[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18809-18826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08948]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG818


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy Target and Missile Launch 
Activities on San Nicolas Island, California

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to target and missile 
launch activities on San Nicolas Island (SNI), California for the Naval 
Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), Point Mugu Sea Range 
(PMSR). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment 
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the 
specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible 
one-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and 
if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public 
Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments 
prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested 
MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the 
final notice of our decision. The Navy's activity is considered a 
military readiness activity pursuant to MMPA, as amended by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 3, 
2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments 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: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments 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 online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list

[[Page 18810]]

of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Summary of Request

    On December 13, 2018, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an 
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to target and missile launch 
activities on SNI. The application was deemed adequate and complete on 
April 10, 2019. The Navy's request is for take of California sea lions 
(Zalophus californianus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and northern 
elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) by Level B harassment only. 
Neither Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result 
from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
    NMFS has previously issued incidental take authorizations to the 
Navy for similar launch activities since 2001 with the current 
authorization in effect until June 3, 2019 (79 FR 32678; June 6, 2014 
and 79 FR 32919; June 9, 2014). Navy complied with all the requirements 
(e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous 
authorizations and information regarding their monitoring results may 
be found in the Potential Effects of Specified Activity on Marine 
Mammals and their Habitat and Estimated Take sections. This proposed 
IHA would cover one year of on-going activity for which Navy obtained 
prior authorizations. The on-going activity involves continuation of 
target and missile launches from SNI. The Navy is considering a 
subsequent IHA or renewal in 2020 as well as a request for incidental 
take regulations in 2021 for future activities.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    The Navy proposes to continue a target and missile launch program 
from two launch sites on SNI. Missiles vary from tactical and 
developmental weapons to target missiles used to test defensive 
strategies and other weapons systems. Some launch events involve a 
single missile, while others involve the launch of multiple missiles in 
quick succession. The Navy proposes to conduct up to 40 missile launch 
events from SNI, but the total may be less than 40 depending on 
operational requirements. Launch timing will be determined by 
operational, meteorological, and logistical factors. Up to 10 of the 40 
launches may occur at night, but this is also dependent on operational 
requirements and only conducted when required by test objectives. 
Airborne sound from these launch events may take pinnipeds that are 
hauled out on SNI by Level B harassment. All flights over SNI would be 
subsonic; therefore, there would be no sonic booms that could affect 
pinnipeds hauled out at sites on SNI.
    The purpose of these launches is to support training and testing 
activities associated with operations on the NAWCWD PMSR. The PMSR is 
used by the U.S. and allied military services to test and evaluate sea, 
land, and air weapon systems; to provide realistic training 
opportunities; and to maintain operational readiness of these forces. 
Some of the launches are used for practicing defensive drills against 
the types of weapons simulated by these missiles and some launches are 
conducted for the related purpose of testing new types of targets.

Dates and Duration

    The Navy is requesting an IHA for the continuation of specific 
launch activities at SNI for one year, from June 4, 2019 to June 3, 
2020. The timing of launch activities is variable and subject to test 
and training requirements, and meteorological and logistical 
limitations. To meet the Navy's operational testing and training 
requirements, up to 40 launch events may be conducted at any time of 
year, day or night. However, only 10 of the 40 launches per year may 
occur at night, but this is also dependent on operational requirements 
and only conducted when required by test objectives. No more than 25 
launches have occurred in any single year since 2001. Given the launch 
acceleration and flight speed of the missiles, most launch events are 
of extremely short duration. Strong launch sounds are typically

[[Page 18811]]

detectable near the beaches at western SNI for no more than a few 
seconds per launch.

Location of the Activity

    The Navy is proposing launch activities on SNI, California for 
testing and training activities associated with operations on the 
NAWCWD PMSR (see Figure 1-1 of the application). SNI is one of the 
eight Channel Islands in the Southern California Bight, located about 
105 kilometers (km) southwest of Point Mugu. The missiles are launched 
from one of several fixed locations on the western end of SNI. Missiles 
launched from SNI fly generally west, southwest, and northwest through 
the PMSR. The primary launch locations are the Alpha Launch Complex, 
located 190 meters (m) above sea level on the west-central part of SNI 
and the Building 807 Launch Complex, which accommodates several fixed 
and mobile launchers, at the western end of SNI at approximately 11 m 
above sea level. The Point Mugu airfield on the mainland, the airfield 
on SNI, and the target sites in the PMSR will be a routine part of 
proposed launch operations.
    Many of the beaches and rocky outcroppings around the perimeter of 
SNI are pinniped resting, molting, or breeding sites. The Alpha Launch 
Complex is approximately 2 km from the nearest beach where pinnipeds 
are known to routinely haul out. The Building 807 Launch Complex is 30 
m from the nearest pinniped haulout. However, few pinnipeds are known 
to haul out on the shoreline immediately adjacent to this launch site. 
Refer to Figure 1-2 of the application for launch sites and anticipated 
launch azimuths in relation to potentially affected pinniped haulout 
areas on SNI.

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

    Missiles are rocket-propelled weapons designed to deliver an 
explosive warhead with accuracy at high speed. Missiles vary from small 
tactical weapons that are effective out to only a few hundred feet to 
much larger strategic weapons that have ranges of several thousand 
miles. Almost all missiles contain some form of guidance and control 
mechanism and are therefore often referred to as guided missiles. 
Guided missiles have four system components: Targeting or missile 
guidance, flight system, engine, and warhead. A guided missile powered 
along a low, level flight path by an air-breathing jet engine is called 
a cruise missile. An unguided military missile, as well as any launch 
vehicle, is usually referred to as a rocket. Tactical guided missiles 
are generally categorized according to the location of the launch 
platform and target and include: Air-to-air, air-to-surface, surface-
to-air, anti-ship, and anti-tank (or assault).
    Missiles can be propelled by either liquid-fueled or solid-fueled 
rocket engines; however, solid fuel is preferred for military uses. 
Such engines commonly propel tactical guided missiles (i.e., missiles 
intended for use within the immediate area) toward their targets at 
twice the speed of sound. Cruise or ballistic missiles are designed to 
strike targets far beyond the immediate area, and are therefore also 
known as strategic missiles. Cruise missiles are jet-propelled at 
subsonic speeds throughout their flights, while ballistic missiles are 
rocket-powered only in the initial (boost) phase of flight, after which 
they follow an arcing trajectory to the target. As gravity pulls the 
ballistic warhead back to Earth, speeds of several times the speed of 
sound are reached. Ballistic missiles are most often categorized as 
short-range, medium-range, intermediate-range, and intercontinental 
ballistic missiles. Missiles weights range between 54-2,900 kilograms 
(kg), but total weight is dependent on fuel or boosters.
    Below is the number of launches that have occurred at SNI since 
2001 (Table 1) and the missile types that are proposed to be launched 
under this IHA. There have not been more than 25 launch events 
conducted in any given year since 2001.

 Table 1--The Total Number of Launches That Have Occurred Since 2001 at
                                   SNI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                        Time period                            launches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 2001 to October 2005................................           69
February 2006 to December 2009.............................           11
January 2010 to December 2014..............................           36
December 20015 to November 2018............................           30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missile descriptions are representative of some of the types of 
missiles typically launched from SNI. While this list is not inclusive 
of all potential missiles that could be launched annually, the 
descriptions and the sound profiles are representative of the diversity 
of the types of missiles typically launched. For information on the 
sound levels these missiles produce please refer to Section 1.2 of the 
application.
Rolling Airframe Missiles
    At SNI, Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAMs) are launched from the 
Building 807 Launch Complex, near the shoreline.
GQM-163A ``Coyote''
    The Coyote, designated GQM-163A, is an expendable Supersonic Sea-
Skimming Target (SSST) powered by a ducted-rocket ramjet. This missile 
is designed to provide a ground-launched, aerial target system to 
simulate a supersonic, sea-skimming Anti-Ship Cruise missile threat. 
The Coyote utilizes a previously installed launcher at the Alpha Launch 
Complex on SNI with a Launcher Interface Kit. Coyote launches are 
expected to be the primary large missile launched from SNI over the 
next several years. Coyotes are launched from the inland location 
(Alpha Launch Complex).
Multi-Stage Sea Skimming Target (MSST)
    The Multi-Stage Sea Skimming Target (MSST) is a subsonic cruise 
missile with a supersonic terminal stage that approaches its target at 
low-level at Mach 2.8. The MSST is launched from the Alpha Launch 
Complex on SNI.
Standard Missile (SM-2, SM-3, SM-6)
    The Standard family of missiles consists of a range of air defense 
missiles including supersonic, medium, and extended range surface-to-
air and surface-to-surface missiles. The Standard Missile 3 Block IIA 
(SM-3) is a ship-based missile system used to intercept short- to 
intermediate-range ballistic missiles as a part of the Aegis Ballistic 
Missile Defense System. Although primarily designed as an antiballistic 
missile defensive weapon, the SM-3 has also been employed in an anti-
satellite capacity against a satellite at the lower end of low Earth 
orbit. Similarly, the SM-6 is a vertically launched, extended range 
missile compatible with the Aegis Weapon System to be used against 
extended range threats. The SM-6 Block I/IA combines the tested legacy 
of the SM-2 propulsion system and warhead with an active radio 
frequency seeker modified from the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-
to-Air Missile. The new features allow for over-the-horizon 
engagements, enhanced capability at extended ranges and increased 
firepower. To date, only the SM-3 has been launched from SNI.
Other Missiles That May Be Used During Launch Events
    The Navy may also launch other missiles to simulate various types 
of threat missiles and aircraft and to test other systems. For example, 
on August 23, 2002, a Tactical Tomahawk was launched from Building 807 
Launch Complex. A Falcon was launched from the Alpha Launch Complex.

[[Page 18812]]

    Missiles of the BQM-34, BQM-74, or BQM-177 aerial target type could 
also be launched. These are small, unmanned aircraft that are launched 
using jet-assisted take-off rocket bottles; they then continue offshore 
powered by small turbojet engines. If launches of other missile types 
occur, they would be included within the total of 40 launches 
anticipated per year.
General Launch Operations
    Aircraft and helicopter flights between the Point Mugu airfield on 
the mainland, the airfield on SNI, and the target sites in the PMSR are 
a routine part of a planned launch operation. These flights generally 
do not pass at low level over the beaches where pinnipeds are expected 
to be hauled out. Aircraft and helicopters will maintain a minimum 
altitude of 305 m from pinniped haulouts and rookeries, with some 
exceptions, like emergencies, and are not expected to result in any 
incidental take of pinnipeds.
    Movements of personnel are restricted near the launch sites at 
least several hours prior to a launch for safety reasons. No personnel 
are allowed on the western end of SNI during launches. Movements of 
personnel or missiles near pinniped haulout sites and rookeries are 
also restricted at other times of the year for purposes of 
environmental protection and preservation of cultural resource sites.
    Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are 
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed 
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy's application summarize available 
information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat 
preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected 
species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats 
may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 2 below lists all species with expected potential for 
occurrence in the project area and summarizes information related to 
the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and 
ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, 
we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2018). PBR is defined by the MMPA as 
the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that 
may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in 
NMFS' SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS' U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs (Carretta et al., 2018). All values 
presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of 
publication (draft SARs available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
    Marine mammal species likelihood of occurrence (designated as 
``unlikely,'' ``potential'' or ``likely'') was determined through 
review of NMFS SARs, species-specific literature research, and SNI 
monitoring reports (Table 2). ``Unlikely'' means occurrence is not 
expected, ``potential'' means the species may occur or there is casual 
occurrence history, and ``likely'' means there is a strong possibility 
of or regular occurrence in the project area.
    The Channel Islands, located in the Southern California Bight, are 
inhabited by large populations of pinnipeds. California sea lions, 
northern elephant seals, and harbor seals are the most numerous 
pinniped species at the Channel Islands (Lowry et al., 2008; Lowry et 
al., 2014; Lowry et al., 2017). California sea lions and harbor seals 
are found at all of the Channel Islands (Lowry et al., 2008; Lowry et 
al., 2014; Lowry et al., 2017). Northern fur seals (Callorhinus 
ursinus) have only been observed at a single island, and Steller sea 
lions (Eumetopias jubatus) and Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus 
philippii townsendi) are rare visitors to the Channel Islands (Bonnell 
et al., 1980; Stewart and Yochem, 1984; Orr, et al., 2012). SNI is one 
of the islands within the Channel Islands where pinnipeds occur.
    Six species of pinnipeds have been observed on SNI. All pinniped 
species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are 
included in Table 2. As described below, three pinniped species (with 
three managed stocks) temporally and spatially co-occur with the 
activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. The 
three pinniped species likely to occur on shore in the activity area 
either regularly or in large numbers during certain times of the year 
are California sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals, 
and we propose authorizing take for these species.
    An additional three pinniped species haul out rarely or 
occasionally on SNI. These include the northern fur seal, the Guadalupe 
fur seal, and the Steller sea lion. The temporal and/or spatial 
occurrence of these three additional pinniped species is such that take 
is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the 
explanation provided below in this section.

                                                 Table 2--Marine Mammals Occurrence in the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                ESA/MMPA       Stock abundance
                                                                                 status;       (CV, Nmin, most               Annual M/
           Common name               Scientific name           Stock          strategic (Y/   recent  abundance      PBR       SI \3\      Occurrence
                                                                                 N) \1\          survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
 sea lions):
    California sea lion..........  Zalophus             U.S................  -, -, N         257,606 (N/A,           14,011      >=319  Likely.
                                    californianus.                                            233,515, 2014).
    Northern Fur Seal............  Callorhinus ursinus  CA.................  -, D, N         14,050 (N/A, 7,524,        451        1.8  Potential.
                                                                                              2013).
    Steller Sea Lion.............  Eumetopias jubatus.  Eastern............  T, D, Y         41,638 (see SAR,         2,498        108  Unlikely.
                                                                                              41,638, 2015).

[[Page 18813]]

 
    Guadalupe Fur Seal...........  Arctocephalus        Mexico.............  T, D, Y         20,000 (N/A,               542      >=3.2  Potential.
                                    philippii                                                 15,830, 2010).
                                    townsendi.
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Harbor Seal..................  Phoca vitulina.....  CA.................  -, -, N         30,968 (N/A,             1,641         43  Likely.
                                                                                              27,348, 2012).
    Northern Elephant Seal.......  Mirounga             CA Breeding........  -, -, N         179,000 (N/A,            4,882        8.8  Likely.
                                    angustirostris.                                           81,368, 2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
Note: Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization.

    Distribution of California sea lions, harbor seals, and harbor 
seals on SNI, as well as on the other Channel Islands, was conducted 
during the NMFS' Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) July 2011-
2015 survey. In 1987, the SWFSC began using aerial photography at the 
Channel Islands to census pinnipeds. Years later, the survey expanded 
to include all the Channel Islands in aerial surveys). July surveys are 
intended to census California sea lions after all pups have been born 
to monitor population trends and abundance of the U.S. population and 
to collect summer residence count-data for northern elephant seals and 
harbors seals (Lowry et al., 20187b). The perimeter of each SNI was 
divided into small area-coded units to describe intra-island 
distribution of pinnipeds as shown in Figure 1 below. We include Figure 
1 here as a reference when describing some of the census data by Lowry 
et al. (2017b) below and later in the Estimated Take section, to 
describe what areas may be impacted by launch events and where the Navy 
is monitoring pinnipeds.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 18814]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02MY19.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

California Sea Lion

    The California sea lion is by far the most common pinniped on SNI. 
This species hauls out at many sites along the south side of SNI and at 
some sites on the western part of the island. Peak abundance of 
California sea lions is during June and July (breeding season) and 
pupping occurs on the beaches from mid-May to mid-July. Female 
California sea lions with pups haul out during most of the year at SNI. 
Females nurse their pups for about eight days before coming into estrus 
and then begin an alternating pattern of foraging at sea and nursing 
the pup on land; this pattern may last for eight months (with some pups 
nursing up to one year after birth). Many juveniles move north to 
forage although some continue to periodically haul out at SNI.
    Barlow et al. (1997) reported that 47 percent of the U.S. stock, or 
49 percent of the PMSR population, used the shoreline of SNI to breed, 
pup, or haul out in 1994. The population of California sea lions at SNI 
generally grew from 1975-2014 with inter-annual variability due to 
intermittent El Ni[ntilde]o events (Lowry et al., 2017a). During July 
2011-2015 surveys, SNI had the second largest number of California sea 
lions among the Channel Islands and averaged 52,634.8 individuals per 
year (SD = 9,899.0) (Lowry et al., 2017b) (see Table 3 of the 
application). California sea lions were not uniformly distributed 
around the perimeter of SNI, but had the most total numbers of at Areas 
D, H, L and Q (see Figure 1). California sea lions continue to expand 
their range and occupy new areas on SNI (Lowry et al., 2017a; Lowry et 
al., 2017b). Over the course of the year, over 100,000 sea lions use 
SNI. Please refer to the application for additional information on 
California sea lions on SNI.

Harbor Seals

    Peak abundance of harbor seals is during late-May to early June 
(molt season in southern California) and pupping occurs on the beaches 
from February to May. The California population of harbor seals 
increased between 1981 and 2004 but this increase has slowed since 1995 
with a decrease after 2005 (see Figure 4.1 of the application) 
(Carretta et al., 2017). Counts from 1975 to 2012 fluctuated between 
128 and 858 harbor seals, based on peak counts (Fluharty 1999; Le Boeuf 
et al., 1978; Lowry et al., 2008; Lowry pers. comm. as cited in the 
application). During May-July 2002, 2004, 2007, and 2009, 584, 784, 858 
and 754 harbor seals were hauled out on SNI respectively, representing 
between about 15 and 18 percent of the harbor seals in the Channel 
Islands (Lowry et al., 2008). During July 2011-2015 surveys, harbor 
seal counts on SNI were variable, ranging from 229 to 673 during the 
period from 2011 to 2015 (Lowry et al., 2017b). Lowry et al. (2017b) 
only counted 259 harbor seals on SNI in 2015 (18.9 percent of harbor 
seals in the Channel Islands). Harbor seals were not uniformly 
distributed around the perimeter of SNI. Harbor seals at SNI were 
mostly found in areas L, N, and Q (see Figure 1) (Lowry et al., 2017b).

[[Page 18815]]

Please refer to the application for additional information on harbor 
seals on SNI.

Northern Elephant Seal

    Peak abundance for northern elephant seals at SNI is during January 
and February (breeding season). Northern elephant seals also haul out 
during the molting periods in the spring and summer, and smaller 
numbers haul out at other times of year. Given that elephant seals 
forage in areas that are a great distance from SNI and the PMSR, with 
adult males foraging as far north as the Aleutian Islands, and adult 
females in the north-central Pacific Ocean, it is unlikely that large 
numbers are present outside of the breeding season at PMSR at any one 
time. Pupping occurs on beaches at SNI from January to early February, 
and pups are typically weaned through March. During this period, they 
undergo their first molt (Le Boeuf and Laws 1994). By the end of April, 
80 percent of pups have left the rookery, and the remainder leave in 
May.
    SNI is currently the second largest elephant seal rookery and 
haulout in Southern California (Lowry et al., 2017b). In July 2015, 
when all of the Channel Islands were surveyed for elephant seals, 
approximately 62 percent of northern elephant seals hauled out on San 
Miguel Island, approximately 20.5 percent on SNI, and 17 percent on 
Santa Rosa Island (Lowry et al., 2017b. Increasing numbers of elephant 
seals haul out at various sites around SNI, including the western part 
of the island. Northern elephant seals were not uniformly distributed 
around the perimeter of SNI, and Area K at SNI had the most northern 
elephant seals on island during the July 2011-2015 surveys (Lowry et 
al., 2017b) (see Figure 1). The timing of haul out by various age and 
sex categories of seals is reflected in the bi-modal peak pattern in 
the counts of hauled-out elephant seals on the island (Stewart and 
Yochem 1984). The population of northern elephant seals on SNI is 
likely increasing, based on recent counts (Lowry, pers. comm. 2018 as 
cited in the application). Please refer to the application for 
additional information on harbor seals on SNI.

Steller Sea Lions

    There are two distinct population segments (DPSs) identified in 
U.S. waters for the Steller sea lion: The Eastern U.S. stock, which 
includes animals born east of Cape Suckling, Alaska (at 144 degrees 
West longitude), and the Western U.S. stock, which includes animals 
born at and west of Cape Suckling (Loughlin 1998). Steller sea lions 
often disperse widely outside of the breeding season. A northward shift 
in the overall breeding distribution has occurred, with a contraction 
of the range in southern California and new rookeries established in 
Southeast Alaska (Pitcher et al., 2007).
    Steller sea lions are rare on the northern Channel Islands, and 
their nearest breeding rookery is in northern California. The Steller 
sea lion was once abundant in the waters off southern California, but 
numbers have declined since 1938. At San Miguel Island, formerly the 
southern extent of the species' breeding range, Steller sea lions are 
no longer known to breed; the last mature Steller sea lion was seen 
there in 1983 (DeLong and Melin 1999). Historically, Steller sea lions 
were sighted occasionally at SNI (Bartholomew and Boolootian 1960). A 
sub-adult male Steller sea lion was sighted at San Clemente Island on 
April 27, 2013 and individuals have been sighted at San Miguel Island 
and one adult male at SNI in 2010 (Lowry, pers. comm. as cited in the 
application.). While few Steller sea lion adults have been sighted 
recently at the Channel Islands, they are rare and it is unlikely any 
would be hauled out on SNI during launch events. Therefore, take of 
Steller sea lions is not proposed for authorization.

Guadalupe Fur Seal

    Guadalupe fur seal were abundant prior to seal exploitation, when 
they were likely the most abundant pinniped species on the Channel 
Islands, but are considered uncommon in Southern California. Guadalupe 
fur seal is an occasional visitor to the Channel Islands. Adult and 
juvenile male Guadalupe fur seals have been observed at San Miguel 
Island, California, since the mid-1960s (Melin and DeLong 1999), and 
sightings have also occurred at Santa Barbara, San Nicolas, and San 
Clemente Islands in the Channel Islands (Bartholomew 1950; Stewart 
1981b; Stewart et al., 1993). 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). Twenty-one 
sightings of Guadalupe fur seals were made on SNI from 1949 to 1986 
(Bartholomew 1950; Stewart 1981b; Stewart et al. 1987; G. Smith, 
NAWCWD, pers. comm.). Most sightings were either juveniles of 
undetermined sex or adult males. One male was observed in six 
consecutive years from 1981 to 1986: It was defending a territory 
amongst breeding California sea lions along the south shore 
approximately 6.9 km from the western tip of the island. A lone female 
was observed on the south side of SNI in the summer of 1997 (G. Smith, 
NAWCWD, pers. comm.). The first adult female at San Miguel Island was 
also seen in 1997. This fur seal 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 
Channel Islands in at least 150 years. A lone male Guadalupe fur seal 
was again seen defending a territory on the south shore of SNI between 
2006 and 2009 and again in 2012 (J. Laake, NOAA, pers. comm. as cited 
in the application.). Because only single individuals of this species 
have been seen on SNI since 1981 and the most recent observations were 
on the south shore far from launch operations, it is unlikely any 
Guadalupe fur seals would occur ashore during the proposed activities 
or be in the area impacted by missile launch sounds. Therefore, take of 
Guadalupe fur seals is not proposed for authorization.

Northern Fur Seal

    San Miguel Island and the adjacent Castle Rock are the only known 
rookeries of northern fur seals in California. Comprehensive count data 
for northern fur seals on San Miguel Island are not available, 
therefore the best available information on northern fur seal abundance 
on the northern Channel Islands comes from subject matter experts which 
indicates the population is at its maximum in summer (June-August) with 
an estimated 13,384 animals at San Miguel Island, with approximately 
half that number present in the fall (September and October) and 
approximately 50-200 animals present from November through May (pers. 
comm. Sharon Melin, NMFS MML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR). San Miguel 
Island is the only island in the northern Channel Islands on which 
northern fur seals have been observed, and on San Miguel Island they 
only occur at the west end of the island and on Castle Rock (a small 
offshore rock on the northwest side of the island) (pers. comm. Sharon 
Melin, NMFS MML, to J. Carduner, NMFS OPR). Given the limited sightings 
of northern fur seal on SNI, it is unlikely that northern fur seals 
would be impacted by missile launches. Missile launches are not 
expected to impact San Miguel Island where northern fur seals would be 
expected. Therefore, take of northern fur seals is not proposed for 
authorization.

[[Page 18816]]

Unusual Mortality Events

    Below, we include additional information about the marine mammals 
in the project area, that will inform our analysis, such as where 
Unusual Mortality Events (UME) have been designated. Two UMEs that 
could be relevant to informing the current analysis are discussed 
below. The Guadalupe fur seal UME in California is still active and 
involves an ongoing investigation.
California Sea Lion UME
    From January 2013 through September 2016, a greater than expected 
number of young malnourished California sea lions stranded along the 
coast of California. Sea lions stranding from an early age (6-8 month 
old) through to two years of age were consistently underweight without 
other disease processes detected. Of the 8,122 stranded animals in this 
age class, 93 percent stranded alive (n = 7,587, with 3,418 of these 
released after rehabilitation) and 7 percent (n = 531) stranded dead. 
Several factors are hypothesized to have impacted the ability of 
nursing females and young sea lions to acquire adequate nutrition. In 
late 2012, decreased anchovy and sardine recruitment (CalCOFI data July 
2013) may have led to nutritionally stressed adult females. Biotoxins 
were present at various times throughout the UME, and while they were 
not detected in the young sea lions (which were not eating), they may 
have impacted the adult females. Therefore, the role of biotoxins in 
this UME, via its possible impact on adult females, is unclear. The 
primary cause of the UME is related to shifts in distribution and 
abundance of sea lion prey items around the Channel Island rookeries 
during critical sea lion life history events (nursing by adult females, 
and transitioning from milk to prey by young sea lions). These prey 
shifts were most likely driven by unusual oceanographic conditions at 
the time due to the warm water blob and El Ni[ntilde]o. This 
investigation will soon be closed. NMFS staff recently confirmed that 
the mortality of pups and yearlings returned to normal in 2017 and 2018 
and the Working Group will be reviewing a closure package shortly (Deb 
Fauquier, NMFS, pers. comm. 2019). Please refer to NMFS' website at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2013-2017-california-sea-lion-unusual-mortality-event-california for more 
information on this UME.
Guadalupe Fur Seal UME
    Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur seals began along the entire 
coast of California in January 2015 and were eight times higher than 
the historical average (approximately 10 seals/yr). Strandings have 
continued since 2015 and have remained well above average through 2018. 
As of March 18, 2019, the total number of Guadalupe fur seals to date 
in the UME is 286. Strandings are seasonal and generally peak in April 
through June of each year. The Guadalupe fur seal strandings have been 
mostly weaned pups and juveniles (1-2 years old) with both live and 
dead strandings occurring. Current findings from the majority of 
stranded animals include primary malnutrition with secondary bacterial 
and parasitic infections. Additionally a few seals have had evidence of 
some biotoxin (domoic acid) exposure especially in 2015. The 
preliminary cause of this UME is related to ecosystems changes 
secondary to unusual oceanographic conditions such as the warm water 
blob and El Ni[ntilde]o. This UME occurred in the same area as the 
2013-2016 California sea lion UME. This investigation is ongoing but a 
closure package will be submitted shortly to the Working Group to 
consider (Deb Fauquier, NMFS, pers. comm. 2019). Please refer to 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2015-2019-guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortality-event-california for more 
information on this UME.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect 
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided 
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated 
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, 
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB 
threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception 
for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was 
deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
et al. (2007) retained. The functional group and the associated 
frequencies for this proposed IHA are indicated below in Table 4 (note 
that these frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite 
group, with the entire range not necessarily reflecting the 
capabilities of every species within that group).

   Table 4--Relevant Marine Mammal Functional Hearing Groups and Their
                       Generalized Hearing Ranges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Hearing group                 Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnipeds (in air)........................  75 Hz to 30 kHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Southall et al., 2007.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

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

Description of Sound Sources

    This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the 
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this 
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified 
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified 
activity on marine mammals found later in this document. Sound travels 
in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, 
velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that 
pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz 
(Hz) or cycles per

[[Page 18817]]

second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding 
points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds 
have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically 
attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower 
water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the 
``loudness'' of a sound and is typically described using the relative 
unit of the dB. A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the 
ratio between a measured pressure and a reference pressure and is a 
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; 
therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes 
in sound pressure. For airborne sound pressure, the reference amplitude 
is usually 20 [mu]Pa and is expressed as dB re 20 [mu]Pa. The source 
level (SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the 
source while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position.
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring 
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the 
square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for 
both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all 
values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of 
pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often 
used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because 
behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be 
better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
    Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa2-s) 
represents the total energy contained within a pulse and considers both 
intensity and duration of exposure. Peak sound pressure (also referred 
to as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-p) is the maximum instantaneous 
sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the 
source and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure. 
Another common metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure (pk-pk), which is 
the algebraic difference between the peak positive and peak negative 
sound pressures. Peak-to-peak pressure is typically approximately 6 dB 
higher than peak pressure (Southall et al., 2007).
    Animals are not equally sensitive to sounds across their hearing 
range, so weighting functions are used to emphasize ranges of best 
hearing and de-emphasize ranges of less or no sensitivity. In the 
Navy's application, there are three types of weighting considered for 
received source levels. F weighting means flat, so no weighting at all; 
M means M-weighting associated with Navy Phase III criteria and 
thresholds (Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and 
Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) Technical Report (U.S. 
Department of the Navy, 2017)) that considered new data on marine 
mammal hearing and the effect of noise on marine mammals. Separate 
weighting functions were developed for categories of marine mammals 
with the functions being appropriate in relation to the hearing 
abilities of the particular group of marine mammals (Mpa is the 
weighting function specifically for pinnipeds in air); and A weighting 
is weighted in regards to human hearing in air and seen in units of 
dBA. Weighting essentially acts as a filter to filter out sounds an 
animal/human is not as sensitive to or as susceptible to in terms of 
hearing loss. For example, when referring to Table 6-3 of the Navy's 
application for the range of sound levels of launch events, values are 
presented as F-, A-, and M-weighted where the values that are F or flat 
weighted are the highest (no sound filtered), while M-weighted values 
are higher than A weighted (in other words A weighting is filtering out 
more of the sound than M-weighting).
    Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: 
Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction 
between these two sound types is important because they have differing 
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to 
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see 
Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.
    Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic 
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur 
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds 
are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure 
to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may 
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal 
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical 
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
    Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or 
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; 
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals 
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g., 
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced 
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or 
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as 
those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received 
at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant 
environment.
    The effects of sounds on marine mammals are dependent on several 
factors, including the species, size, and behavior (feeding, nursing, 
resting, etc.) of the animal; the intensity and duration of the sound; 
and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to 
marine species can result from physiological and behavioral responses 
to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 
2008). The type and severity of behavioral impacts are more difficult 
to define due to limited studies addressing the behavioral effects of 
sounds on marine mammals. Potential effects from impulsive sound 
sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral 
disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury 
of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton 
et al., 1973).

Masking

    Any man-made noise that is strong enough to be heard has the 
potential to reduce (mask) the ability of marine mammals to hear 
natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from 
conspecifics and environmental sounds such as surf noise. However, the 
infrequent launch events (up to 40 per year) of which some will be 
small missiles, could cause masking, but it would be expected for no 
more than a very small fraction of the time during any single day 
(e.g., usually less than 2 seconds and rarely more than 5 seconds 
during a single launch). Occasional brief episodes of masking at SNI 
would have no significant effects on the ability of pinnipeds to hear 
one another or to detect natural environmental sounds that may be 
relevant. Due to the expected sound levels of the activities proposed 
and the distance of the activity from marine mammal habitat, the 
effects of sounds from the proposed activities are unlikely to result 
masking. Therefore, masking is not discussed further.

[[Page 18818]]

Temporary or Permanent Hearing Loss

    Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or 
permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. Received sound levels must 
far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary 
hearing impairment or temporary threshold shift (TTS). For transient 
sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to 
the duration of the sound. Received levels must be even higher for 
there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment, or permanent 
threshold shift (PTS). Although it is possible that some pinnipeds may 
incur TTS during launches from SNI, hearing impairment has not been 
measured for pinniped species exposed to launch sounds. Auditory 
brainstem response (i.e., hearing assessment using measurements of 
electrical responses of the brain) was used to demonstrate that harbor 
seals did not exhibit loss in hearing sensitivity following launches of 
large rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) (Thorson et al., 
1999; Thorson et al., 1998). However, the hearing tests did not begin 
until at least 45 minutes after the launch; therefore, harbor seals may 
have incurred TTS which was undetectable by the time testing was begun. 
There was no sign of PTS in any of the harbor seals tested (Thorson et 
al., 1999; Thorson et al., 1998). Since 2001, no launch events at SNI 
have exposed pinnipeds to noise levels at or exceeding those where PTS 
could be incurred.
    Based on measurements of received sound levels during previous 
launches at SNI (Burke 2017; Holst et al., 2010; Holst et al., 2005a; 
Holst et al., 2008; Holst et al., 2011; Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz and 
Greene Jr. 2012), the Navy expects that there is a very limited 
potential of TTS for a few of the pinnipeds present, particularly for 
phocids. Available evidence from launch monitoring at SNI in 2001-2017 
suggests that only a small number of launch events produced sound 
levels that could elicit TTS for some pinnipeds (Burke 2017; Holst et 
al., 2008; Holst et al., 2011; Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 
2012). Table 6-1 of the Navy's application present the TTS and PTS 
thresholds for impulsive sources (unweighted SEL) with the TTS 
threshold for phocids in air at 123 dB SEL (unweighted) and 146 dB SEL 
(unweighted) for otariids in air. In the 2017 monitoring report, the 
SEL-f for launches were between 94 and 117 dB SEL-f (with the SEL-A and 
SEL-Mpa being even lower). Sounds at these levels are not expected to 
cause TTS or PTS for pinnipeds. There was one launch event in 2017 
where the SEL-f at Dos Coves (associated with a Coyote launch from the 
Alpha Complex) exceeded the TTS value for phocids at 132.1 dB SEL-f; 
however, harbor seals were not hauled out on Dos Cove as they would be 
the most sensitive for hearing during these launches. Dos Cove is 
dominated by California sea lions and harbor seal do not normally 
frequent Dos Cove. Generally, harbor seals no longer haul out on 
beaches on the western side of SNI, but are north of the anticipated 
launch azimuths on Phoca Reef and Pirates Cove. Sound levels recorded 
from Coyote launches at Phoca Reef and Pirates Cove have been lower 
than those within the azimuth of the missiles launched at the western 
end of SNI. Also in the 2017 monitoring report, a sound level of 89.3 
dB SEL-f (73.7 SEL-A, 78.9 SEL-Mpa) was measured at Phoca Reef, well 
below the TTS threshold. In 2016, sound levels at Pirates Cove were 
measured at 94.9 dB SEL-f (85.4 SEL-A, 92.0 SEL-Mpa) and 93.9 dB SEL-f 
(83.4 SEL-A, 90.8 SEL-Mpa) during Coyote launch events, also well below 
the TTS threshold.
    In general, if any TTS were to occur to pinnipeds, it is expected 
to be mild and reversible. It is possible that some launch sounds as 
measured close to the launchers may exceed the permanent threshold 
shift (PTS) criteria, but it is not expected that any pinnipeds would 
be close enough to the launchers to be exposed to sounds strong enough 
to cause PTS. Due to the expected sound levels of the activities 
proposed and the distance of the activity from marine mammal habitat, 
the effects of sounds from the proposed activities are unlikely to 
result in PTS and therefore, PTS is not discussed further.

Non-Auditory Physical or Physiological Effects

    If noise-induced stress does occur in marine mammals, it is 
expected to occur primarily in those exposed to chronic or frequent 
noise. It is very unlikely that it would occur in animals, specifically 
California sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals, 
exposed to only a few very brief launch events over the course of a 
year. Due to the expected sound levels of the activities proposed and 
the distance of the activity from marine mammal habitat, the effects of 
sounds from the proposed activities are unlikely to result non-auditory 
physical or physiological responses and are not discussed further in 
this section.

Flushing or Stampede-Related Injury or Mortality

    It is possible that launch-induced stampedes could have adverse 
impacts on individual pinnipeds on the west end of SNI. Bowles and 
Stewart (1980) reported that harbor seals on San Miguel Island reacted 
to low-altitude jet overflights with alert postures and often with 
rapid movement across the haulout sites, especially when aircraft were 
visible. During missile launches in 2001-2017, there was no evidence of 
launch-related injuries or deaths (Burke 2017; Holst et al. 2010; Holst 
et al. 2005a; Holst et al. 2008; Holst et al. 2011; Ugoretz 2016; 
Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). On several occasions, harbor seals and 
California sea lion adults moved near and sometimes over older pups 
(i.e., greater than four months old) as the animals moved in response 
to the launches, but the pups were not injured (Holst et al., 2010; 
Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; Holst et al., 2011; Ugoretz 
and Greene Jr. 2012).

Disturbance Reactions

    Missile launches are characterized by sudden onset of sound, 
moderate to high peak sound levels (depending on the type of missile 
and distance), and short sound duration. Disturbance includes a variety 
of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous 
changes in activities, and displacement. Behavioral responses to sound 
are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend 
on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, 
reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other 
factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et 
al., 2007). Pinnipeds may be exposed to airborne sounds that have the 
potential to result in behavioral harassment, depending on an animal's 
distance from the sound and the type of missile being launched. Sound 
could cause hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal 
behavior, such as temporarily abandoning their habitat.
    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).

[[Page 18819]]

    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). These may 
be of limited relevance to the proposed activities given that airborne 
sound, and not underwater sound, may result in harassment of marine 
mammals as a result of the proposed activities; however we present this 
information as background on the potential impacts of sound on marine 
mammals. 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: Reduced/increased vocal 
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such 
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior; avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or 
flight responses (Richardson et al., 1995).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral 
modification could potentially be biologically significant if the 
change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. The onset of 
behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both 
external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and 
the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, 
motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict 
(Southall et al., 2007).
    Responses of pinnipeds on beaches exposed to acoustic disturbance 
arising from launches are highly variable. Harbor seals can be more 
reactive when hauled out compared to other species, such as northern 
elephant seals. Northern elephant seals generally exhibit no reaction 
at all, except perhaps a heads-up response or some stirring. If 
northern elephant seals do react, it may occur if California sea lions 
are in the same area mingled with the northern elephant seals and the 
sea lions react strongly. Responsiveness also varies with time of year 
and age class, with juvenile pinnipeds being more likely to react by 
leaving the haulout site. The probability and type of behavioral 
response will also depend on the season, the group composition of the 
pinnipeds, and the type of activity in which they are engaged. For 
example, in some cases, harbor seals at SNI appear to be more 
responsive during the pupping/breeding season (Holst et al. 2005a; 
Holst et al. 2008) while in others, mothers and pups seem to react less 
to launches than lone individuals (Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012), and 
California sea lions seem to be consistently less responsive during the 
pupping season (Holst et al. 2010; Holst et al. 2005a; Holst et al. 
2008; Holst et al. 2011; Holst et al. 2005b; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 
2012). Though pup abandonment could theoretically result from these 
reactions, site-specific monitoring data indicate that pup abandonment 
is not likely to occur as a result of the specified activity because it 
has not been previously observed. While the reactions are variable, and 
can involve abrupt movements by some individuals, biological impacts of 
these responses appear to be limited. The responses are not expected to 
result in significant injury or mortality, or long-term negative 
consequences to individuals or pinniped populations on SNI.

Monitoring Data

    Given this variability in responses as described above, the Navy 
assumes that behavioral disturbance will sometimes occur upon exposure 
to launch sounds with SELs of 100 dB or higher; but for harbor seals, 
this level may be lower. Previous monitoring at SNI has shown that 
California sea lions and harbor seals move along the beach and/or enter 
the water at Mpa-weighted SELs above 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa\2\[middot]s. 
Some harbor seals have been shown to leave the haulout site and/or 
enter the water at Mpa-weighted SELs as low as 60 dB re20 
[mu]Pa\2\[middot]s, although the proportion of animals reacting is 
smaller when levels are lower (Holst et al. 2005a; Holst et al. 2008; 
Holst et al. 2011; Holst et al. 2005b). Stampedes of California sea 
lions into the water are infrequent during launch events and even more 
so when received sound levels are below 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa\2\[middot]s 
(Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; Holst et al., 2011; Holst et 
al., 2005b). Nearly 20 years of monitoring data exists on pinniped 
responses to the stimuli associated with the proposed activities in the 
particular geographic area of the proposed activities. Therefore, we 
consider these data to be the best available information in regard to 
estimating take of pinnipeds to stimuli associated with the proposed 
activities. These data suggest that pinniped responses to the stimuli 
associated with the proposed activities are dependent on species and 
intensity of the stimuli. The data recorded by the Navy has shown that 
pinniped responses to launch noise vary depending on the species, the 
intensity of the stimulus, and the location (i.e., the western haulouts 
within the launch azimuths and where sound exposure would be 100 dB SEL 
or greater on SNI); but in general responses are generally brief and 
limited.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    Impacts on marine mammal habitat are part of the consideration in 
making a finding of negligible impact on the species and stocks of 
marine mammals. Habitat includes, but is not necessarily limited to, 
rookeries, mating grounds, feeding areas, and areas of similar 
significance. We do not anticipate that the proposed operations 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). While it is anticipated that 
the proposed activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain 
areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat is 
temporary and reversible and was considered in further detail earlier 
in this document, as behavioral modification. The main impact 
associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated 
noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, 
previously discussed in this notice.
    Various beaches around SNI are used by pinnipeds as places to rest, 
molt, and breed. These beaches consist of sand (e.g., Red Eye Beach), 
rock ledges (e.g., Phoca Reef), and rocky cobble (e.g., Bachelor 
Beach). Pinnipeds continue to use beaches around the western end of 
SNI, and indeed are expanding their use of some beaches despite ongoing 
launch activities for many years. Similarly, it appears that sounds 
from prior launches have not affected pinniped use of coastal areas at 
VAFB.
    Pinnipeds forage in the open ocean and in the waters near SNI; 
however, the airborne launch sounds would not persist in the water near 
SNI. Therefore, it is not expected that the launch activities would 
impact prey resources, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), or feeding success 
of pinnipeds. Three types of EFH are present in the activity area: 
Groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and highly migratory species, as 
well as canopy kelp Habitat Areas of Particular

[[Page 18820]]

Concern (HAPC). However, none of these types of EFH or HAPC will be 
impacted by the proposed activity.
    Boosters from missiles (e.g., jet-assisted take off rocket bottles 
for BQM drone missiles) may be jettisoned shortly after launch and fall 
on the island and would be collected, but are not expected to impact 
beaches. Fuel contained in these boosters is consumed rapidly and 
completely, so there would be no risk of contamination even in the very 
unlikely event that a booster did land on a beach or nearshore waters. 
Overall, the proposed missile launch activity is not expected to cause 
significant impacts or have permanent, adverse effects on pinniped 
habitats or on their foraging habitats and prey.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform NMFS' 
negligible impact determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines 
``harassment'' as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
(Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to 
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited 
to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to 
a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly 
altered (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form 
of disruption of behavioral patterns (and/or TTS, although only some 
missile launches have exceeded the level at which TTS onset might 
occur, particularly for phocids) for individual marine mammals 
resulting from exposure to airborne sounds from rocket and missile 
launch. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is 
neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to 
be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is 
estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area that will be 
ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence 
of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 
number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors 
can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction 
of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take 
estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring 
results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors 
considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of 
behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also 
informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source 
(e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 
bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to 
predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what 
the available science indicates and the practical need to use a 
threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for 
most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on 
received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. 
Generally, for in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that harbor seals exposed 
above received levels of 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms) will be behaviorally 
harassed, and other pinnipeds will be harassed when exposed above 100 
dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms). However, more recent data suggest that pinnipeds 
will be harassed when exposure is above 100 dB SEL (unweighted) 
(Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 
Analysis (Phase III) Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 
2017)). NMFS previously helped develop the Phase III criteria and has 
determined that the criteria and thresholds shown in Table 5 are 
appropriate to determine when Level B harassment by behavioral 
disturbance may occur as a result of exposure to airborne sound on SNI. 
This behavioral disturbance criterion was used to determine the areas 
that the Navy should monitor based on the sound levels recorded at the 
pinniped haul outs during launch events. This criterion is not being 
used to directly estimate the take, rather to assume areas within which 
pinnipeds hauled out on particular beaches may be harassed (based on 
the previous acoustic monitoring).

                         Table 5--Behavioral Threshold for Impulsive Sound for Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Species                           Level B harassment by behavior disturbance threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All pinniped species (in-air)...............  100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa2s SEL (unweighted).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thresholds have also been developed identifying the received level 
of in-air sound for the onset of TTS (no PTS is anticipated to occur) 
for pinnipeds and discussed previously in this document (U.S. 
Department of the Navy, 2017). The TTS/PTS threshold for pinnipeds (in-
air) are repeated here (see Table 6 below).

                                                        Table 6--TTS/PTS Thresholds for Pinnipeds
                                                                        [In-air]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Non-impulsive                                        Impulsive
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Group                         TTS threshold    PTS threshold    TTS threshold    TTS threshold    PTS threshold    PTS threshold
                                                        SEL \a\          SEL \a\          SEL \a\        peak SPL \b\       SEL \b\        peak SPL \b\
                                                       (weighted)       (weighted)       (weighted)      (unweighted)      (weighted)      (unweighted)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OA \c\............................................              157              177              146              170              161              176

[[Page 18821]]

 
PA \d\............................................              134              154              123              155              138              161
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ SEL thresholds are in dB re(20[micro]Pa)\2\[middot]s.
\b\ SPL thresholds in dB 20[micro]Pa in air.
\c\ OA-Otariid in air (California sea lion).
\d\ PA-Phocid in air (harbor seal, northern elephant seal).

Ensonified Area

    In-air sound propagation from missile launch sources at SNI had not 
been well studied prior to monitoring work during 2001-2007. During the 
2001-2017 period, the strongest sounds originating from a missile in 
flight over the beaches at SNI were produced by Vandal (no longer 
launched from SNI) and Coyote launches, with the exception of one SM-2 
launched in 2015 (see Table 6-3 of the application, but also Table 7 
below). The range of sound levels recorded on SNI during Coyote 
launches were 128 dB re 20 [mu]Pa2[middot]s SEL-f (115 dB SEL-A, 123 dB 
SEL-Mpa) closest to the launcher and ranged from 87 to 119 dB re 20 
[mu]Pa2[middot]s SEL-f (46 to 107 dB SEL-A, 60 to 114 dB SEL-Mpa 
weighted) at nearshore locations. These values demonstrate that the 
sound levels are high enough to cause disturbance based on the 
behavioral thresholds (Table 5), but below the TTS thresholds (Table 6) 
during Coyote launches (most frequently launched missile on SNI). For 
additional information on sound levels please refer to the application.
    Coyotes are launched from the inland Alpha Launch Complex so there 
would be no pinnipeds near the launcher. The pinnipeds closest to the 
Coyote launches are on the beaches (areas L and M) directly below the 
flight trajectory, for which the CPA distance is about 0.9 km. Stronger 
sounds were also recorded at the launcher, but sound levels were 
dependent on the size of the missile launched. Launches of smaller 
missiles typically occur from the Building 807 Complex near the beach 
where the closest pinniped haulouts (area L and portions of K) are 
located about 0.3 km from the CPA. Harbor seal haulouts (areas L and J) 
are located at least 1 km from the CPA from the Building 807 Complex. 
It is important to note that in recent years, harbor seals are not 
always present when Navy conducts their monitoring during launch 
events, and there have not been many places to observe harbor seals 
during the launches. There is not a constant occupation of harbor seals 
on haul outs and occupation is dependent on tides. Harbor seals tend to 
be more sensitive to visual cues as well and do not prefer beaches with 
California sea lions. Most of the beaches where harbor seals are hauled 
out, and which Navy has been able to monitor, occur in area O which is 
north of both the Alpha Launch Complex and Building 307 Complex and not 
in the trajectory of launches that occur from these sites.
    The Navy will continue to conduct marine mammal and acoustic 
measurements during every launch event at three pinniped sites per 
launch event within areas K, L, M or O. As an example in 2017, the Navy 
conducted acoustic and marine mammal monitoring during their launch 
events at beaches with hauled out pinnipeds (see Navy's Table 2.2 from 
the 2017 monitoring report) in areas M and L (beaches of Dos Cove and 
Redeye Beach) and in area O (beaches of Pirates Cove and Phoca Reef).

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, 
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take 
calculations. Some pinnipeds that haulout on the western end of SNI are 
expected to be within the area where noise from launches exceeds 100 dB 
SEL. However, it is likely that far fewer pinnipeds occur within the 
area where sounds from smaller launch missiles, such as the BQM 
missiles, reach above 100 dB SEL and none of the recorded SELs appear 
to be sufficiently strong to induce TTS. Previous monitoring during 
2001-2017 showed that SELs above 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa\2\[middot]s were 
measured in pinniped areas K, L, and M (Cormorant Rock to Red Eye 
Beach); therefore, these are the areas that the Navy focuses their 
marine mammal monitoring on. In more recent years, Navy started 
monitoring area O (Phoca Reef and Pirates Cove) as harbor seals are 
hauling out here now and not as frequently in areas K, L, and M. Refer 
to Figure 1 for a map of these areas.
California Sea Lions
    During the July 2011-2015 census, California sea lion counts on SNI 
averaged 52,634.8 individuals per year (SD = 9,899.0) (Lowry et al., 
2017b). Between 2001 and 2017, a maximum of 2,807 instances of take of 
California sea lions by Level B harassment were estimated to have been 
potentially harassed in a single monitoring year incidental to missile 
launches at SNI (Burke 2017; Holst et al. 2010; Holst et al. 2008; 
Holst et al. 2011; Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). From the 
2015-2017 monitoring seasons, there was a total of 4,940 instances of 
take of California sea lions by Level B harassment (702 sea lions in 
2017, 1431 sea lions in 2016, and 2,807 sea lions in 2015) over 18 
launches. Of these results, an average of 274.44 instances of take of 
sea lions by Level B harassment per launch occurred.
Harbor Seals
    During the July 2011-2015 census, in July 2015 when all the Channel 
Islands were surveyed for harbor seals, 259 seals were counted at SNI 
(18.9 percent) (Lowry et al., 2017b). Harbor seals are not uniformly 
distributed around the perimeter of SNI. During the July 2011-2015 
census most harbor seals were mostly found in areas L, N, and Q on SNI 
(see Figure 1 for a map of these areas). However, in recent years, the 
Navy has indicated that harbor seals are mostly found and monitored in 
area O, just north of the launch azimuths on the northern side of the 
island so that is where they conduct their acoustic and marine mammal 
monitoring for harbor seals. Between 2001 and 2017, a maximum of 31 
instances of take of harbor seals by Level B harassment were estimated 
in a single monitoring year incidental to missile launches at SNI 
(Burke 2017; Holst et al. 2010; Holst et al. 2008; Holst et al. 2011; 
Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). From the 2015-2017 
monitoring seasons, a total

[[Page 18822]]

of 43 instances of take of harbor seals (8 in 2017, 4 in 2016, and 31 
in 2015) by Level B harassment occurred over 18 total launches. Of 
these results, an average of 2.39 instances of take of harbor seals by 
Level B harassment per launch occurred. These harbor seals were mostly 
observed in area O (Phoca Reef and Pirates Cove).
Northern Elephant Seals
    During the July 2011-2015 census, in 2015, when all islands were 
surveyed for elephant seals, 932 elephant seals were found on SNI (20.5 
percent of total). Northern elephant seals were not uniformly 
distributed around the perimeter of SNI. Area K at SNI had the most 
elephant seals on island (Lowry et al., 2017b). From the 2015-2017 
monitoring seasons, a total of 11 instances of take of elephant seals 
by Level B harassment occurred (0 in 2017, 1 in 2016, 10 in 2015) of 
the 100 animals that were observed. Overall, from the 2015-2017 
monitoring seasons, 11 instances of take of northern elephant seals by 
Level B harassment occurred over 18 launch events for an average of 
0.61 per launch event.

Take Calculation and Estimation

    The NDAA of 2004 (Pub. L. 103-136) removed the ``small numbers'' 
and ``specified geographical region'' limitations indicated above and 
amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military 
readiness activity'' to read as follows (section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): 
(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); 
or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal 
or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural 
behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, 
surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where 
such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level 
B Harassment).
    It is difficult to derive unequivocal criteria to identify 
situations in which launch sounds are expected to cause significant 
disturbance responses to pinnipeds hauled out on SNI. One or more 
pinnipeds blinking its eyes, lifting or turning its head, or moving a 
few feet along the beach as a result of a human activity is not 
considered a ``take'' under the MMPA definition of harassment. 
Therefore, the criteria used by the Navy to determine if an animal is 
affected by a launch event and is taken by Level B harassment is as 
follows:
    1. Pinnipeds that are exposed to launch sounds strong enough to 
cause TTS; or
    2. Pinnipeds that leave the haulout site, or exhibit prolonged 
movement (>10 m) or prolonged behavioral changes (such as pups 
separated from mothers) relative to their behavior immediately prior to 
the launch.
    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. Previously, take 
estimates were calculated based on areas ensonified above the 
behavioral disturbance criterion and the estimated numbers of pinnipeds 
exposed to at or above that level. However, for this IHA we rely on the 
past three seasons of monitoring of pinnipeds to determine the take 
estimate.
    For California sea lions, take estimates were derived from three 
monitoring seasons (2015 to 2017) where an average of 274.44 instances 
of take of sea lions by Level B harassment occurred per launch event. 
Therefore, 275 sea lions was then multiplied by 40 launch events, for a 
conservative take estimate of 11,000 instances of take for California 
sea lions by Level B harassment (Table 7). This estimate is 
conservative because the Navy has not conducted more than 25 launch 
events (although authorized for more) in a given year since 2001.
    For harbor seals, take estimates were derived from three monitoring 
seasons (2015 to 2017) where an average of 2.39 instances of take of 
harbor seals by Level B harassment occurred per launch event. 
Therefore, 3 harbor seals was then multiplied by 40 launch events for a 
conservative take estimate of 120 instances of take for harbor seals by 
Level B harassment (Table 7).
    For northern elephant seals, take estimates were derived from three 
monitoring seasons (2015 to 2017) where an average of 0.61 instances of 
take of northern elephant seals by Level B harassment occurred per 
launch event. Therefore, one northern elephant seal was then multiplied 
by 40 launch events for a conservative take estimate of 40 instances of 
take of northern elephant seals by Level B harassment (Table 7). 
Generally, northern elephant seals do not react to launch events other 
than simple alerting responses such as raising their heads or 
temporarily going from sleeping to being awake; however, to account for 
the rare instances where they have reacted, the Navy considered that 
some northern elephant seals that could be taken during launch events.

     Table 7--Level B Harassment Take Estimates for Pinnipeds on SNI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Stock abundance
              Species               Proposed Level    (percent taken by
                                     B harassment    Level B harassment)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion...............          11,000  257,606 (4.27
                                                     percent).
Harbor seal.......................             120  30,968 (less than 1
                                                     percent).
Northern elephant seal............              40  179,000 (less than 1
                                                     percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS 
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to 
military readiness activities and the incidental take authorization 
process such that ``least practicable impact'' shall include 
consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and 
impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where

[[Page 18823]]

applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. 
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being 
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the 
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented 
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as 
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability 
implemented as planned), and;
    (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Personnel Mitigation

    Personnel will not enter pinniped haulouts. Personnel will be 
adjacent to pinniped haulouts below the predicted missile path for two 
hours prior to a launch only for monitoring purposes.

Launch Mitigation

    Missiles will not cross over pinniped haulouts at elevations less 
than 305 m (1,000 ft). Launches at night will be limited. Launches will 
be avoided during harbor seal pupping season (February through April) 
unless constrained by mission objectives. Launches will be limited 
during the pupping season for northern elephant seal (January through 
February) and California sea lion (June through July) unless 
constrained by mission objectives or certain other factors. It is vital 
that the Navy effectively executes readiness activities to ensure naval 
forces can effectively execute military operations. The ability to 
schedule and locate training and testing without excessively burdensome 
restrictions within the Study Area is crucial to ensure those 
activities are practical, effective, and safe to execute. To meet its 
military readiness requirements (mission objectives), the Navy requires 
consistent access to a variety of realistic, tactically-relevant 
oceanographic and environmental conditions (e.g., bathymetry, 
topography, surface fronts, and variations in sea surface temperature), 
and sea space and airspace that is large enough or situated in a way 
that allows activities to be completed without physical or logistical 
obstructions, in order to achieve the highest skill proficiency and 
most accurate testing results possible in areas analogous to where the 
military operates.

Aircraft Operation Mitigation

    All aircraft and helicopter flight paths must maintain a minimum 
distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized seal haulouts and 
rookeries), except in emergencies.
    Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed mitigation measures, 
as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to 
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the 
required monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    The Navy has proposed a suite of monitoring measures on SNI to 
document impacts of the proposed launch events on marine mammals. These 
proposed monitoring measures are described below.

Visual and Video Camera Monitoring

    The Navy proposes to conduct marine mammal monitoring during 
launches from SNI, using visual monitoring as well as simultaneous 
autonomous audio recording of launch sounds and video recording of 
pinniped behavior. The monitoring (all land-based) will provide data 
required to characterize the extent and nature of ``taking.'' In 
particular, it will provide the information needed to document the 
nature, frequency, occurrence, and duration of any changes in pinniped 
behavior that might result from the missile launches, including the 
occurrence of stampedes.
    Visual monitoring, before and after launches, is a scan of the haul 
out beaches to count pinnipeds over a wider FOV than can be captured by 
a stationary video camera. This is typically done over a 15-30 minute 
period. Visual monitoring is conducted while the equipment is being set 
up and broken down for video and acoustic monitoring which is described 
in greater detail below. Prior to a launch event, Navy personnel will 
make observations of the monitored haulout and record the numbers and 
types of pinnipeds observed, noting the information on field data 
sheets. After a launch event, Navy personnel will return to the 
monitored haulout as soon as it is safe, and record the numbers and 
types of pinnipeds that remain on the haulout sites and any notable 
changes.
    Video monitoring is conducted by recording continuously from a 
minimum of 2 hours before the event to approximately 1 hour after the 
event.
    These video and audio records will be used to document pinniped 
responses to the launches. This will include the following components:

[[Page 18824]]

    [ssquf] Identify and document any change in behavior or movements 
that may occur at the time of the launch;
    [ssquf] Compare received levels of launch sound with pinniped 
responses, based on acoustic and behavioral data from up to three 
monitoring sites at different distances from the launch site and 
missile path during each launch; from the data accumulated across a 
series of launches, to attempt to establish the ``dose-response'' 
relationship for launch sounds under different launch conditions if 
possible;
    [ssquf] Ascertain periods or launch conditions when pinnipeds are 
most and least responsive to launch activities, and
    [ssquf] Document take by harassment.
    The launch monitoring program will include remote video recordings 
before, during, and after launches when pinnipeds are present in the 
area of potential impact, as well as visual assessment by trained 
observers before and after the launch. Remote cameras are essential 
during launches because safety rules prevent personnel from being 
present in most of the areas of interest. In addition, video techniques 
will allow simultaneous ``observations'' at up to three different 
locations, and will provide a permanent record that can be reviewed in 
detail. During some launches, the use of video methods may allow 
observations of up to three pinniped species during the same launch, 
though in general one or two species will be recorded.
    The Navy will seek to obtain video and audio records from up to 
three locations at different distances from the flight path of each 
missile launched from SNI. The Navy will try and reduce factors that 
limit recordings. On occasion, paired video and audio data were 
obtained from less than three sites during some launches, due to 
various potential problems with video and acoustic recorders, timing of 
remote recordings when launches are delayed, absence of pinnipeds from 
some locations at some times, etc. Corresponding data is available from 
the previous monitoring periods (2001-2018).
    Two different types of cameras will be available for use in 
obtaining video data simultaneously from three sites:
    (1) Small handheld high-definition video cameras on photographic 
tripods will be set up by Navy personnel at various locations on the 
day of a launch, with the video data being accessible following the 
launch. Recording duration varies between 300 and 600 minutes following 
initiation of record mode on these cameras, depending upon battery 
life, external memory card availability and other factors. The digital 
data is later copied to DVD-ROMs for subsequent viewing and analysis; 
and
    (2) Portable Forward-Looking Infrared Radiometer (FLIR) video 
cameras will be set up by the Navy for nighttime launches. These 
cameras have a recording duration of approximately 300 minutes from 
initiation of the record mode. The FLIR video data will be accessible 
following the launch. The digital data will later be copied to DVD-ROMs 
for subsequent viewing and analysis.
    Before each launch, Navy personnel will set up or activate up to 
three of the available video cameras such that they overlook chosen 
haulout sites. Placement will be such that disturbance to the pinnipeds 
is minimized, and each camera will be set to record a focal subgroup of 
sea lions or harbor seals within the haulout aggregation for the 
maximum recording time permitted by the videotape capacity. The entire 
haulout aggregation on a given beach will not be recorded during some 
launches, as the wide-angle view necessary to encompass an entire beach 
would not allow detailed behavioral analyses (Holst et al., 2005a; 
Holst et al., 2008). It will be more effective to obtain a higher-
magnification view of a sample of the animals on the beach. Prior to 
selecting a focal animal group, a pan of the entire haul out beach and 
surrounding area will be made in order to document the total number of 
animals in the area.
    Following each launch, video recordings will continue for at least 
15 minutes and up to several hours. Greater post-launch time intervals 
are not advisable as storms and other events may alter the composition 
of pinniped haulout groups independent of launch events.
    Video data will be transferred to DVD-ROMs. A trained biologist 
will review and code the data from the video data as they are played 
back to a monitor (Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008). The 
variables transcribed from the videos, or recorded directly at the 
beach sites, will include:
    [ssquf] Composition of the focal subgroup of pinnipeds (approximate 
numbers and sexes of each age class);
    [ssquf] Description and timing of disruptive event (launch); this 
will include documenting the occurrence of launch, whether launch noise 
is evident on audio channel, and duration of audibility; and
    [ssquf] Movements of pinnipeds, including number and proportion 
moving, direction and distance moved, pace of movement (slow or 
vigorous). In addition, the following variables concerning the 
circumstances of the observations will also be recorded from the 
videotape or from direct observations at the site:
    [cir] Study location;
    [cir] Local time;
    [cir] Weather (including an estimate of wind strength and 
direction, and presence of precipitation); and
    [cir] Tide state (Exact times for local high and low tides will be 
determined by consulting relevant tide tables for the day of the 
launch).

Acoustic Monitoring

    Acoustical recordings will be obtained during each monitored 
launch. These recordings will be suitable for quantitative analysis of 
the levels and characteristics of the received launch sounds. In 
addition to providing information on the magnitude, characteristics, 
and duration of sounds to which pinnipeds are exposed during each 
launch, these acoustic data will be combined with the pinniped 
behavioral data to determine if there is a ``dose-response'' 
relationship between received sound levels and pinniped behavioral 
reactions. The Navy will use up to four autonomous audio recorders to 
make acoustical measurements. During each launch, these will be located 
as close as practical to monitored pinniped haulout sites and near the 
launch pad itself. The monitored haulout sites will typically include 
one site as close as possible to the missile's planned flight path and 
one or two locations farther from the flight path within the area of 
potential impact with pinnipeds present. Autonomous Terrestrial 
Acoustic Recorders (ATARs) will be deployed at the recording locations 
on the launch day well before the launch time, and will be retrieved 
later the same day.
    During each launch, data on the type and trajectory of the missile 
will be documented. From these records the CPA of the missile to the 
microphone will be determined, along with its altitude above the 
shoreline. These data will be important in comparing acoustic data with 
those from other launches. Other factors to be considered will include 
wind speed and direction and launch characteristics (e.g., low- vs. 
high-angle launch). These analyses will include data from previous and 
ongoing monitoring work (Burke 2017; Holst et al., 2010; Holst et al., 
2005a; Holst et al., 2008; Holst et al., 2011; Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz 
and Greene Jr. 2012), as well as measurements to be obtained during 
launches under this IHA.

[[Page 18825]]

Reporting

    A technical report will be submitted to the NMFS' Office of 
Protected Resources within 90 days from the date the IHA expires. This 
report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and 
interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks for launches 
activities at SNI that are covered under this proposed IHA.
    The technical report containing the following information: Species 
present, number(s), general behavior, presence of pups, age class, 
gender, numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to 
commencement of the launch, numbers of pinnipeds that responded at a 
level that would be considered harassment length of time(s) pinnipeds 
remained off the haulout (for pinnipeds that flushed), and any 
behavioral responses by pinnipeds that were likely in response to the 
specified activities. Launch reports would also include date(s) and 
time(s) of each launch; date(s) and location(s) of marine mammal 
monitoring, and environmental conditions including: Visibility, air 
temperature, clouds, wind speed and direction, tides, and swell height 
and direction. If a dead or seriously injured pinniped is found during 
post-launch monitoring, the incident must be reported to the NMFS 
Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS' West Coast Regional 
Stranding Coordinator immediately. Results of acoustic monitoring, 
including the recorded sound levels associated with the launch and/or 
sonic boom (if applicable) would also be included in the report.
    In the unanticipated event that any cases of pinniped mortality are 
judged to result from launch activities at any time during the period 
covered by this IHA, this will be reported to NMFS immediately.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all 
the species listed in Table 7, given that the anticipated effects of 
this activity on these different marine mammal species are expected to 
be similar. Activities associated with the proposed activities, as 
outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine 
mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in 
the form of Level B harassment only, from airborne sounds of target and 
missile launch events. Based on the best available information, 
including monitoring reports from similar activities that have been 
authorized by NMFS, behavioral responses will likely be limited 
behavioral reactions such as alerting to the noise, with some animals 
possibly moving toward or entering the water, depending on the species 
and the intensity of the launch noise. 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. Given the launch acceleration and flight speed of 
the missiles, most launch events are of extremely short duration. 
Strong launch sounds are typically detectable near the beaches at 
western SNI for no more than a few seconds per launch (Holst et al., 
2010; Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; Holst et al., 2005b). 
Pinnipids hauled out on beaches where missiles fly over launched from 
the Alpha Launch Complex routinely haul out and continue to use these 
beaches in large numbers. At the Building 807 Launch Complex few 
pinnipeds are known to haul out on the shoreline immediately adjacent 
to this launch site. Thus, even repeated instances of Level B 
harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to 
result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those 
individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the 
stock as a whole. Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of 
least practicable adverse 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 a 
stampede, either of which could potentially result in serious injury or 
mortality. However, based on the best available information, including 
reports from almost 20 years of marine mammal monitoring during launch 
events, no serious injury or mortality of marine mammals is anticipated 
as a result of the proposed activities.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from 
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No injury, serious injury, or mortality are anticipated or 
authorized;
     The anticipated incidences of Level B harassment are 
expected to consist of temporary modifications in behavior (i.e., 
movements of more than 10 m and occasional flushing into the water with 
return to haulouts), which are not expected to adversely affect the 
fitness of any individuals;
     The proposed activities are expected to result in no long-
term changes in the use by pinnipeds of rookeries and haulouts in the 
project area, based on nearly 20 years of monitoring data; and
     The presumed efficacy of planned mitigation measures in 
reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least 
practicable adverse impact.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds

[[Page 18826]]

that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have 
a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine 
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would 
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such 
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to the Navy for conducting rocket and missile launch 
events, on SNI from June 4, 2019 to June 3, 2020, provided the 
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed Navy 
target and missile launch activities. We also request comment on the 
potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the 
paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data 
or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the 
request for MMPA authorization.
    On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year IHA renewal with 
an expedited public comment period (15 days) when (1) another year of 
identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified 
Activities section is planned or (2) the activities would not be 
completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for 
completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and 
Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:
     A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
     The request for renewal must include the following:
    (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the 
proposed Renewal are identical to the activities analyzed under the 
initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so 
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the 
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take 
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take 
because only a subset of the initially analyzed activities remain to be 
completed under the Renewal); and
    (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the 
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the 
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not 
previously analyzed or authorized.
     Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the 
affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS 
determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, 
the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and 
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

    Dated: April 29, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-08948 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P