biologists observed and photographed three 
Steller sea lions at Lion Rock in October 2017 (Ball 2017). This 
offshore rock haulout site is within an area exposed to in-air noise 
levels that may cause behavioral affects to pinnipeds at that haulout.

Harbor Seal

    The harbor seal is one of the most widely distributed seals, found 
in nearly

[[Page 768]]

all temperate coastal waters of the northern hemisphere (Jefferson et 
al., 2008). Harbor seals are generally not present in the deep waters 
of the open ocean. Harbor seals, while primarily aquatic, also use the 
coastal terrestrial environment, where they haul out of the water 
periodically. Harbor seals are a coastal species, rarely found more 
than 20 km from shore, and frequently occupying bays, estuaries, and 
inlets (Baird, 2001; Harvey & Goley, 2011; Jefferson et al., 2014)
    Ideal harbor seal habitat includes suitable haulout sites, shelter 
from high surf during the breeding periods, and sufficient food near 
haulout sites to sustain the population throughout the year. Haulout 
sites vary but include intertidal and subtidal rock outcrops, sandbars, 
sandy beaches, estuaries, and even peat banks in salt marshes (Burns, 
2009; Gilbert & Guldager, 1998; Wilson, 1978). Harbor seals generally 
haul out in greatest numbers at low tides and during the afternoon, 
when it is usually warmest. The period from late May to early June 
corresponds with the peak molt season when the maximum number of harbor 
seals are onshore (Lowry et al., 2017).
    Harbor seals use haulouts along the shoreline at VAFB. Most haulout 
sites on VAFB are located on south VAFB, more than 20 mi. (32 km) south 
of LF-05 and are not within an area that would be impacted by any 
proposed activities. On north VAFB, there are two haulout locations 
near LF-05: Lion's Head is 0.45 mi. (0.72 km) northwest and Little Sal 
is 2.15 mi. (3.45 km) northwest from LF-05. The Purisima Point haulout 
is 7.43 mi. (11.95 km) southwest of LF-05 and is located outside the 
area that would be impacted by any proposed activities. During monthly 
pinniped counts at haulouts during 2019, VAFB observed a maximum of 10 
harbor seals at Little Sal and a maximum of 9 harbor seals at Lion's 
Head (U.S. Air Force 2020). As of November 2020, a maximum of six 
harbor seals have been observed at Little Sal, and a maximum of four 
harbor seals have been observed at Lion's head during the 2020 monthly 
counts (U.S. Air Force In Prep.).

Northern Elephant Seal

    There are two distinct populations of northern elephant seals: One 
that breeds in Baja California, Mexico; and a population that breeds in 
California (Garcia-Aguilar et al., 2018). The northern elephant seals 
in the ERCA II Project Area are from the California Breeding stock, 
although elephant seals from Baja Mexico frequently migrate through the 
ERCA II Project Area (Aurioles-Gamboa & Camacho-Rios 2007; Carretta et 
al., 2017; Carretta et al., 2020). Northern elephant seals spend little 
time nearshore and migrate four times a year as they travel to and from 
breeding/pupping and molting areas, spending more than 80 percent of 
their annual cycle at sea (Robinson et al., 2012; Lowry et al., 2014; 
Lowry et al., 2017; Carretta et al., 2020). Peak abundance in 
California is during the January-February breeding season and during 
the time when adults return to molt from April to July (Lowry et al., 
2014; Lowry et al., 2017).
    Although northern elephant seals haul out at south VAFB locations, 
they were not observed at north VAFB haul outs in 2019 (U.S. Air Force 
2020) or in 2020 (U.S. Air Force In Prep.) Northern elephant seal 
occurrence on VAFB has become more frequent over the past decade (U.S. 
Air Force 2020) and northern elephant seals may begin to use areas 
where they have not previously been observed. Breeding has been 
observed on south VAFB since 2017 (Evans 2020).

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). 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). A functional group for pinnipeds exposed to sounds out of 
water was established with a hearing range shown in Table 3. This is 
based on behavioral measurements of hearing for several pinniped 
species.

 Table 3--Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Group for Pinnipeds (in Air)
                    and Its Generalized Hearing Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Generalized
                    Hearing group                      hearing  range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnipeds (in air)..................................    75 Hz to 30 kHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Southall et al., 2007.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and 
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document 
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are 
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the 
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw 
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those 
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or 
stocks.

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 decibel (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

[[Page 769]]

changes in sound pressure. For airborne sound pressure, the reference 
amplitude is usually 20 [mu]Pa and is expressed as dB re 20 [mu]Pa. 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.
    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).
    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., cannon fire, sonic booms, explosions, 
gunshots, 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. There are no non-pulsed sounds associated with the ERCA II 
Project that could result in harassment of marine mammals.
    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).

Masking

    Any man-made noise that is strong enough to be heard has the 
potential to reduce (mask) the ability of marine mammals to hear 
natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from 
conspecifics and environmental sounds such as surf noise. The 
infrequent cannon fire and corresponding sonic booms, (77 events on 51 
days over 2 calendar years) could cause masking, but it would be 
expected for no more than a very small fraction of the time during any 
single day. Occasional brief episodes of masking at VAFB would have no 
significant effects on the ability of pinnipeds to hear one another or 
to detect natural environmental sounds that may be relevant. Due to the 
expected sound levels of the activities proposed and the distance of 
the activity from marine mammal habitat, the effects of sounds from the 
proposed activities are unlikely to result in masking. Therefore, 
masking is not discussed further.

Temporary or Permanent Hearing Loss

    Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or 
permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. Received sound levels must 
far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary 
hearing impairment or temporary threshold shift (TTS). For transient 
sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to 
the duration of the sound. Received levels must be even higher for 
there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment, or permanent 
threshold shift (PTS). Although it is possible that some pinnipeds may 
incur TTS during cannon fire and sonic booms from ERCA II testing, 
hearing impairment has not been measured for pinniped species exposed 
to these combined sound sources. Auditory brainstem response (i.e., 
hearing assessment using measurements of electrical responses of the 
brain) was used to demonstrate that harbor seals did not exhibit loss 
in hearing sensitivity following launches of large rockets with sonic 
booms at VAFB (Thorson et al., 1999; Thorson et al., 1998). However, 
the hearing tests did not begin until at least 45 minutes after the 
launch; therefore, harbor seals may have incurred TTS which was 
undetectable by the time testing was begun. There was no sign of PTS in 
any of the harbor seals tested (Thorson et al., 1999; Thorson et al., 
1998).
    In general, if any TTS were to occur to pinnipeds, it is expected 
to be mild and reversible. It is possible that some artillery fire as 
measured very close to the firing location may exceed the permanent 
threshold shift (PTS) criteria, but it is not expected that any 
pinnipeds would be close enough to the cannons to be exposed to sounds 
strong enough to cause PTS. Due to the expected sound levels of the 
activities proposed and the distance of the activity from marine mammal 
habitat, the effects of sounds from the proposed activities are 
unlikely to result in PTS and therefore, PTS is not discussed further.

Non-Auditory Physical or Physiological Effects

    If noise-induced stress does occur in marine mammals, it is 
expected to occur primarily in those exposed to chronic or frequent 
noise. It is very unlikely that it would occur in animals, specifically 
California sea lions, Steller sea lions,

[[Page 770]]

harbor seals, and northern elephant seals, exposed to only a few very 
brief cannon fire and accompanying sonic booms over the course of 2 
years. Due to the expected sound levels of the activities proposed and 
the distance of the activity from marine mammal habitat, the effects of 
sounds from the proposed activities are unlikely to result in non-
auditory physical or physiological responses and are not discussed 
further in this section.

Disturbance Reactions

    Cannon fire and sonic booms are characterized by sudden onset of 
sound, moderate to high peak sound levels, and short sound duration. 
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; Southall 
et al., 2007). Pinnipeds may be exposed to airborne sounds that have 
the potential to result in behavioral harassment, depending on an 
animal's distance from the cannon fire and sonic booms. Sound could 
cause hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, 
such as temporarily abandoning their habitat. 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).
    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).
    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).
    While there are no data on pinniped behavioral impacts associated 
with cannon fire and sonic booms, the results from studies at beaches 
exposed to acoustic disturbance arising from missile launches and 
associated sonic booms at VAFB and SNI are highly variable (Holst et 
al. 2005, Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). The DAF has also monitored 
pinniped responses to rocket launches at the Northern Channel Islands 
(NCI) during numerous launches over the past two decades. 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 generally being much less responsive. Because Steller 
sea lions occur in the project area relatively infrequently, no data 
has been recorded on their reactions to sonic booms. 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 
or up to an hour or two of each launch, regardless of species.
    Responsiveness also varies with time of year and age class, with 
juvenile pinnipeds being more likely to react by leaving the haulout 
site. The probability and type of behavioral response will also depend 
on the season, the group composition of the pinnipeds, and the type of 
activity in which they are engaged. For example, in some cases, harbor 
seals have been found to be more responsive during the pupping/breeding 
season (Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008) while in others, 
mothers and pups seem to react less to launches than lone individuals 
(Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012), and California sea lions seem to be 
consistently less responsive during the pupping season (Holst et al., 
2010; Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; Holst et al., 2011; 
Holst et al., 2005b; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). Though pup 
abandonment could theoretically result from these reactions, site-
specific monitoring data indicate that pup abandonment is not likely to 
occur as a result of the specified activity because it has not been 
previously observed. While the reactions are variable, and can involve 
abrupt movements by some individuals, biological impacts of these 
responses appear to be limited.

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 activities would 
result in any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by 
the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources 
they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates) since underwater sound levels 
are low. These low underwater sound levels are not expected to cause 
any impacts to prey species, including physical injury, behavioral 
disturbance, or survivability. Therefore, it is not expected that the 
test activities would impact feeding success of pinnipeds.
    While it is anticipated that the proposed activity may result in 
marine mammals avoiding certain haulout areas in close proximity to LF-
05 due to temporary ensonification of out-of-water habitat, this impact 
to habitat is temporary and reversible and was considered in further 
detail earlier in this document, as behavioral modification. No impacts 
are anticipated to prey species and in-water habitat frequented by 
pinnipeds. The main impact associated with the proposed activity will 
be temporarily elevated in-air noise levels and the associated direct 
effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice.
    Debris projectiles or materials associated with firing the 
projectiles are not expected to impact beaches. The DAF would recover 
all debris found on land in the vicinity of pinniped haulout sites. 
Dense debris falling into the water farther offshore, including the 
projectiles, would sink quickly to the seafloor in deep waters and 
would not be recovered. Debris would be distributed within the 
predicted splash-down areas rather than concentrated in a single 
location, and it is unlikely that

[[Page 771]]

marine mammals would encounter the debris in the water column or in the 
benthic environment. None of the debris, which is primarily composed of 
metal, would negatively affect benthic habitat.
    Overall, the proposed test activities are not expected to cause 
significant impacts or have permanent, adverse effects on pinniped 
habitats or on their foraging habitats and prey.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform NMFS' 
negligible impact analysis and determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines 
``harassment'' as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
(Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to 
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited 
to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to 
a point where the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly 
altered (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 airborne sounds from cannon fire and sonic 
booms. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment and 
Level B harassment in the form of TTS are 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) the number of 
days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can 
contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of 
takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take 
estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring 
results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors 
considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    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. 
Generally, 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). However, more recent data suggest that pinnipeds 
will be harassed when exposure is above 100 dB SEL (unweighted) 
(Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 
Analysis (Phase III) Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 
2017)) as shown in Table 4. NMFS helped develop the Phase III criteria 
and previously used this threshold for the SNI, PMSR incidental 
harassment authorization (84 FR 28,462; June 19, 2019). Therefore, NMFS 
is using 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa2s SEL (unweighted) here.

     Table 4--Behavioral Threshold for Impulsive Sound for Pinnipeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Level B harassment by
                  Species                       behavior disturbance
                                                      threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All pinniped species (in-air).............  100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa2s SEL
                                             (unweighted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each time the ERCA II cannon is fired it would generate blast noise 
from the cannon firing and a nearly simultaneous sonic boom from the 
projectile as it travels along its flight path. The blast noise can be 
described as an overpressure, and would be highest in the immediate 
vicinity of the cannon and dissipate with distance from the LF-05 site. 
Peak sound pressure level (SPL) from the blast is predicted to reach 
159 decibels related to 20 micropascals dB (re 20 [mu]Pa) on the beach 
due west of the LF-05 site (See Figure 6-1 in application). As the 
sound propagates farther offshore and away from the cannon, the peak 
SPL decreases, such that SPL would be less than 140 dB approximately 1 
km west of the LF-05 site and less than 135 dB 2 km west of the site. 
The projectile generates a sonic boom, another high-energy impulsive 
sound or overpressure. The sound from the cannon fire and blast and the 
sonic boom would reach the beach nearly simultaneously, and the two 
sounds would be indistinguishable to pinnipeds on the beach or just 
offshore.

                             Table 5--TTS/PTS In-Air Thresholds for Pinnipeds In-Air
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Impulsive
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Group                                        TTS threshold                   PTS threshold
                                                   TTS threshold     Peak SPL      PTS threshold     Peak SPL
                                                  SEL (weighted)   (unweighted)   SEL (weighted)   (unweighted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All other Pinnipeds.............................             146             170             161             176
Harbor seals....................................             123             155             138             161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Modeling predicts that the SPL from the sonic boom would reach 21 
pounds per square foot (psf) (equivalent to 153.6 dB re 20 [mu]Pa) on 
the beach due west of the LF-05 site (Figure 6-2). Assuming that the 
sound from the two acoustic events, the blast from the cannon and the 
sonic boom from by the projectile, arrives on the beach at the same 
time, the sound experienced by a pinniped on the beach would be more 
intense than would be experienced from either source independently. 
Because SPLs are expressed in decibels, which is based on a logarithmic 
scale, the SPLs cannot simply be summed. Instead, the SPLs must first 
be converted from decibels to units of Pascals (Pa) before they are

[[Page 772]]

summed, and then the total SPL can be converted back to decibels for 
comparison with the marine mammal thresholds. The formula used to 
calculate the total SPL is dependent on the square of the SPLs divided 
by a reference pressure (e.g., 20 dB [mu]Pa), making the summation less 
intuitive. Using the equation below, where p1 = 1,782.5 Pa 
(equivalent to 159 dB) and p2 = 957.6 Pa (equivalent to 
153.6 dB), the total SPL is 160.1 dB re 20 [mu]Pa.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06JA22.001

    The in-air SPL generated by the combined cannon blast and sonic 
boom (160.1 dB re 20 [mu]Pa) is likely only to exceed the TTS threshold 
(155 dB re 20 [mu]Pa) shown in Table 5 onshore directly west of LF-05, 
between the site and the shoreline. The 155 dB re 20 [mu]Pa threshold 
only applies to harbor seals. The TTS threshold for all other pinnipeds 
is 170 dB re 20 [mu]Pa as shown in Table 5 which is well above 
calculated in-air sound levels. This area consists of approximately 
0.15 km of rocky shoreline and 0.20 km of narrow sandy beach, with an 
approximate maximum of 150 feet of dry sand at low tides, comprising 
the northern tip of Minuteman Beach. Three pinniped species (California 
sea lion, northern elephant seal, and Pacific harbor seal) could 
potentially utilize this location. However, observations of live 
pinnipeds on Minuteman Beach are very infrequent and have been limited 
to only California sea lions, and appear coincident with elevated 
concentrations of domoic acid (red tide) in nearshore waters (Evans 
2020). Harbor seals have never been observed at this location. Because 
of their rare occurrence on Minuteman Beach and the lack of documented 
use of the coastal strand area between LF-05 and Minuteman Beach, it is 
very unlikely that any marine mammals, including harbor seals, would be 
present in that portion of the Project Area. In summary, and based on 
this analysis, TTS effects would be very unlikely for harbor seals and 
discountable for all other pinniped species. In addition, no PTS or 
other direct injury to pinnipeds is anticipated from in-air noise 
caused by ERCA II testing activities.
    The nearest pinniped haulout from LF-05 is Lion's Head, which is 
approximately 0.5 km distant and is used by harbor seals. California 
sea lions could also use this location but have not been observed in 
the past 6 years of monthly counts performed by the DAF (U.S. Air Force 
2020; Evans 2020). The maximum in-air SPL received at Lion's Head from 
the cannon blast is predicted to be 148 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (See Figure 6-1 
in application), and the SPL from the sonic boom is predicted to be 8.5 
psf (146.2 dB re 20 [mu]Pa; Figure 6-2 in application). The combined 
SPL received on the beach at Lion's Head, assuming noise from both 
sources arrived simultaneously, would be 150.2 dB re 20 [mu]Pa 
(calculated as described in the previous section). This total SPL is 
less than the TTS threshold for all pinniped hearing groups.

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation

    To conservatively estimate the number of pinnipeds that would 
potentially be exposed to noise levels above the Level B harassment 
behavioral threshold during test events, the analysis considered the 
maximum number of pinnipeds observed at haulouts within the predicted 
100 dB re 20 [micro]Pa\2\sec or greater SEL. The furthest haulout 
within this area is Lion Rock, predicted to receive an SEL of 130 dB re 
20 [micro]Pa\2\sec, which exceeds the 100 dB re 20 [micro]Pa\2\sec 
threshold for behavioral reactions (Figure 6-3 in application). 
Therefore, pinnipeds observed at the Lion Rock haulout were included to 
estimate the numbers of pinnipeds exposed during each test event day. 
During the WSD test event, the cannon will be fired multiple times per 
day. Because the analysis assumes all hauled-out pinnipeds would react 
to the initial noise by either an alert reaction, reorienting their 
position on land, or leaving the haulout and returning to the water, 
multiple cannon blasts in succession would result in only one take for 
each individual on a given day. A total of 35 tests would occur during 
the WSD test event which uses only Projectile A. Ten tests would occur 
during the weeks 1 and 2 and the remaining 25 tests would occur over 
the course of 13 test days during weeks 3 through 5. For the PPM test 
event one Projectile A and one Projectile B would be fired on each of 3 
days during a 2-week period. Similarly, for each of the Boost Demo, 
Capture Test, and Final Demo test events, one Projectile A and one 
Projectile C would be fired on each of 6 test days over a 2-week 
period. Over the entire testing period (from calendar year 2023 through 
2025) there would be a total of 51 days when test events would produce 
in-air noise at levels that could potentially result in take of 
pinnipeds by Level B harassment.
    Estimated take of California sea lions by Level B harassment was 
calculated by taking the highest number of individuals (n=883) observed 
on a single day during the three most recent aerial surveys (2013, 
2016, 2017) of Lion Rock multiplied by the number of days (39 for year 
1 and 12 for year 2) over which each test event would occur. Surveys 
were performed by NMFS (NMFS 2020b). The total number of exposures to 
in-air noise from the proposed testing would result in an estimated 
34,437 takes by Level B harassment during Year 1 and 10,596 takes by 
Level B harassment during Year 2 (Table 6, Table 7). Therefore the DAF 
requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, this amount of Level B 
harassment by behavioral disruption for the Year 1 and Year 2 IHAs, 
respectively.
    The DAF estimated take by Level B harassment by assuming that the 
number of Steller sea lions (n=3) observed once at Lion Rock in October 
2017 could occur during each day of testing. The total number of 
exposures to in-air noise from the proposed testing would result in an 
estimated 117 takes by Level B harassment in Year 1 and 36 takes by 
Level B harassment in Year 2. The DAF requested and NMFS proposes to 
authorize 117 takes during Year 1 and 36 takes during Year 2 by Level B 
harassment from behavioral disruption, as shown in Table 6 and Table 7.
    Take of harbor seals was calculated by taking the highest number 
observed hauled out at Little Sal (n=10) and Lion's Head (n=9) during 
monthly counts in 2019 and 2020 (U.S. Air Force 2020, In Prep.), 
resulting in a total of 19 harbor seals for each test event. This 
resulted in an estimate of 741 takes in Year 1 and 228 takes in Year 2 
by Level B harassment. Therefore, the DAF requested and NMFS proposes 
to authorize 741 takes during Year 1 and 228 takes during Year 2 by 
Level B harassment from behavioral disruption (Table 6, Table 7).
    Northern elephant seals have not been observed hauled out at any 
locations

[[Page 773]]

within the project area in which Level B harassment could occur. 
However, overall numbers have been increasing on VAFB over the past 
decade (U.S. Air Force 2020), and it is possible that northern elephant 
seals may begin to occupy areas where they have not previously been 
observed. The DAF, therefore, conservatively assumed that one northern 
elephant seal may be exposed to in-air noise resulting in behavioral 
disturbance during each test event. Therefore, NMFS proposes to 
authorize 39 takes during Year 1 and 12 takes during Year 2 by Level B 
harassment from behavioral disruption (Table 6, Table 7).

                 Table 6--Estimated Takes by Level B Harassment by Test Event and Test Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test dates                       IHA Year 1 (4QCY23-2QCY24)              IHA Year 2 (1QCY25-2QCY25)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test event                   WSD             PPM         Boost demo     Capture test     Final demo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion.............          26,490           2,649           5,298           5,298           5,298
Steller sea lion................              90               9              18              18              18
Harbor seal.....................             570              57             114             114             114
Northern elephant seal..........              30               3               6               6               6
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All.........................          27,180           2,718           5,436           5,436           5,436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 7--Level B Harassment Take Estimates by Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Estimated       Estimated
                                             number of       number of
                 Species                      Level B         Level B
                                            harassment      harassment
                                           events Year 1   events Year 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Sea lion.....................          34,437          10,596
Steller sea lion........................             117              36
Harbor seal.............................             741             228
Northern elephant seal..................              39              12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the 
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)). The NDAA for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to 
military readiness activities and the incidental take authorization 
process such that ``least practicable impact'' shall include 
consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and 
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned) and the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned); and
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    The DAF must employ PSOs at established monitoring locations as 
described in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section. PSOs must 
monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the 
required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and 
environmental conditions.
    The DAF, when practicable, would perform ERCA II test activities 
when tides are greater than 1.0 foot (0.3 m). This is when haulouts 
tend to be unoccupied by pinnipeds and would reduce the number of 
exposures.
    To prevent unauthorized take of marine mammals, test activities 
must be halted upon observation of either a species for which 
incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental 
take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been 
met.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS 
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures 
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that

[[Page 774]]

requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of 
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result 
in increased knowledge of the species and the level of taking or 
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be 
present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is 
critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is 
obtained from the required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density).
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual Monitoring and Recording

    Protected Species Observers (PSOs) would commence monitoring at 
Lion's Head, Little Sal, northern end of Minuteman Beach (beach between 
Minuteman Beach parking area and LF-05), and Lion Rock at least 72 
hours prior to ERCA II test events and continue until at least 48 hours 
after each event. PSO's would be stationed at locations offering the 
best possible view of individual haulout sites. During each daily 
monitoring effort, surveys (counts with binoculars and spotting scopes, 
if necessary) would be conducted hourly for 6 hours (6 counts per day) 
centered around the late morning or afternoon low tides as much as 
possible. Monitors will record species; number of animals hauled out; 
general behavior; presence of pups; age class; and gender. 
Environmental conditions will also be monitored including tide, wind 
speed, air temperature, and swell.
    PSOs cannot be present to survey Little Sal and Lion's Head when 
live cannon fire is underway for safety purposes, therefore, video 
recording of pinnipeds would be conducted during live fire testing in 
order to record any reaction to the blast noise and sonic boom. Lion 
Rock is approximately 0.25 mi (0.4 km) from the closest observation 
location and only half of the offshore rock is visible from land so it 
may be monitored via drone rather than traditional survey methods 
(spotting scopes and binoculars). The DAF would prefer to use a drone 
so that the entire rock can be observed. However, if DAF is unable to 
secure necessary permits, protected species observers (PSOs) would use 
a spotting scope to observe reactions during test events as an 
alternative.

Reporting

    Technical reports will be submitted to the NMFS' Office of 
Protected Resources within 90 days from the date that each IHA expires. 
This report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and 
interpretation pertaining to ERCA II testing activities covered under 
these proposed IHAs.
    The DAF will submit reports that include:
     Summary of test activities (dates and times);
     Summary of mitigation and monitoring measures implemented;
     Number, species, and any other relevant information 
regarding marine mammals observed and estimated exposed/taken during 
activities;
     Description of the observed behaviors (in both presence 
and absence of test activities);
     Environmental conditions when observations were made 
including visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind speed and 
direction, tides, and swell height and direction; and
     Assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of 
mitigation and monitoring measures.
    If a dead or seriously injured pinniped is found during post-firing 
monitoring, the incident must be reported to the NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources and NMFS West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator 
immediately. In the unanticipated event that any cases of pinniped 
mortality are judged to result from ERCA II testing activities at any 
time during the period covered by these IHAs, this will be reported to 
NMFS and the West Coast Stranding Coordinator. The report must include 
the following information:
    1. Time and date of the incident;
    2. Description of the incident;
    3. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, cloud 
cover, and visibility);
    4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound 
source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
    5. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    6. Fate of the animal(s); and
    7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    Testing activities must not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. If it is determined that the 
unauthorized take was caused by ERCA II activities, NMFS will work with 
the Holder to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the 
likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The 
DAF may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status

[[Page 775]]

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.
    The specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B 
harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from airborne sounds 
associated with ERCA II cannon fire and accompanying sonic booms. Based 
on the best available information, including monitoring reports from 
similar activities (i.e., missile launches and sonic booms) at VAFB and 
nearby launch facilities, 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 cannon fire and sonic booms. Repeated exposures of 
individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are 
unlikely to result in TTS or PTS. Thresholds for PTS are higher than 
modeled sound levels across the entirety of the Project Area, and 
thresholds would not be exceeded or 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.
    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, even in the instances of pinnipeds being 
behaviorally disturbed by cannon fire and associated sonic booms at 
VAFB and nearby launch facilities no evidence has been presented of 
abnormal behavior, injuries or mortalities, or pup abandonment as a 
result of sonic booms. These findings came as a result of more than two 
decades of surveys at VAFB. Post missile-launch monitoring generally 
reveals a return to normal behavioral patterns within minutes up to an 
hour or two of each launch, regardless of species (SAIC 2012). 
Therefore, in-air sound associated with canon firing and associated 
sonic booms is not expected to impact reproductive rates or population 
levels of affected species.
    We do not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in 
any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine 
mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use 
(i.e., fish and invertebrates) since underwater sound levels would not 
affect prey species.
    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 
stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or 
authorized;
     No impacts to cetaceans are anticipated;
     No impacts in the form of TTS or PTS are expected 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), which are not expected to adversely affect the fitness of any 
individuals or populations;
     The proposed activities are expected to result in no long-
term changes in the use by pinnipeds of haulouts in the project area, 
based on over 20 years of monitoring data;
     No impacts to marine mammal habitat/prey are expected; and
     The expected 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 for both the Year 1 
IHA and the Year 2 IHA the total marine mammal take from the proposed 
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal 
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.

Endangered Species Act

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for 
endangered or threatened species.
    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for 
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS 
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is 
not required for this action.

Proposed Authorizations

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue two distinct and consecutive one-year IHAs to the Department of 
the Air Force for conducting Extended Range Cannon Artillery II testing 
at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California from October 1, 2023 to 
September 30, 2024 (Year 1) and from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 
2025 (Year 2) provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, 
and reporting requirements are incorporated. Drafts of the proposed 
IHAs can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorizations, 
and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHAs for the proposed 
ERCA II testing. We also request at this time comment on the potential 
renewal of these proposed IHAs as described in the paragraph below. 
Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature 
citations to help inform decisions on the request for these IHAs or 
subsequent Renewal IHAs.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1 year Renewal 
IHA following notice to the public providing

[[Page 776]]

an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year 
of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the 
Description of Proposed Activities section of this notice is planned or 
(2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed 
Activities section of this notice would not be completed by the time 
the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the 
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of 
this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior 
to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the Renewal 
IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of 
the initial IHA).
    (2) The request for renewal must include the following:
     An explanation that the activities to be conducted under 
the requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed 
under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include 
changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not 
affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, 
or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of 
take).
     A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
    (3) Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and 
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

    Dated: January 3, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-00032 Filed 1-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P