[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13022-13034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04996]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 217
[Docket No. 131120978-4146-01]
RIN 0648-BD80
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S.
Navy Missile Launches From San Nicolas Island, California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments and information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy), Naval
Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) for authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to missile launches from San Nicolas Island
(SNI) from June 2014 through June 2019. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to
issue regulations and subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to the
Navy to incidentally harass marine mammals.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April
21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BD80, by either
of the following methods:
Electronic submissions: submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov)
Hand delivery or mailing of paper, disk, or CD-ROM
comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Incidental Take Program
Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without
change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address,
etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
An electronic copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by
writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the Internet
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment,
during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Magliocca, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of
[[Page 13023]]
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-
136) removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographical
region'' limitations indicated above and amended the definition of
``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military readiness activity'' to
read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (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,
to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or
significantly altered [Level B Harassment].
Summary of Request
On July 24, 2013, NMFS received an application from the Navy for
the taking of marine mammals incidental to missile launches from San
Nicolas Island (SNI). NMFS determined that the application was adequate
and complete on November 18, 2013.
The Navy proposes to continue a launch program for missiles and
targets from several launch sites on SNI. The proposed activity would
occur between June 2014 and June 2019 and may involve up to 40 launches
per year. Take, by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of northern
elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), Pacific harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina), and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) is
anticipated to result from the specified activity.
The Navy is currently operating under an authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to missile launches from SNI, which expires
June 2, 2014 (74 FR 26587).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The Navy plans to continue a launch program for missiles and
targets from several launch sites on SNI. Missiles vary from tactical
and developmental weapons to target missiles used to test defensive
strategies and other weapons systems. Some launch events involve a
single missile, while others involve the launch of multiple missiles
either in quick succession or at intervals of a few hours. Up to 200
missiles may be launched over the 5-year period, but the number and
type of launch varies depending on operational needs.
The purpose of these launches is to support testing and training
activities associated with operations on the NAWCWD Point Mugu Sea
Range. The Sea Range is used by the U.S. and allied military services
to test and evaluate sea, land, and air weapon systems; to provide
realistic training opportunities; and to maintain operational readiness
of these forces. Some of the launches are used for practicing defensive
drills against the types of weapons simulated by these missiles and
some launches are conducted for the related purpose of testing new
types of targets.
Dates and Duration
Launches of this type have been occurring at SNI for many years and
are expected to continue indefinitely into the future. The Navy has
requested a 5-year Letter of Authorization for missile launches taking
place between June 2014 and June 2019. The timing of these launches is
variable and subject to testing and training requirements and
meteorological and logistical limitations. To meet the Navy's
operational testing and training requirements, launches may be required
at any time of year and any time of day. Up to 200 missiles (40
missiles per year) may be launched over the 5-year period and the Navy
is proposing that up to 10 launches per year may occur at night. Given
the launch acceleration and flight speed of the missiles, most launch
events are of extremely short duration. Strong launch sounds are
typically detectable near the surrounding beaches for no more than a
few seconds per launch (Holst et al., 2005a, 2008, 2011).
Specified Geographic Region
SNI is one of the eight Channel Islands in the Southern California
Bight, located about 105 kilometers (km) southwest of Point Mugu.
Missile launches would occur from the western part of SNI (see Figure 2
in the Navy's LOA application). The missiles fly generally westward
through the Point Mugu Sea Range. The primary launch locations are the
Alpha Launch Complex, which is located on the west-central part of SNI,
and Building 807 Launch Complex, which is located at the western end of
SNI. Other launch pads are located nearby.
Detailed Description of Activities
Missiles included in the Navy's request range from relatively small
and quieter missiles like the Rolling Airframe Missile to larger and
louder missiles like the Terrier Black-Brant. While other missiles may
be launched in the future, the largest missile analyzed here is 23,000
kilograms (kg). The following is a description of the types of missiles
that may be launched at SNI during the 5-year period.
Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM)--The Navy/Raytheon RAM is a
supersonic, lightweight, quick-reaction missile. This relatively small
missile uses the infrared seeker of the Stinger missile and the
warhead, rocket motor, and fuse from the Sidewinder missile. It has a
high-tech radio-to-infrared frequency guiding system. The RAM is a
solid-propellant rocket 12.7 centimeters (cm) in diameter and 2.8 m
long. Its launch weight is 73.5 kg, and operational versions have
warheads that weigh 11.4 kg.
At SNI, RAMs are launched from the Building 807 Launch Complex,
near the shoreline. Previous RAM launches have resulted in flat-
weighted sound pressure levels up to 126 decibels (dB) near the
launcher and 99 dB at a nearshore site located 1.6 km from the three-
dimensional closest point of approach. Flat-weighted sound exposure
level ranged from 84 to 97 dB reference 20 micropascals (20 [mu]Pa),
and M-weighted sound exposure levels for pinnipeds in air ranged from
76 to 96 dB reference 20 micropascals squared per second (20
[mu]Pa\2\s). Peak pressure ranged from 104 to 117 dB re 20 [mu]Pa. The
reference sound pressure (20 [mu]Pa) used here and throughout the
document is standard for airborne sounds.
GQM-163A ``Coyote''--The Coyote, designated GQM-163A, is an
expendable SSST powered by a ducted-rocket ramjet. It has replaced the
Vandal, which was used as the primary missile during launches from 2001
to 2005, and is similar in size and performance. The Coyote is capable
of flying at low altitudes (4 m cruise altitude) and supersonic speeds
(Mach 2.5) over a flight range of 83 km. This
[[Page 13024]]
missile is designed to provide a ground launched aerial target system
to simulate a supersonic, sea-skimming Anti-Ship Cruise missile threat.
The SSST assembly consists of two primary subsystems: Mk 70 solid
propellant booster and the GQM-163A target missile. The solid-rocket
booster is about 46 centimeters (cm) in diameter and is of the type
used to launch the Navy's ``Standard'' surface-to-air missile. The GQM-
163A target missile is 5.5 m long and 36 cm in diameter, exclusive of
its air intakes. It consists of a solid fuel Ducted Rocket (DR) ramjet
subsystem, Control and Fairing Subassemblies, and the Front End
Subsystem, which includes an explosive destruct system to terminate
flight if required.
The Coyote uses the Vandal launcher, currently installed at the
Alpha Launch Complex on SNI. Previous Coyote launches produced flat-
weighted sound pressure levels ranging from 126 to 134 dB re [mu]Pa\2\s
at distances of 0.8 to 1.7 km from the closest point of approach of the
vehicle, and 82 to 93 dB at distances of 2.4 to 3.2 km. Flat-weighted
sound exposure levels ranged from 87 to 119 dB re 20 [mu]Pa\2\s. M-
weighted sound exposure levels ranged from 60 to 114 dB re20
[mu]Pa\2\s, and peak pressures ranged from 100 to 144 dB 20 [mu]Pa.
Multi-stage Sea Skimming Target (MSST)--The MSST is a subsonic
cruise missile with a supersonic terminal stage that approaches its
target at low-level at Mach 2.8. The MSST is expected to replace the
Coyote as the primary target missile launched from SNI in the future.
It consists of a subsonic winged ``cruise bus,'' which releases a
supersonic ``sprint vehicle'' for terminal approach. The sprint vehicle
is based on the Coyote target missile.
The MSST is launched from the Alpha Launch Complex on SNI. Previous
MSST launches had flat-weighted sound pressure levels of 78.7 to 96.6
dB re 20 [mu]Pa and M-weighted sound exposure levels of 62.3 to 83.3 re
20 [mu]Pa\2\s at sites 1.3 to 2.7 km from the closest point of
approach.
Terrier (Black Brant, Lynx, Orion)--The Terrier class missiles
consist of the Terrier Mark 70 booster with a variety of second stage
rockets (e.g., Terrier-Black Brant). The solid-rocket booster is about
46 cm in diameter, 394 cm long, and weighs 1,038 kg. The three most
likely Terrier class missiles that would be launched include the
Terrier-Black Brant, Terrier-Lynx, and Terrier-Orion. The Black Brant
has a diameter of 44 cm, is 533 cm long, and weighs 1,265 kg. This
missile reaches an altitude of 203 km and has a range of 264 km.
Terrier burnout occurs after 6.2 seconds at an altitude of 3 km, and
Black Brant burnout occurs after 44.5 seconds at an altitude of 37.7
km. The Lynx is 36 cm in diameter and 279 cm long. This missile reaches
an altitude of 84 km and has a range of 99 km. Lynx burnout occurs
after 58.5 seconds at 43.5 km. The Improved Orion motor is 36 cm in
diameter and 280 cm long. On SNI, this class of missile target is
typically launched vertically or near-vertically from the Building 807
Launch Complex. Since these missiles use the same Terrier MK 70 booster
as the Coyote, launch sound levels are generally similar to those from
the Coyote. Given the near-vertical launch elevation, sounds in the
immediate vicinity may be prolonged, though the missile reaches high
altitude very quickly after launch.
A Terrier-Orion produced a flat-weighted sound pressure level of 91
dB re 20 [micro]Pa, a flat-weighted sound exposure level of 96 dB 20
[mu]Pa\2\s, and an M-weighted sound exposure level of 92 dB re 20
[mu]Pa\2\s at a distance of 2.4 km from the closest point of approach.
The peak pressure was 104 dB 20 [mu]Pa. During previous Terrier-Black
Brant launches, the flat-weighted sound pressure level ranged from
102.7 to 115 dB, and M-weighted sound exposure level ranged from 106.5
to 118.4 dB at pinniped haul-out sites located at 0.6 to 1.3 km from
the closest point of approach. Sounds near the launcher reached 134 dB
flat-weighted sound pressure level and 132.3 dB 20 [mu]Pa\2\s M-
weighted sound exposure level. During previous Terrier-Lynx launches,
flat-weighted sound pressure level measured 85.9 to 114.4 dB re 20
[mu]Pa at sites located 0.6 to 5.1 km from the closest point of
approach of the launched vehicle and M-weighted sound exposure levels
ranged from 90.5 to 118 dB re 20 [mu]Pa.
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3)--The SM-3 is a ship-based missile
system used to intercept short- to intermediate-range ballistic
missiles as a part of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Although
primarily designed as an anti-ballistic missile defensive weapon, the
SM-3 has also been employed in an anti-satellite capacity against a
satellite at the lower end of low Earth orbit. The SM-3 evolved from
the proven SM-2 Block IV design. The SM-3 uses the same booster and
dual thrust rocket motor as the Block IV missile for the first and
second stages and the same steering control section and midcourse
missile guidance for maneuvering in the atmosphere. To support the
extended range of an exo-atmospheric intercept, additional missile
thrust is provided in a new third stage for the SM-3 missile,
containing a dual pulse rocket motor for the early exo-atmospheric
phase of flight. Testing of SM-3 missiles may begin during this
proposed authorization period and launch sounds are expected to be
within the range of existing missiles.
Other Missile Launches--The Navy may also launch other missiles to
simulate various types of threat missiles and aircraft, and to test
other systems. For example, in 2002, a Tactical Tomahawk was launched
from Building 807 Launch Complex. The Tomahawk produced a flat-weighted
sound pressure level of 93 dB re 20 [mu]Pa, a flat-weighted sound
exposure level of 107 dB re 20 [mu]Pa\2\s, and an M-weighted sound
exposure level of 105 dB re 20 [mu]Pa\2\s at a distance of 539 m from
the closest point of approach. The peak pressure was 111 dB 20 [mu]Pa.
A Falcon was launched from the Alpha Launch Complex in 2006, producing
a flat-weighted sound pressure level of 84 dB re 20 [mu]Pa, a flat-
weighted sound exposure level of 88 dB 20 [mu]Pa\2\s, and an M-weighted
sound exposure level of 82 dB re 20 [mu]Pa\2\s at a beach located north
of the launch azimuth. Near the launcher, the flat-weighted sound
pressure level was 128 dB re 20 [mu]Pa, the flat-weighted sound
exposure level was 126 dB 20 [mu]Pa\2\s, and the M-weighted sound
exposure level was 125 dB re 20 [mu]Pa\2\s.
Missiles of the BQM-34 or BQM-74 type could also be launched. These
are small, unmanned aircraft that are launched using jet-assisted take-
off rocket bottles and then continue offshore powered by small turbojet
engines. The larger of these, the BQM-34, is 7 m long and has a mass of
1,134 kg plus the jet-assisted take-off rocket bottle. The smaller BQM-
74 is up to 420 cm long and has a mass of 250 kg plus the solid
propellant jet-assisted take-off rocket bottles. Burgess and Greene
(1998) reported that A-weighted sound pressure levels ranged from 92
dBA re 20 [mu]Pa at a closest point of approach distance of 370 m, to
145 dB at 15 m for a launch in 1997. If launches of other missile types
occur, they would be included within the total of 40 launches
anticipated per year.
General Launch Operations--Aircraft and helicopter flights between
the Point Mugu airfield on the mainland, the airfield on SNI, and the
target sites in the Sea Range are a routine part of a planned launch
operation. These flights generally do not pass at low level over the
beaches where pinnipeds are expected to be hauled out. Therefore, these
flights are not further considered in this document.
[[Page 13025]]
Movements of personnel are restricted near the launch sites at
least several hours prior to a launch for safety reasons. No personnel
are allowed on the western end of SNI during launches. Movements of
personnel or missiles near the island's beaches are also restricted at
other times of the year for purposes of environmental protection and
preservation of cultural resource sites. Launch monitoring equipment
would be deployed and activated prior to the launches.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
There are seven species of marine mammals with possible or
confirmed occurrence in the area of the specified activity: Northern
elephant seals, harbor seals, California sea lion, northern fur seals
(Callorhinus ursinus), Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi),
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), and southern sea otter (Enhydra
lutris nereis). The northern fur seal is considered depleted under the
MMPA; the Guadalupe fur seal is listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and depleted under the MMPA; and the
eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lion was delisted
from the ESA in 2013. The northern fur seal, Guadalupe fur seal, and
Steller sea lion are considered rare at SNI and takes of these species
have not been observed under the Navy's current MMPA authorization.
Therefore, these three species will not be considered further. The
southern sea otter is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
is also not considered further in this proposed rule notice. Table 1
includes species-specific information on the three species likely to
occur in the area of the specified activity.
Table 1--Species Information on the Marine Mammals Likely To Occur in the Area of the Specified Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Status Occurrence Seasonality Range Abundance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern elephant sea........... Mirounga .................... Common.............. Year-round.......... Mexico to Alaska.. 124,000
angustirostris.
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina..... .................... Common.............. Year-round.......... Baja California to 30,196
Aleutian Islands.
California sea lion............. Zalophus .................... Common.............. Year-round.......... Mexico to Canada.. 296,750
californianus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further information on the biology and local distribution of these
species can be found in the Navy's application (see ADDRESSES), and the
NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g.,
missile launch noise) have been observed to impact marine mammals. This
discussion may also include reactions that we consider to rise to the
level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level
of a take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of
studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting
barely measurable avoidance). This section is intended as a background
of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner
in which this activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will
be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated
impacts from this specific activity. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment'' section later in this document will include a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by
this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include
the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals
and will consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section, the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section,
and the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to
draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
Potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals
involve both acoustic and non-acoustic effects. Acoustic effects are
related to sound produced by the engines of all launch vehicles, and,
in some cases, their booster rockets. Potential non-acoustic effects
could result from the physical presence of personnel during placement
of video and acoustical monitoring equipment. However, careful
deployment of monitoring equipment is not expected to result in any
disturbance to pinnipeds hauled out nearby. Any visual disturbance
caused by passage of a vehicle overhead is likely to be minor and brief
as the launch vehicles are relatively small and move at great speed.
Acoustic Impacts
The effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can
be categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al., 1995):
(1) The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the
animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the
hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);
(2) The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any
overt behavioral response;
(3) The noise may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and
variable relevance to the well-being of the marine mammal; these can
range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions,
such as stampedes into the sea from terrestrial haul-out sites;
(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing
responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the
latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in
characteristics, infrequent and unpredictable in occurrence (as are
vehicle launches), and associated with situations that a marine mammal
perceives as a threat;
(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is strong enough to be heard has
the potential to reduce (mask) the ability of a marine mammal to hear
natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from
conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;
(6) If marine mammals remain in an area because it is important for
feeding, breeding, or some other biologically important purpose even
though there is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible that there
could be noise-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have
negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals
involved; and
(7) Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or
[[Page 13026]]
permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and
presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the
animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold
shift (TTS) in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, the sound
level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of
the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be
risk of permanent hearing impairment.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data,
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
Low-frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes):
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and
22 kHz (however, a study by Au et al. (2006) of humpback whale songs
indicate that the range may extend to at least 24 kHz);
Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises,
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
Pinnipeds in water: functional hearing is estimated to
occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest
sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, three marine mammal
species (pinnipeds only) are likely to occur in the proposed action
area. A species functional hearing group is a consideration when we
analyze the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
Behavioral Reactions of Pinnipeds to Missile Launches
Acoustic impacts of the specified activity could result from sound
produced by the engines of all launch vehicles, and, in some cases,
their booster rockets. Noises with sudden onset or high amplitude
relative to the ambient noise level may elicit a behavioral response
from pinnipeds resting on shore. Some pinnipeds tolerate high sound
levels without reacting strongly, whereas others may react strongly
when sound levels are lower. Published papers and available technical
reports describing behavioral responses of pinnipeds to the types of
sound recorded near haul-out sites on SNI indicate that there is much
variability in the responses. Responses can range from momentary
startle reactions to animals fleeing into the water or otherwise away
from their resting sites in what has been termed a stampede. Studies of
pinnipeds during missile launch events have demonstrated that different
pinniped species, and even different individuals in the same haul-out
group, can exhibit a range of responses from alert to stampede. It is
this variation that makes setting reaction criteria difficult. An
acoustic stimulus with sudden onset (such as a sonic boom) may be
analogous to a looming visual stimulus (Hayes and Saif, 1967), which
can be especially effective in eliciting flight or other responses
(Berrens et al., 1988). Missile launches are unlike many other forms of
disturbance because of their sudden sound onsets, high peak levels in
some cases, and short durations (Cummings, 1993).
Previous to the start of monitoring work at SNI under an Incidental
Harassment Authorization issued in 2001, most existing data on
reactions of hauled-out pinnipeds to sonic booms or launch noise
involved far larger launch missiles than the Coyotes and other missiles
that would be launched from SNI. In most cases, where the species of
pinnipeds occurring in the Sea Range have been exposed to the sounds of
large missile launches (such as the Titan IV from Vandenberg Air Force
Base), animals did not flush into the sea unless the sound level to
which they were exposed was relatively high. The reactions of harbor
seals to even these large missile launches have been limited to short-
term (5-30 minute) abandonment of haul-out sites.
Holst et al. (2005, 2008, 2010, and 2011) summarize the systematic
monitoring results from SNI from mid-2001 through February 2011.
Ugoretz and Green (2012) summarize results from 2011 through 2012. In
particular, northern elephant seals seem very tolerant of acoustic
disturbances (Stewart 1981; Holst et al., 2008) and were removed from
the list of target species for monitoring on SNI in 2010. In contrast,
harbor seals are more easily disturbed. Based on SNI launch monitoring
results from 2001 to 2007, most pinnipeds--especially northern elephant
seals--would be expected to exhibit no more than short-term alter or
startle responses (Holst et al., 2005, 2008, 2011). Any localized
displacement would be of short duration, although some harbor seals may
leave their haul-out site until the following low tide. However, Holst
and Lawson (2002) noted that numbers occupying haul-out sites on the
next day were similar to pre-launch numbers.
The most common type of reaction to missile launches at SNI is
expected to be a momentary ``alert'' response. When the animals hear or
otherwise detect the launch, they are likely to become alert, and (at
least momentarily) to interrupt prior activities in order to pay
attention to the launch. Animals that are well to the side of the
launch trajectory are likely to not show any additional reaction.
Animals that are closer to the trajectory may show a momentary alert
response, or they may react more strongly. Previous observations
indicate that elephant seals, in particular, will rarely if ever show
more than a momentary alert reaction (Stewart, 1981; Stewart et al.,
1994; Holst et al., 2005, 2008)--even when exposed to noise levels or
types that caused nearby harbor seals and California sea lions to flee.
Video recordings of pinnipeds around the periphery of western SNI
during launches on SNI in 2001-2012 have shown that some pinnipeds
react to a nearby launch by moving into the water or along the
shoreline (Holst et al., 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011; Ugoretz and Greene,
2012). Pinniped behavioral responses to launch sounds were usually
brief and of low magnitude, especially for northern elephant seals.
California sea lions (especially the young animals) exhibited more
reaction than elephant seals, and harbor seals were the most responsive
of the three species.
Northern elephant seals exhibited little reaction to launch sounds
(Holst et al., 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011). Most individuals merely raised
their heads briefly upon hearing the launch sounds and then quickly
returned to their previous activity pattern (usually sleeping). During
some launches, a small proportion of northern elephant seals moved a
short distance on the beach, away from their resting site, but
[[Page 13027]]
settled within minutes. Because of this, elephant seals are no longer
targeted for monitoring during launches, but are often in the field of
view when monitoring other species.
As expected, responses of California sea lions to the launches
varied by individual and age group (Holst et al., 2005, 2008, 2010,
2011). Some sea lions exhibited brief startle responses and increased
vigilance for a short period after each launch. Other sea lions,
particularly pups that were previously playing in groups along the
margin of the haul-out beaches, appeared to react more vigorously. A
greater proportion of hauled-out sea lions typically responded and/or
entered the water when launch sounds were louder (Holst et al., 2005,
2008, 2010, 2011; Ugoretz and Greene, 2012). Adult sea lions already
hauled out would mill about on the beach for a short period before
settling, whereas those in the shallow water near the beach did not
come ashore.
During the majority of launches at SNI, most harbor seals within
the audible range of the launch left their haul-out sites on rocky
ledges to enter the water and did not return during the duration of the
video-recording period (which sometimes extended up to several hours
after the launch) (Holst et al., 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011; Ugoretz and
Greene, 2012). During monitoring the day after a launch, harbor seals
were usually hauled out again at these sites (Holst and Lawson, 2002).
The type of missile being launched is also important in determining
the nature and extent of pinniped reactions to launch sounds. Holst et
al. (2008) showed that significantly more California sea lions
responded during Coyote launches than during other missile launches;
AGS launches caused the fewest reactions. Elephant seals showed
significantly less reaction during launches involving missiles other
than Vandals. The BQM-34 and especially the BQM-74 subsonic drone
missiles that may be launched from SNI are smaller and less noisy than
Coyotes. Launches of BQM-34 drones from NAS Point Mugu have not
normally resulted in harbor seals leaving their haul-out area at the
mouth of Mugu Lagoon about 3.2 kilometers (km) to the side of the
launch track (Lawson et al., 1998).
Stampede-Related Injury or Mortality From Missile Launches
Bowles and Stewart (1980) reported that harbor seals on San Miguel
Island reacted to low-altitude jet overflights with alert postures and
often with rapid movement across the haul-out sites, especially when
aircraft were visible. These harbor seals flushed into the water in
response to some sonic booms and to a few of the overflights by light
aircraft, jets above 244 meters (m) and helicopters below 305 m.
Sometimes the harbor seals did not return to land until the next day,
although they more commonly returned the same day. These authors
postulated that such disturbance-induced stampedes or other mother-pup
separations could be a source of increased mortality. However,
observations during actual sonic booms and tests with a carbide cannon
simulating sonic booms at San Miguel and SNI provide no evidence of
such pinniped injury or mortality (Stewart, 1982) and no mortality has
been observed during missile launches (Holst et al., 2005, 2008, 2010,
2011; Ugoretz and Greene, 2012).
It is possible, although unlikely, that launch-induced stampedes
could have adverse impacts on individual pinnipeds on the west end of
SNI. However, during missile launches in 2001-2012, there was no
evidence of launch-related injuries or deaths (Holst et al., 2005,
2008, 2010, 2012; Ugoretz and Greene, 2012). On several occasions,
harbor seals and California sea lion adults moved over pups as the
animals moved in response to the launches, but the pups did not appear
to be injured. Given the large numbers of pinnipeds giving birth on
SNI, it is expected that injuries and deaths will occur as a result of
natural causes. For example, during the 1997-1998 El Ni[ntilde]o event,
pup mortality reached almost 90 percent for northern fur seals at
nearby San Miguel Island, and some adults may have died as well (Melin
et al., 2005). Pup mortality also increased during this period for
California sea lions. Indirect evidence that launches have not caused
mortality comes from the fact that populations of northern elephant
seals and especially California sea lions on SNI are growing rapidly
despite similar launches for many years. Harbor seal numbers have also
increased and new harbor seal haul-out sites have been established at
locations directly under and near the launch tracks of missiles.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
During the period of the proposed activity, three species of
pinnipeds will use various beaches around SNI as places to rest, molt,
and breed. These beaches consist of sand, rock ledges, and rocky
cobble. Pinnipeds continue to use beaches around the western end of
SNI, and are expanding their use of some beaches, despite ongoing
launch activities for many years. Similarly, it appears that sounds
from prior launches have not affected use of coastal areas at
Vandenberg Air Force Base where similar missile launches occur.
Pinnipeds do not feed when hauled out on these beaches and the
airborne launch sounds will not persist in the water near the island
for more than a few seconds. Therefore, it is not expected that the
launch activities will have any impact on the food or feeding success
of these pinnipeds.
Boosters from missiles may be jettisoned shortly after launch and
fall on the island, but are not expected to impact beaches. Fuel
contained in these boosters is consumed rapidly and completely, so
there would be no risk of contamination even in the very unlikely event
that a booster did land on a beach. Thus, the proposed activity is not
expected to have any effects on marine mammal habitat.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-
readiness activities and the ITA process such that ``least practicable
adverse impact'' shall include consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and impact of the effectiveness of the
``military readiness activity.'' The activities described in the Navy's
application are considered military readiness activities.
As during launches conducted under previous regulations, where
practicable, the Navy proposes the following mitigation measures,
provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety, human
safety, national security, or other requirements or mission goals:
(1) Limit activities near the beaches in advance of launches;
(2) Avoid launch activities during harbor seal pupping season
(February through April);
(3) Limit launch activities during other pinniped pupping seasons;
(4) Not launch missiles from the Alpha Complex at low elevation
(less than 305 m) on launch azimuths that pass close to pinniped haul-
out sites when occupied;
[[Page 13028]]
(5) Avoid launching multiple missiles in quick succession over
haul-out sites, especially when young pups are present; and
(6) Aircraft and helicopter flight paths during missile launch
operations would maintain a minimum altitude of 305 m from pinniped
haul-outs and rookeries, except in emergencies or for real-time
security incidents (e.g., search-and-rescue, fire-fighting, adverse
weather conditions), which may require approaching pinniped haul-outs
and rookeries closer than 305 m.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of
ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
The practicability of the measure for applicant
implementation, including consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received
levels of noise, or other activities expected to result in the take of
marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing
harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed
to received levels of noise, or other activities expected to result in
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number
or number at biologically important time or location) to received
levels of noise, or other activities expected to result in the take of
marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing
the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance
of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, while also
considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
The Navy submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of their
application. It can be found in section 13 of their application. The
plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new
information received from the public during the public comment period.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or
more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both
within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below.
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of noise that we associate with specific
adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS.
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond
to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse
effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may
impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects
on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the
following methods:
a. Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to
observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately
predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent
information).
b. Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared
to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other
pertinent information).
c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with
concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli.
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species.
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain
mitigation and monitoring measures.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
The Navy proposes to conduct the following monitoring measures,
which are further detailed in section 13 of their application:
The Navy would continue a standard, ongoing, land-based
monitoring program to assess effects on harbor seals, northern elephant
seals, and California sea lions on SNI. This monitoring would occur at
up to three sites at different distances from the launch site before,
during, and after each launch, depending upon presence of pinnipeds
during each launch. The monitoring would be via autonomous video or
Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) cameras. Pinniped behavior on the beach
would be documented prior to the planned launch operations, during the
launch, and following the launch. Northern elephant seals would not be
specifically targeted for monitoring, though may be present in the
field of view when monitoring other species.
[[Page 13029]]
During each launch, the Navy would obtain calibrated
recordings of the sounds of the launches as received at different
distances from the missile's flightline. The Navy anticipates that
acoustic data would be acquired at each video monitoring location, to
estimate sounds received by pinnipeds, and at the launch site to
estimate maximum potential sound received. These recordings would
provide for a thorough description of launch sounds as received at
different locations on western SNI, and of the factors that affect
received sound levels. By analysis of the paired data on behavioral
observations and received sound levels, the Navy would further
characterize the relationship between the two. If there is a clear
correlation, the Navy would determine the ``dose-response''
relationship.
Visual Monitoring--The Navy proposes to conduct marine mammal and
acoustic monitoring during launches from SNI, using simultaneous video
recording of pinniped behavior and audio recording of launch sounds.
The land-based monitoring would provide data required to characterize
the extent and nature of the takes. In particular, the monitoring would
provide the information needed to document the occurrence, nature,
frequency, and duration of any changes in pinniped behavior that might
result from missile launches. Components of this documentation would
include the following:
Identify and document any change in behavior or movements
that may occur at the time of the launch;
Compare received levels of launch sound with pinniped
responses, based on acoustic and behavioral data from up to three
monitoring sites at different distances from the launch site and
missile path during each launch and attempt to establish the dose-
response relationship for launch sounds under different launch
conditions;
Ascertain periods or launch conditions when pinnipeds are
most and least responsive to launch activities; and
Document take by harassment and, although unlikely, any
mortality or injury.
The launch monitoring program would include remote video recordings
before, during, and after launches when pinnipeds are present in the
area of potential impact, and visual assessment by trained observers
before and after the launch. Remote cameras are essential during
launches because safety rules prevent personnel from being present in
most of the areas of interest. In addition, video techniques would
allow simultaneous observations at up to three different locations, and
would provide a permanent record that could be reviewed in detail. No
specific effort would be made to monitor elephant seals, though they
may be present in mixed groups when monitoring other species.
Acoustical Monitoring--The Navy would take acoustical recordings
during each monitored launch. These recordings would be suitable for
quantitative analysis of the levels and characteristics of the received
launch sounds. The Navy would use up to four autonomous audio recorders
to make acoustical measurements. During each launch, these would be
located as close as practical to monitored pinniped haul-out sites and
near the launch pad itself. The monitored haul-out sites would
typically include one site as close as possible to the missile's
planned flight path and one or two locations farther from the flight
path within the area of potential impact with pinnipeds present.
Reporting Measures
The Navy would submit annual interim technical reports to NMFS no
later than December 31 for the duration of the regulations. These
reports would provide full documentation of methods, results, and
interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks for launches during
each calendar year. However, only preliminary information would be
included for any launches during the 60-day period immediately
preceding submission.
The Navy would submit a draft comprehensive technical report to
NMFS 180 days prior to the expiration of the regulations, providing
full documentation of the methods, results, and interpretation of all
monitoring tasks for launches to date. A revised final comprehensive
technical report, including all monitoring results during the entire
period of the regulations would be due 90 days after the regulations
expire.
The Navy would ensure that NMFS is notified immediately if an
injured or dead marine mammal is judged to result from launch
activities at any time.
Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities
Between 2001 and 2012, a maximum of 1,990 California sea lions, 395
harbor seals, and 130 northern elephant seals were estimated to have
been potentially harassed in any single monitoring year incidental to
missile launches at SNI (Holst et al., 2008, 2010, 2011; Ugoretz and
Greene, 2012). These numbers may represent multiple exposures of single
animals, as beaches were monitored repeatedly over the course of the
year during numerous launches. However, some animals that displayed
behavioral reactions may have been missed, as not all areas can be
monitored during the launches. Pinnipeds that were potentially affected
left the haul-out site in response to the launch, left the water at a
vigorous pace, or exhibited prolonged movement or behavioral changes
relative to their behavior immediately prior to the launch.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
The NDAA of 2004 (Pub. L. 103-136) removed the ``small numbers''
and specified ``geographical region'' limitations indicated above and
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military
readiness activity'' to read as follows (section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA):
(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment];
or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal
or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural
behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level
B Harassment].
Any takes of marine mammals are most likely to result from
operational noise as launch missiles pass near haul-out sites, and/or
associated visual cues. This section estimates maximum potential take
and the likely annual take of marine mammal species during the proposed
missile launch program at SNI.
The launch sounds could be received for several seconds and, to be
conservative, are considered to be prolonged rather than transient
sounds. Given the variety of responses documented previously for the
sounds of man-made activities lasting several seconds, a sound exposure
level of 100 dB re 20 microPascals \2\ per second is considered
appropriate as a disturbance criterion for pinnipeds hauled out at the
west end of SNI, particularly for California sea lions and northern
elephant seals. Some pinnipeds that haul-out on the western end of SNI
are expected to be within the area where sound exposure levels exceed
100 dB. Far fewer pinnipeds are expected to occur within this area and
none of the recorded sound exposure levels appear to be high enough to
induce TTS.
Based on the reaction criterion, the distance to which it is
assumed to
[[Page 13030]]
extend, and the estimated numbers of pinnipeds exposed to sound
exposure levels at or above 100 dB, the Navy estimated the number of
pinnipeds on the west end of SNI that might be taken. The Navy made an
additional adjustment for harbor seals, as they are known to sometimes
react strongly to sound exposure levels below 100 dB. The Navy
considered the percentage of animals that actually responded to launch
noise in previous monitoring years in order to estimate the number of
animals potentially harassed. Recorded sound exposure levels in
different areas of SNI were compared to ground-based census data of
pinnipeds. These censuses were typically conducted seasonally when
maximum numbers of pinnipeds were known to occur on land.
Northern Elephant Seal
To estimate the potential maximum numbers of northern elephant
seals that might be exposed to sound levels at or above 100 dB in 2014,
the highest pup counts within map areas K, L, and M (see Figure 16 of
the Navy's application) in any year between 2000 and 2010 were used
(yielding a total of 1,854), and a continuing growth rate of 7.3
percent since 2010 was applied. This results in a maximum potential pup
count of 2,458 for those map areas in 2014. Based on data collected
from 1988 to 2010, the total count of all age classes expected to be
hauled out is approximately twice the number of pups hauled out.
Therefore, the maximum number hauled out in areas of potential impact
for 2014 was approximated by doubling the maximum potential calculated
pup count. Thus, the maximum expected number of elephant seals that may
be exposed to sound levels at or above 100 dB during 2014 is estimated
to be 4,916.
In the absence of any contrary data, it is assumed that elephant
seals exhibit high site fidelity when they return to shore, and that
the 4,916 elephant seals calculated above represent the maximum total
number that might be exposed to ``strong'' (at or above 100 dB) sounds
during the year, assuming missiles are launched when all animals are
hauled out and all beaches within the area receive strong sounds. If
some seals haul out on different beaches at various times during the
year, sometimes within and sometimes outside the area exposed to levels
at or above 100 dB, then the number of times an individual elephant
seal might be exposed to strong launch sounds would be reduced.
However, the total number of individuals that would be exposed at least
once over the course of the year would probably be increased. Movements
from one beach to another may be more likely for juveniles than for
older seals, given that this has been observed in other pinniped
species (such as for harbor seal pups; Thompson et al. 1994).
Published studies and results from the 2001-2012 monitoring at SNI
indicate that elephant seals are more tolerant of transient noise and
other forms of disturbance than are California sea lions or harbor
seals. If so, the actual impact zone is smaller than assumed here, and
the number of elephant seals that might be taken by harassment would be
substantially lower than the number of seals present within the area
where sound levels are at or above 100 dB. For example, during the
2001-2012 launch program, the majority of northern elephant seals did
not exhibit more than brief startle reactions in response to launches
(Holst et al. 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011; Ugoretz and Greene, 2012). Most
individuals merely raised their heads briefly upon hearing the launch
sounds and then quickly returned to their previous activity pattern
(usually sleeping). During some launches, a small proportion (typically
much less than 10 percent) of northern elephant seals moved a short
distance (<10 m) away from their resting site, but settled within
minutes. Elephant seals rarely moved or reacted more than this.
Therefore, the Navy estimates that up to 10 percent of 4,916
elephant seals (or 492 seals) might be taken by Level B harassment
during each year of planned launch operations.
Harbor Seals
To determine the potential numbers of harbor seals that might be
taken by harassment, the Navy used the maximum total harbor seal count
for SNI (858) and assumed that the population has remained relatively
stable. Previous monitoring from 2001-2012 showed that most monitored
harbor seals entered the water in response to launches. Previous
monitoring also indicates that about 70 percent of harbor seals that
haul out on SNI use the beaches within areas K, L, and M. The Navy
conservatively estimates that 80 percent of harbor seals on SNI may be
impacted by missile launches. Therefore, the Navy estimates that a
maximum of 686 harbor seals might be taken by Level B harassment during
a 1-year period.
California Sea Lion
To estimate the maximum potential number of sea lions that might be
hauled out within areas exposed to sound levels at or above 100 dB, the
Navy calculated the maximum number of sea lions occurring within map
areas K, L, and M (Figure 16 of the Navy's application) in any year
from 2001-2011. The Navy adjusted this maximum, 14,963 sea lions, for a
population growth rate of 5.6 percent per year, which results in a
maximum of 20,749 sea lions of all ages and sexes that might be hauled
out within the areas exposed to sound levels at or above 100 dB in a
single year. For most of the year, only females and pups are expected
to be ashore, so the number of animals exposed to these sound levels
from any one launch is likely less than the estimated total number.
Based on past monitoring, approximately 10 percent of the
California sea lions exposed to launch sounds during each year of
launch activity might exhibit behavioral disturbance. Therefore, the
Navy estimates that a maximum of 2,740 California sea lions on SNI
might be taken by Level B harassment during a 1-year period.
Summary
NMFS proposes to authorize take according to the Navy's estimates.
The estimated take numbers are provided in Table 2 below for each
marine mammal species. These take estimates do not take mitigation
measures into consideration.
Table 2--Estimated and Proposed Take of Marine Mammals on an Annual Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Estimated take stock
Common species name by level B Abundance of potentially Population trend
harassment stock affected
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern elephant seal............... 492 124,000 <1 unknown.
Harbor seal.......................... 686 30,196 2.3 stable.
[[Page 13031]]
California sea lion.................. 2,740 296,750 <1 increasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact
Negligible impact is ``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 Level B harassment 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 behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider
other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their
intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical
reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number
and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
NMFS has preliminarily determined that target and missile launch
activities and aircraft and helicopter operations from SNI, as
described in this document and in the Navy's application, will result
in no more than Level B harassment of northern elephant seals, harbor
seals, and California sea lions. The effects of these military
readiness activities will be limited to short-term, localized changes
in behavior, including temporarily vacating haul-outs, and possible
temporary threshold shift in the hearing of any pinnipeds that are in
close proximity to a launch pad at the time of a launch. These effects
are not likely to have a significant or long-term impact on feeding,
breeding, or other important biological functions. No take by injury or
mortality is anticipated, and the potential for permanent hearing
impairment is unlikely. Harassment takes will be at the lowest level
practicable due to incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures
mentioned previously in this document. NMFS has proposed regulations
for the specified activity that prescribe the means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat
and set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting
of that taking.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the Navy's missile launches will have a negligible
impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of
affected species or stocks would not have any unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
No species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by
these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7
consultation under the ESA is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In May 2009, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment on the
Navy's missile launches at SNI. NMFS is currently updating this
analysis, pursuant to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed
activity may have a significant effect on the human environment. This
analysis will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of an
authorization.
Request for Public Comments
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Navy's
missile launch activities at SNI. Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final
decision on the Navy's request for an MMPA authorization.
Classification
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel
for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires federal
agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities
whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. However, a federal agency may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b), that the action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The Navy is the sole entity
that would be affected by this rulemaking, and the Navy is not a small
governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as
defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by an LOA issued pursuant
to these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements
imposed by these regulations, would be applicable only to the Navy.
NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the
associated LOAs to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to
the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect the
Navy and not any small entities, NMFS concludes that the action would
not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
is not required and none has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine
mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Seafood, Sonar, Transportation.
[[Page 13032]]
Dated: February 25, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR Part 217 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 217--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS
INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
2. Subpart F is added to part 217 to read as follows:
Subpart F--Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Target and Missile
Launch Activities From San Nicolas Island, CA
Sec.
217.50 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
217.51 Effective dates.
217.52 Permissible methods of taking.
217.53 Prohibitions.
217.54 Mitigation.
217.55 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
217.56 Applications for Letters of Authorization.
217.57 Letters of Authorization.
217.58 Renewal of Letters of Authorization.
217.59 Modifications to Letters of Authorization.
Subpart F--Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Target and
Missile Launch Activities From San Nicolas Island, CA
Sec. 217.50 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the incidental taking
of marine mammals specified in paragraph (b) of this section by the
Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, U.S. Navy, and those persons
it authorizes to engage in target missile launch activities and
associated aircraft and helicopter operations at the Naval Air Warfare
Center Weapons Division facilities on San Nicolas Island, California.
(b) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activity
identified in paragraph (a) of this section is limited to the following
species: northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris), harbor
seals (Phoca vitulina), and California sea lions (Zalophus
californianus).
(c) This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with
the launching of a total of 40 Coyote (or similar sized) vehicles from
Alpha Launch Complex and smaller missiles and targets from Building 807
on San Nicolas Island, California.
Sec. 217.51 Effective dates.
(a) Regulations in this subpart become effective upon issuance of
the final rule.
(b) [Reserved].
Sec. 217.52 Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under Letters of Authorization issued pursuant to Sec. 216.106
and 217.57 of this chapter, the Holder of the Letter of Authorization
may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by
harassment, within the area described in Sec. 217.50, provided the
activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements
of the regulations and the appropriate Letter of Authorization.
(b) The activities identified in Sec. 217.50 must be conducted in
a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent practicable, any
adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
(c) The incidental take of marine mammals is authorized for the
species listed in Sec. 217.50(b) and is limited to Level B Harassment.
Sec. 217.53 Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec. 217.50 and authorized
by a Letter of Authorization issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.57
of this chapter, no person in connection with the activities described
in Sec. 217.50 may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec. 217.50(b);
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec. 217. 50(b) other than
by incidental, unintentional harassment;
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec. 217.50(b) if such
taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or
stocks of such marine mammal; or
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and
requirements of this subpart or a Letter of Authorization issued under
Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.57 of this chapter.
Sec. 217.54 Mitigation.
(a) When conducting operations identified in Sec. 217.50(c), the
mitigation measures contained in the Letter of Authorization issued
under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.57 must be implemented. These
mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
(1) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must prohibit
personnel from entering pinniped haul-out sites below the missile's
predicted flight path for 2 hours prior to planned missile launches.
(2) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must avoid, whenever
possible, launch activities during harbor seal pupping season (February
to April), unless constrained by factors including, but not limited to,
human safety, national security, or for vehicle launch trajectory
necessary to meet mission objectives.
(3) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must limit, whenever
possible, launch activities during other pinniped pupping seasons,
unless constrained by factors including, but not limited to, human
safety, national security, or for vehicle launch trajectory necessary
to meet mission objectives.
(4) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must not launch
vehicles from the Alpha Complex at low elevation (less than 1,000 feet
(305 m)) on launch azimuths that pass close to pinniped haul-out sites
when occupied.
(5) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must avoid, where
practicable, launching multiple target missiles in quick succession
over haul-out sites, especially when young pups are present.
(6) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must limit launch
activities during nighttime hours, except when required by the test
objectives.
(7) Aircraft and helicopter flight paths must maintain a minimum
altitude of 1,000 feet (305 m) from pinniped haul-outs and rookeries,
except in emergencies or for real-time security incidents (e.g.,
search-and-rescue, fire-fighting), which may require approaching
pinniped haul-outs and rookeries closer than 1,000 feet (305 m).
(8) If post-launch surveys determine that an injurious or lethal
take of a marine mammal has occurred or there is an indication that the
distribution, size, or productivity of the potentially affected
pinniped populations has been affected, the launch procedure and the
monitoring methods must be reviewed, in cooperation with NMFS, and, if
necessary, appropriate changes must be made through modification to a
Letter of Authorization, prior to conducting the next launch of the
same vehicle under that Letter of Authorization.
(9) Additional mitigation measures as contained in a Letter of
Authorization.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 217.55 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(a) The Holder of the Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.57 of this chapter for activities described
in Sec. 217.50 are required to cooperate with NMFS, and any other
federal, state, or local agency with authority to monitor the impacts
of the activity on marine mammals. Unless specified otherwise in the
Letter of
[[Page 13033]]
Authorization, the Holder of the Letter of Authorization must notify
the Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, by letter or telephone, at
least 2 weeks prior to activities possibly involving the taking of
marine mammals. If the authorized activity identified in Sec. 217.50
is thought to have resulted in the mortality or injury of any marine
mammals or in any take of marine mammals not identified in Sec.
217.50(b), then the Holder of the Letter of Authorization must notify
the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by
telephone (301-427-8401), and the Administrator, Southwest Region,
NMFS, or designee, by telephone (562-980-3232), within 48 hours of the
discovery of the injured or dead animal.
(b) The National Marine Fisheries Service must be informed
immediately of any changes or deletions to any portions of the proposed
monitoring plan submitted, in accordance with the Letter of
Authorization.
(c) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must designate
biologically trained, on-site individual(s), approved in advance by
NMFS, to record the effects of the launch activities and the resulting
noise on pinnipeds.
(d) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must implement the
following monitoring measures:
(1) Visual Land-Based Monitoring.
(i) Prior to each missile launch, an observer(s) will place three
autonomous digital video cameras overlooking chosen haul-out sites
located varying distances from the missile launch site. Each video
camera will be set to record a focal subgroup within the larger haul-
out aggregation for a maximum of 4 hours or as permitted by the
videotape capacity.
(ii) Systematic visual observations, by those individuals,
described in paragraph (c) of this section, on pinniped presence and
activity will be conducted and recorded in a field logbook a minimum of
2 hours prior to the estimated launch time and for no less than 1 hour
immediately following the launch of Coyote and similar types of target
missiles.
(iii) Systematic visual observations, by those individuals,
described in paragraph (c) of this section, on pinniped presence and
activity will be conducted and recorded in a field logbook a minimum of
2 hours prior to launch, during launch, and for no less than 1 hour
after the launch of the BQM-34, BQM-74, Tomahawk, RAM target and
similar types of missiles.
(iv) Documentation, both via autonomous video camera and human
observer, will consist of:
(A) Numbers and sexes of each age class in focal subgroups;
(B) Description and timing of launch activities or other disruptive
event(s);
(C) Movements of pinnipeds, including number and proportion moving,
direction and distance moved, and pace of movement;
(D) Description of reactions;
(E) Minimum distances between interacting and reacting pinnipeds;
(F) Study location;
(G) Local time;
(H) Substratum type;
(I) Substratum slope;
(J) Weather condition;
(K) Horizontal visibility; and
(L) Tide state.
(2) Acoustic Monitoring.
(i) During all target missile launches, calibrated recordings of
the levels and characteristics of the received launch sounds will be
obtained from three different locations of varying distances from the
target missile's flight path. To the extent practicable, these acoustic
recording locations will correspond with the haul-out sites where video
and human observer monitoring is done.
(ii) Acoustic recordings will be supplemented by the use of radar
and telemetry systems to obtain the trajectory of target missiles in
three dimensions.
(iii) Acoustic equipment used to record launch sounds will be
suitable for collecting a wide range of parameters, including the
magnitude, characteristics, and duration of each target missile.
(e) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must implement the
following reporting requirements:
(1) For each target missile launch, the lead contractor or lead
observer for the holder of the Letter of Authorization must provide a
status report to NMFS, Southwest Regional Office, providing reporting
items found under the Letter of Authorization, unless other
arrangements for monitoring are agreed upon in writing.
(2) The Navy shall submit an annual report describing their
activities and including the following information:
(i) Timing, number, and nature of launch operations;
(ii) Summary of mitigation and monitoring implementation;
(iii) Summary of pinniped behavioral observations; and
(iv) Estimate of the amount and nature of all takes by harassment
or by other means.
(3) The Navy shall submit a draft comprehensive technical report to
the Office of Protected Resources and Southwest Regional Office, NMFS,
180 days prior to the expiration of the regulations in this subpart,
providing full documentation of the methods, results, and
interpretation of all monitoring tasks for launches to date plus
preliminary information for missile launches during the first 6 months
of the regulations.
(4) A revised final comprehensive technical report, including all
monitoring results during the entire period of the Letter of
Authorization will be due 90 days after the end of the period of
effectiveness of the regulations in this subpart.
(5) Both the 60-day and final reports will be subject to review and
comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in
the final comprehensive technical report prior to acceptance by NMFS.
(f) Activities related to the monitoring described in paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section, or in the Letter of Authorization issued
under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.57 of this chapter, including the
retention of marine mammals, may be conducted without the need for a
separate scientific research permit.
(g) In coordination and compliance with appropriate Navy
regulations, at its discretion, the NMFS may place an observer on San
Nicolas Island for any activity involved in marine mammal monitoring
either prior to, during, or after a missile launch in order to monitor
the impact on marine mammals.
Sec. 217.56 Applications for Letters of Authorization
To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in
this subpart, the U.S. citizen (as defined by Sec. 216.06 of this
chapter) conducting the activity identified in Sec. 217.50 (the U.S.
Navy) must apply for and obtain either an initial LOA in accordance
with Sec. 217.57 or a renewal under Sec. 217.58.
Sec. 217.57 Letters of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless suspended or revoked, will be
valid for a period of time not to exceed the period of validity of this
subpart.
(b) Each Letter of Authorization will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and
(3) Requirements for mitigation, monitoring, and reporting.
(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter of Authorization will be
based on a
[[Page 13034]]
determination that the total number of marine mammals taken by the
activity as a whole will have no more than a negligible impact on the
affected species or stock of marine mammal(s).
Sec. 217.58 Renewals and Modifications of Letters of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and
217.57 of this chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 217.50 will
be renewed or modified upon request of the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision of this chapter),
and;
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were
implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that
include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management
provision of this chapter) that do not change the findings made for the
regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total
estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS
may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register, including
the associated analysis illustrating the change, and solicit public
comments before issuing the LOA.
(c) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 217.57 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 217.50 may be modified by
NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management--NMFS may modify (including augment) the
existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after
consulting with the Navy regarding the practicability of the
modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring
set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
(i) Possible sources of data could contribute to the decision to
modify the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures in an LOA:
(A) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or
studies; or
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS
will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment.
(2) Emergencies--If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of
marine mammals specified in Sec. 217.50(b), a Letter of Authorization
may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment.
Notice would be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the
action.
[FR Doc. 2014-04996 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P