[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18574-18597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07191]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE443
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Boost-Backs and Landings of Rockets
at Vandenberg Air Force Base
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Space Explorations Technology
Corporation (SpaceX), for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to boost-backs and landings of Falcon 9 rockets at
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and at a contingency landing
location approximately 30 miles offshore. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to SpaceX to
incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B Harassment only, during
the specified activity.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than May 2,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should
be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and
electronic comments should be sent to [email protected].
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. Comments received electronically,
including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size.
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word
or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a
part of the public record and will generally be posted for public
viewing on the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/
without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name,
address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive
information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly
accessible.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of SpaceX's IHA application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained by visiting the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/. In case of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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 by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional,
taking of small numbers of marine mammals, providing that certain
findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be
allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary)
finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the
specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species
or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking
must be set forth.
The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A),
by harassment, serious injury, death, or a combination thereof,
requires that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of
Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established
in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be
consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under
the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may
authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not
more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained
within an IHA. The establishment of these prescriptions requires notice
and opportunity for public comment.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . .
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably
[[Page 18575]]
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.'' Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A
harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
Summary of Request
On July 28, 2015, we received a request from SpaceX for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities, including in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings
of the First Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket at Vandenberg Air Force Base
(VAFB) in California, and at a contingency landing location
approximately 50 km (31 mi) offshore of VAFB. SpaceX submitted a
revised version of the request on November 5, 2015. This revised
version of the application was deemed adequate and complete. Acoustic
stimuli, including sonic booms (overpressure of high-energy impulsive
sound), landing noise, and possible explosions, resulting from boost-
back maneuvers and landings of the Falcon 9 First Stage have the
potential to result in take, in the form of Level B harassment, of six
species of pinnipeds. NMFS is proposing to authorize the Level B
harassment of the following marine mammal species/stocks, incidental to
SpaceX's proposed activities: Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardii), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea
lion (eastern Distinct Population Segment, or DPS) (Eumetopias
jubatus), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), northern
fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), and Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus
townsendi).
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by
SpaceX for transport of satellites and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft into
orbit. SpaceX currently operates the Falcon Launch Vehicle Program at
Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E) at VAFB. SpaceX proposes regular
employment of First Stage recovery by returning the Falcon 9 First
Stage to SLC-4 West (SLC-4W) at VAFB for potential reuse up to six
times per year. The reuse of the Falcon 9 First Stage will enable
SpaceX to efficiently conduct lower cost launch missions from VAFB in
support of commercial and government clients. First Stage recovery
includes an in-air boost-back maneuver and the landing of the First
Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.
Although SLC-4W is the preferred landing location, SpaceX has
identified the need for a contingency landing action that would only be
exercised if there were critical assets on South VAFB that would not
permit an over-flight of the First Stage, or if other reasons such as
fuel constraints did not permit landing at SLC-4W. The contingency
action is to land the First Stage on a barge in the Pacific Ocean at a
landing location 50 km (31 miles) offshore of VAFB.
Dates and Duration
SpaceX plans to conduct their proposed activities during the period
from June 30, 2016 to June 29, 2017. Up to six Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities would occur per year. Precise dates of Falcon 9
First Stage recovery activities are not known. Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities may take place at any time of year and at any time
of day.
Specific Geographic Region
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities will originate at VAFB.
Areas affected include VAFB and areas on the coastline surrounding
VAFB; the Pacific Ocean offshore VAFB; and the Northern Channel Islands
(NCI). VAFB operates as a missile test base and aerospace center,
supporting west coast space launch activities for the U.S. Air Force
(USAF), Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and commercial contractors. VAFB is the main west coast
launch facility for placing commercial, government, and military
satellites into polar orbit on expendable (unmanned) launch vehicles,
and for testing and evaluating intercontinental ballistic missiles and
sub-orbital target and interceptor missiles.
VAFB occupies approximately 99,100 acres of central Santa Barbara
County, California (see Figure 1-1 in SpaceX's IHA application),
approximately halfway between San Diego and San Francisco. The Santa
Ynez River and State Highway 246 divide VAFB into two distinct parts:
North Base and South Base. SLC-4W is located on South Base,
approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) inland from the Pacific Ocean (see
Figure 1-2 in SpaceX's IHA application). SLC-4E, the launch facility
for SpaceX's Falcon 9 program, is located approximately 427 m to the
east of SLC-4W, the proposed landing site for the Falcon 9 First Stage
(see Figure 1-2, inset, in SpaceX's IHA application).
Although SLC-4W is the preferred landing location, SpaceX has
identified the need for a contingency landing action that would be
exercised if there were critical assets on South VAFB that would not
permit an over-flight of the First Stage or if other reasons (e.g. fuel
constraints) prevented a landing at SLC-4W. The contingency action is
to land the First Stage on a barge in the Pacific Ocean at a landing
location 31 miles (50 km) offshore of VAFB (see Figure 1-5 in SpaceX's
IHA application for the proposed location of the contingency landing
location). Thus the waters of the Pacific Ocean between VAFB and the
area approximately 50 km offshore shown in Figure 1-5 in SpaceX's IHA
application are also considered part of the project area for the
purposes of this proposed authorization.
The NCI are four islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and
Anacapa) located approximately 50 km (31 mi) south of Point Conception,
which is located on the mainland approximately 6.5 km south of the
southern border of VAFB (see Figure 2-1 and 2-2 in the IHA
application). All four islands are inhabited by pinnipeds, with San
Miguel Island being the most actively used among the four islands for
pinniped rookeries. All four islands in the NCI are part of the Channel
Islands National Park, while the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary encompasses the waters 11 km off the islands. The closest
part of the NCI (Harris Point on San Miguel Island) is located more
than 55 km south-southeast of SLC-4E, the launch facility for the
Falcon 9 rocket. Pinnipeds hauled out on beaches of the NCI may be
affected by sonic booms associated with the proposed action, as
described later in this document.
Detailed Description of Activities
The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by
SpaceX for transport of satellites and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft into
orbit. The First Stage of the Falcon 9 is designed to be reusable,
while the second stage is not reusable. The proposed action includes up
to six Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries, including in-air boost-back
maneuvers and landings of the First Stage, at VAFB and/or at a
contingency landing location 50 km offshore over the course of one
year.
[[Page 18576]]
Boost-back and Landing Maneuvers
After launch of the Falcon 9, the boost-back and landing sequence
begins when the rocket's First Stage separates from the second stage
and the Merlin engines of the First Stage cut off. After First Stage
engine cutoff, rather than dropping the First Stage in the Pacific
Ocean, exoatmospheric cold gas thrusters would be triggered to flip the
First Stage into position for retrograde burn. The First Stage would
then descend back toward earth. During descent, a sonic boom would be
generated when the First Stage reaches a rate of travel that exceeds
the speed of sound. Sound from the sonic boom would have the potential
to result in harassment of marine mammals, as described below. The
sonic boom's overpressure would be directed at either the coastal area
south of SLC-4 or at the ocean surface no less than 50 km off the coast
of VAFB, depending on the targeted landing location. Three of the nine
First Stage Merlin engines would be restarted to conduct the retrograde
burn in order to reduce the velocity of the First Stage in the correct
angle to land. Once the First Stage is in position and approaching its
landing target, the three engines would be cut off to end the boost-
back burn. The First Stage would then perform a controlled descent
using atmospheric resistance to slow the stage down and guide it to the
landing site. The landing legs on the First Stage would then deploy in
preparation for a final single engine burn that would slow the First
Stage to a velocity of zero before landing. Please see Figure 1-3 in
the IHA application for a graphical depiction of the boost-back and
landing sequence, and see Figure 1-4 in the IHA application for an
example of the boost-back trajectory of the First Stage and the second
stage trajectory.
Contingency Landing Procedure
As a contingency action to landing the Falcon 9 First Stage on the
SLC-4W landing pad at VAFB, SpaceX proposes to return the Falcon 9
First Stage booster to a barge. The barge is specifically designed to
be used as a First Stage landing platform and will be located at least
50 km off VAFB's shore (See Figure 1-5 in the IHA application). The
contingency landing location would be used if conditions prevented a
landing at SLC-4W, as described above. The maneuvering and landing
process described above for a pad landing would be the same for a barge
landing. Three vessels would be required to support a barge landing, if
it were required: A barge/landing platform (300 ft long and 150 ft
wide); a support vessel (165 ft long research vessel); and an ocean tug
(120 ft long open water commercial tug). In the event of an
unsuccessful barge landing, the First Stage would explode upon impact
with the barge; the explosion would not be expected to result in take
of marine mammals, as described below. The explosive equivalence with
maximum fuel and oxidizer is 503 pounds of trinitrotoluene (TNT) which
is capable of a maximum projectile range of 384 m (1,250 ft) from the
point of impact. Approximately 25 pieces of debris are expected to
remain floating in the water and expected to impact less than 0.46
km\2\ (114 acres), and the majority of debris would be recovered. All
other debris is expected to sink. These 25 pieces of debris are
primarily made of Carbon Over Pressure Vessels (COPVs), the LOX fill
line, and carbon fiber constructed legs. During previous landing
attempts in other locations, SpaceX has performed successful debris
recovery. All of the recovered debris would be transported back to Long
Beach Harbor for proper disposal. Most of the fuel (estimated 50-150
gallons) is expected to be released onto the barge deck at the location
of impact.
In the event that a contingency landing action is required, SpaceX
has considered the likelihood of the First Stage missing the barge and
landing instead in the Pacific Ocean, and has determined that the
likelihood of such an event is so unlikely as to be considered
discountable. This is supported by three previous attempts by SpaceX at
Falcon 9 First Stage barge landings, none of which have missed the
barge. Therefore, NMFS does not propose to authorize take of marine
mammals incidental to landings of the Falcon 9 First Stage in the
Pacific Ocean, and the potential effects of landings of the Falcon 9
First Stage in the Pacific Ocean on marine mammals are not considered
further in this proposed authorization.
NMFS has previously issued regulations and Letters of Authorization
(LOA) that authorize the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment,
incidental to launches of up to 50 rockets per year (including the
Falcon 9) from VAFB (79 FR 10016). The regulations, titled ``Taking of
Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches, Aircraft and
Helicopter Operations, and Harbor Activities Related to Vehicles from
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,'' published February 24, 2014,
are effective from March 2014 to March 2019. The activities proposed by
SpaceX are limited to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery events (Falcon 9
boost-back maneuvers and landings); launches of the Falcon 9 rocket are
not part of the proposed activities, and incidental take (Level B
harassment) resulting from Falcon 9 rocket launches from VAFB is
already authorized in the above referenced LOA. As such, NMFS does not
propose to authorize take of marine mammals incidental to launches of
the Falcon 9 rocket; incidental take resulting from Falcon 9 rocket
launches is therefore not analyzed further in this document. The LOA
application (USAF 2013a), and links to the Federal Register notice of
the final rule (79 FR 10016) and the Federal Register notice of
issuance of the LOA (79 FR 18528), can be found on the NMFS Web site
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
There are six marine mammal species with expected occurrence in the
project area (including at VAFB, on the NCI, and in the waters
surrounding VAFB, the NCI and the contingency landing location) that
are expected to be affected by the specified activities. These include
the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern fur seal
(Callorhinus ursinus), northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris), Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi),
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and Pacific harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina richardsi). There are an additional 28 species of
cetaceans with expected or possible occurrence in the project area.
However, despite the fact that the ranges of these cetacean species
overlap spatially with SpaceX's proposed activities, we have determined
that none of the potential stressors associated with the proposed
activities (including exposure to debris strike, rocket fuel, and
visual and acoustic stimuli, as described further in ``Potential
Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals'') are likely to
result in take of cetaceans. As we have concluded that the likelihood
of a cetacean being taken incidentally as a result of SpaceX's proposed
activities is so low as to be discountable, cetaceans are not
considered further in this proposed authorization. Please see Table 3-1
in the IHA application for a complete list of species with expected or
potential occurrence in the project area.
We have reviewed SpaceX's detailed species descriptions, including
abundance, status, distribution and life history information, for
accuracy and completeness; this information is summarized below and may
be viewed
[[Page 18577]]
in detail in the IHA application, available on the NMFS Web site at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental. Additional information
on these species is available in the NMFS stock assessment reports
(SARs), which can be viewed online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. Generalized species accounts are also available on NMFS' Web
site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals.
Table 1 lists the marine mammal species with expected potential for
occurrence in the vicinity of the project during the project timeframe
that are likely to be affected by the specified activities, and
summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. Please
see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks'
status and abundance.
Table 1--Marine Mammals Expected To be Present in the Vicinity of the Project Location That are Likely To be
Affected by the Specified Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA Status/MMPA
Species Stock Status; strategic Stock Occurrence in
(Y/N)\1\ abundance \2\ project area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steller sea lion................. Eastern U.S. DPS... -/D; Y............. 60,131 Rare.
California sea lion.............. U.S. stock......... -/-; N............. 296,750 Common.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal...................... California stock... -/-; N............. 30,968 Common.
Northern elephant seal........... California breeding -/-; N............. 179,000 Common.
stock.
Northern fur seal................ California stock... -/-; N............. 12,844 Common.
Guadalupe fur seal............... n/a................ T/D; Y............. 3 7,408 Rare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is
not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one
for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or is determined to be declining and likely
to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups)
ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the species (or similar species) life
history to arrive at a best abundance estimate.
3 Abundance estimate for this stock is greater than ten years old and is therefore not considered current. We
nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimate, as this represents the best available information for
use in this document.
In the species accounts provided here, we offer a brief
introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available
information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any
information regarding local occurrence.
Pacific Harbor Seal
Pacific harbor seals are the most common marine mammal inhabiting
VAFB, congregating on multiple rocky haulout sites along the VAFB
coastline. Harbor seals are local to the area, rarely traveling more
than 50 km from haul-out sites. There are 12 harbor seal haul-out sites
on south VAFB; of these, 10 sites represent an almost continuous haul-
out area which is used by the same animals. Virtually all of the haul-
out sites at VAFB are used during low tides and are wave-washed or
submerged during high tides. Additionally, the Pacific harbor seal is
the only species that regularly hauls out near the VAFB harbor. The
main harbor seal haul-outs on VAFB are near Purisima Point and at
Lion's Head (approximately 0.6 km south of Point Sal) on north VAFB and
between the VAFB harbor north to South Rocky Point Beach on south VAFB
(ManTech 2009). This south VAFB haul-out area is composed of several
sand and cobblestone coves, rocky ledges, and offshore rocks. The Rocky
Point area, located approximately 1.6 km north of the VAFB harbor, is
used as breeding habitat (ManTech 2009).
Pups are generally present in the region from March through July.
Within the affected area on VAFB, a total of up to 332 adults and 34
pups have been recorded, at all haulouts combined, in monthly counts
from 2013 to 2015 (ManTech 2015). During aerial pinniped surveys of
haulouts located in the Point Conception area by NOAA Fisheries in May
2002 and May and June of 2004, between 488 to 516 harbor seals were
recorded (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data). Harbor seals also
haul out, breed, and pup in isolated beaches and coves throughout the
coasts of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands (Lowry 2002).
During aerial surveys conducted by NOAA Fisheries in May 2002 and May
and June of 2004, between 521 and 1,004 harbors seals were recorded at
San Miguel Island, between 605 and 972 at Santa Rosa Island, and
between 599 and 1,102 Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries,
unpubl. data).
The harbor seal population at VAFB has undergone an apparent
decline in recent years (USAF 2013). This decline has been attributed
to a series of natural landslides at south VAFB, resulting in the
abandonment of many haulout sites. These slides have also resulted in
extensive down-current sediment deposition, making these sites
accessible to coyotes, which are now regularly seen in the area. Some
of the displaced seals have moved to other sites at south VAFB, while
others likely have moved to Point Conception, about 6.5 km south of the
southern boundary of VAFB.
Pacific harbor seals frequently use haul-out sites on the NCI,
including San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz; and Anacapa. On San
Miguel Island, they occur along the north coast at Tyler Bight and from
Crook Point to Cardwell Point. Additionally, they regularly breed on
San Miguel Island. On Santa Cruz Island, they inhabit small coves and
rocky ledges along much of the coast. Harbor seals are scattered
throughout Santa Rosa Island and also are observed in small numbers on
Anacapa Island.
California Sea Lions
California sea lions are not listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act, nor are they categorized as depleted
under the
[[Page 18578]]
Marine Mammal Protection Act. The estimated population of the U.S.
stock is approximately 296,750 (Carretta et al. 2015). California sea
lion breeding areas are on islands located in southern California, in
western Baja California (Mexico), and the Gulf of California. During
the breeding season, most California sea lions inhabit southern
California and Mexico. Rookery sites in southern California are limited
to the San Miguel Islands and the southerly Channel Islands of San
Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente (Carretta et al., 2015). Males
establish breeding territories during May through July on both land and
in the water. Females come ashore in mid-May and June where they give
birth to a single pup approximately four to five days after arrival and
will nurse pups for about a week before going on their first feeding
trip. Adult and juvenile males will migrate as far north as British
Columbia, Canada while females and pups remain in southern California
waters in the non-breeding season. In warm water (El Ni[ntilde]o)
years, some females are found as far north as Washington and Oregon,
presumably following prey. Elevated strandings of California sea lion
pups have occurred in Southern California since January 2013. This
event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME), and is
confined to pup and yearling California sea lions.
California sea lions are common offshore of VAFB and haul out on
rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB. At south VAFB,
California sea lions haul out on north Rocky Point, with numbers often
peaking in spring. They have been reported at Point Arguello and Point
Pedernales (both on south VAFB) in the past, although none have been
noted there over the past several years. Individual sea lions have been
noted hauled out throughout the VAFB coast; these were transient or
stranded specimens. California sea lions occasionally haul out on Point
Conception itself, south of VAFB. They regularly haul out on Lion Rock,
north of VAFB and immediately south of Point Sal. In 2014, counts of
California sea lions at haulouts on VAFB increased substantially,
ranging from 47 to 416 during monthly counts. Despite their prevalence
at haulout sites at VAFB, California sea lions rarely pup on the VAFB
coastline (ManTech 2015); no pups were observed in 2013 or 2014
(ManTech 2015) and 1 pup was observed in 2015 (VAFB, unpubl. data).
Pupping occurs in large numbers on San Miguel Island at the
rookeries found at Point Bennett on the west end of the island and at
Cardwell Point on the east end of the island (Lowry 2002). Sea lions
haul out at the west end of Santa Rosa Island at Ford Point and
Carrington Point. A few California sea lions have been born on Santa
Rosa Island, but no rookery has been established. On Santa Cruz Island,
California sea lions haul out from Painted Cave almost to Fraser Point,
on the west end. Fair numbers haul out at Gull Island, off the south
shore near Punta Arena. Pupping appears to be increasing there. Sea
lions also haul out near Potato Harbor, on the northeast end of Santa
Cruz. California sea lions haul out by the hundreds on the south side
of East Anacapa Island.
During aerial surveys conducted by NOAA Fisheries in February 2010
of the Northern Channel Islands, 21,192 total California sea lions
(14,802 pups) were observed at haulouts on San Miguel Island and 8,237
total (5,712 pups) at Santa Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries,
unpubl. data). During aerial surveys in July 2012, 65,660 total
California sea lions (28,289 pups) were recorded at haulouts on San
Miguel Island, 1,584 total (3 pups) at Santa Rosa Island, and 1,571
total (zero pups) at Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries,
unpubl. data).
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern elephant seals are not listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act, nor are they categorized as depleted
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The estimated population of the
California breeding stock is approximately 179,000 animals (Carretta et
al. 2015). Northern elephant seals range in the eastern and central
North Pacific Ocean, from as far north as Alaska and as far south as
Mexico. They spend much of the year, generally about nine months, in
the ocean. They spend much of their lives underwater, diving to depths
of about 1,000 to 2,500 ft (330-800 m) for 20- to 30-minute intervals
with only short breaks at the surface, and are rarely seen at sea for
this reason. While on land, they prefer sandy beaches.
Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California and Baja
California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands, from December to
March (Stewart et al. 1994). Adults return to land between March and
August to molt, with males returning later than females. Adults return
to their feeding areas again between their spring/summer molting and
their winter breeding seasons.
Northern elephant seals haul out sporadically on rocks and beaches
along the coastline of VAFB; monthly counts in 2013 and 2014 recorded
between 0 and 191 elephant seals within the affected area (ManTech
2015). However, northern elephant seals do not currently pup on the
VAFB coastline. Observations of young of the year seals from May
through November at VAFB have represented individuals dispersing later
in the year from other parts of the California coastline where breeding
and birthing occur. The nearest regularly used haul-out site on the
mainland coast is at Point Conception. Eleven northern elephant seals
were observed during aerial surveys of the Point Conception area by
NOAA Fisheries in February of 2010 (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl.
data). In December 2012, an immature male elephant seal was observed
hauled out on the sandy beach west of the breakwater at the VAFB harbor
(representing the first documented instance of an elephant seal hauled
out at the VAFB harbor). There has been no verified breeding of
northern elephant seals on VAFB.
Point Bennett on the west end of San Miguel Island is the primary
northern elephant seal rookery in the NCI, with another rookery at
Cardwell Point on the east end of San Miguel Island (Lowry 2002). They
also pup and breed on Santa Rosa Island, mostly on the west end.
Northern elephant seals are rarely seen on Santa Cruz and Anacapa
Islands. During aerial surveys of the NCI conducted by NMFS in February
2010, 21,192 total northern elephant seals (14,802 pups) were recorded
at haulouts on San Miguel Island and 8,237 total (5,712 pups) were
observed at Santa Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
None were observed at Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries,
unpubl. data).
Steller Sea Lion
The eastern DPS of Steller sea lion is not listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA, nor is it categorized as depleted under the
MMPA. The species as a whole was ESA-listed as threatened in 1990 (55
FR 49204). In 1997, the species was divided into western and eastern
DPSs, with the western DPS reclassified as endangered under the ESA and
the eastern DPS retaining its threatened listing (62 FR 24345). On
October 23, 2013, NMFS found that the eastern DPS has recovered; as a
result of the finding, NMFS removed the eastern DPS from ESA listing.
Only the eastern DPS is considered in this proposed authorization due
to its distribution and the geographic scope of the action. Steller sea
lions are distributed mainly around the coasts to the outer continental
shelf along the North Pacific rim from northern Hokkaido, Japan through
the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, Aleutian Islands and central Bering
[[Page 18579]]
Sea, southern coast of Alaska and south to California (Loughlin et al.,
1984).
Prior to 2012, there were no records of Steller sea lions observed
at VAFB. In April and May 2012, Steller sea lions were observed hauled
out at North Rocky Point on VAFB, representing the first time the
species had been observed on VAFB during launch monitoring and monthly
surveys conducted over the past two decades (Marine Mammal Consulting
Group and Science Applications International Corporation 2013). Since
2012, Steller sea lions have been observed frequently in routine
monthly surveys, with as many as 16 individuals recorded. In 2014, up
to five Steller sea lions were observed in the affected area during
monthly marine mammal counts (ManTech 2015) and a maximum of 12
individuals were observed during monthly counts in 2015 (VAFB,
unpublished data). However, up to 16 individuals were observed in 2012
(SAIC 2012). Steller sea lions once had two small rookeries on San
Miguel Island, but these were abandoned after the 1982-1983 El
Ni[ntilde]o event (DeLong and Melin 2000; Lowry 2002); these rookeries
were once the southernmost colonies of the eastern stock of this
species. In recent years, between two to four juvenile and adult males
have been observed on a somewhat regular basis on San Miguel Island
(pers. comm. Sharon Melin, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, to J.
Carduner, NMFS, Feb 11, 2016). Steller sea lions are not observed on
the other NCI.
Northern Fur Seal
Northern fur seals are not ESA listed and are not categorized as
depleted under the MMPA. Northern fur seals occur from southern
California north to the Bering Sea and west to the Okhotsk Sea and
Honshu Island, Japan. Two stocks of northern fur seals are recognized
in U.S. waters: An eastern Pacific stock and a California stock
(formerly referred to as the San Miguel Island stock). Only the
California stock is considered in this proposed authorization due to
its geographic distribution.
Due to differing requirements during the annual reproductive
season, adult males and females typically occur ashore at different,
though overlapping, times. Adult males occur ashore and defend
reproductive territories during a 3-month period from June through
August, though some may be present until November (well after giving up
their territories). Adult females are found ashore for as long as 6
months (June-November). After their respective times ashore, fur seals
of both sexes spend the next 7 to 8 months at sea (Roppel 1984). Peak
pupping is in early July and pups are weaned at three to four months.
Some juveniles are present year-round, but most juveniles and adults
head for the open ocean and a pelagic existence until the next year.
Northern fur seals exhibit high site fidelity to their natal rookeries.
Northern fur seals have rookeries on San Miguel Island at Point
Bennett and on Castle Rock. Comprehensive count data for northern fur
seals on San Miguel Island are not available. San Miguel Island is the
only island in the NCI on which Northern fur seals have been observed.
Although the population at San Miguel Island was established by
individuals from Alaska and Russian Islands during the late 1960s, most
individuals currently found on San Miguel nowadays are considered
resident to the island. No haul-out or rookery sites exist for northern
fur seals on the mainland coast. The only individuals that do appear on
mainland beaches are stranded animals.
Guadalupe Fur Seal
Guadalupe fur seals are listed as threatened under the ESA and are
categorized as depleted under the MMPA. The population is estimated at
7,408 animals; however, this estimate is over 20 years old (Carretta et
al. 2015). The population is considered to be a single stock. Guadalupe
Fur Seals were abundant prior to seal exploitation, when they were
likely the most abundant pinniped species on the Channel Islands. They
are found along the west coast of the United States, but are considered
uncommon in Southern California. They are typically found on shores
with abundant large rocks, often at the base of large cliffs (Belcher
and Lee 2002). Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur seals started
occurring along the entire coast of California in early 2015.
Strandings were eight times higher than the historical average, peaking
from April through June 2015, and have since lessened. This event has
been declared a marine mammal UME.
Comprehensive survey data on Guadalupe fur seals in the NCI is not
readily available. On San Miguel Island, one to several male Guadalupe
fur seals had been observed annually between 1969 and 2000 (DeLong and
Melin 2000) and juvenile animals of both sexes have been seen
occasionally over the years (Stewart et al. 1987). The first adult
female at San Miguel Island was seen in 1997. In June 1997, she gave
birth to a pup in rocky habitat along the south side of the island and,
over the next year, reared the pup to weaning age. This was apparently
the first pup born in the California Channel Islands in at least 150
years. Since 2008, individual adult females, subadult males, and
between one and three pups have been observed annually on San Miguel
Island. There are estimated to be approximately 20-25 individuals that
have fidelity to San Miguel, mostly inhabiting the southwest and
northwest ends of the island. A total of 14 pups have been born on the
island since 2009, with no more than 3 born in any single season (pers.
comm., S. Melin, NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, to J.
Carduner, NMFS, Aug. 28, 2015). Thirteen individuals and two pups were
observed in 2015 (NMFS 2016). No haul-out or rookery sites exist for
Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland coast, including VAFB. The only
individuals that do appear on mainland beaches are stranded animals.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals. The
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this
document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The
``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how
this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment'' section, the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, and the
``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
Debris Strike
Under the contingency barge landing action, in the event of an
unsuccessful barge landing, the First Stage booster is expected to
explode upon impact with the barge. The maximum estimated remaining
fuel and oxidizer onboard the booster when it explodes would be the
equivalent a net explosive weight of 503 lbs. of TNT. The resulting
explosion of the estimated onboard remaining fuel would be capable of
scattering debris a maximum estimated range of approximately 384 m from
the landing point and thus spread over a radial area of 0.46 km\2\ as
an impact area (ManTech 2015). Based on engineering analysis collected
during a flight anomaly that occurred during a Falcon 9 test at
SpaceX's Texas Rocket Development Facility, debris could impact
0.000706
[[Page 18580]]
km\2\ of the total 0.46 km\2\ impact area. Debris impacting an
individual marine mammal, though highly unlikely as discussed below,
would have the potential to cause injury and potential mortality.
Using a statistical probability analysis for estimating direct air
strike impact developed by the U.S. Navy (Navy 2014), the probability
of impact of debris with a marine mammal (P) can be estimated for
individual marine mammals of each species that may occur in the impact
footprint area (I) (0.000706 km\2\). For this analysis, SpaceX assumed
a dynamic scenario with broadside collision, in which the width of the
impact footprint is enhanced by a factor of five (5) to reflect forward
momentum created by an explosion (Navy 2014). Forward momentum
typically accounts for five object lengths, thus the applied factor of
five (5) area (Navy 2014).
The probability of impact with a single animal (P) is calculated as
the likelihood that an animal footprint area (A, defined as the adult
length [La] and width [Wa] for each species) intersects the impact
footprint area (I) within the overall ``testing area'' (R). Note that
to calculate (P) it is assumed that the animal is in the testing area
and is at or near the ocean surface, thus the model is overly
conservative since cetaceans spend the majority of time submerged. For
the purposes of this model, R was estimated as the maximum range of
debris spread as a result of the First Stage explosion at the landing
location (0.46 km\2\). The probability impact with a single animal (P)
depends on the degree of overlap of A and I. To calculate this area of
overlap (Atot), a buffer distance is added around A that is equal to
one-half of the impact area (0.5*I). This buffer accounts for an impact
with the center of the object anywhere within the combined area of
overlap (Atot) would result in an impact with the animal. Atot is then
calculated as (La + 2*Wi)*(Wa + (1 +
5)*Li), where Wi and Li are the length and width of the
impact area (I). We assumed that Wa = Wi = square root of I. The single
animal impact probability (P) for each species is then calculated as
the ratio of total area (Atot) to testing area (R): P = Atot/R. This
single animal impact probability (P) is then multiplied by the number
of animals expected in the testing area (N = density * R) to estimate
the probability of impacting an individual for each species per event
(T).
SpaceX proposes to conduct up to six contingency offshore landings
per year, which may result in between zero and six explosions of the
First Stage annually (as recovery actions continue, SpaceX expects to
assess each incident, refine methodology and ultimately reduce the risk
or explosion for the purpose of First Stage recovery and re-use). In
the model presented in the IHA application, SpaceX assumed that the
maximum of six events per year would result in an explosion. This is a
conservative estimate, since the actual number of contingency landing
events resulting in the First Stage explosion may be less than six. In
addition, the model conservatively utilized the highest estimated at-
sea individual densities for each species within the geographic area of
potential impact. Please see Table 6-1 of the IHA application for
results of the debris strike analysis.
Even with the intentionally conservative estimates of parameters
and assumptions in the model as described above, the results indicate
that it is highly unlikely that debris would strike any individual of
any marine mammal species, including cetaceans and pinnipeds. For all
34 marine mammal species that occur in the project area, including
pinnipeds and cetaceans, the maximum probability of debris strike, for
a single debris impact event, was 0.0222 for California sea lion (see
Table 6-1 in the IHA application). The modeled probabilities are
sufficiently low as to be considered discountable. Therefore, we have
concluded that the likelihood of take of marine mammals from debris
strike following the explosion of the Falcon 9 First Stage is
negligible. As such, debris strike is not analyzed further in this
proposed authorization as a potential stressor to marine mammals.
Floating Debris
As described above, in the event of an unsuccessful landing attempt
at the contingency landing location, the Falcon 9 First Stage would
explode upon impact with the barge. SpaceX has experience performing
recovery operations after water and unsuccessful barge landings for
previous Falcon 9 First Stage landing attempts. This experience, in
addition to the debris catalog that identifies all floating debris, has
revealed that approximately 25 pieces of debris remain floating after
an unsuccessful barge landing. The surface area potentially impacted
with debris would be less than 0.46 km\2\, and the vast majority of
debris would be recovered. All other debris is expected to sink to the
bottom of the ocean.
The approximately 25 pieces of debris expected to be floating after
an unsuccessful barge landing are primarily made up of Carbon Over
Pressure Vessels (COPVs), the LOX fill line, and carbon fiber
constructed landing legs. SpaceX has performed successful recovery of
all of these floating items during previous landing attempts. An
unsuccessful barge landing would result in a very small debris field,
making recovery of debris relatively straightforward and efficient. All
debris recovered offshore would be transported back to Long Beach
Harbor.
Since the area impacted by debris is very small, the likelihood of
adverse effects to marine mammals is very low. Denser debris that would
not float on the surface is anticipated to sink relatively quickly and
is composed of inert materials which would not affect water quality or
bottom substrate potentially used by marine mammals. The rate of
deposition would vary with the type of debris; however, none of the
debris is so dense or large that benthic habitat would be degraded.
Also, the area that would be impacted per event by sinking debris is
only a maximum of 0.17 acres (0.000706 km\2\), a relatively small
portion of the total 0.46 km\2\ potential impact area, based on a
maximum range of 384 m that a piece of debris would travel following an
explosion.
We have determined that the likelihood of debris from an
unsuccessful barge landing that enters the ocean environment
approximately 50 km offshore of VAFB resulting in the incidental take
of a marine mammal to be so small as to be discountable. Therefore the
potential effects of floating debris on marine mammals as a result of
the proposed activities are not considered further in this proposed
authorization.
Spilled Rocket Propellant
As described above, in the event of an unsuccessful landing attempt
at the contingency landing location, the Falcon 9 First Stage would
explode upon impact with the barge. At most, the First Stage would
contain 400 gallons of rocket propellant (RP-1 or ``fuel'') on board.
In the event of an unsuccessful barge landing, most of this fuel would
be consumed during the subsequent explosion. Residual fuel after the
explosion (estimated to be between 50 and 150 gallons) would be
released into the ocean. Final volumes of fuel remaining in the First
Stage upon impact may vary, but are anticipated to be below this high
range estimate. The fuel used by the First Stage, RP-1, is a Type 1
``Very Light Oil'', which is characterized as having low viscosity, low
specific gravity, and is highly volatile. Clean-up following a spill of
very light oil is usually not possible, particularly with such a small
quantity
[[Page 18581]]
of oil that would enter the ocean in the event of an unsuccessful barge
landing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Therefore, SpaceX would
not attempt to boom or recover RP-1 fuel from the ocean.
In relatively high concentrations, exposure to very light oils can
have a range of effects to marine mammals including skin and eye
irritation, increased susceptibility to infection, respiratory
irritation, gastrointestinal inflammation, ulcers, bleeding, diarrhea,
damage to organs, immune suppression, reproductive failure, and death.
The effects of exposure primarily depend on the route (internal versus
external) and amount (volume and time) of exposure. Although the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has established exposure levels for
kerosene and jet fuel (RP-1 is a type of kerosene) for toxicity in
mammals and the environment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2011), in reality it is difficult to predict exposure levels, even with
a known amount of fuel released. This is because exposure level is
dependent not only on the amount of fuel in the spill area, but also on
unpredictable factors, including the behavior of the animal and the
amount of fuel it contacts, ingests, or inhales.
However, precluding these factors is the overall risk of a marine
mammal being within the fuel spill area before the RP-1 dissipates.
This risk depends primarily on how quickly RP-1 dissipates in the
environment and the area affected by the spill. Since RP-1 is lighter
than water and almost completely immiscible (i.e. very little will
dissolve into the water column), RP-1 would stay on top of the water's
surface. Due to its low viscosity, it would rapidly spread into a very
thin layer (several hundred nanometers) on the surface of water and
would continue to spread as a function of sea surface, wind, current,
and wave conditions. This spreading rapidly reduces the concentration
of RP-1 on the water surface at any one location and exposes more
surface area of the fuel to the atmosphere, thus increasing the amount
of RP-1 that is able to evaporate.
RP-1 is highly volatile and evaporates rapidly when exposed to the
air (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The evaporation rate for jet
fuel (a kerosene similar to RP-1) on water, can be determined by the
following equation from Fingas (2013): %EV = (0.59 + 0.13T)/t, where
%EV is the percent of mass evaporated within a given time in minutes
(t) at a given temperature in [deg]C (T). Using an assumed air
temperature of 50 [deg]F (10 [deg]C), the percent of mass evaporated
versus time can be determined (see Figure 14 in the IHA application).
Although it would require one to two days for the RP-1 to completely
dissipate, over 90 percent of its mass would evaporate within the first
seven minutes and 99 percent of its mass would evaporate within the
first hour (see Figure 14 in the IHA application). In the event of
adverse ocean conditions (e.g., large swells, large waves) and weather
conditions (e.g., fog, rain, high winds) RP[hyphen]1 would be
volatilized more rapidly due to increased agitation and thus dissipate
even more quickly and further reduce the likelihood of exposure.
Since RP-1 would remain on the surface of the water, in order for a
marine mammal to be directly exposed to RP-1, it would have to surface
within the spill area very soon after the spill occurred (on the order
of minutes). Given the relatively small volume of RP-1 that would be
spilled (50 to 150 gallons), the exposure area would be relatively
small and thus it would be unlikely that a marine mammal would be
within the exposure area. Based on the thinness of the layer of RP-1 on
the water surface, spreading on the surface (thus rapidly reducing
concentration), and rapid evaporation (further reducing concentration),
a marine mammal would need to be at the surface within the layer of RP-
1 and be exposed to a toxic level within a very short period of time
(minutes) after the spill to be affected. Similarly, since RP-1 would
be a very thin, rapidly evaporating layer on the water's surface, we do
not expect that fish or other prey species would be negatively impacted
to any significant degree.
We therefore have determined that the likelihood that spilled RP-1,
as a result of an unsuccessful barge landing that enters the ocean
environment approximately 50 km from shore, would have an effect on
marine mammal species is so low as to be discountable. Therefore the
potential effects of spilled rocket propellant are not considered
further in this proposed authorization.
Visual Stimuli
Visual disturbances resulting from Falcon 9 First Stage landings
have the potential to cause pinnipeds to lift their heads, move towards
the water, or enter the water. Pinnipeds hauled out at VAFB would
potentially be able to see the Falcon 9 First Stage landing at SLC-4W.
However, SpaceX has determined that the trajectory of the return flight
includes a nearly vertical descent to the SLC-4W landing pad (see
Figure 1-4 in the IHA application) and the contingency landing location
(see Figure 1-5 in the IHA application). As a result, there would be no
significant visual disturbance expected as the descending Falcon 9
First Stage would either be shielded by coastal bluffs (for a SLC-4W
landing) or too far away to cause significant stimuli (in the case of a
barge landing). Further, the visual stimulus of the Falcon 9 First
Stage would not be coupled with the sonic boom, since the First Stage
will be at significant altitude when the overpressure is produced
(described further below), further decreasing the likelihood of a
behavioral response. Therefore we have determined that the possibility
of marine mammal harassment from visual stimuli associated with the
proposed activities is so low as to be considered discountable.
Therefore visual stimuli associated with the proposed activities are
not considered further in this proposed authorization.
Acoustic Stimuli
In the following discussion, we provide general background
information on sound and marine mammal hearing before considering
potential effects to marine mammals from sound produced by the proposed
activities.
Description of Sound Sources
Acoustic sources associated with SpaceX's proposed activities are
expected to include: sonic booms; Falcon 9 First Stage landings; and
potential explosions as a result of unsuccessful Falcon 9 First Stage
landing attempts at the contingency landing location. Sounds produced
by the proposed activities may be impulsive, due to sonic boom effects
and possible explosions, and non-pulse (but short-duration) noise, due
to combustion effects of the Falcon 9 First Stage.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., sonic booms, explosions, gunshots,
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and
occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed
sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period
that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and
minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce
physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI,
[[Page 18582]]
1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient
signals of short duration but without the essential properties of
pulses (e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include
those produced by rocket launches and landings, vessels, aircraft,
machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, and vibratory pile
driving. The duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be
greatly extended in a highly reverberant environment.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have
longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically
measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a
measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a
constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude;
therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large
changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels
(SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the
context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa). One
pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted
over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the
sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1
[mu]Pa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's
position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are
referenced to a pressure of 1 [mu]Pa and all airborne sound levels in
this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 [mu]Pa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse, and is calculated by squaring all of the
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so
that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals,
and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the
frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and
Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended
that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on
measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. The lower and/or upper
frequencies for some of these functional hearing groups have been
modified from those designated by Southall et al. (2007). The
functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below
(note that these frequency ranges do not necessarily correspond to the
range of best hearing, which varies by species):
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): functional hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz (extended
from 22 kHz; Watkins, 1986; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 2007;
Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked
whales, and most delphinids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; now considered to
include two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus on the basis of recent
echolocation data and genetic data (May-Collado and Agnarsson, 2006;
Kyhn et al. 2009, 2010; Tougaard et al. 2010): Functional hearing is
estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
Pinnipeds: Functional hearing for pinnipeds underwater is
estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz to 100 kHz for Phocidae
(true seals) and between 100 Hz and 48 kHz for Otariidae (eared seals),
with the greatest sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
Functional hearing for pinnipeds in air is estimated to occur between
75 Hz and 30 kHz. The pinniped functional hearing group was modified
from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid
species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of
hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al.,
2013).
Acoustic Effects on Marine Mammals
The effects of sounds from the proposed activities might result in
one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing
impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral
disturbance, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004;
Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The effects of sounds on
marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the species,
size, behavior (feeding, nursing, resting, etc.), and depth (if
underwater) of the animal; the intensity and duration of the sound; and
the sound propagation properties of the environment.
Impacts to marine species can result from physiological and
behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic
signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type and severity of behavioral
impacts are more difficult to define due to limited studies addressing
the behavioral effects of sounds on marine mammals. Potential effects
from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as
behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort,
slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or
mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973).
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Marine mammals
exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt
et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS),
in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable, or
temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals depend on
acoustic cues for vital biological functions, (e.g., orientation,
communication, finding prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS may result
in reduced fitness in survival and reproduction. However, this depends
on the frequency and duration of TTS, as well as the biological context
in which it occurs. TTS of limited duration, occurring in a frequency
range that does not coincide with that used for recognition of
important acoustic cues, would have little to no effect on an
[[Page 18583]]
animal's fitness. Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause
PTS. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS does not (Southall et al., 2007).
The following subsections discuss TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical
effects in more detail.
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter,
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound
must be stronger in order to be heard. In terrestrial mammals, TTS can
last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). For sound
exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity
in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure
to the sound ends. Available data on TTS in marine mammals are
summarized in Southall et al. (2007).
Permanent Threshold Shift--When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be
total or partial deafness, while in other cases the animal has an
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter,
1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of sound
can cause PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that
mammals close to a sound source might incur TTS, there has been further
speculation about the possibility that some individuals might incur
PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of
permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single
exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit
PTS.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and
other terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level at
least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were
exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise time. Based on data from
terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS
threshold for impulse sounds is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS
threshold on a peak-pressure basis and probably greater than 6 dB
(Southall et al., 2007). On an SEL basis, Southall et al. (2007)
estimated that received levels would need to exceed the TTS threshold
by at least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for cetaceans,
Southall et al. (2007) estimate that the PTS threshold might be an M-
weighted SEL (for the sequence of received pulses) of approximately 198
dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s (15 dB higher than the TTS threshold for an
impulse). Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as
compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could occur.
Captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in
behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al., 2000,
2002, 2005). The animals tolerated high received levels of sound before
exhibiting aversive behaviors. Experiments on a beluga whale showed
that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received level of 207
kPa (30 psi) p-p, which is equivalent to 228 dB p-p, resulted in a 7
and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively.
Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within
four minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). In order for
marine mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the animals must be close
enough to be exposed to high intensity sound levels for a prolonged
period of time. The likelihood of PTS or TTS resulting from exposure to
the proposed activities is considered discountable due to the short
duration of the sounds generated by the proposed activities and the
data available on marine mammal responses to the stressors associated
with the proposed activities, which indicate that PTS and TTS are not
likely (as described below).
Non-auditory Physiological Effects--Non-auditory physiological
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals
exposed to intense sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble
formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage
(Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining such
effects are limited and many of these impacts result from exposure to
underwater sound and therefore are not relevant to the proposed
activities. In general, little is known about the potential for sonic
booms to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. The
available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level
above which non-auditory effects can be expected or any meaningful
quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that
might be affected in those ways. The likelihood of non-auditory
physiological effects resulting from exposure to the proposed
activities is considered discountable due to data available on marine
mammal responses to the stressors associated with the proposed
activities (as described below).
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes
in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement.
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific
and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. Behavioral state may affect the type of response as well. For
example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in
response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly
motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995;
NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have shown
pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud underwater
sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices) have been
varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral
changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; Thorson and
Reyff, 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 2003;
Nowacek et al., 2007).
The onset of noise can result in temporary, short term changes in
an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area.
These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995):
Reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle
response or aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas where sound sources
are located; and/or flight responses.
The biological significance of many of these behavioral
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral
modification could potentially be biologically significant if the
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. The onset of
behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both
external factors
[[Page 18584]]
(characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific
characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall et al.,
2007).
Auditory Masking
Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or
interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds.
Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by
another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or
higher levels. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-
intensity, sound could cause masking at particular frequencies for
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions.
Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds
important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances,
marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being
severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. If the coincident
(masking) sound were man-made, it could be potentially harassing if it
disrupted hearing-related behavior. It is important to distinguish TTS
and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which
occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in
TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not
considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral
effect. The likelihood of masking resulting from exposure to sound from
the proposed activities is considered discountable due to the short
duration of the sounds generated by the proposed activities (as
described below).
Acoustic Effects, Airborne
Marine mammals that occur in the project area could be exposed to
airborne sounds associated with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities, including sonic booms, landing sounds, and potentially
explosions, that have the potential to cause harassment, depending on
the animal's distance from the sound. Airborne sound could potentially
affect pinnipeds that are hauled out. Most likely, airborne sound would
cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation
to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause
hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such
as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon
their habitat and move further from the source. Hauled out pinnipeds
may flush into the water, which can potentially result in pup
abandonment or trampling of pups. Studies by Blackwell et al. (2004)
and Moulton et al. (2005) indicate a tolerance or lack of response to
unweighted airborne sounds as high as 112 dB peak and 96 dB rms.
Acoustic Effects of the Proposed Activities
As described above, the sound sources associated with the proposed
activities that have the potential to result in harassment of marine
mammals include: Sonic booms; landing noise; and potential explosions
associated with unsuccessful barge landing attempts. We describe each
of these sources separately and in more detail below.
Explosion Resulting From Unsuccessful Barge Landing Attempt
In the event of an unsuccessful barge landing, the Falcon 9 First
Stage would likely explode. Noise resulting from such an explosion
would introduce impulsive sound into both the air and the water. This
sound would be in the audible range of most marine mammals, even if the
duration is expected to be very short (likely less than a second). The
spacing of the landing attempts (no more than six over one year) would
likely reduce the potential for long-term auditory masking. However,
because of its intensity, the direct sound from an explosion has the
potential to result in behavioral or physiological effects in marine
mammals. The intensity of the explosion would likely vary depending on
the amount of fuel remaining in the Falcon 9 First Stage, but for our
analysis we assumed a worst-case scenario: That the largest possible
amount of fuel would be left in the First Stage upon impact.
Noise resulting from an unsuccessful barge landing would be
expected to generate an in-air impulsive sound pressure level up to 180
dB rms re 20[mu]Pa (ManTech 2015). NMFS's current acoustic criteria for
in-air acoustic impacts assumes Level B harassment of non-harbor seal
pinnipeds occurs at 100 dB rms re 20[mu]Pa, with Level B harassment of
harbor seals occurring at 90 dB rms re 20[mu]Pa (Table 2). No threshold
for Level A harassment for in-air noise has been established. To
determine whether harassment of pinnipeds was likely to occur as a
result of in-air noise from explosion of the Falcon 9 First Stage at
the contingency landing location, SpaceX performed modeling to
determine the distance at which the sound level from such an explosion
would attenuate to 90 dB rms re 20[micro]Pa (the lowest NMFS threshold
for pinniped harassment, as described above).
Table 2--NMFS Criteria for Acoustic Impacts to Marine Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Criterion definition Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-Water Acoustic Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A....................... PTS (injury) 190 dBrms for
conservatively based pinnipeds
on TTS. 180 dBrms for
cetaceans.
Level B....................... Behavioral disruption 160 dBrms.
for impulsive noise.
Level B....................... Behavioral disruption 120 dBrms.
for non-pulse noise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-Air Acoustic Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A....................... PTS (injury) None
conservatively based established.
on TTS.
Level B....................... Behavioral disruption 90 dBrms.
for harbor seals.
Level B....................... Behavioral disruption 100 dBrms.
for non-harbor seal
pinnipeds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18585]]
The explosion would generate an in-air impulsive noise that would
propagate in a radial fashion away from the barge. Based on the size of
the anticipated explosion, Sadovsky equations were used to calculate
peak received pressures (received levels are a function of charge
weight and distance from source) at sound pressure contour lines. Since
the sound pressure levels were peak levels, the approximate RMS values
were estimated by converting peak to RMS (peak pressure value * 0.707).
Then, these values were converted into dB re 20 [mu]Pa to determine
distances to defined contour levels and in-air acoustic threshold
levels for marine mammal harassment (see Figure 2-7 in the IHA
application). To generate realistic sound pressure contour lines,
atmospheric attenuation was included in the model. Calculations for
atmospheric attenuation included the following assumptions: The
explosion was assumed to be 250 hertz or less, relative humidity was
assumed to be 30 percent and air temperature was assumed to be 50
[deg]F (10 [deg]C). This model does not take into account additional
factors that would be expected to attenuate the blast wave further,
including: Sea surface roughness, changes in atmospheric pressure,
frontal systems, precipitation, clouds, and degradation when
encountering other sound pressure waves. Thus, the area of exposure is
likely to be conservative. Results indicated that an impulsive in-air
noise resulting from a Falcon 9 First Stage explosion at the barge
would attenuate to 90 dB rms re 20[micro]Pa at a radius of 26.5 km from
the contingency landing location (ManTech 2015). There are no pinniped
haulouts located within this area (See Figure 2-7 in the IHA
application); therefore in-air noise generated by an explosion of the
Falcon 9 First Stage during an unsuccessful barge landing would not
result in Level B harassment of marine mammals.
Explosions near the water's surface can introduce loud, impulsive,
broadband sounds into the marine environment. These sounds can
potentially be within the audible range of most marine mammals, though
the duration of individual sounds is very short. The direct sound from
an explosion would last less than a second. Furthermore, events are
dispersed in time, with maximum of six barge landing attempts occurring
within the time period that the proposed IHA would be valid. If an
explosion occurred on the barge, as in the case of an unsuccessful
barge landing, some amount of the explosive energy would be transferred
through the ship's structure and would enter the water and propagate
away from the ship. There is very little published literature on the
ratio of explosive energy that is absorbed by a ship's hull versus the
amount of energy that is transferred through the ship into the water.
However, based on the best available information, we have determined
that exceptionally little of the acoustic energy from the explosion
would transmit into the water (Yagla and Stiegler 2003). An explosion
on the barge would create an in-air blast that propagates away in all
directions, including toward the water's surface; however the barge's
deck would act as a barrier that would attenuate the energy directed
downward toward the water (Yagla and Stiegler 2003). Most sound enters
the water in a narrow cone beneath the sound source (within 13 degrees
of vertical). Since the explosion would occur on the barge, most of
this sound would be reflected by the barge's surface, and sound waves
would approach the water's surface at angles higher than 13 degrees,
minimizing transmission into the ocean. An explosion on the barge would
also send energy through the barge's structure, into the water, and
away from the barge. This effect was investigated in conjunction with
the measurements described in Yagla and Steigler (2003). The energy
transmitted through a ship to the water for the firing of a typical 5-
inch round was approximately six percent of that from the air blast
impinging on the water (Yagla and Stiegler 2003). Therefore, sound
transmitted from the blast through the hull into the water was a
minimal component of overall firing noise, and would likewise be
expected to be a minimal component of an explosion occurring on the
surface of the barge.
Depending on the amount of fuel remaining in the booster at the
time of the explosion, the intensity of the explosion would likely
vary. As indicated above, the explosive equivalence of the First Stage
with maximum fuel and oxidizer is 503 lb. of TNT. Explosion shock
theory has proposed specific relationships for the peak pressure and
time constant in terms of the charge weight and range from the
detonation position (Pater 1981; Plotkin et al. 2012). For an in-air
explosion equivalent to 500 lb. of TNT, at 0.5 feet the explosion would
be approximately 250 dB re 20[mu]Pa. Based on the assumption that the
structure of the barge would absorb and reflect approximately 94
percent of this energy, with approximately six percent of the energy
from the explosion transmitted into the water (Yagla and Stiegler
2003), the amount of energy that would be transmitted into the water
would be far less than the lowest threshold for Level B harassment for
both pinnipeds and cetaceans based on NMFS's current acoustic criteria
for in-water explosive noise (see Table 3). As a result, the likelihood
of in-water sound generated by an explosion of the Falcon 9 First Stage
during an unsuccessful barge landing attempt resulting in take of
marine mammals is considered so low as to be discountable.
Table 3--NMFS Acoustic Criteria for Impacts to Marine Mammals From Explosives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Level A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Species Behavioral (for Gastro- Mortality
>=2 pulses/24 TTS PTS intestinal Lung injury
hours) tract injury
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency Cetaceans...... Mysticetes...... 167 dB SEL...... 172 dB SEL or 187 dB SEL or 237 dB SPL/104 39.1 M1/3 91.4 M1/3
224 dB peak SPL. 230 dB peak SPL. psi. (1+[DRm/ (1+[DRm/
10.081]1/2 Pa- 10.081]1/2 Pa-
sec Where: M = sec Where: M =
mass of the mass of the
animal in kg animal in kg
DRm = depth of DRm = depth of
the receiver the receiver
in meters. in meters.
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans...... Most delphinids, 167 dB SEL...... 172 dB SEL or 187 dB SEL or
medium & large 224 dB peak SPL. 230 dB peak SPL.
toothed whales.
[[Page 18586]]
High-Frequency Cetaceans..... Porpoises and 141 dB SEL...... 146 dB SEL or 161 dB SEL or
Kogia spp. 195 dB peak SPL. 201 dB peak SPL.
Phocids...................... Elephant & 172 dB SEL...... 177 dB SEL or 192 dB SEL or
harbor seal. 212 dB peak SPL. 218 Db peak SPL.
Otariids..................... Sea lions & fur 195 dB SEL...... 200 dB SEL or 215 dB SEL or
seals. 212 Db peak SPL. 218 Db peak SPL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have determined that neither in-air noise nor underwater
noise associated with potential explosions from an unsuccessful Falcon
9 First Stage landing attempt at the contingency landing location would
result in take of marine mammals, explosions as a result of
unsuccessful landing attempts at the contingency landing location are
not considered further in this proposed authorization. The likelihood
of a Falcon 9 First Stage completely missing the barge during a landing
attempt, and directly impacting the surface of the water, is considered
to be so low as to be discountable; therefore this scenario is not
analyzed in terms of its potential to result in take of marine mammals.
Likewise, the likelihood of a Falcon 9 First Stage landing failure at
VAFB, resulting in an explosion of the First Stage on the SLC-4W
landing pad, is considered to be so low as to be discountable;
therefore this scenario is not analyzed in terms of its potential to
result in take of marine mammals.
Landing Noise
A final engine burn during the landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage,
lasting approximately 17 seconds, would generate non-pulse in-air noise
that could potentially result in hauled out pinnipeds alerting, moving
away from the noise, or flushing into the water. SpaceX determined that
the landing noise would generate non-pulse in-air noise of between 70
and 110 dB re 20 [mu]Pa centered on SLC-4W, but affecting an area up to
22.5 km offshore of VAFB (see Figure 2-5 in the IHA application)
(ManTech 2015). Engine noise would also be produced during Falcon 9
First Stage landings at the contingency landing location; the potential
area of influence for barge landings was estimated by extrapolating the
landing noise profile from a SLC-4W landing (see Figure 2-5 in the IHA
application). Engine noise during the barge landing is also expected to
be between 70 and 110 dB re 20 [mu]Pa non-pulse in-air noise affecting
a radial area up to 22.5 km around the contingency landing location
(see Figure 2-6 in the IHA application).
As described above, NMFS's current acoustic criteria for in-air
acoustic impacts assumes Level B harassment of non-harbor seal
pinnipeds occurs at 100 dB rms re 20[mu]Pa, with Level B harassment of
harbor seals occurring at 90 dB rms re 20[mu]Pa (Table 2). No threshold
for Level A harassment for in-air noise has been established. Based on
SpaceX's modeling of the propagation of noise from a Falcon 9 First
Stage landing, there are no pinniped haulouts within the area modeled
to be impacted by landing noise at 90 dB or greater, for either a
landing at VAFB (see Figure 2-5 in the IHA application) or a
contingency barge landing (see Figure 2-6 in the IHA application)
(ManTech 2015). Therefore we believe it is unlikely that hauled out
pinnipeds will be harassed by the noise associated with Falcon 9 First
Stage landings, either at VAFB or at the contingency landing location.
The noise associated with Falcon 9 First Stage landings would not be
expected to have an effect on submerged animals or those that spend a
considerable amount of time submerged, such as cetaceans. Therefore the
likelihood of take resulting from noise from a Falcon 9 First Stage
landing, either at VAFB or at the contingency landing location, is
considered so low as to be discountable. As such, landing noise is not
considered further in this proposed authorization.
Sonic Boom
During descent when the First Stage is supersonic, a sonic boom
(overpressure of high-energy impulsive sound) would be generated.
During a landing event at SLC-4W, the sonic boom would be directed at
the coastal area south of SLC-4W (see Figure 2-1 in the IHA
application). Acoustic modeling was performed to estimate the area of
expected impact and overpressure levels that would be created during
the return flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage (Wyle, Inc. 2015). The
boom footprint was computed using PCBoom (Plotkin and Grandi 2002; Page
et al. 2010). The vehicle is a cylinder generally aligned with the
velocity vector, descending engines first (see Figure 1-3 in the IHA
application). It was modeled via PCBoom's drag-dominated blunt body
mode (Tiegerman 1975), which has been validated for entry vehicles
(Plotkin et al. 2006). Drag is determined by vehicle weight and the
kinematics of the trajectory. Kinematics include the effect of the
retro burn. The model results predict that sonic overpressures would
reach up to 2.0 pounds per square foot (psf) in the immediate area
around SLC-4W (Figures 2-1 and 2-2) and an overpressure between 1.0 and
2.0 psf would impact the coastline of VAFB from approximately 8 km
north of SLC-4 to approximately 18 km southeast of SLC-4W (see Figures
2-1 and 2-2 in the IHA application). A significantly larger area,
including the mainland, the Pacific Ocean, and the NCI, would
experience an overpressure between 0.1 and 1.0 psf (see Figure 2-1 in
the IHA application). In addition, San Miguel Island and Santa Rosa
Island may experience an overpressure up to 3.1 psf and the west end of
Santa Cruz Island may experience an overpressure up to 1.0 psf (see
Figures 2-1 and 2-3 in the IHA application).
During a contingency barge landing event, an overpressure would
also be generated while the first-stage booster is supersonic. The
overpressure would be directed at the ocean surface no less than 50 km
off the coast of VAFB. The SLC-4W pad-based landing
[[Page 18587]]
overpressure modeling was roughly extrapolated to show potential noise
impacts for landing 50 km to the west of VAFB (see Figure 2-4 in the
IHA application). An overpressure of up to 2.0 psf would impact the
Pacific Ocean at the contingency landing location approximately 50 km
offshore of VAFB. San Miguel Island and Santa Rosa Island would
experience a sonic boom between 0.1 and 0.2 psf. Sonic boom
overpressures on the mainland would be between 0.2 and 0.4 psf.
Behavioral Responses of Pinnipeds to Sonic Booms
The USAF has monitored pinniped responses to rocket launches from
VAFB for nearly 20 years. Though rocket launches are not part of the
proposed activities (as described above), the acoustic stimuli (sonic
booms) associated with launches is expected to be substantially similar
to those expected to occur with Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings;
therefore, we rely on observational data on responses of pinnipeds to
sonic booms associated with rocket launches from VAFB in making
assumptions about expected pinniped responses to sound associated with
Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings.
Observed reactions of pinnipeds at the NCI to sonic booms have
ranged from no response to heads-up alerts, from startle responses to
some movements on land, and from some movements into the water to
occasional stampedes (especially involving California sea lions on the
NCI). We therefore assume sonic booms generated during the return
flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage may elicit an alerting or other
short-term behavioral reaction, including flushing into the water if
hauled out. NMFS considers pinnipeds behaviorally reacting to stimuli
by flushing into the water, moving more than 1 meter but not into the
water; becoming alert and moving more than 1 meter; and changing
direction of current movements as behavioral criteria for take by Level
B harassment. As such, SpaceX has requested, and we propose to
authorize, take of small numbers of marine mammals by Level B
harassment incidental to Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings associated
with sonic booms.
Data from launch monitoring by the USAF on the NCI has shown that
pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated with the level of the
sonic boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) have resulted in little
to no behavioral responses, including head raising and briefly alerting
but returning to normal behavior shortly after the stimulus (Table 4).
More powerful sonic booms have resulted in pinnipeds flushing from
haulouts. No pinniped mortalities have been associated with sonic
booms. No sustained decreases in numbers of animals observed at
haulouts have been observed after the stimulus. Table 4 presents a
summary of monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999 to 2011. These data
show that reactions to sonic booms tend to be insignificant below 1.0
psf and that, even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the animals present
have reacted to the sonic boom. Time-lapse video photography during
four launch events revealed that harbor seals that reacted to the
rocket launch noise but did not leave the haul-out were all adults.
Data from previous monitoring also suggests that for those
pinnipeds that flush from haulouts in response to sonic booms, the
amount of time it takes for those animals to begin returning to the
haulout site, and for numbers of animals to return to pre-launch
levels, is correlated with sonic boom sound levels. Pinnipeds may begin
to return to the haul-out site within 2-55 min of the launch
disturbance, and the haulout site usually returned to pre-launch levels
within 45-120 min. Monitoring data from launches of the Athena IKONOS
rocket from VAFB, with ASELs of 107.3 and 107.8 dB recorded at the
closest haul-out site, showed seals that flushed to the water on
exposure to the sonic boom began to return to the haul-out
approximately 16-55 minutes post-launch (Thorson et al., 1999a; 1999b).
In contrast, in the cases of Atlas rocket launches and several Titan II
rocket launches with ASELs ranging from 86.7 to 95.7 dB recorded at the
closest haul-out, seals began to return to the haul-out site within 2-8
minutes post-launch (Thorson and Francine, 1997; Thorson et al., 2000).
Monitoring data has consistently shown that reactions among
pinnipeds vary between species, with harbor seals and California sea
lions tending to be more sensitive to disturbance than northern
elephant seals and northern fur seals (Table 4). Because Steller sea
lions and Guadalupe fur seals occur in the project area relatively
infrequently, no data has been recorded on their reactions to sonic
booms. At VAFB, harbor seals generally alert to nearby launch noises,
with some or all of the animals going into the water. Usually the
animals haul out again from within minutes to two hours or so of the
launch, provided rising tides or breakers have not submerged the haul-
out sites. Post-launch surveys often indicate as many or more animals
hauled out than were present at the time of the launch, unless rising
tides, breakers or other disturbances are involved (SAIC 2012). When
launches occurred during high tides at VAFB, no impacts have been
recorded because virtually all haul-out sites were submerged. At San
Miguel Island, California sea lions react more strongly to sonic booms
than most other species. Pups may react more than adults, either
because they are more easily frightened or because their hearing is
more acute. Although California sea lions on San Miguel Island tend to
react to sonic booms, most disturbances are minor and temporary in
nature (USAF 2013b). Harbor seals also appear to be more sensitive to
sonic booms than other pinnipeds, often startling and fleeing into the
water. Northern fur seals often show little or no reaction. Northern
elephant seals generally exhibit no reaction at all, except perhaps a
heads-up response or some stirring, especially if sea lions in the same
area react strongly to the boom. Post-launch monitoring generally
reveals a return to normal patterns within minutes up to an hour or two
of each launch, regardless of species (SAIC 2012).
Table 4 summarizes monitoring efforts at San Miguel Island during
which acoustic measurements were successfully recorded and during which
pinnipeds were observed. During more recent launches, night vision
equipment was used. The table shows only launches during which sonic
booms were heard and recorded. The table shows that little or no
reaction from the four species usually occurs when overpressures are
below 1.0 psf. In general, as described above, elephant seals do not
react unless other animals around them react strongly or if the sonic
boom is extremely loud, and northern fur seals seem to react similarly.
Not enough data exist to draw conclusions about harbor seals, but
considering their reactions to launch noise at VAFB, it is likely that
they are also sensitive to sonic booms (SAIC 2012).
[[Page 18588]]
Table 4--Pinniped Reactions to Sonic Booms at San Miguel Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic boom
Launch event level (psf) Location Species & associated reaction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athena II (27 April 1999).............. 1.0 Adams Cove................ Calif. sea lion--866 alerted;
232 flushed into water
northern elephant seal--
alerted but did not flush
northern fur seal--alerted
but did not flush.
Athena II (24 September 1999).......... 0.95 Point Bennett............. Calif. sea lion--600 alerted;
12 flushed into water
northern elephant seal--
alerted but did not flush
northern fur seal--alerted
but did not flush.
Delta II 20 (November 2000)............ 0.4 Point Bennett............. Calif. sea lion--60 flushed
into water; no reaction from
rest Northern elephant seal--
no reaction.
Atlas II (8 September 2001)............ 0.75 Cardwell Point............ Calif. sea lion--no reaction
northern elephant seal--no
reaction harbor seal--2 of 4
flushed into water.
Delta II (11 February 2002)............ 0.64 Point Bennett............. Calif. sea lion--no reaction
northern fur seal--no
reaction northern elephant
seal--no reaction.
Atlas II (2 December 2003)............. 0.88 Point Bennett............. Calif. sea lion--40% alerted;
several flushed to water
northern elephant seal--no
reaction.
Delta II (15 July 2004)................ 1.34 Adams Cove................ Calif. sea lion--10% alerted.
Atlas V (13 March 2008)................ 1.24 Cardwell Point............ northern elephant seal--no
reaction.
Delta II (5 May 2009).................. 0.76 West of Judith Rock....... Calif. sea lion--no reaction.
Atlas V (14 April 2011)................ 1.01 Cuyler Harbor............. northern elephant seal--no
reaction.
Atlas V (3 April 2014)................. 0.74 Cardwell Point............ harbor seal--1 of ~25 flushed
into water; no reaction from
others.
Atlas V (12 December 2014)............. 1.16 Point Bennett............. Calif. sea lion--5 of ~225
alerted; none flushed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physiological Responses to Sonic Booms
To determine if harbor seals experience changes in their hearing
sensitivity as a result of sounds associated with rocket launches
(including sonic booms), Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) testing was
conducted on 14 harbor seals following four launches of the Titan IV
rocket, one launch of the Taurus rocket, and two launches of the Delta
IV rocket from VAFB, in accordance with NMFS scientific research
permits. ABR tests have not yet been performed following Falcon 9
rocket landings nor launches, however results of ABR tests that
followed launches of other rockets from VAFB are nonetheless
informative as the sound source (sonic boom) is expected to be the same
as that associated with the activities proposed by SpaceX.
Following standard ABR testing protocol, the ABR was measured from
one ear of each seal using sterile, sub-dermal, stainless steel
electrodes. A conventional electrode array was used, and low-level
white noise was presented to the non-tested ear to reduce any
electrical potentials generated by the non-tested ear. A computer was
used to produce the click and an 8 kilohertz (kHz) tone burst stimuli,
through standard audiometric headphones. Over 1,000 ABR waveforms were
collected and averaged per trial. Initially the stimuli were presented
at SPLs loud enough to obtain a clean reliable waveform, and then
decreased in 10 dB steps until the response was no longer reliably
observed. Once response was no longer reliably observed, the stimuli
were then increased in 10 dB steps to the original SPL. By obtaining
two ABR waveforms at each SPL, it was possible to quantify the
variability in the measurements.
Good replicable responses were measured from most of the seals,
with waveforms following the expected pattern of an increase in latency
and decrease in amplitude of the peaks, as the stimulus level was
lowered. Detailed analysis of the changes in waveform latency and
waveform replication of the ABR measurements for the 14 seals showed no
detectable changes in the seals' hearing sensitivity as a result of
exposure to the launch noise. The delayed start (1.75 to 3.5 hours
after the launches) for ABR testing allows for the possibility that the
seals may have recovered from a TTS before testing began. However, it
can be said with confidence that the post-launch tested animals did not
have permanent hearing changes due to exposure to the launch noise from
the sonic booms associated with launches of the rockets from VAFB (SAIC
2013).
NMFS also notes that stress from long-term cumulative sound
exposures can result in physiological effects on reproduction,
metabolism, and general health, or on the animals' resistance to
disease. However, this is not likely to occur as a result of the
proposed activities because of the infrequent nature and short duration
of the noise (up to six sonic booms annually). Research indicates that
population levels at these haul-out sites have remained constant in
recent years (with decreases only noted in some areas because of the
increased presence of coyotes), giving support to this conclusion.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
Impacts on marine mammal habitat are part of the consideration in
making a finding of negligible impact on the species and stocks of
marine mammals. Habitat includes rookeries, mating grounds, feeding
areas, and areas of similar significance. We do not anticipate that the
proposed activities would result in any temporary or permanent effects
on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area,
including the food sources they use (i.e. fish and invertebrates).
Behavioral disturbance caused by in-air acoustic stimuli may result in
marine mammals temporarily moving away from or avoiding the exposure
area but are not expected to have long term impacts, as supported by
over two decades of launch monitoring studies on the Northern Channel
Islands by the U.S. Air Force (MMCG and SAIC 2012).
Effects on Potential Prey and Foraging Habitat
The proposed activities would not result in in-water acoustic
stimuli that would cause significant injury or mortality to prey
species and would not create barriers to movement for marine mammal
prey. In the event of an unsuccessful barge landing and a resulting
explosion of the Falcon 9 First Stage, up to 25 pieces of debris would
likely remain floating (see Section 6.5.1 in the IHA application for
further details). SpaceX would recover all floating debris. Denser
debris that
[[Page 18589]]
would not float on the surface is anticipated to sink relatively
quickly and would be composed of inert materials. The area of benthic
habitat impacted by falling debris would be very small (approximately
0.000706 km\2\) (ManTech 2015) and all debris that would sink are
composed of inert materials that would not affect water quality or
bottom substrate potentially used by marine mammals. None of the debris
would be so dense or large that benthic habitat would be degraded. As a
result, debris from an unsuccessful barge landing that enters the ocean
environment approximately 50 km offshore of VAFB would not have a
significant effect on marine mammal habitat.
In summary, since the acoustic impacts associated with the proposed
activities are of short duration and infrequent (up to six events
annually), the associated behavioral responses in marine mammals are
expected to be temporary. Therefore, the proposed activities are
unlikely to result in long term or permanent avoidance of the exposure
areas or loss of habitat. The proposed activities are also not expected
to result in any reduction in foraging habitat or adverse impacts to
marine mammal prey. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not
expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual
marine mammals or their populations.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses.
SpaceX's IHA application contains descriptions of the mitigation
measures proposed to be implemented during the specified activities in
order to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected
marine mammal species and stocks and their habitats. The proposed
mitigation measures include the following:
Unless constrained by other factors including human safety
or national security concerns, launches will be scheduled to avoid,
whenever possible, boost-backs and landings during the harbor seal
pupping season of March through June.
We have carefully evaluated SpaceX's proposed mitigation and
considered their likely effectiveness relative to implementation of
similar mitigation measures in previously issued incidental take
authorizations to preliminarily determine whether they are likely to
affect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal
species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential
measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to
one another:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals;
(2) The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
(3) The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment
only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat
during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of SpaceX's proposed measures, we have
preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat. While we have determined
preliminarily that the proposed mitigation measures presented in this
document will affect the least practicable adverse impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, we will consider all
public comments to help inform our final decision.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result
in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should accomplish one or
more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both
within defined zones of effect (thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to stimuli that we associate with specific adverse
effects, such as behavioral harassment or hearing threshold shifts;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond
to stimuli expected to result in incidental take and how anticipated
adverse effects on individuals may impact the population, stock, or
species (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival) through any of the following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to
accurately predict pertinent information, e.g., received level,
distance from source);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to
accurately predict pertinent information, e.g., received level,
distance from source); and
[[Page 18590]]
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or
areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli.
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; or
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain
mitigation and monitoring measures.
SpaceX submitted a monitoring plan as part of their IHA
application. SpaceX's proposed marine mammal monitoring plan was
created with input from NMFS and was based on similar plans that have
been successfully implemented by other action proponents under previous
authorizations for similar projects, specifically the USAF's monitoring
of rocket launches from VAFB. The plan may be modified or supplemented
based on comments or new information received from the public during
the public comment period.
Proposed monitoring protocols vary according to modeled sonic boom
intensity and season. Sonic boom modeling will be performed prior to
all boost-back events. PCBoom, a commercially available modeling
program, or an acceptable substitute, will be used to model sonic
booms. Launch parameters specific to each launch will be incorporated
into each model. These include direction and trajectory, weight,
length, engine thrust, engine plume drag, position versus time from
initiating boost-back to additional engine burns, among other aspects.
Various weather scenarios will be analyzed from NOAA weather records
for the region, then run through the model. Among other factors, these
will include the presence or absence of the jet stream, and if present,
its direction, altitude and velocity. The type, altitude, and density
of clouds will also be considered. From these data, the models will
predict peak amplitudes and impact locations.
Marine Mammal Monitoring
Marine mammal monitoring procedures will consist of the following:
Should sonic boom model results indicate that a peak
overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then
acoustic and biological monitoring at VAFB will be implemented.
If it is determined that a sonic boom of 1.0 psf or
greater is likely to impact one of the Northern Channel Islands between
1 March and 30 June; a sonic boom greater than 1.5 psf between 1 July
and 30 September, and a sonic boom greater than 2.0 psf between 1
October and 28 February, then monitoring will be conducted at the
haulout site closest to the predicted sonic boom impact area.
Monitoring would commence at least 72 hours prior to the
boost-back and continue until at least 48 hours after the event.
Monitoring data collected would include multiple surveys
each day that record the species; number of animals; general behavior;
presence of pups; age class; gender; and reaction to booms or other
natural or human-caused disturbances. Environmental conditions such as
tide, wind speed, air temperature, and swell would also be recorded.
If the boost-back is scheduled for daylight; video
recording of pinnipeds on NCI would be conducted during the boost-back
in order to collect required data on reaction to launch noise.
For launches during the harbor seal pupping season (March
through June), follow-up surveys will be conducted within 2 weeks of
the boost-back/landing.
Acoustic Monitoring
Acoustic measurements of the sonic boom created during boost-back
at the monitoring location would be recorded to determine the
overpressure level.
Reporting
SpaceX will submit a report within 90 days after each Falcon 9
First Stage recovery event that includes the following information:
Summary of activity (including dates, times, and specific
locations of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities)
Summary of monitoring measures implemented
Detailed monitoring results and a comprehensive summary
addressing goals of monitoring plan, including:
[cir] Number, species, and any other relevant information regarding
marine mammals observed and estimated exposed/taken during activities;
[cir] Description of the observed behaviors (in both presence and
absence of activities);
[cir] Environmental conditions when observations were made; and
[cir] Assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of
monitoring measures.
In addition to the above post-activity reports, a draft annual
report will be submitted within 90 calendar days of the expiration of
the proposed IHA, or within 45 calendar days prior to the effective
date of a subsequent IHA (if applicable). The annual report will
summarize the information from the post-activity reports, including but
not necessarily limited to: (a) Numbers of pinnipeds present on the
haulouts prior to commencement of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities; (b) numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed as
noted by the number of pinnipeds estimated to have entered the water as
a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise; (c) for pinnipeds that
entered the water as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise,
the length of time(s) those pinnipeds remained off the haulout or
rookery; and (d) any behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that likely
were the result of stimuli associated with the proposed activities.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not authorized by the
proposed IHA (if issued), such as a Level A harassment, or a take of a
marine mammal species other than those proposed for authorization,
SpaceX would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources. The report would include the
following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities in
the 48 hours preceding the incident;
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 48
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with SpaceX to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SpaceX would not be able to
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines the cause of the injury or death is
unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a
moderate state of decomposition), SpaceX would immediately report the
incident to mailto: The Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS West Coast Region
Stranding Coordinator.
The report would include the same information identified in the
paragraph above. Authorized activities would be able to continue while
NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.
[[Page 18591]]
NMFS would work with SpaceX to determine whether modifications in the
activities are appropriate.
In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead MMO determines the injury or death is not
associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), SpaceX would report the incident
to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and NMFS West Coast Region Stranding
Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. SpaceX would provide
photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding
Network.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment];
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].''
SpaceX has requested, and NMFS proposes, authorization to take
harbor seals, California sea lions, northern elephant seals, Steller
sea lions, northern fur seals, and Guadalupe fur seals, incidental to
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities. All anticipated takes would
be by Level B harassment only, resulting from noise associated with
sonic booms and involving temporary changes in behavior. Estimates of
the number of harbor seals, California sea lions, northern elephant
seals, Steller sea lions, northern fur seals, and Guadalupe fur seals
that may be harassed by the proposed activities is based upon the
number of potential events associated with Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities (maximum 6 per year) and the average number of
individuals of each species that are present in areas that will be
exposed to the activities at levels that are expected to result in
Level B harassment.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur
incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent
of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then
incorporate information about marine mammal density or abundance in the
project area. We first provide information on applicable thresholds for
determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information
used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal
density or abundance information, and the method of estimating
potential incidences of take. It should be noted that estimates of
Level B take described below are not necessarily estimates of the
number of individual animals that are expected to be taken; a smaller
number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment
per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual,
especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or
site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of
foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by
the harassing activity.
Sound Thresholds
Typically NMFS relies on the acoustic criteria shown in Table 2 to
estimate the extent of take by Level A and/or Level B harassment that
is expected as a result of an activity. If we relied on the acoustic
criteria shown in Table 2, we would assume harbor seals exposed to
airborne sound at levels at or above 90 dB rms re 20 [mu]Pa, and non-
harbor seal pinnipeds exposed to airborne sound at levels at or above
100 dB rms re 20 [mu]Pa, would experience Level B harassment. However,
in this case we have the benefit of more than 20 years of observational
data on pinniped responses to the stimuli associated with the proposed
activity that we expect to result in harassment (sonic booms) in the
particular geographic area of the proposed activity (VAFB and the NCI).
Therefore, we consider these data to be the best available information
in regard to estimating take based on modeled exposures among pinnipeds
to sounds associated with the proposed activities. These data suggest
that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are dependent on the species,
the age of the animal, and the intensity of the sonic boom (see Table
4).
As described above, data from launch monitoring by the USAF on the
NCI and at VAFB have shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are
correlated to the level of the sonic boom. Low energy sonic booms (<
1.0 psf) have resulted in little to no behavioral responses, including
head raising and briefly alerting but returning to normal behavior
shortly after the stimulus. More powerful sonic booms have flushed
animals from haulouts (but not resulted in any mortality or sustained
decreased in numbers after the stimulus). Table 4 presents a summary of
monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999 to 2011. These data show that
reactions to sonic booms tend to be insignificant below 1.0 psf and
that, even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the animals present react
to the sonic boom. Therefore, for the purposes of estimating the extent
of take that is likely to occur as a result of the proposed activities,
we assume that Level B harassment occurs when a pinniped (on land) is
exposed to a sonic boom at or above 1.0 psf. Therefore the number of
expected takes by Level B harassment is based on estimates of the
numbers of animals that would be within the area exposed to sonic booms
at levels at or above 1.0 psf.
The data recorded by USAF at VAFB and the NCI over the past 20
years has also shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms vary
between species. As described above, little or no reaction has been
observed in harbor seals, California sea lions, northern fur seals and
northern elephant seals when overpressures were below 1.0 psf (data on
responses among Steller sea lions and Guadalupe fur seals is not
available). At the NCI sea lions have reacted more strongly to sonic
booms than most other species. Harbor seals also appear to be more
sensitive to sonic booms than most other pinnipeds, often resulting in
startling and fleeing into the water. Northern fur seals generally show
little or no reaction, and northern elephant seals generally exhibit no
reaction at all, except perhaps a heads-up response or some stirring,
especially if sea lions in the same area mingled with the elephant
seals react strongly to the boom. No data is available on Steller sea
lion or Guadalupe fur seal responses to sonic booms.
Exposure Area
As described above, SpaceX performed acoustic modeling to estimate
overpressure levels that would be created during the return flight of
the Falcon 9 First Stage (Wyle, Inc. 2015). The predicted acoustic
footprint of the sonic boom was computed using the computer program
PCBoom (Plotkin and Grandi 2002; Page et al. 2010). Modeling was
performed for a landing at VAFB and separately for a contingency barge
landing (see Figures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 in the IHA application).
The model results predicted that sonic overpressures would reach up
to 2.0 pounds psf in the immediate area around SLC-4W (see Figures 2-1
and 2-2 in the IHA application) and an overpressure between 1.0 and 2.0
psf would impact the coastline of VAFB
[[Page 18592]]
from approximately 8 km north of SLC-4W to approximately 18 km
southeast of SLC-4W see (Figures 2-1 and 2-2 in the IHA application). A
substantially larger area, including the mainland, the Pacific Ocean,
and the NCI would experience an overpressure between 0.1 and 1.0 psf
(see Figure 2-1 in the IHA application). In addition, San Miguel Island
and Santa Rosa Island may experience an overpressure up to 3.1 psf and
the west end of Santa Cruz Island may experience an overpressure up to
1.0 psf (see Figures 2-1 and 2-3 in the IHA application). During a
contingency barge landing event, an overpressure of up to 2.0 psf would
impact the Pacific Ocean at the contingency landing location
approximately 50 km offshore of VAFB. San Miguel Island and Santa Rosa
Island would experience a sonic boom between 0.1 and 0.2 psf, while
sonic boom overpressures on the mainland would be between 0.2 and 0.4
psf.
SpaceX assumes that actual sonic booms that occur during the
proposed activities will vary slightly from the modeled sonic booms;
therefore, when estimating take based on areas anticipated to be
impacted by sonic booms at or above 1.0 psf, haulouts within
approximately 8.0 km (5 miles) of modeled contour lines for sonic booms
at or above 1.0 psf were included to be conservative. Therefore, in
estimating take for a VAFB landing, haulouts were included from the
areas of Point Arguello and Point Conception, all of San Miguel Island,
the north western half of Santa Rosa Island, and northwestern quarter
of Santa Cruz Island (see Figure 2-2 and 2-3 in the IHA application).
For a contingency landing event, sonic booms are far enough offshore so
that only haulouts along the northwestern edge of San Miguel Island may
be exposed to a 1.0 psf or greater sonic boom (see Figure 2-4 in the
IHA application). As modeling indicates that substantially more
haulouts would be impacted by a sonic boom at or above 1.0 psf in the
event of a landing at VAFB versus a landing at the contingency landing
location, estimated takes are substantially higher in the event of a
VAFB landing versus a barge landing.
Description of Take Calculation
The take calculations presented here rely on the best data
currently available for marine mammal populations in the project
location. Data collected from marine mammal surveys represent the best
available information on the occurrence of the six pinniped species in
the project area. The quality of information available on pinniped
abundance in the project area is varies depending on species; some
species, such as California sea lions, are surveyed regularly at VAFB
and the NCI, while for others, such as northern fur seals, survey data
is largely lacking. See Table 5 for total estimated incidents of take.
Take estimates were based on ``worst case scenario'' assumptions, as
follows:
All six proposed Falcon 9 First Stage recovery actions are
assumed to result in landings at VAFB, with no landings occurring at
the contingency barge landing location. This is a conservative
assumption as sonic boom modeling indicates landings at VAFB are
expected to result in a greater number of exposures to sound resulting
in Level B harassment than would be expected for landings at the
contingency landing location offshore. Some landings may ultimately
occur at the contingency landing location; however, the number of
landings at each location is not known in advance.
All pinnipeds estimated to be in areas ensonified by sonic
booms at or above 1.0 psf are assumed to be hauled out at the time the
sonic boom occurs. This assumption is conservative as some animals may
in fact be in the water with heads submerged when a sonic boom occurs
and would therefore not be exposed to the sonic boom at a level that
would result in Level B harassment.
Actual sonic booms that occur during the proposed
activities are assumed to vary slightly from the modeled sonic booms;
therefore, when estimating take based on areas expected to be impacted
by sonic booms at or above 1.0 psf, an additional buffer of 8.0 km (5
miles) was added to modeled sonic boom contour lines. Thus haulouts
that are within approximately 8.0 km (5 miles) of modeled sonic booms
at 1.0 psf and above were included in the take estimate. This is a
conservative assumption as it expands the area of ensonification that
would be expected to result in Level B harassment.
California sea lion--California sea lions are common offshore of
VAFB and haul out on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB,
though pupping rarely occurs on the VAFB coastline. They haulout in
large numbers on the NCI and rookeries exist on San Miguel and Santa
Cruz islands. Based on modeling of sonic booms from Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery activities, Level B harassment of California sea lions
is expected to occur both at VAFB and at the NCI. Estimated take of
California sea lions at VAFB was calculated using the largest count
totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites from 2013-2015. These
data were compared to the modeled sonic boom profiles. Counts from
haulouts that were within the area expected to be ensonified by a sonic
boom above 1.0 psf, plus the buffer of 8 km as described above, were
included in take estimates; those haulouts outside the area expected to
be ensonified by a sonic boom above 1.0 psf, plus the buffer of 8 km,
were not included in the take estimate. The estimated number of
California sea lion takes on the NCI and at Point Conception was
derived from aerial survey data collected from 2002 to 2012 by the NOAA
Southwest Fishery Science Center (SWFSC). The estimates are based on
the largest number of individuals observed in the count blocks that
fall within the area expected to be ensonified by a sonic boom above
1.0 psf plus a radius of 8 km, based on sonic boom modeling. Estimates
of Level B harassment for California sea lions are shown in Table 5.
Harbor Seal--Pacific harbor seals are the most common marine mammal
inhabiting VAFB, congregating on several rocky haul-out sites along the
VAFB coastline. They also haul out, breed, and pup in isolated beaches
and coves throughout the coasts of the NCI. Based on modeling of sonic
booms from Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, Level B harassment
of harbor seals is expected to occur both at VAFB and at the NCI.
Estimated take of harbor seals at VAFB was calculated using the largest
count totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites from 2013-2015.
These data were compared to the modeled sonic boom profiles. Counts
from haulouts that were within the area expected to be ensonified by a
sonic boom above 1.0 psf plus a radius of 8 km were included in take
estimates; those haulouts outside the area expected to be ensonified by
a sonic boom above 1.0 psf plus a radius of 8 km were not included in
the take estimate. The estimated number of harbor seal takes on the NCI
and at Point Conception was derived from aerial survey data collected
from 2002 to 2012 by the NOAA SWFSC. The estimates are based on the
largest number of individuals observed in the count blocks that fall
within the area expected to be ensonified by a sonic boom above 1.0 psf
plus a radius of 8 km, based on sonic boom modeling.
It should be noted that total take estimates shown in Table 5
represent incidents of exposure to sound resulting in Level B
harassment from the proposed activities, and not estimates of the
number of individual harbor seals exposed. As described above, harbor
seals display a high degree of site fidelity to their preferred haulout
sites,
[[Page 18593]]
and are non-migratory, rarely traveling more than 50 km from their
haulout sites. Thus, while the estimated abundance of the California
stock of Pacific harbor seals is 30,968 (Carretta et al. 2015), a
substantially smaller number of individual harbor seals is expected to
occur within the project area. The number of harbor seals expected to
be taken by Level B harassment, per Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
action, is 2,157 (Table 5). We expect that, because of harbor seals'
site fidelity to haulout locations at VAFB and the NCI, and because of
their limited ranges, the same individuals are likely to be taken
repeatedly over the course of the proposed activities (six Falcon 9
First Stage recovery actions). Estimates of Level B harassment for
harbor seals are shown in Table 5.
Steller Sea Lion--Steller sea lions occur in small numbers at VAFB
(maximum 16 individuals observed at any time) and on San Miguel Island
(maximum 4 individuals recorded at any time). They have not been
observed on the Channel Islands other than San Miguel Island and they
not currently have rookeries on the NCI or at VAFB. Estimated take of
Steller sea lions at VAFB was calculated using the largest count totals
from monthly surveys of VAFB from 2013-2015. These data were compared
to the modeled sonic boom profiles. Counts from haulouts that were
within the area expected to be ensonified by a sonic boom above 1.0 psf
plus a radius of 8 km were included in take estimates; those haulouts
outside the area expected to be ensonified by a sonic boom above 1.0
psf plus a radius of 8 km were not included in the take estimate.
Estimates of Level B harassment for Steller sea lions are shown in
Table 5.
Northern elephant seal--Northern elephant seals haul out
sporadically on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB and at
Point Conception, but they do not currently breed or pup at VAFB or at
Point Conception. Northern elephant seals have rookeries on San Miguel
Island and Santa Rosa Island. They are rarely seen on Santa Cruz Island
and Anacapa Island. Based on modeling of sonic booms from Falcon 9
First Stage recovery activities, Level B harassment of harbor seals is
expected to occur both at VAFB and at the NCI.
Estimated take of northern elephant seals at VAFB was calculated
using the largest count totals from monthly surveys of VAFB haulout
sites from 2013-2015. These data were compared to the modeled sonic
boom profiles. Counts from haulouts that were within the area expected
to be ensonified by a sonic boom above 1.0 psf plus a radius of 8 km
were included in take estimates; those haulouts outside the area
expected to be ensonified by a sonic boom above 1.0 psf plus a radius
of 8 km were not included in the take estimate. The estimated number of
northern elephant seal takes on the NCI and at Point Conception was
derived from aerial survey data collected from 2002 to 2012 by the NOAA
SWFSC. The estimates are based on the largest number of individuals
observed in the count blocks that fall within the area expected to be
ensonified by a sonic boom above 1.0 psf plus a radius of 8 km, based
on sonic boom modeling.
As described above, monitoring data has shown that reactions to
sonic booms among pinnipeds vary between species, with northern
elephant seals consistently showing little or no reaction (Table 4).
USAF launch monitoring data shows that northern elephant seals have
never been observed responding to sonic booms. No elephant seal has
been observed flushing to the water in response to a sonic boom.
Because of the data showing that elephant seals consistently show
little to no reaction to the sonic booms, we conservatively estimate
that 10 percent of northern elephant seal exposures to sonic booms at
or above 1.0 psf will result in Level B harassment. Estimates of Level
B harassment for northern elephant seals are shown in Table 5.
Northern fur seal--Northern fur seals have rookeries on San Miguel
Island, the only island in the NCI on which they have been observed. No
haulout or rookery sites exist for northern fur seals at VAFB or on the
mainland coast, thus take from sonic booms is only expected on San
Miguel Island and not on the mainland. Comprehensive count data for
northern fur seals on San Miguel Island are not available. Estimated
take of northern fur seals was derived from northern fur seals pup and
bull census data (Testa 2013), and personal communications with subject
matter experts based at the NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory.
Northern fur seal abundance on San Miguel Island varies substantially
depending on the season, with a maximum of 6,000-8,000 seals hauled out
on the western end of the island and at Castle Rock (~1 km northwest of
San Miguel Island) during peak pupping season in July; the number of
seals on San Miguel Island then decreases steadily from August until
November, when very few seals are present. The number of seals on the
island does not begin to increase again until the following June (pers.
comm., T. Orr, NMFS NMML, to J. Carduner, NMFS, 2/27/16). As the dates
of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities are not known, the
activities could occur when the maximum number or the minimum number of
fur seals is present, depending on season. We therefore estimated an
average of 5,000 northern fur seals would be present in the area
affected by sonic booms above 1.0 psf.
As described above, monitoring data has shown that reactions to
sonic booms among pinnipeds vary between species, with northern fur
seals consistently showing little or no reaction (Table 4). As
described above, launch monitoring data shows that northern fur seals
sometimes alert to sonic booms but have never been observed flushing to
the water in response to sonic booms. Because of the data showing that
fur seals consistently show little to no reaction to sonic booms, we
conservatively estimate that 10 percent of northern fur seal exposures
to sonic booms at or above 1.0 psf will result in Level B harassment.
Estimates of Level B harassment for northern fur seals are shown in
Table 5.
Guadalupe fur seal--There are estimated to be approximately 20-25
individual Guadalupe fur seals that have fidelity to San Miguel Island.
The highest number of individuals observed at any one time on San
Miguel Island is thirteen. No haul-out or rookery sites exist for
Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland coast, including VAFB.
Comprehensive survey data on Guadalupe fur seals in the NCI is not
readily available. The estimated number of takes of Guadalupe fur seals
was based the maximum number of Guadalupe fur seals observed at any one
time on San Miguel Island (pers. comm., J. LaBonte, ManTech, to J.
Carduner, NMFS, Feb 29, 2016). Estimates of Level B harassment for
Guadalupe fur seals are shown in Table 5.
As described above, the take estimates shown in Table 5 are
considered reasonable estimates of the number of marine mammal
exposures to sound resulting in Level B harassment that are likely to
occur over the course of the project, and not necessarily the number of
individual animals exposed.
[[Page 18594]]
Table 5--Number of Potential Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals, and Percentage of Stock Abundance, as a Result
of the Proposed Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total estimated
Estimated takes per takes over the Percentage of
Species Geographic location Falcon 9 First duration of the stock abundance
Stage recovery proposed estimated taken
action IHA[supcaret]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal..................... VAFB \a\........... 366................ 12,942 7% *
Pt. Conception \b\. 488................
San Miguel Island 752................
\b\.
Santa Rosa Island 412................
\b\.
Santa Cruz Island 139................
\b\.
California Sea Lion............. VAFB \a\........... 416................ 56,496 19%
Pt. Conception..... n/a................
San Miguel Island 9,000..............
\c\.
Santa Rosa Island
\c\.
Santa Cruz Island
\c\.
Northern Elephant Seal.......... VAFB \a\........... 19................. 960 0.5%
Pt. Conception \d\. 1..................
San Miguel Island
\c\.
Santa Rosa Island 150................
\c\.
Santa Cruz Island
\c\.
Steller Sea Lion................ VAFB \a\........... 16................. 120 0.2%
Pt. Conception..... n/a................
San Miguel Island.. 4..................
Santa Rosa Island.. n/a................
Santa Cruz Island.. n/a................
Northern Fur Seal............... VAFB............... n/a................ 3,000 23%
Pt. Conception..... n/a................
San Miguel Island 500................
\c\.
Santa Rosa Island.. n/a................
Santa Cruz Island.. n/a................
Guadalupe Fur Seal.............. VAFB............... n/a................ 18 0.2%
Pt. Conception..... n/a................
San Miguel Island 3..................
\e\.
Santa Rosa Island.. n/a................
Santa Cruz Island.. n/a................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ VAFB monthly marine mammal survey data 2013-2015 (ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc. 2014, 2015 and VAFB,
unpubl. data).
\b\ NOAA Fisheries aerial survey data June 2002 and May 2004 (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
\c\ Testa 2013; USAF 2013; pers. comm., T. Orr, NMFS NMML, to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb 27, 2016.
\d\ NOAA Fisheries aerial survey data February 2010 (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
\e\ DeLong and Melin 2000; J. Harris, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm.
[supcaret] Based on six Falcon 9 First Stage recovery actions, with SLC-4W landings, per year.
* For harbor seals, estimated percentage of stock abundance taken is based on estimated number of individuals
taken versus estimated total exposures.
Analyses and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
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.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of
Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to
base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of
the number of marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral
harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as
the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number
of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all
the species listed in Table X, given that the anticipated effects of
this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to
be similar. There is no information about the nature or severity of the
impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of these species or
stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
Activities associated with the proposed Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb
or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may
result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral
disturbance) only, from in-air sounds generated from sonic booms.
Potential takes could occur if marine mammals are hauled out in areas
where a sonic boom above 1.0 psf occurs, which is considered likely
given the modeled acoustic footprint of the proposed activities and the
occurrence of pinnipeds in the project area. Effects on individuals
that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the
literature as well as monitoring from similar activities that have
received incidental take authorizations from NMFS, will likely be
limited to reactions such as alerting to the noise, with some animals
possibly moving toward or entering the water, depending on the species
and the psf associated with the sonic boom. Repeated exposures of
individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are
unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt
foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some
[[Page 18595]]
small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any
significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus
would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B
harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact
through use of mitigation measures described above.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior
(e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed),
the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level,
and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However,
if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the
stock or species could potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Flushing of pinnipeds into the water has
the potential to result in mother-pup separation, or could result in
stampede, either of which could potentially result in serious injury or
mortality and thereby could potentially impact the stock or species.
However, based on the best available information, no serious injury or
mortality of marine mammals is anticipated as a result of the proposed
activities.
Even in the instances of pinnipeds being behaviorally disturbed by
sonic booms from rocket launches at VAFB, no evidence has been
presented of abnormal behavior, injuries or mortalities, or pup
abandonment as a result of sonic booms (SAIC 2013). These findings came
as a result of more than two decades of surveys at VAFB and the NCI
(MMCG and SAIC, 2012). Post-launch monitoring generally reveals a
return to normal patterns within minutes up to an hour or two of each
launch, regardless of species. For instance, eight space vehicle
launches occurred from north VAFB, near the Spur Road and Purisima
Point haul-out sites, during the period 7 February 2009 through 6
February 2014. Of these eight Delta II and Taurus launches, three
occurred during the harbor seal pupping season. The continued use of
the Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout sites indicates that it is
unlikely that these rocket launches (and associated sonic booms)
resulted in long-term disturbances of pinnipeds using the haulout
sites. Moreover, adverse cumulative impacts from launches were not
observed at this site. San Miguel Island represents the most important
pinniped rookery in the lower 48 states, and as such extensive research
has been conducted there for decades. From this research, as well as
stock assessment reports, it is clear that VAFB operations (including
associated sonic booms) have not had any significant impacts on San
Miguel Island rookeries and haulouts (SAIC 2012). Based on this
extensive record, we believe the likelihood of serious injury or
mortality of any marine mammal as a result of the proposed activities
is so low as to be discountable. Thus we do not anticipate Level A
harassment will occur as a result of the proposed activities and do not
propose to authorize take in the form of Level A harassment.
The activities analyzed here are substantially similar to other
activities that have received MMPA incidental take authorizations
previously, including Letters of Authorization for USAF launches of
space launch vehicles at VAFB, which have occurred for over 20 years
with no reported injuries or mortalities to marine mammals, and no
known long-term adverse consequences to marine mammals from behavioral
harassment. As described above, several cetacean species occur within
the project area, however no cetaceans are expected to be affected by
the proposed activities.
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the
following factors:
1. The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may
reasonably be considered discountable;
2. The anticipated incidences of Level B harassment consist of, at
worst, temporary modifications in behavior (i.e., short distance
movements and occasional flushing into the water with return to
haulouts within at most two days), which are not expected to adversely
affect the fitness of any individuals;
3. The considerable evidence, based on over 20 years of monitoring
data, suggesting no long-term changes in the use by pinnipeds of
rookeries and haulouts in the project area as a result of sonic booms;
and
4. The presumed efficacy of planned mitigation measures in reducing
the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable
impact.
In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the
available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate
that the potential effects of the specified activity will be short-term
on individual animals. The specified activity is not expected to impact
rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in
population-level impacts. Based on the analysis contained herein of the
likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their
habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from SpaceX's Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities will have a negligible impact on the affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers Analysis
The numbers of proposed authorized takes would be considered small
relative to the relevant stocks or populations (23 percent for northern
fur seals; 19 percent for California sea lions; 7 percent for Pacific
harbor seals; less than 1 percent each for northern elephant seals,
Guadalupe fur seals and Steller sea lions). But, it is important to
note that the number of expected takes does not necessarily represent
of the number of individual animals expected to be taken. Our small
numbers analysis accounts for this fact. Multiple exposures to Level B
harassment can accrue to the same individuals over the course of an
activity that occurs multiple times in the same area (such as SpaceX's
proposed activity). This is especially likely in the case of species
that have limited ranges and that have site fidelity to a location
within the project area, as is the case with Pacific harbor seals.
As described above, harbor seals are non-migratory, rarely
traveling more than 50 km from their haul-out sites. Thus, while the
estimated abundance of the California stock of Pacific harbor seals is
30,968 (Carretta et al. 2015), a substantially smaller number of
individual harbor seals is expected to occur within the project area.
We expect that, because of harbor seals' site fidelity to locations at
VAFB and the NCI, and because of their limited ranges, the same
individuals are likely to be taken repeatedly over the course of the
proposed activities (maximum of six Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
actions). Therefore the number of exposures to Level B harassment over
the course of proposed authorization (the total number of takes shown
in Table 5) is expected to accrue to a much smaller number of
individuals. The maximum number of harbor seals expected to be taken by
Level B harassment, per Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action, is 2,157.
As we believe the same individuals are likely to be taken repeatedly
over the course of the proposed activities, we use the estimate of
2,157 individual animals taken per Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activity for the purposes of estimating the percentage of the stock
abundance likely to be taken.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
[[Page 18596]]
and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of
the mitigation and monitoring measures, we preliminarily find that
small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the
populations of the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
Potential impacts resulting from the proposed activities will be
limited to individuals of marine mammal species located in areas that
have no subsistence requirements. Therefore, no impacts on the
availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use are
expected.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The U.S. Air Force has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment
(EA) in accordance with NEPA and the regulations published by the
Council on Environmental Quality. It will be posted on the NMFS Web
site (at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/) concurrently with
the publication of this proposed IHA. NMFS will independently evaluate
the EA and determine whether or not to adopt it. We may prepare a
separate NEPA analysis and incorporate relevant portions of USAF's EA
by reference. Information in SpaceX's application, the EA, and this
notice collectively provide the environmental information related to
proposed issuance of the IHA for public review and comment. We will
review all comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete
the NEPA process, including a decision of whether to sign a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI), prior to a final decision on the IHA
request.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There is one marine mammal species (Guadalupe fur seal) listed
under the ESA with confirmed occurrence in the area expected to be
impacted by the proposed activities. The NMFS West Coast Region
Protected Resources Division has determined that the NMFS Permits and
Conservation Division's proposed authorization of SpaceX's Falcon 9
First Stage recovery activities are not likely to adversely affect the
Guadalupe fur seal. Therefore, formal ESA section 7 consultation on
this proposed authorization is not required.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to
issue an IHA to SpaceX, to conduct the described Falcon 9 First Stage
recovery activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base, in the Pacific Ocean
offshore Vandenberg Air Force Base, and at the Northern Channel
Islands, California, from June 30, 2016 through June 29, 2017, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided
next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if
issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from
June 30, 2016 through June 29, 2017.
(a) This IHA is valid only for Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base, in the Pacific Ocean offshore
Vandenberg Air Force Base, and at the Northern Channel Islands,
California.
2. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of SpaceX, its
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of
this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are the Pacific harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina richardii), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), Steller sea lion (eastern Distinct Population Segment,
or DPS) (Eumetopias jubatus), northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris), northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), and Guadalupe
fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi).
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 5 in the proposed IHA
authorization for numbers of take authorized.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or
death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the
Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is
prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this IHA.
3. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measure:
(a) Unless constrained by other factors including human safety or
national security concerns, launches will be scheduled to avoid,
whenever possible, boost-backs and landings during the harbor seal
pupping season of March through June.
4. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine
mammal and acoustic monitoring as described below.
(a) SpaceX must notify the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS,
by letter or telephone, at least 2 weeks prior to activities possibly
involving the taking of marine mammals;
(b) To conduct monitoring of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities, SpaceX must designate qualified, on-site individuals
approved in advance by NMFS;
(c) If sonic boom model results indicate that a peak overpressure
of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then acoustic and
biological monitoring at VAFB will be implemented.
(d) If sonic boom model results indicate that a peak overpressure
of 1.0 psf or greater is predicted to impact the Channel Islands
between March 1 and June 30, greater than 1.5 psf between July 1 and
September 30, and greater than 2.0 psf between October 1 and February
28, monitoring of haulout sites on the Channel Islands will be
implemented. Monitoring will be conducted at the haulout site closest
to the predicted sonic boom impact area;
(e) Monitoring will be conducted for at least 72 hours prior to any
planned Falcon 9 First Stage recovery and continue until at least 48
hours after the event;
(f) For launches during the harbor seal pupping season (March
through June), follow-up surveys will be conducted within 2 weeks of
the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery to monitor for any long-term adverse
effects on marine mammals;
(g) If Falcon 9 First Stage recovery is scheduled during daylight,
time-lapse photography or video recording will be used to document the
behavior of marine mammals during Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities;
(h) Monitoring will include multiple surveys each day that record
the species, number of animals, general behavior, presence of pups, age
class, gender and reaction to noise associated with Falcon 9 First
Stage recovery, sonic booms or other natural or human caused
disturbances, in addition to recording environmental conditions such as
tide, wind speed, air temperature, and swell; and
(i) Acoustic measurements of the sonic boom created during boost-
back at the monitoring location will be recorded to determine the
overpressure level.
5. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a report to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and
the West Coast Regional Administrator, NMFS, within 60 days after each
Falcon
[[Page 18597]]
9 First Stage recovery action. This report must contain the following
information:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
action;
(2) Design of the monitoring program; and
(3) Results of the monitoring program, including, but not
necessarily limited to:
(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to the Falcon
9 First Stage recovery;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed as noted by
the number of pinnipeds estimated to have moved more than one meter or
entered the water as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
activities;
(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have entered the water as a result
of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise, the length of time pinnipeds
remained off the haulout or rookery;
(v) Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that
were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities,
including sonic boom; and
(vi) Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of
modeled sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.
(b) Submit an annual report on all monitoring conducted under the
IHA. A draft of the annual report must be submitted within 90 calendar
days of the expiration of this IHA, or, within 45 calendar days of the
renewal of the IHA (if applicable). A final annual report will be
prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments
on the draft report from NMFS. The annual report will summarize the
information from the 60-day post-activity reports, including but not
necessarily limited to:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery
action;
(2) Design of the monitoring program; and
(3) Results of the monitoring program, including, but not
necessarily limited to:
(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to the Falcon
9 First Stage recovery;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed as noted by
the number of pinnipeds estimated to have entered the water as a result
of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities;
(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have moved more than one meter or
entered the water as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise,
the length of time pinnipeds remained off the haulout or rookery;
(v) Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that
were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities,
including sonic boom;
(vi) Any cumulative impacts on marine mammals as a result of the
activities, such as long term reductions in the number of pinnipeds at
haulouts as a result of the activities; and
(vii) Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of
modeled sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.
(c) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA
(as determined by the lead marine mammal observer), such as an injury
(Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, SpaceX will
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following
information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities in the 48
hours preceding the incident;
D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 48 hours
preceding the incident;
E. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
F. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
G. Fate of the animal(s); and
H. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with SpaceX to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SpaceX may not
resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
(2) In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less
than a moderate state of decomposition), SpaceX will immediately report
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West
Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
The report must include the same information identified in 6(c)(i)
of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident and makes a final determination on the
cause of the reported injury or death. NMFS will work with SpaceX to
determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to
the activities are appropriate.
(3) In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, scavenger damage), SpaceX will report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. SpaceX
will provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS. The cause of injury or death may be
subject to review and a final determination by NMFS.
6. Modification and suspension
(a) This IHA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder
fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS
determines that the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for SpaceX Falcon 9
First Stage recovery activities. Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final
decision on SpaceX's request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: March 25, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07191 Filed 3-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P