[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28462-28473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12989]


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

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; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 
the U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment 
only, marine mammals during 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). The Navy's 
activity is considered a military readiness activity pursuant to MMPA, 
as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2004.

DATES: This Authorization is effective from June 12, 2019 through June 
11, 2020.

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 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

[[Page 28463]]

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 for FY 2004 (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.

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 requested take of California sea lions 
(Zalophus californianus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and northern 
elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) by Level B harassment only. 
Neither the 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).

Description of the Specified Activity

    The Navy plans to continue a target and missile launch program from 
two launch sites on SNI for testing and training activities associated 
with operations on the NAWCWD PMSR. 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 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.
    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 could 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 result in take 
of pinnipeds that are hauled out on SNI, by Level B harassment only. 
All flights over SNI would be subsonic; therefore, there would be no 
sonic booms that could affect pinnipeds hauled out at sites on SNI.
    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).
    Further details of the Navy's launch activities are provided in the 
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 
2019).

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was 
published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2019 (84 FR 18809). That 
notice described, in detail, the Navy's activity, the marine mammal 
species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated 
effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, 
NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). 
For full details of the Commission's comments, please see their letter, 
which is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. Summaries of the Commission's comments, and our responses, 
are provided below.

In-Air Thresholds

    Comment: The Commission comments on many aspects of this IHA 
related to in-air thresholds. The Commission claimed that the 
thresholds for TTS/PTS stipulated in the Navy's Criteria and Thresholds 
for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) 
Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017) were incorrect and 
that revised thresholds presented in Southall et al., 2019 should be 
used. The Commission comments that the historical behavioral thresholds 
of 90 dB SPL for harbor seals/100 dB SPL for all other pinnipeds are 
what should be used for this IHA rather than the proposed 100 dB SEL 
value for all pinnipeds.
    Response: Upon review of the Commission's comments and the two sets 
of thresholds, as well as additional communication with the authors of 
Southall et al., 2019, we have determined that the Navy's thresholds in 
the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 
Effects Analysis (Phase III) Technical Report (U.S. Department of the 
Navy, 2017) for TTS/PTS are correct and, in fact, errors have been 
found in Southall et al., 2019. (The authors plan to address these 
errors in the publication). In addition, the issues the Commission 
points out regarding in-air behavioral thresholds are not applicable, 
as the estimated takes are based on the last three years of pinniped 
observation from Navy's monitoring reports and not directly based on 
specific in-air thresholds. The beaches that the Navy surveys are 
largely based on where sound received is expected to reach 100 dB SEL 
or greater and where animals are reacting

[[Page 28464]]

to launch noises. In the case of harbor seals, the Navy is already 
monitoring beaches where sound levels are less than 100 dB SEL and 
often under 90 dB SPL (site O--Phoca Reef and Pirates Cove). The Navy 
is monitoring at site O because oftentimes the harbor seals are not 
hauled out on the western end of SNI on the typically monitored beaches 
during launch events. The Navy is cognizant of the fact that some 
harbor seals are reacting to sound levels lower than 90 dB SPL. 
Accordingly, the Navy is monitoring those pinnipeds and requesting 
additional take by Level B harassment to account for this potential 
(see Estimated Take section).
    In addition, the Navy has previously surveyed other parts of SNI to 
determine if pinnipeds are reacting in response to launch events. The 
Navy conducted surveys of the eastern end of SNI and did not find 
pinnipeds reacting to launch events. The Navy has also conducted 
surveys on adjacent beaches to those that are typically monitored and 
did not find pinnipeds that reacted to launch events (e.g., Coast Guard 
Beach in the Navy's 2015 monitoring report).
    In summary, upon review of new information suggested by the 
Commission, the TTS/PTS thresholds originally proposed for use remain 
the best available scientific information. We also believe that the 
behavioral threshold proposed for use in this context is appropriate; 
however, the specific threshold discussed is of less importance here 
because the actual amount of authorized takes by Level B harassment are 
based on actual field monitoring conducted by the Navy of the pinniped 
haulout areas that could potentially be affected by noise form launch 
events.

Level B Harassment Takes

    Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS use its standard 
tiered scale for determining when disturbance of hauled pinnipeds 
equates to Level B harassment for all activities, i.e., based on 
animals moving at least two body lengths rather than animals moving at 
least 10 m, as was proposed for the Navy's launch activities at SNI.
    Response: The Navy's activities are considered military readiness 
activities, for which a different definition of Level B harassment is 
applied. For military readiness activities, 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). The Navy has developed a slightly 
different version of the criteria for determining when behavioral 
response of a hauled pinniped rises to the level of harassment, as is 
appropriate for use with the definition of Level B harassment 
associated with military readiness activities. NMFS has determined that 
this version, which has been used in prior incidental take 
authorizations associated with launch activities on SNI (79 FR 32678; 
June 6, 2014), is appropriate for evaluating Level B harassment in 
association with this specified activity. NMFS may re-evaluate these 
criteria with the Navy for any subsequent applications we receive from 
for these activities.
    Comment: The Commission comments that previous Navy monitoring 
reports from 2014-17 have indicated that for all but one launch 100 
percent of the hauled out harbor seals within the view of the 
monitoring camera responded to the launch and, because of this, NMFS's 
presumption that only 2.39 harbor seals are taken per launch is an 
underestimate.
    Response: In general, in recent years, few harbor seals have been 
observed during launch events. NMFS' take estimate of 3 (rounded from 
2.39) harbor seals per launch is an average of animals taken during the 
2015-2017 monitoring seasons. The average was calculated from the 
Navy's total of taken harbor seals during each launch. Using 
observations to determine a take estimate, especially in cases where so 
few numbers of harbor seals were present, is an appropriate use of 
available data. This average take estimate per launch is not the 
authorized value for a single launch event. The number of authorized 
launch events (40) is multiplied by 3 harbor seals (2.39 harbor seals 
conservatively rounded up) to obtain a take estimate of 120 instances 
of take for harbor seals by Level B harassment which can be distributed 
in varying ways across the total number of launch events.
    There have been cases where the Navy observed harbor seals outside 
of the field of view in the camera and assumed they were taken by the 
launch. In the 2014 monitoring report, the Navy considered all 40 
harbor seals observed as taken during a launch event even though they 
were not in the view of the camera during the launch, but observed 
during the visual count before the launch. Had NMFS used these 2014 
monitoring results in its calculations, then we would have also 
considered these animals as taken even though they were not in the view 
of the camera. NMFS did not use this year in its take calculations 
because harbor seals have not been observed in this area during launch 
events over the last three years.
    Comment: The Commission commented that NMFS did not authorize 
enough take for pinnipeds based on a variety of factors including the 
following: (1) The Commission assumes a 100-percent response rate (for 
harbor seals); (2) the Commission states that additional animals 
outside the regularly monitored areas should be assumed to be taken 
(harbor seals); and (3) the Commission's recommendation to use NMFS's 
non-military readiness pinniped disturbance criteria rather than the 
military readiness disturbance criteria developed by the Navy. The 
Commission recommends that NMFS authorize additional Level B harassment 
takes for all species.
    Response: For harbor seals, NMFS believes the amount of Level B 
harassment takes suggested as appropriate by the Commission would be an 
overestimate based on previous observations during Navy's launch 
events. Before the launch events, the Navy monitors several sites 
around the western end of SNI to determine where pinnipeds are hauled 
out and what species are on the beaches. During this pre-launch 
monitoring, harbor seals are frequently not present. That said, NMFS 
understands the Commission's concerns, but taking a peak count in July 
and applying it over the entire year for every launch is not 
reasonable. To account for the possibility of some harbor seals hauling 
out and then reacting to a launch in a way equivalent to a take, NMFS 
has adjusted the take estimate from 120 to 480 harbor seals. Instead of 
taking an average per launch, the revised take estimate is developed by 
taking the total number of takes (12) and multiplying that by 40 launch 
events for a total of 480 instances of take by Level B harassment for 
harbor seals. NMFS believes that the number of authorized take is 
adequate and sufficient for California sea lions and elephant seals. 
These are based on animals taken by Level B harassment per the Navy's 
monitoring reports from 2015-2017.

Mitigation and Monitoring Measures

    Comment: The Commission commented on a mitigation measure that was 
in the Navy's application, but not included in the proposed IHA. The 
mitigation measure required that the Navy avoid launching multiple 
missiles

[[Page 28465]]

in quick succession over haulout sites, especially when young pups are 
present. The Commission recommends that NMFS require the Navy to avoid 
launching multiple missiles in quick succession over haulout sites, 
especially when young pups are present as this mitigation measure was 
previously required in prior incidental take authorizations for this 
activity.
    Response: Before the proposed IHA was published, the Navy indicated 
that it could not fulfill the mitigation measure and had mistakenly 
included the measure its application. The Navy indicated that it is 
already limiting or avoiding launches during much of the year during 
the pupping season for pinnipeds and could not be limited further due 
to practicability and mission objectives. Therefore, the mitigation 
measure was not included in the proposed IHA.
    Comment: The Commission commented that NMFS (1) enlist its 
technical experts to review the proposed acoustic monitoring plan, 
including the relevant metrics and thresholds to report, (2) require 
the Navy to revise the plan as necessary based on that review, and (3) 
require the Navy, in the final authorization, to collect and report its 
acoustic measurements consistent with any revisions.
    Response: NMFS reviewed the acoustic monitoring plan and clarified 
a few items in the Navy's application. In the final IHA, the Navy is 
required to conduct acoustic monitoring according to this slightly 
modified.

NMFS IHA Renewal Process

    Comment: The Commission questioned whether the public notice 
provisions for IHA Renewals fully satisfy the public notice and comment 
provision in the MMPA and discussed the potential burden on reviewers 
of reviewing key documents and developing comments quickly. 
Additionally, the Commission recommended that NMFS use the IHA Renewal 
process sparingly and selectively for activities expected to have the 
lowest levels of impacts to marine mammals and that require less 
complex analysis.
    Response: NMFS has taken a number of steps to ensure the public has 
adequate notice, time, and information to be able to comment 
effectively on IHA Renewals within the limitations of processing IHA 
applications efficiently. The Federal Register notice for the initial 
proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019) previously identified the 
conditions under which a one-year Renewal IHA might be appropriate. 
This information is presented in the Request for Public Comments 
section of the initial proposed IHA and thus encourages submission of 
comments on the potential of a 1-year renewal as well as the initial 
IHA during the 30-day comment period. In addition, when we receive an 
application for a Renewal IHA, we publish a notice of the proposed IHA 
Renewal in the Federal Register and provide an additional 15 days for 
public comment, for a total of 45 days of public comment. We will also 
directly contact all commenters on the initial IHA by email, phone, or, 
if the commenter did not provide email or phone information, by postal 
service to provide them the opportunity to submit any additional 
comments on the proposed Renewal IHA.
    NMFS also strives to ensure the public has access to key 
information needed to submit comments on a proposed IHA, whether an 
initial IHA or a Renewal IHA. The agency's website includes information 
for all projects under consideration, including the application, 
references, and other supporting documents. Each Federal Register 
notice also includes contact information in the event a commenter has 
questions or cannot find the information they seek.
    Regarding the Commission's comment that Renewal IHAs should be 
limited to certain types of projects, NMFS has explained on its website 
and in individual Federal Register notices that Renewal IHAs are 
appropriate where the continuing activities are identical, nearly 
identical, or a subset of the activities for which the initial 30-day 
comment period applied. Where the commenter has likely already reviewed 
and commented on the initial proposed IHA for these activities, the 
abbreviated additional comment period is sufficient for consideration 
of the results of the preliminary monitoring report and new information 
(if any) from the past year.

Adequate Opportunity To Consider Public Comments

    Comment: The Commission claims that NMFS did not have sufficient 
time to review public comments or to revise the proposed IHA 
accordingly. The Commission recommended that NMFS (1) delay issuance of 
the Final IHA until it has thoroughly reviewed and assessed the 
Commission's recommendations and any comments from the public and 
revised the authorization accordingly and (2) take all steps necessary 
in the future to ensure that it publishes and finalizes IHAs far enough 
in advance of the planned start date of the proposed activities to 
ensure full consideration is given to comments received.
    Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for its concerns regarding the 
IHA process. NMFS had sufficient time and we thoroughly reviewed the 
comments received. We made all appropriate revisions to the final IHA.

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 1 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 1 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-

[[Page 28466]]

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 1). ``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.

                                                 Table 1--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).
    Guadalupe Fur Seal...........  Arctocephalus         Mexico............  T, D, Y         20,000 (N/A,               542      >=3.2  Potential.
                                    philippii townsendi.                                      15,830, 2010).
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 are authorized.

    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the 
Navy's project, including brief introductions to the species and 
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population 
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 
18809; May 2, 2019); since that time, we are not aware of any changes 
in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed 
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal 
Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for generalized 
species accounts.
    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 
harbor seals (Lowry et al., 20187b). The perimeter of 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) 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 28467]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JN19.005

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity 
can occur from target and missile launch activities. The effects of 
airborne noise from the Navy's planned activities have the potential to 
result in Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled out on SNI, which 
could cause a disruption of natural behavioral patterns such as 
flushing into the water. The Federal Register notice for the proposed 
IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019) included a discussion of the effects of 
anthropogenic noise on marine mammals; therefore, that information is 
not repeated here.
    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 planned operations would 
result in any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by 
the marine mammals on SNI, including the food sources they use (i.e., 
fish and invertebrates). While it is anticipated that the 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 activity 
will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct 
effects on marine mammals. Overall, the launch activities are not 
expected to cause significant impacts or have permanent, adverse 
effects on pinniped habitats or on their foraging habitats and prey. 
These potential effects are discussed in detail in the Federal Register 
notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019), therefore that 
information is not repeated here.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
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

[[Page 28468]]

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 authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or 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 authorized 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 2 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 haulouts 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 2--Behavioral Threshold for Impulsive Sound for Pinnipeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Level B harassment by behavior
                Species                       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 3 below).

                                                        Table 3--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
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 4 
below). The range of sound levels recorded on SNI during Coyote 
launches were 128 dB re 20 [mu]Pa2[middot]s SEL- (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 2), but below the TTS thresholds (Table 3) 
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

[[Page 28469]]

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 haulouts 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 haul out 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 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 (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

[[Page 28470]]

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 4). 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, this take estimate is a change from the proposed 
IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019). The take estimate was revised from 120 
to 480 harbor seal instances of take by Level B harassment. A total of 
12 takes were derived from the 2016 and 2017 monitoring seasons and 
multiplied by 40 launch events for a total of 480 instances of take by 
Level B harassment (Table 4).
    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 4). 
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 4--Authorized Level B Harassment Take Estimates for Pinnipeds on
                                   SNI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Authorized        Stock abundance
            Species                  Level B     (percent taken by Level
                                   harassment         B harassment)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion............          11,000  257,606 (4.27 percent).
Harbor seal....................             480  30,968 (less than 2
                                                  percent).
Northern elephant seal.........              40  179,000 (less than 1
                                                  percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (Pub. L. 108-136) 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 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 mitigation measures, as well 
as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS

[[Page 28471]]

has determined that the 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.

Non-Authorized Take Prohibited

    If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a 
species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized 
takes are met, the Navy must consult with NMFS before the next launch 
event.

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 
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 will conduct suite of monitoring measures on SNI to 
document impacts of the launch events on marine mammals. These 
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 
haulout 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:
    [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

[[Page 28472]]

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 haulout 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.

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 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

[[Page 28473]]

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 4, 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 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 finds 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.

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 determined 
that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review.

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 
authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, formal 
consultation under section 7 of the ESA was not required for this 
action.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the 
Navy for conducting rocket and missile launch events on SNI provided 
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: June 14, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-12989 Filed 6-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P