[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41834-41841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 071701E]


Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Missile Launch Operations From San Nicolas Island, California

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

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental 
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of pinnipeds by 
harassment incidental to missile launch operations from the western end 
of San Nicolas Island, CA (SNI) has been issued to the U.S. Navy, Naval 
Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), Point Mugu, CA.

DATES: Effective from July 31, 2001, until July 31, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The application, authorization, supporting documentation, 
Environmental Assessment, and a list of references used in this 
document are available by writing to Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine 
Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one 
of the contacts listed here.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Simona P. Roberts, NMFS, (301) 713-
2322, ext. 106 or Christina Fahy, NMFS, (562) 980-4023.

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 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, notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have 
no more than 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 subsistence uses and that the permissible 
methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and 
reporting of such taking are set forth.
    On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884), NMFS published an interim rule 
establishing, among other things, procedures for issuing incidental 
harassment authorizations (IHAs) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 
for activities in Arctic waters. For additional information on the 
procedures to be followed for this authorization, please refer to that 
document.

Summary of Request

    On February 5, 2001, NMFS received an application from NAWCWD Point

[[Page 41835]]

Mugu requesting an authorization for the harassment of small numbers of 
four species of pinnipeds incidental to target missile launch 
operations on SNI, one of the Channel Islands in the Southern 
California Bight. These operations may occur at any time during the 
year depending on test and training requirements and meteorological and 
logistical limitations. On occasion, two or three launches may occur in 
quick succession on a single day. The NAWCWD Point Mugu's request for 
an authorization to incidentally harass small numbers of marine mammals 
on SNI anticipates 15 launches of Vandal (or similar sized) vehicles 
from the Alpha Launch Complex on SNI and 5 launches of smaller subsonic 
targets from either the Alpha Launch Complex or Building 807 for 1 year 
and commencing as early in 2001 as possible.

Measurement of Airborne Sound Levels

    The types of sounds discussed in NAWCWD Point Mugu's IHA 
application are airborne and impulsive. For this reason, this document 
and the application references both pressure and energy measurements 
for sound levels. For pressure, the sound pressure level (SPL) is 
described in terms of decibels (dB) re micro-Pascal (micro-Pa), and for 
energy, the sound exposure level (SEL) is described in terms of dB re 
micro-Pa\2\ -second. In other words, SEL is the squared instantaneous 
sound pressure over a specified time interval, where the sound pressure 
is averaged over 5 percent to 95 percent of the duration of the sound 
(in this case, one second).
    Airborne noise measurements are usually expressed relative to a 
reference pressure of 20 micro-Pa, which is 26 dB above the underwater 
sound pressure reference of 1 micro-Pa. However, the conversion from 
air to water intensities is more involved than this (Buck, 1995) and 
beyond the scope of this document. Also, airborne sounds are often 
expressed as broadband A-weighted sound levels (dBA). A-weighting 
refers to frequency-dependent weighting factors applied to sound in 
accordance with the sensitivity of the human ear to different 
frequencies. While it is unknown whether the pinniped ear responds 
similar to the human ear, a study by C. Malme (pers. commun. to NMFS, 
March 5, 1998) found that for predicting noise effects, A-weighted is 
better than unweighted pressure levels because the pinniped's highest 
hearing sensitivity is at higher frequencies than that of humans. As a 
result, whenever possible, NMFS provides both A-weighted and unweighted 
sound pressure levels; where not specified for in-air sounds, A-
weighting is implied (ANSI, 1994). In this document, all sound levels 
have been provided with A-weighting.

Description of the Specified Activity

    Target missile launches from SNI are used to support test and 
training activities associated with operations on the NAWCWD Point Mugu 
Sea Range. In general, two types of launch vehicles are used, the 
Vandal and the smaller subsonic targets. Other vehicles used would be 
similar in size and weight or slightly smaller and would have 
characteristics generally similar to the Vandal.

Vandal Target Missiles

    The Vandal target missile is a relatively large, air-breathing 
(ramjet) vehicle with no explosive warhead that is designed to provide 
a realistic simulation of the mid-course and terminal phase of a 
supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. These missiles are 7.7 meters (m) 
(25.2 feet (ft)) in length with a mass at launch of 3,674 kilograms 
(kg) (8,100 pounds (lbs)) including the solid propellant booster. The 
three variants of the Vandal (standard, ER and ERR) all have the same 
dimensions but differ in their operational range. The Vandals are 
remotely-controlled, non-recoverable missiles that are launched from a 
land-based launch site (hereafter referred to as Alpha Launch Complex) 
on the western part of SNI. The Alpha Launch Complex is 153 m (502 ft) 
above sea level and is approximately 6 kilometers (km) (3.7 miles (mi)) 
from the nearest pinniped haul-out site. Launch trajectories from Alpha 
Launch Complex vary from a near-vertical liftoff, crossing the west end 
of SNI at an altitude of approximately 3,962 m (13,000 ft) to a nearly 
horizontal liftoff, crossing the west end of SNI at an altitude of 
approximately 305 m (1,000 ft).
    Vandal launches produce the strongest noise source originating from 
aircraft or missiles in flight over SNI beaches. Sound measurements 
were collected during two Vandal launches in 1997 and 1999 and are 
reported in Burgess and Greene (1998) and Greene (1999). Greene (1999) 
reported that received A-weighted SPL were found to range from 123 dB 
(re 20 micro-Pa) (SEL of 126 dB re 20 micro-Pa\2\-sec) at 945 m (3,100 
ft) to 136 dB (re 20 Pa) (SEL of 131 dB re 20 micro-Pa\2\-sec) 
at 370 m (1,215 ft). The most intense sound exposure occurred during 
the first 0.3 to 1.9 seconds after launch.

Subsonic Targets and Other Missiles

    The subsonic targets and other missiles are small unmanned aircraft 
that are launched using jet-assisted take-off (JATO) rocket bottles. 
Once launched, they continue offshore where they are used in training 
exercises to simulate various types of subsonic threat missiles and 
aircraft. The larger target, BQM-34, is 7 m (23 ft) long and has a mass 
of approximately 1,134 kg (2,500 lbs) plus the JATO bottle. The smaller 
BQM-74, is 420 centimeters (cm) (165.5 inches (in)) long and has a mass 
of approximately 250 kg (550 lbs) plus the JATO bottle. Other types of 
small missiles that may be launched include the Exocet, Tomahawk, and 
Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). All of these smaller targets are 
launched from either the Alpha Launch Complex or from Building 807, a 
second launch site on the west end of SNI. Building 807 is 
approximately 3 m (10 ft) above sea level and accommodates several 
fixed and mobile launchers that range from 30 m (98 ft) to 150 m (492 
ft) from the nearest shoreline. Launch trajectories from Building 807 
range from 6 to 45 degrees and cross over the nearest beach at 
altitudes from 9 to 183 m (30 to 600 ft).
    Sound measurements were collected from the launch of a BQM-34S at 
Naval Air Station (NAS) Point Mugu in 1997. Burgess and Greene (1998) 
found that for this launch, the A-weighted SPL ranged from 92 dB (re 20 
micro-Pa) (SEL of 102.2 dB re 20 micro-Pa\2\-sec) at 370 m (1,200 ft) 
to 145 dB (re 20 micro-Pa) (SEL of 142.2 dB re 20 micro-Pa\2\-sec) at 
15 m (50 ft). These estimates are approximately 20 dB lower than that 
of a Vandal launch at similar distances (Greene, 1999).

General Launch Operations

    Aircraft and helicopter flights between NAS Point Mugu on the 
mainland, the airfield on SNI and the target sites in the Sea Range 
will be a routine part of any planned launch operation. These 
operational flights do not pass at low level over the beaches where 
pinnipeds are expected to be hauled out. In addition, movements of 
personnel are restricted near the launch sites two hours prior to a 
launch, no personnel are allowed on the western end of SNI during 
Vandal launches and various environmental protection restrictions exist 
near the island's beaches during other times of the year.

Comments and Responses

    On April 23, 2001 (66 FR 20435), NMFS published a notice of receipt 
and a 30-day public comment period was

[[Page 41836]]

provided on the application and proposed authorization. Comments were 
received from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and SRS Technologies.

MMPA Concerns

    Comment 1: The MMC believes that the Service's efforts to redefine 
Level B harassment administratively to include only ``biologically 
significant'' disturbance is ill-advised and contrary to the statutory 
definition of the term. In this regard, the Commission refers the 
Service to letters from the Commission dated December 7, 2000, January 
26, 2001, and February 7, 2001, for a more complete discussion of this 
issue.
    Response. Level B harassment is currently defined in regulation (50 
CFR 216.3) as: ``Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has 
the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock by 
causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited 
to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but 
which does not have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine 
mammal stock in the wild.'' The current interpretation of this 
regulatory definition by NMFS, as applied to incidental takings, is 
that a single pinniped lifting or turning its head or moving a few feet 
along the beach as a result of a human activity should not be 
considered a ``take'' under the MMPA definition of harassment. As 
stated by NMFS previously (see 66 FR 9291, February 7, 2001), if the 
only reaction to the activity on the part of the marine mammal is 
within the normal repertoire of actions that are required to carry out 
the ``behavioral pattern'', NMFS considers the activity not to have 
caused an incidental disruption of the ``behavioral pattern'', provided 
the animal's reaction is not otherwise significant due to length or 
severity, and therefore the reaction is not considered a take by Level 
B harassment. NMFS notes that, in 50 CFR 17.3, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service defines harassment as: ``... actions that create the 
likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to 
significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are 
not limited to, breeding, feeding, and sheltering.'' NMFS supports such 
a definition when marine mammals are taken incidental to the conduct of 
missile launches.
    NMFS' decision to issue or deny an IHA request is based on the best 
scientific evidence available showing that the total taking by the 
specified activity during the specified time period will have a 
negligible impact on species or stocks of marine mammals and will not 
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species 
or stocks of marine mammals intended for subsistence uses. In the 
Preliminary Conclusions section of the Federal Register notice, the 
Service states that it has determined that the short-term impact of the 
activities will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in 
behavior by certain species and that this behavioral modification, or 
change, is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals. 
Negligible impact is defined in regulation (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''.
    Comment 2: The MMC recommends that the Service, if it has not 
already done so, consult with the Navy to determine whether it would be 
appropriate to seek a more comprehensive, 5-year authorization for 
harassment, and other possible types of taking, under section 
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, rather than separate, 1-year authorizations, 
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Act.
    Response: The Navy applied for the incidental harassment 
authorization, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, in order to be 
in compliance with the law during implementation of its 2001-2002 San 
Nicolas Island launch schedule. NAWCWD intends to use this 1-year 
incidental harassment authorization to develop an appropriate long-term 
monitoring plan that will become part of any 5-year authorization 
request. NAWCWD is currently working on a new contract to prepare the 
application for a 5-year authorization, under section 101(a)(5)(A) of 
the MMPA.

ESA Concerns

    Comment 3: The MMC recommends that the Service, if it has not 
already done so, advise the applicant to consult with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning the need for an authorization to take 
small numbers of sea otters incidental to the proposed activities.
    Response: Under the authority of Public Law 99-625, the FWS 
established an experimental population of California sea otters at SNI. 
In 1985, the ESA was amended to allow for the establishment of this 
experimental population of California sea otters on San Nicolas Island 
(H.R. 1027 Committee Report, May 15, 1985). As part of these 1985 
amendments, section 5(c) describes the status of the experimental sea 
otter population under the ESA. This section includes a limited 
exception to section 7 consultations for agency actions proposed to be 
carried out directly by a military department and occurring within the 
California sea otter translocation zone. This limited exception means 
that for purposes of defense-related actions within the SNI 
translocation zone, sea otters in the experimental population shall be 
treated as if they were proposed for listing under the ESA and are 
subject to the informal consultation process under section 7(a)(4) of 
the ESA. The Navy has consulted with FWS regarding the take of sea 
otters incidental to missile launch operations on San Nicolas Island. 
However, no takes of sea otters are expected as a result of launch 
activities.

Potential Effects Concerns

    Comment 4: SRS Technologies noted that the statement: ``Reactions 
of pinnipeds on the western end of SNI to Vandal target launches have 
not been well-studied, but based on studies of other rocket launch 
activities and their effects on pinnipeds in the Channel Islands 
(Stewart et al., 1993), anticipated impacts can be predicted. In 
general, other studies have shown that responses of pinnipeds . . .are 
highly variable'', seems contradictory. SRS commented that this 
statement seems to be implying that the impacts are predictable, but 
are going to be highly variable.
    Response: The purpose of this discussion is to distinguish the 
reactions from impacts. As reported in the literature, pinniped 
responses to launch events of varying loudness, or for different launch 
vehicles, are variable and appear to depend on context, season, and the 
type of pinniped exposed to the sounds. While the reported reactions 
are variable, the Navy believes that the biological impacts of these 
responses are predictable, and not likely to result in significant 
injury or mortality, or significant negative impacts to the pinniped 
populations on SNI.
    Comment 5: SRS Technologies noted that their research has shown 
that the responses of sea lions on San Miguel Island to sonic booms 
have been highly variable. For the Athena II Ikonos II launch generated 
sonic boom, 24 sea lions out of a group of 600 sea lions (4% of total) 
started moving towards the water at the arrival of the 0.95 psf boom 
(A-weighted SEL of 68.3 dB). For the Athena I Ikonos I launch generated 
sonic boom, with the same peak amplitude (A-weighted SEL of 75.3 dB), 
566 of the sea lions (44%) moved towards the water.

[[Page 41837]]

    Response: The Navy discussed such reported variability in pinniped 
reactions to launch sounds in its IHA application, and concluded that 
the biological impacts of these responses are predictable, and not 
likely to result in significant injury or mortality, or significant 
negative impacts to the pinniped populations on SNI.
    Comment 6: SRS Technologies commented that in the statement: ``The 
sound levels necessary to elicit mild TTS in captive California sea 
lions and harbor seals exposed to impulse noises, such as sonic booms, 
were tens of decibels higher (Bowles et al., 1999) than sound levels 
measured during the Vandal launches (Burgess and Greene 1998, Greene, 
1999)'', the ``sound levels'' need to be specified in terms of the 
acoustic metric used in this comparison.
    Response: Sound exposures necessary to elicit mild TTS in captive 
California sea lions (a species with more sensitive in-air hearing 
relative to the harbor and elephant seals) and harbor seals in a sonic 
boom simulator (Bowles et al., 1999) were possibly 135 dB SEL re 20 
(uPa\2\)-s, for 0.3 sec exposures (J. Francine, pers. comm.). These are 
higher than sound levels measured during previous Vandal launches, 
where there were no sonic booms (126 to 131 dB SEL re 20 (uPa\2\)-s, 
for 0.29 to 1.9 sec exposures (Burgess and Greene 1998; Greene 1999, 
pers. comm.). The Navy believes that no pinnipeds will be exposed to 
the levels thought necessary to elicit mild TTS during the planned 
launches. In addition, the acoustical monitoring program proposed by 
the Navy will provide data to confirm this for the pinniped haul-out 
locations on SNI.
    Comment 7: Analyzing the sound pressure levels and sound exposure 
levels provided, SRS Technologies determined the duration of the Vandal 
launch noise. The duration of the sound at a distance of 945 m would be 
2 seconds and the sound at a distance of 370 m would be 0.3 seconds. 
With these short durations, should it be assumed that these metrics 
provided are for sonic booms? If these are sonic booms, what about the 
other metrics (like the peak overpressure and rise time) that are 
important in characterizing impulsive noise? SRS Technologies does not 
think it is clear from the document what type of noise is reaching the 
pinnipeds. Is it short duration launch noise, a sonic boom, or both?
    Response: The sounds from two Vandal launches were measured at SNI 
in 1997 and 1999 and reported in Burgess and Greene (1998) and Greene 
(1999). Sound levels as received at Vizcaino South Beach were found to 
range from 126 to 131 dB SEL re 20 (u\2\)-s. Targets are subsonic or 
transonic as they pass over the pinniped haul-out sites, and thus, the 
Navy believes pinnipeds might be exposed to the most intense sounds for 
only 0.3 to 1.9 seconds after the launches (Greene 1999), but not 
likely in the form of a sonic boom (C.R. Greene, Jr. 2001 pers. comm.). 
The acoustical monitoring program proposed by the Navy will provide 
data to further characterize the range of sounds that pinnipeds on SNI 
might be exposed to during these launches, including sonic booms.
    Comment 8: The Federal Register document briefly discusses the 
modeling of sound and provides sound level contours for the launch 
noise. SRS Technologies commented that sound levels should be provided 
for the predicted noise from the Vandal arriving at pinniped haul-out 
areas and that the same should be done for the BQM rockets.
    Response: The sound levels at the beaches from Vandal launches will 
be above the 100 dB threshold thought necessary to elicit a disturbance 
reaction, but far lower than the levels necessary to elicit even mild 
TTS (e.g., Greene's 136 dB received level value as cited in the 23 
April Federal Register Notice). For a more complete analysis of 
predicted sound levels from Vandal launches the commentor is referred 
to NAWCWD's application.
    Based on previous sound measurements, the Navy estimates that the 
100 dBA contour for a BQM-34 is equal to 4,500 feet (1,372 m); this is 
the maximum distance at which sound levels fall to 100 dBA at a 90 
degree azimuth from the launch track (C. Malme, Engineering and 
Scientific Services; Hingham, MA, unpubl. data). Along the launch track 
and ahead of the BQM-34, sound levels drop to 100 dBA at a shorter 
distance (1,800 feet, 549 m). For the smaller BQM-74 and other missiles 
it is likely that the 100 dBA sound contours will be smaller. 
Therefore, the BQM sounds will likely not reach 100 dB even at the 
haul-out sites.
    Comment 9: SRS Technologies commented that the statement: 
``Research and monitoring at VAFB found that prolonged or repeated 
sonic booms, very strong sonic booms or sonic booms accompanying a 
visual stimulus, such as a passing aircraft, are most likely to 
stimulate seals to leave the haul-out area and move into the water'' 
needs a reference. The use of ``prolonged'' and ``very strong'' needs 
to be quantified. And, assuming the above statement is true, SRS 
Technologies would like to see a direct comparison between these levels 
and the Vandal and BQM rockets.
    Response: There is no single reference to the statement commented 
on by SRS Technologies and the statement has been removed from this 
Federal Register document. The reference to ``prolonged'' acoustic 
stimuli from the VAFB launches, although not a sonic boom, refers to 
events such as the explosion of a launch booster that resulted in a 104 
sec period of popping as the Titan IV booster exploded (Stewart et al., 
1993b). Received sound levels for a sonic boom accompanying a Titan 
launch event might reach 110 dB SEL re 20 Pa (Stewart and 
Francine, 1992). The Navy concludes that the sound levels recorded from 
VAFB launch events are 15-20 dB lower than those that pinnipeds on SNI 
might be exposed to during a Vandal launch. However, the nature of the 
Vandal launch sounds are different than those from VAFB in that they 
are loudest for only a very short duration, and launches usually occur 
at irregular intervals over the course of the year.

Mitigation Concerns

    Comment 10: TMMC recommends that any authorization issued to the 
applicant specify that, if a mortality or serious injury of a seal or 
sea lion occurs which appears to be related to target launch 
activities, operations be suspended while the Service determines 
whether steps can be taken to avoid further injuries or mortalities or 
whether an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of 
the MMPA to cover such taking is needed.
    Response: The incidental harassment authorization authorizes the 
unintentional incidental take of marine mammals in connection with 
specified activities and prescribes methods of taking and other means 
of reducing potential adverse impacts on the species or stocks and 
their habitats. Therefore, the Service does have the authority to 
suspend the incidental harassment authorization if: (1) the conditions 
and requirements prescribed in the authorization are not being 
substantially complied with; or (2) the authorized taking, either 
individually or in combination with other authorizations, is having, or 
may have, more than a negligible impact on the species or stock. 
Because taking a marine mammal by mortality or serious injury 
incidental to missile launch activities from San Nicolas Island is not 
authorized by this incidental harassment authorization, the 
authorization for incidental harassment may be suspended if a mortality 
or serious injury of a seal or sea lion is

[[Page 41838]]

determined to be related to missile launch activities. Prior to 
suspension of an incidental harassment authorization the Service must 
satisfy the statutory requirement of notice and public comment, under 
section 101(a)(5)(C) of the MMPA, unless the Service determines that an 
emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the 
species or stock(s) concerned. The level of risk would depend on the 
level of taking, the status of the affected stock(s), and the 
likelihood of additional mortality or serious injury takings. The 
incidental harassment authorization issued to NAWCWD contains the 
following mitigation measure related to morality and serious injury: If 
injurious or lethal take is discovered during monitoring, launch 
procedure and monitoring methods must be reviewed (in cooperation with 
NMFS) and appropriate changes made prior to the next launch. The 
Service has no authority to suspend missile launch operations. Such 
authority is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy and 
is not within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce.

Monitoring Concerns

    Comment 11: The MMC recommends that prior to issuing the requested 
authorization, the Service be satisfied that the applicant's monitoring 
program is sufficient to detect the effects of the proposed target 
launches, including any mortality and/or serious injury that results 
from startle responses or stampedes, on entire haul-out aggregations.
    Response: The Navy's proposed video monitoring program provides the 
best compromise between the desire to conduct detailed surveys of the 
haul-out areas for mortality and/or serious injury, and the logistical 
limitations and further risks in conducting such surveys. Due to the 
physical characteristics of many of the haul-out areas, only observers 
looking directly down at the rear of the areas, or from close offshore, 
would be able to detect injured or dead animals in these groups. After 
much discussion with biologists with many years of experience observing 
the pinnipeds on San Nicolas Island, the Navy concluded that such 
attempts to survey the haul-out groups at close range prior to and 
following launches was undesirable on the basis that such searches 
would result in significant disturbance to the pinnipeds, and greater 
risk of the types of injury the Navy is attempting to minimize. In 
addition, safety considerations limit access to the area before 
launches. Also, there are sensitive biological and cultural resources 
in the haul-out areas that cannot be disturbed (special restrictions 
are in place to limit personnel movements near the beaches). San 
Nicolas Island has been owned and operated by the Navy for more than 50 
years and the island has been used previously for missile and target 
launches. Despite this history of use, the Navy is not aware of any 
data to suggest that there has been an increase in the natural 
mortality rates for those pinniped species hauling out on San Nicolas 
Island. In addition, surveys suggest that by far the greatest source of 
mortality for pinnipeds on the island are El Nino events. The Navy will 
be using three hi-resolution video cameras (one of which has full 
remote tilt, pan, and zoom capabilities), and two portable cameras, to 
monitor the haul-out groups. The Navy believes these cameras will 
provide the least invasive means of assessing the pinnipeds' responses 
to target missile launches, and the most practicable means to detect 
the (unlikely) occurrence of injured or dead pinnipeds following a 
launch.

Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

    A detailed description of the Channel Islands/southern California 
Bight ecosystem and its associated marine mammals can be found in 
several documents (Le Boeuf and Brownell, 1980; Bonnell et al., 1981; 
Lawson et al., 1980; Stewart, 1985; Stewart and Yochem, 2000; Sydeman 
and Allen, 1999) and does not need to be repeated here.

Marine Mammals

    Many of the beaches in the Channel Islands provide resting, molting 
or breeding places for species of pinnipeds including: northern 
elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris), harbor seals (Phoca 
vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), northern fur 
seals (Callorhinus ursinus), Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus 
townsendi), and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). On SNI, three 
of these species, northern elephant seals, harbor seals, and California 
sea lions, can be expected to occur on land in the area of the proposed 
activity either regularly or in large numbers during certain times of 
the year. Descriptions of the biology and distribution of these three 
species and the others can be found in Stewart and Yochem (2000, 1994), 
Sydeman and Allen (1999), Barlow et al. (1993), Lowry et al. (1996), 
Schwartz (1994), Lowry (1999) and several other documents (Barlow et 
al., 1997; NMFS, 2000; NMFS, 1992; Koski et al., 1998; Gallo-Reynoso, 
1994; Stewart et al., 1987). Please refer to those documents and the 
application for further information on these species.

Potential Effects of Target Missile Launches and Associated 
Activities on Marine Mammals

    Sounds generated by the launches of Vandal target missiles 
(including the standard, ER, and ERR variants) and smaller subsonic 
targets and missiles (BQM-34 or BQM-74 type) as they depart sites on 
SNI towards operational areas in the Point Mugu Sea Range have the 
potential to take marine mammals by harassment. Taking by harassment 
will potentially result from these launches when pinnipeds on the 
beaches near the launch sites are exposed to the sounds produced by the 
rocket boosters and the high-speed passage of the missiles as they 
depart the island on their routes to the Sea Range. Extremely rapid 
departure of the Vandal and smaller targets means that pinnipeds would 
be exposed to increased sound levels for very short time intervals 
(i.e., a few seconds). Noise generated from aircraft and helicopter 
activities associated with the launches may provide a potential 
secondary source of marine mammal harassment. The physical presence of 
aircraft could also lead to non-acoustic effects on marine mammals 
involving visual or other cues. There are no anticipated effects from 
human presence on the beaches, since movements of personnel are 
restricted near the launch sites two hours prior to launches for safety 
reasons.
    Reactions of pinnipeds on the western end of SNI to Vandal target 
launches have not been well-studied, but based on studies of other 
rocket launch activities and their effects on pinnipeds in the Channel 
Islands (Stewart et al., 1993), anticipated impacts can be predicted. 
In general, other studies have shown that responses of pinnipeds on 
beaches to acoustic disturbance arising from rocket and target missile 
launches are highly variable. This variability may be due to many 
factors, including species, age class, and time of year. Among species, 
northern elephant seals seem very tolerant of acoustic disturbances 
(Stewart, 1981), whereas harbor seals (particularly outside the 
breeding season) seem more easily disturbed. During three launches of 
Vandal missiles from SNI, California sea lions near the launch track 
line were observed from video recordings to be disturbed and to flee 
(both up and down the beach) from their former resting positions. 
Launches of the smaller BQM-34 targets from NAS Point Mugu have not 
normally resulted in harbor

[[Page 41839]]

seals leaving their haul-out area at the mouth of Mugu Lagoon, which is 
approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) from the launch site. An Exocet missile 
launched from the west end of SNI appeared to cause far less 
disturbance to hauled out California sea lions than Vandal launches. 
Given the variability in pinniped response to acoustic disturbance, the 
Navy conservatively assumes that disturbance reactions will sometimes 
occur upon exposure to launch sounds with SEL's of 100 dBA (re 20 
micro-Pa\2\-sec) or higher.
    From Lawson et al. (1998), the Navy determined a conservative 
estimate of the SEL at which the disturbance known as TTS may be 
elicited in harbor seals and California sea lions (SEL of 145 dB re 20 
micro-Pa\2\-sec) and northern elephant seals (SEL of 165 dB re 20 
micro-Pa\2\-sec). The sound levels necessary to elicit mild TTS in 
captive California sea lions and harbor seals exposed to impulse 
noises, such as sonic booms, were tens of decibels higher (Bowles et 
al., 1999) than sound levels measured during Vandal launches (Burgess 
and Greene, 1998; Greene, 1999). This evidence, in combination with the 
known sound levels produced by missiles launched from SNI (see below), 
suggests that no pinnipeds will be exposed to TTS-inducing SELs during 
planned launches.
    Based on modeling of sound propagation in a free field situation, 
Burgess and Greene (1998) data were used by the Navy to predict that 
Vandal target launches from SNI could produce a 100 dBA acoustic 
contour that extends an estimated 4,263 m (13,986 ft) perpendicular to 
its launch track. In other words, Vandal target launch sounds are 
predicted to exceed the SEL (100 dBA) disturbance criterion out to a 
distance of 4,263 m from the Alpha Launch Complex. Northern elephant 
seals, harbor seals, and California sea lions haul out in areas within 
the perimeter of this 100 dBA contour for Vandal launches. For BQM-34 
launches from Alpha Launch Complex, the Navy assumes that the 100 dBA 
contour extends an estimated 1,372 m (4,500 ft), perpendicular to its 
launch track (C. Malme, Engineering and Scientific Services, Hingham, 
MA, unpublished data). Along the launch track and ahead of the BQM-34, 
the 100 dBA contour extends a shorter distance (549 m or 1,800 ft). For 
the smaller BQM-74 and Exocet missiles, the Navy predicts that the 100 
dBA contours will be smaller still. The free field modeling scenario 
used to predict these acoustic contours does not account for 
transmission losses caused by wind, intervening topography, and 
variations in launch trajectory or azimuth. Therefore, the predicted 
100 dBA contours may be smaller at certain beach locations and for 
different launch trajectories.
    In general, the extremely rapid departure of the Vandal and smaller 
targets means that pinnipeds could be exposed to increased sound levels 
for very short time intervals (a few seconds) potentially leading to 
alert and startle responses from individuals on haul out sites in the 
vicinity of launches. Since preliminary observations of the responses 
of pinnipeds to Vandal launches at SNI have not shown injury, 
mortality, or extended disturbance, the Navy anticipates that the 
effects of the planned target launches will have no more than a 
negligible impact on pinniped populations.
    Given that this activity will happen infrequently, and will produce 
only brief, rapid-onset sounds, it is unlikely that pinnipeds hauled 
out on beaches at the western end of SNI will exhibit much, if any, 
habituation to target missile launch activities. In addition, the 
infrequent and brief nature of these sounds will cause the obscuring of 
sounds of importance to the pinnipeds (i.e., masking) for not more than 
a very small fraction of the time (usually less than 2 seconds per 
launch) during any single day. Therefore, the Navy assumes that these 
occasional and brief episodes of masking will have no significant 
effects on the abilities of pinnipeds to hear one another or to detect 
natural environmental sounds that may be relevant to the animals. The 
monitoring program (see Monitoring section) required to be implemented 
by NAWCWD Point Mugu as part of this incidental harassment 
authorization will provide data to further characterize the range of 
sounds that pinnipeds on SNI might be exposed to during these launches 
and provide the least invasive means of assessing the pinnipeds' 
responses to target missile launches, and the most practicable means to 
detect the (unlikely) occurrence of injured or dead pinnipeds following 
a launch.

Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken by Harassment

    NAWCWD Point Mugu estimates that the following numbers of marine 
mammals may be subject to Level B harassment, as defined in 50 CFR 
216.3:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Minimum Abundance       Harassment Takes in
               Species by MMPA Stock Designation                  Estimate of Stock\1\             2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Elephant Seal (California Stock)                                        51,625                    2,390
Harbor Seal (California Stock)                                                   27,962                      457
California Sea Lion (U.S. Stock)                                                109,854             9,614-10,086
Northern Fur Seal (San Miguel Stock)                                              2,336                        3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From 1999-2000 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.

    In their original request, NAWCWD Point Mugu estimated the take of 
3 Guadalupe fur seals by harassment incidental to missile launch 
operations on SNI. On March 19, 2001, the U.S. Navy sent NMFS a 
modified request eliminating the incidental take of Guadalupe fur seals 
on SNI. Based on their observational records, the Navy found that when 
Guadalupe fur seals do occur on SNI, they are found on beaches not 
affected by missile launch activities.

Effects of Target Missile Launches and Associated Activities on 
Subsistence Needs

    There are no subsistence uses for these pinniped species in 
California waters, and thus there are no anticipated effects on 
subsistence needs.

Effects of Target Missile Launches and Associated Activities on 
Marine Mammal Habitat on San Nicolas Island

    During the period of proposed activity, harbor seals, California 
sea lions, and northern elephant seals will use various beaches around 
SNI as places to rest, molt, and breed. These beaches consist of sand 
(e.g., Red Eye Beach), rock ledges (e.g., Corral Beach) and rocky 
cobble (e.g., Vizcaino Beach). The 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, 
the Navy does not expect that launch activities will have any impact on 
the food or feeding success of these animals. The solid rocket booster 
from the Vandal target

[[Page 41840]]

and the JATO bottles from the BMQs are jettisoned shortly after launch 
and fall into the sea west of SNI. While it is theoretically possible 
that one of these boosters might instead land on a beach, the 
probability of this occurring is very low. Fuel contained in the 
boosters and JATO bottles is consumed rapidly and completely, so there 
would be no risk of contamination even if a booster or bottle did land 
on the beach. Overall, the target missile launches and associated 
activities are not expected to cause significant impacts on habitats or 
on food sources used by pinnipeds on SNI.

Mitigation

    To avoid additional harassment to the pinnipeds on beach haul out 
sites and to avoid any possible sensitizing or predisposing of 
pinnipeds to greater responsiveness towards the sights and sounds of a 
launch, NAWCWD Point Mugu will limit its activities near the beaches in 
advance of launches. Existing safety protocols for Vandal launches 
provide a built-in mitigation measure. That is, personnel are normally 
not allowed near any of the pinniped beaches close to the flight track 
on the western end of SNI within two hours prior to a launch. Where 
practicable, NAWCWD Point Mugu will adopt the following additional 
mitigation measures when doing so will not compromise operational 
safety requirements or mission goals: (1) Limit launch activities 
during all pinniped pupping seasons; (2) avoid launch activities during 
harbor seal pupping season (February to April); (3) not launch target 
missiles at low elevation (less than 1,000 feet) on launch azimuths 
that pass close to pinniped haul-out site(s); (4) avoid multiple target 
launches in quick succession over haul-out sites, especially when young 
pups are present; (5) limit launch activities during the night; (6) 
ensure aircraft and helicopter flight paths maintain a minimum altitude 
of 1,000 feet from pinniped haul-out sites; and (7) contact NMFS 
personnel within 48 hours if injurious or lethal take is discovered 
during monitoring.

Monitoring

    As part of its application, NAWCWD Point Mugu provided a proposed 
monitoring plan for assessing impacts to marine mammals from Vandal and 
smaller subsonic target and missile launch activities on SNI. This 
monitoring plan is described in LGL Ltd. Environmental Research 
Associates (2001).
    NAWCWD Point Mugu's incidental harassment authorization contains 
the following monitoring requirements:

Visual Land-Based Monitoring

    The Navy, in conjunction with a biological contractor,will 
establish a land-based monitoring program to assess effects on the 
three most common pinniped species on SNI: northern elephant seals, 
harbor seals, and California sea lions. This monitoring will occur at 
three different sites of varying distance from the launch site before, 
during, and after each launch. The monitoring will be conducted via 
autonomous digital video cameras or, when possible, through direct 
visual observation.
    During the day of each missile launch, the observer will place 
three digital video cameras on tripods overlooking chosen haul out 
sites. Each camera will be set to record a focal subgroup within the 
haul out aggregation for a maximum of 4 hours or as permitted by the 
videotape capacity.
    Two hours prior to the launch, the observer will circulate among 
the tripod-mounted cameras to change videocassettes, to adjust camera 
fields of view (as required by changes in the geometry of the focal 
groups), and to record visual observations in a field logbook. 
Following the launch, the observer will return to the site when access 
is permitted.
    During smaller launches when personnel are allowed to remain near 
one or more haul out beaches that might be impacted, a marine mammal 
observer will observe pinnipeds at these beaches in a systematic manner 
before, during, and after the launch. The observer(s) will scan the 
selected haul out site(s) from one end to the other at a rate of once 
per minute. Seven x 50 reticle binoculars will be used during the 
daytime for scanning; supplemented by night vision equipment if 
launches occur at night.
    Following each launch, a biologist will review and code the 
videotapes as they are played back to a high-resolution color monitor. 
A VCR with high-resolution freeze-frame and jog shuttle will be used to 
facilitate distance estimation, event timing, and characterization of 
behavior. Details of the analysis methods can be found in LGL Ltd. 
Environmental Research Associates (2001).

Acoustical Monitoring

    During each launch, the Navy (in conjunction with an acoustical 
contractor) will obtain calibrated recordings of the levels and 
characteristics of the received launch sounds. Acoustic data will be 
acquired using three Autonomous Terrestrial Acoustic Recorders (ATAR) 
at three different sites of varying distances from the target's flight 
path. ATARs can record sounds for extended periods (dependent on 
sampling rate) without intervention by a technician, giving them the 
advantage over traditional digital audio tape (DAT) recorders should 
there be prolonged launch delays of as long as 10 days. Insofar as 
possible, acoustic recording locations will correspond with the sites 
where video monitoring is taking place. Acoustic recordings will also 
be supplemented by the use of radar and telemetry systems to obtain the 
trajectory of target missiles in three dimensions. The collection of 
acoustic data will provide information on the magnitude, 
characteristics, and duration of sounds that pinnipeds may be exposed 
to during a launch. In addition, the acoustic data can be combined with 
the behavioral data collected via the land-based monitoring program to 
determine if there is a dose-response relationship between received 
sound levels and pinniped behavioral reactions.
    For further details regarding the installation and calibration of 
the acoustic instruments and analysis methods refer to LGL Ltd. 
Environmental Research Associates (2001).

Reporting

    For each target missile launch, the lead contractor or lead 
observer for the holder of this Authorization must provide a status 
report on monitoring results to NMFS' Southwest Regional Office.
    After the first 90 days of the authorization period NAWCWD Point 
Mugu will provide an initial report on launch activities to NMFS. This 
report will summarize the timing and nature of any launch operations to 
date, summarize pinniped behavioral observations, and estimate the 
amount and nature of all takes by harassment or in other ways. In the 
event that any cases of pinniped mortality are judged to result from 
launch activities, this information will be reported to NMFS 
immediately.
    A draft final technical report will be submitted to NMFS 120 days 
prior to the expiration of the IHA. This technical report will provide 
full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation of all 
monitoring tasks for launches during the first 6 months of the IHA 
period, plus preliminary information for launches planned during the 
next 1-2 months. This draft final report will be reviewed by NMFS, and 
based on comments, revised as necessary.

[[Page 41841]]

    The revised final technical report, including all monitoring 
results during the authorization, will be due 90 days after the end of 
the 1-year IHA period.

Consultation

    NAWCWD Point Mugu has not requested the take of any listed species. 
Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the 
Endangered Species Act is not required at this time.
    Although sea otters are not within the jurisdiction of NMFS, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) established an experimental 
population of California sea otters at SNI. The FWS, for purposes of 
defense-related actions within the SNI translocation zone, has 
designated sea otters as an experimental population that are to be 
treated as if they were proposed for listing under the ESA and are 
subject to the informal consultation process under section 7(a)(4) of 
the ESA. The Navy has consulted with FWS regarding the take of sea 
otters incidental to missile launch operations on San Nicolas Island. 
However, no takes of sea otters are expected as a result of launch 
activities.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In July 2000, NAWCWD Point Mugu issued a Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to assess the 
effects of its ongoing and proposed operations in the Sea Range off 
Point Mugu. While this DEIS analyzes other activities beyond the scope 
of this IHA request, Section 4.7 describes launches of target missiles 
from SNI and notes that these launches sometimes cause pinnipeds hauled 
out on beaches on the western end of SNI to move into the water. 
Accordingly, the U.S. Navy determined that it should request this 1-
year IHA to ensure that its planned missile launch operations are 
conducted in full compliance with the MMPA.
    An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared that examines 
the environmental consequences of issuing an IHA for take by harassment 
of small numbers of several pinniped species incidental to conducting 
20 missile and target launch operations from San Nicolas Island, 
California for a 1-year period (2001-2002). This environmental review 
process has led NMFS to conclude that issuance of an IHA for these 
activities will not have a significant effect on the human environment. 
Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement on these 
actions is not required by Section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act or its implementing regulations. Copies of the EA and the 
Finding of No Significant Impact are available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES).

Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency

    On February 14, 2001, by a unanimous vote, the State of California 
Coastal Commission concluded that, with the monitoring and mitigation 
commitments the Navy has incorporated into their various testing and 
training activities on the Point Mugu Sea Range, including activities 
on San Nicolas Island, and including the commitment to enable 
continuing Commission staff review of finalized monitoring plans and 
ongoing monitoring results, the activities are consistent with the 
marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat and water quality 
policies (Sections 30230, 30240, and 30231) of the California Coastal 
Act.

Determinations

    Based on the evidence provided in the application, the EA, and this 
document, and taking into consideration the comments submitted on the 
application and proposed authorization notice, NMFS has determined that 
there will be no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals from 
the issuance of the harassment authorization to NAWCWD Point Mugu. NMFS 
is assured that the short-term impact of conducting missile launch 
operations from SNI in the Channel Islands off southern California will 
result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain 
species of pinnipeds. While behavioral modifications may be made by 
these species as a result of launch activities, this behavioral change 
is expected to have a negligible impact on the pinniped species and 
stocks.
    Since the number of potential harassment takings of northern 
elephant seals, harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern fur 
seals is estimated to be small, no take by injury and/or death is 
anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the 
mitigation measures mentioned in this document and required under the 
IHA, NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) 
of the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to NAWCWD Point Mugu for 15 launches of 
Vandal (or similar) missiles and 5 launches of smaller subsonic targets 
from San Nicolas Island, CA for a 1-year period, provided the 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this 
document and the IHA are undertaken.

    Dated: August 1, 2001.
Donald Knowles,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-20029 Filed 8-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S