[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56271-56276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 052802E]


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

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 August 26, 2002, until August 26, 2003.

ADDRESSES: The application, authorization 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. Publications referenced in 
this document are available for viewing, by appointment during regular 
business hours, at this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead, NMFS, (301) 713-
2322, ext. 128 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 for incidental takings 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.
    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.''
    Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited 
process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an 
authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by 
harassment. The MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
    ...any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
(Level B harassment).
    Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS 
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment 
period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of 
small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the 
comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the 
authorization.

Summary of Request

    On April 9, 2002, NMFS received an application from the Naval Air 
Weapons Station, China Lake (NAWS) requesting an authorization for the 
harassment of small numbers of three species of marine mammals 
incidental to target missile launch operations conducted by NAWCWD 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. In 2001, NAWCWD conducted 9 launches of Vandal and similar 
sized targets and 3 launches of subsonic targets from SNI. NAWS' 
request for an authorization to incidentally harass small numbers of 
marine mammals on SNI in 2002 and 2003 anticipates 15 launches of 
Vandal (or similar sized) vehicles from the Alpha Launch Complex on SNI 
and 5 launches of smaller subsonic missiles and targets for one year 
from either the Alpha Launch Complex or Building 807 commencing in 
August 2002. A detailed description of the operations is contained in 
the application (NAWS, 2002) which is available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES).

Measurement of Airborne Sound Levels

    The types of sounds discussed in NAWS' IHA application are airborne 
and impulsive. For this reason, the applicant has referenced 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-Pa2 -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)

[[Page 56272]]

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 
similarly to the human ear, a study by C. Malme (pers. commun. to NMFS, 
March 5, 1998) found that for predicting noise effects, A-weighting 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 Sea Range off 
Point Mugu, CA. SNI is under the land management responsibility of 
NAWS; however, planned missile and other target launches are conducted 
by NAWCWD. In general, two types of launch vehicles are used, the 
Vandal and the smaller subsonic missiles and 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 lbs) including the solid propellant booster. There are 
variants of the Vandal; they all have the same dimensions, but differ 
in their operational range. The Vandals are remotely controlled, non-
recoverable missiles. These and most other targets are launched from a 
land-based launch site (hereafter referred to as Alpha Launch Complex) 
on the west-central part of SNI. The Alpha Launch Complex is 192 m (630 
ft) above sea level and is approximately 2 kilometers (km)(1.25 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-Pa2 -sec) at 945 m (3,100 
ft) to 136 dB (re 20 [mu]Pa) (SEL of 131 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -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 10 m (30 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. For these smaller missiles, 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, Point Mugu (NAS) 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-Pa2 -sec) at 370 m (1,200 ft) to 
145 dB (re 20 micro-Pa) (SEL of 142.2 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -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 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 2 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 July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44180), NMFS published a notice of receipt 
and a 30-day public comment period was provided on the application and 
proposed authorization. Comments were received from the Marine Mammal 
Commission (MMC).

MMPA Concerns

    Comment 1: The MMC believes that NMFS' 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 MMC refers NMFS to letters 
from the MMC dated December 7, 2000, January 26, 2001, and February 7, 
2001, for a more complete discussion of this issue.
    Response: A definition of Level B harassment is provided in 50 CFR 
216.3 and stated previously in this document. The current 
interpretation of this regulatory definition by NMFS, as applied to 
incidental takings, is that one or more pinnipeds blinking its eyes, 
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. As stated by 
NMFS previously (see 66 FR 41834, August 9, 2001), in 50 CFR 17.3, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) defines harassment as: ''... 
actions that

[[Page 56273]]

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 believes that interpretation of the 
definition of Level B harassment to include every potential or possible 
reaction is inappropriate for the issuance of IHAs since the reaction 
does not have important biological context and would needlessly 
increase the affected universe of individuals and activities in 
potential violation of the MMPA unless holding an IHA or a Letter of 
Authorization issued under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
    In addition, 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 Determinations section of this document, NMFS 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. Where 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 NMFS, 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 IHA, under section 101(a)(5)(D) 
of the MMPA, in order to be in compliance with the law during 
implementation of its 2002-2003 SNI launch schedule. NAWCWD is planning 
to submit an application for a 5-year authorization, under section 
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in the near future.

Endangered Species Act(ESA) Concerns

    Comment 3: The MMC recommends that NMFS, if it has not already done 
so, advise the applicant to consult with the USFWS 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 USFWS 
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 SNI (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 it was 
proposed for listing under the ESA and therefore subject to the 
informal consultation process under section 7(a)(4) of the ESA. The 
Navy has consulted with USFWS regarding the take of sea otters 
incidental to missile launch operations on SNI. However, no takes of 
sea otters are expected as a result of launch activities.

Mitigation Concerns

    Comment 4: The MMC 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: NMFS 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. The IHA 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, NMFS 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 SNI 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 determined to be related to missile launch 
activities. Prior to suspension of an incidental harassment 
authorization NMFS must satisfy the statutory requirement of notice and 
public comment, under section 101(a)(5)(C) of the MMPA, unless NMFS 
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 IHA 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.

Monitoring Concerns

    Comment 5: The MMC recommends that prior to issuing the requested 
authorization, NMFS should 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 SNI, 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

[[Page 56274]]

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). SNI 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 mortality rates 
for those pinniped species hauling out on SNI. In addition, surveys 
suggest that by far the greatest source of mortality for pinnipeds on 
the island are El Ni[tilde]no 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 is not 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), 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 others in the region 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 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. Research and monitoring at 
Vandenberg Air Force Base 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. 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 have not normally 
resulted in harbor 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 biologically 
significant disturbance (i.e. takes by harassment) will sometimes occur 
upon exposure to launch sounds with SEL's of 100 dBA (re 20 micro-Pa2 -
sec) or higher.
    From Lawson et al. (1998), the Navy determined a conservative 
estimate of the SEL at which temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Level B 
harassment) may be elicited in harbor seals and California sea lions 
(SEL of 145 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -sec) and northern elephant seals (SEL 
of 165 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -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 
(described later in this document), 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 criteria out to a 
distance of 4,263 m (13,986 ft) 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,

[[Page 56275]]

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 biological 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 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.

Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken by Harassment

    NAWS 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
    Species by MMPA Stock Designation        Estimate of       Takes in
                                               Stock\1\       2002/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Elephant Seal (California                   51,625       <2,390
 Stock).................................
Harbor Seal (California Stock)..........             27,962         <457
California Sea Lion (U.S. Stock)........            109,854       10,086
Northern Fur Seal (San Miguel Stock)....              2,336            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From 1999-2000 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.

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 SNI
    During the effectiveness period of this IHA, 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., Phoca 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 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 proposed 
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) The Navy will limit launch 
activities during pinniped pupping seasons, particularly harbor seal 
pupping season; (2) the Navy will not launch target missiles at low 
elevation (under 305 m (1,000 ft)) on launch azimuths that pass close 
to beach haul-out site(s); (3) the Navy will avoid multiple target 
launches in quick succession over haul-out sites, especially when young 
pups are present; and, (4) the Navy will limit launch activities during 
the night.

Monitoring

    As part of its application, NAWS provided a proposed monitoring 
plan, similar to that adopted for the 2001-2002 IHA (see 66 FR 41834, 
August 9, 2001), for assessing impacts to marine mammals from Vandal 
and smaller subsonic target and missile launch activities on SNI. This 
monitoring plan is described in their application (NAWS, 2002).
    The Navy will conduct the following monitoring during 2002-2003:

Land-Based Monitoring

    In conjunction with a biological contractor, the Navy will continue 
its land-based monitoring program to assess effects on the three common 
pinniped species on SNI: northern elephant seals, harbor seals, and 
California sea lions. This monitoring would occur at three different 
sites of varying distance from the launch site before, during, and 
after each launch. The monitoring would be via digital video cameras.
    During the day of each missile launch, the observer would place 
three digital video cameras overlooking chosen haul out sites. Each 
camera would be set to record a focal subgroup within the haul out 
aggregation for a maximum of 4

[[Page 56276]]

hours or as permitted by the videotape capacity.
    Following each launch, all digital recordings will be transferred 
to DVDs for analysis. A DVD player/computer with high-resolution 
freeze-frame and jog shuttle will be used to facilitate distance 
estimation, event timing, and characterization of behavior. Details of 
analysis methods can be found in LGL Ltd. Environmental Research 
Associates et al. (LGL, 2002).

Acoustical Measurements

    During each launch, the Navy would obtain calibrated recordings of 
the levels and characteristics of the received launch sounds. Acoustic 
data would 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 
hours. Insofar as possible, acoustic recording locations would 
correspond with the sites where video monitoring is taking place. The 
collection of acoustic data would 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. Once collected, sound 
files will be transferred onto compact discs (CDs) and sent to the 
acoustical contractor for sound analysis.
    For further details regarding the installation and calibration of 
the acoustic instruments and analysis methods refer to LGL (2002).

Reporting Requirements

    Under the IHA, NAWS will provide an initial report on activities to 
NMFS after the first 90 days of the authorization period. This report 
will summarize the timing and nature of the launch operation(s), 
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 determined by trained biologists 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 during months 7 and 
8.
    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.

ESA

    NAWS has not requested the take of any listed species nor is any 
listed species under NMFS jurisdiction expected to be impacted by these 
activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 
consultation under the ESA is not required at this time.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In accordance with section 6.01 of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrative Order 216-6 
(Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act , May 20, 1999), NMFS has analyzed both the 
context and intensity of this action and determined, based on a 
programmatic NEPA assessment conducted on the impact of NMFS' 
rulemaking for the issuance of IHAs (61 FR 15884; April 10, 1996); an 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Adverse Impact 
conducted by NMFS on this action in 2001; the NAWCWD's March, 2002 
Final Environmental Impact Statement to assess the effects of its 
ongoing and proposed operations in the Sea Range of Point Mugu; and the 
content and analysis of NAWS's 2002 request for an IHA that the 
proposed issuance of this IHA to NAWS by NMFS will not individually or 
cumulatively result in a significant impact on the quality of the human 
environment as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27. Therefore, based on this 
analysis, the action of issuing an IHA for these activities meets the 
definition of a ``Categorical Exclusion'' as defined under NOAA 
Administrative Order 216-6 and is exempted from further environmental 
review.

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 SNI, 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 several NEPA 
documents, 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 no more 
than 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 26, 2002.
David Cottingham,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 02-22351 Filed 8-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S