Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 321 

(b) * * * 

(1)The QHP issuer must comply with 

applicable requirements in § 155.221 of 

this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 14, 2018. 

Seema Verma, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services. 

Dated: December 18, 2018. 

Alex M. Azar II, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2019–00077 Filed 1–17–19; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

RIN 0648–BI44 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches 

and Operations at Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, California 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Air Force (USAF) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to launching space launch 

vehicles, intercontinental ballistic and 

small missiles, and aircraft and 

helicopter operations at Vandenberg Air 

Force Base (VAFB) from March 2019 to 

March 2024. As required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is proposing regulations to govern that 

take, and requests comments on the 

proposed regulations. NMFS will 

consider public comments prior to 

making any final decision on the 

issuance of the requested incidental take 

regulations and agency responses will 

be summarized in the final notice of our 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than February 22, 

2019. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2018–0047, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018- 

0047, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. Alternately, 

electronic comments may be emailed to 

ITP.laws@noaa.gov. 

• Mail: Submit comments to Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910– 

3225. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender may 

be publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of the USAF’s application and 

any supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Purpose and Need for Regulatory 

Action 

This proposed rule would establish a 

framework under the authority of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow 

for the authorization of take of marine 

mammals incidental to launching space 

launch vehicles, intercontinental 

ballistic and small missiles, and aircraft 

and helicopter operations at VAFB. 

We received an application from the 

USAF requesting the five-year 

regulations and authorization to take 

marine mammals. Take would occur by 

Level B harassment incidental to launch 

noise and sonic booms. Please see 

‘‘Background’’ below for definitions of 

harassment. 

Legal Authority for the Proposed Action 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the 

Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region for up to five years 

if, after notice and public comment, the 

agency makes certain findings and 

issues regulations that set forth 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to that activity and other means of 

effecting the ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact’’ on the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (see the 

discussion below in the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section), as well as 

monitoring and reporting requirements. 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and 

the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 216, subpart I, provide the legal 

basis for issuing this proposed rule 

containing five-year regulations, and for 

any subsequent LOAs. As directed by 

this legal authority, this proposed rule 

contains mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements. 

Summary of Major Provisions Within 

the Proposed Rule 

Following is a summary of the major 

provisions of this proposed rule 

regarding space launch activities. These 

measures include: 

• Required acoustic monitoring to 

measure the sound levels associated 

with the proposed activities. 

• Required biological monitoring to 

record the presence of marine mammals 

during the proposed activities and to 

document responses to the proposed 

activities. 

• Mitigation measures to minimize 

harassment of the most sensitive marine 

mammal species. 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
322 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

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 evaluate our 

proposed action (i.e., the promulgation 

of regulations and subsequent issuance 

of incidental take authorization) and 

alternatives with respect to potential 

impacts on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 of the 

Companion Manual for NAO 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 proposed action qualifies to be 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review. 

Information in the USAF’s application 

and this proposed rule collectively 

provide the environmental information 

related to proposed issuance of these 

regulations and subsequent incidental 

take authorization for public review and 

comment. We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this proposed 

rule prior to concluding our NEPA 

process or making a final decision on 

the request for incidental take 

authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On August 10, 2018, NMFS received 

an application from the USAF, 30th 

Space Wing, requesting authorization 

for the take of six species of pinnipeds 

incidental to launch, aircraft, and 

helicopter operations from VAFB 

launch complexes. On December 4, 

2018, NMFS received a supplement to 

the application from USAF that 

included a request to include activities 

associated with the recovery of Space 

Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) 

Falcon 9 First Stage rockets in VAFB’s 

request. NMFS proposes regulations to 

govern the authorization of take 

incidental to these activities. On 

September 13, 2017 (83 FR 46483), we 

published a notice of receipt of the 

USAF’s application in the Federal 

Register, requesting comments and 

information related to the request for 

thirty days. We received comments from 

the Marine Mammal Commission. The 

comments were considered in 

development of this proposed rule and 

are available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

The take of marine mammals 

incidental to activities related to the 

launching of space launch vehicles and 

missiles, and aircraft and helicopter 

operations at VAFB, have been 

previously authorized by NMFS via 

Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued 

under current incidental take 

regulations, which are effective from 

March 26, 2014 through March 26, 2019 

(79 FR 10016). To date, we have issued 

nine LOAs to USAF for these activities, 

under the current and prior incidental 

take regulations. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

VAFB contains 7 active missile 

launch facilities and 6 active space 

launch facilities and supports launch 

activities for the U.S. Air Force, 

Department of Defense, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

and commercial entities. It is the 

primary west coast launch facility for 

placing commercial, government and 

military satellites into polar orbit on 

unmanned launch vehicles, and for the 

testing and evaluation of 

intercontinental ballistic missiles 

(ICBMs) and sub-orbital target and 

interceptor missiles. In addition to the 

launching of rockets, certain rocket 

components are returned to VAFB for 

reuse, using in-air ‘‘boost-back’’ 

maneuvers and landings at the base. In 

addition to space vehicle and missile 

launch activities at VAFB, occasional 

helicopter and aircraft operations occur 

at VAFB that involve search-and-rescue, 

delivery of space vehicle components, 

launch mission support, security 

reconnaissance, and training flights. The 

use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS, 

also known as ‘‘drones’’) also occurs at 

VAFB. 

The USAF anticipates that no more 

than 110 rocket launches and 15 missile 

launches would occur in any year 

during the period of authorized 

activities (Table 1). This number of 

launches would represent an increase 

compared to historical launch activity at 

VAFB, but the USAF anticipates an 

increase in the number of launches in 

the near future and has based their 

estimate of planned rocket launches on 

this anticipated increase. 

There are six species of marine 

mammals that may be affected by the 

USAF’s proposed activities: California 

sea lion, Steller sea lion, northern fur 

seal, Guadalupe fur seal, northern 

elephant seal, and harbor seal. Hauled 

out pinnipeds may be disturbed by 

launch noises and/or sonic booms 

(overpressure of high-energy impulsive 

sound) from launch vehicles. Aircraft 

that are noisy and/or flying at low 

altitudes can also have the potential to 

disturb hauled out pinnipeds. Pinniped 

responses to these stimuli have been 

monitored at VAFB for the past 25 

years. 

Dates and Duration 

The activities proposed by USAF 

would occur for five years, from March 

2019 through March 2024. Activities 

would occur year-round throughout the 

period of validity for the proposed rule. 

Specified Geographical Region 

All launches and aircraft activities 

would occur at VAFB. The areas 

potentially affected by noise from these 

activities includes VAFB and the 

Northern Channel Islands (NCI). VAFB 

occupies approximately 99,100 acres of 

land and approximately 42 miles of 

coastline in central Santa Barbara 

County, California and is divided by the 

Santa Ynez River and State Highway 

246 into two distinct parts: North Base 

and South Base. The NCI are considered 

part of the project area for the purposes 

of this proposed rule, as rocket launches 

and landings at VAFB may result in 

sonic booms that impact the NCI. The 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 323 

NCI are four islands (San Miguel, Santa 

Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa) located 

approximately 31 mi (50 km) south of 

Point Conception, which is located on 

the mainland approximately 4 mi (6.5 

km) south of the southern border of 

VAFB. The closest part of the NCI 

(Harris Point on San Miguel Island) is 

located more than 30 nautical miles 

south-southeast of the nearest launch 

facility. 

Rocket and missile launches occur 

from several locations on VAFB, on both 

North Base and South Base. Please refer 

to Figure 2 and Figure 3 in the USAF’s 

application for a depiction of launch 

locations on VAFB. Rocket landings by 

SpaceX would occur at the landing area 

on VAFB referred to as Space Launch 

Complex (SLC) 4W, located on South 

Base, approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8 

kilometers (km)) inland from the Pacific 

Ocean. Although SLC–4W is the 

preferred landing location for the Falcon 

9 First Stage, SpaceX has identified two 

contingency landing locations should it 

not be feasible to land the First Stage at 

SLC–4W. The first contingency landing 

location is on a barge located at least 27 

nautical miles (nm) (50 km) offshore of 

VAFB. The second contingency landing 

location is on a barge within the Iridium 

Landing Area, an approximately 12,800 

square mile (mi2) (33,153 square 

kilometers (km2)) area located 

approximately 122 nm (225 km) 

southwest of San Nicolas Island (SNI) 

and 133 nm (245 km) southwest of San 

Clemente Island. 

Detailed Description of Specified 

Activities 

As described above, the USAF has 

requested incidental take regulations for 

its operations at VAFB, which include 

rocket and missile launches, rocket 

recovery activities, and aircraft and 

helicopter operations. VAFB is 

headquarters to the 30th Space Wing, 

the Air Force Space Command unit that 

operates VAFB and the Western Range. 

VAFB operates as a missile test base and 

aerospace center, supporting west coast 

space launch activities for the USAF, 

Department of Defense, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), and commercial contractors. 

VAFB is the main west coast launch 

facility for placing commercial, 

government, and military satellites into 

polar orbit on expendable (unmanned) 

launch vehicles, and for testing and 

evaluation of intercontinental ballistic 

missiles (ICBM) and sub-orbital target 

and interceptor missiles. In addition to 

space vehicle and missile launch 

activities at VAFB, helicopter and 

aircraft operations are undertaken for 

purposes such as search-and-rescue, 

delivery of space vehicle components, 

launch mission support, security 

reconnaissance, and training flights. 

From VAFB, space vehicles are 

launched into polar orbits on azimuths 

from 147 to 201 degrees, with suborbital flights to 281 degrees. Missile 

launches are directed west toward 

Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific. This 

over-water sector, from 147 to 281 

degrees, comprises the Western Range. 

Part of the Western Range encompasses 

the NCI. 

Rocket Launch Activities 

There are currently six active facilities 

at VAFB used to launch satellites into 

polar orbit. One existing launch facility 

(TP–01), on north VAFB, has not been 

used in several years but is being 

reactivated. These facilities support 

launch programs for the Atlas V, Delta 

II, Delta IV, Falcon 9 and Minotaur 

rockets. Various booster and fuel 

packages can be configured to 

accommodate payloads of different sizes 

and weights. 

Table 1 shows estimates of the 

numbers and sizes of rocket launches 

from VAFB during calendar years 2019 

through 2024. The numbers of 

anticipated launches shown in Table 1 

are higher than the historical number of 

launches that have occurred from 

VAFB, and are considered conservative 

estimates; the actual number of 

launches that occurs in these years may 

be lower. However, the USAF 

anticipates an increase in the number of 

launches by non-commercial entities 

from VAFB over the next 5 years and 

the numbers shown in Table 1 are based 

on this expectation. A large percentage 

of this anticipated increase will be 

comprised of smaller launch payloads 

and rockets than previously utilized at 

VAFB. 

TABLE 1—PREDICTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ROCKET LAUNCHES IN CALENDAR YEARS 2019 THROUGH 2024 FROM VAFB 

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024* 

Small rockets ................................................................................................................... 5 10 25 40 50 60 

Medium rockets ................................................................................................................ 10 15 20 20 30 30 

Large rockets ................................................................................................................... 5 5 10 15 20 20 

Total launches .......................................................................................................... 20 30 45 75 100 110 

* The proposed rule would be valid for only 3 months in 2024 (January through March) therefore not all launches in 2024 would be covered 

under the proposed rule. 

Rocket launches from VAFB have the 

potential to result in the harassment of 

pinnipeds that are hauled out of the 

water as a result of exposure to sound 

from launch noise (on VAFB) or as a 

result of exposure to sound from sonic 

booms (on the NCI only). Based on 

several years of monitoring data, 

harassment of marine mammals is 

unlikely to occur when the intensity of 

a sonic boom is below 1.0 pounds per 

square foot (psf) (see further discussion 

in the ‘‘estimated take’’ section below). 

The likelihood of a sonic boom with a 

measured psf above 1.0 impacting the 

NCI is dependent on the size of the 

rocket (i.e., larger rockets are more 

likely to result in a sonic boom on the 

NCI than smaller rockets). The USAF 

estimated that 33 percent of large 

rockets, 25 percent of medium sized 

rockets, and 10 percent of small sized 

rockets would result in sonic booms on 

the NCI. The estimated numbers of 

sonic booms on the NCI per year from 

rocket launches is shown in Table 2; 

these numbers are based on the 

expected number of launches (Table 1) 

and the percentages described above. 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED SONIC BOOMS

ABOVE 1.0 psf PER YEAR IMPACTING THE NCI 

Year 

Estimated 

sonic 

booms per 

year * 

2019 .......................................... 5 

2020 .......................................... * 7 

2021 .......................................... 11 

2022 .......................................... 14 

2023 .......................................... 19 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
324 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED SONIC BOOMS

ABOVE 1.0 psf PER YEAR IMPACTING THE NCI—Continued 

Year 

Estimated 

sonic 

booms per 

year * 

2024 .......................................... 20 

* All numbers are calculated based on the 

number of each rocket size expected to be 

launched in that year (Table 1) and the percentages of each rocket size expected to result in a sonic boom impacting the NCI based 

on USAF estimates. The calculated number of 

sonic booms in 2020 is 6.4, however we 

rounded up to 7 to be conservative. 

Table 3 shows types of rockets that 

are anticipated for launch from VAFB 

over the next 5 years and the nearest 

locations of pinniped haulouts to the 

launch locations for those rockets. Other 

small rockets may also be launched 

from VAFB over the next 5 years but the 

exact specifications and launch 

locations for those rockets are unknown 

at this time. 

TABLE 3—ROCKET TYPES LAUNCHED FROM VAFB AND NEAREST LOCATIONS OF PINNIPED HAULOUTS TO LAUNCH

LOCATIONS

Rocket Launch 

facility Nearest pinniped haulout Distance to haulout 

Current launch programs 

Atlas V .............................................. SLC–3E North Rocky Point ..................................................................................... 9.9 km. 

Delta II 1 ............................................ SLC–2W Purisima Point ........................................................................................... 2.3 km. 

Delta IV ............................................ SLC–6 North Rocky Point ..................................................................................... 2.3 km. 

Falcon 9 ........................................... SLC–4E North Rocky Point ..................................................................................... 8.2 km. 

Minotaur ........................................... SLC–8 North Rocky Point ..................................................................................... 1.6 km. 

Minotaur/Taurus ............................... LF–576E North Spur Road ....................................................................................... 0.8 km. 

Future launch programs 2

Vector ............................................... SLC–8 North Rocky Point ..................................................................................... 1.6 km. 

Firefly ................................................ SLC–2 Purisima Point ........................................................................................... 2.3 km. 

New Glenn ....................................... TBD TBD ........................................................................................................... TBD. 

Vulcan .............................................. SLC–3E North Rocky Point ..................................................................................... 9.9 km. 

TBD .................................................. TP–01 Purisima Point ........................................................................................... 7.6 km. 

1The final launch of the Delta II rocket occurred in September 2018, however a new corporate entity has proposed to reutilize SLC–2W. 2All future launch program specifications should be considered notional and subject to change. 

As described above, launch facilities 

at VAFB support launch programs for 

rockets including the Atlas V, Delta II, 

Delta IV, Falcon 9, Minotaur, and 

Taurus rockets. Details on these vehicle 

types are described below. 

(1) Atlas V 

The Atlas V vehicle is launched from 

Space Launch Complex-3E on south 

VAFB. This Space Launch Complex 

(SLC) is approximately 9.9 km (6.2 mi) 

from one of the main haulout areas on 

VAFB, known as North Rocky Point (see 

Figure 2 in the application), which 

encompasses several smaller haulouts. 

SLC–3E is approximately 11.1 km (6.9 

mi) from the closest north VAFB 

haulout, known as the Spur Road 

haulout site (Figure 3 in the application) 

and 13.5 km (8.4 mi) from the next 

closest haulout, the nearby Purisima 

Point haulout site (Figure 3 in the 

application). 

The Atlas V is a medium lift vehicle 

that can be flown in two series of 

configurations—the Atlas V400 series 

and the Atlas V500 series. Both series 

use the Standard Booster as the single 

body booster. The V400 series 

accommodates a 4.2 m (13.8 ft) payload 

fairing (a nose cone used to protect a 

spacecraft (launch vehicle payload) 

against the impact of dynamic pressure 

and aerodynamic heating during launch 

through an atmosphere) and as many as 

three solid rocket boosters. The V500 

series accommodates a 5.4 m (17.7 ft) 

fairing and as many as five solid rocket 

boosters. The Atlas V400 series will lift 

as much as 7,800 kg (17,196 lbs) into 

geosynchronous transfer orbit or as 

much as 13,620 kg (30,027 lbs) into low 

earth orbit. The Atlas V500 series will 

lift as much as 8,700 kg (19,180 lbs) into 

geosynchronous transfer orbit or as 

much as 21,050 kg (46,407 lbs) into low 

earth orbit. The Atlas V consists of a 

common booster core (CBC) 3.8 m (12.5 

ft) in diameter and 32.5 m (106.6 ft) 

high) powered by an RD180 engine that 

burns a liquid propellant fuel consisting 

of liquid oxygen and RP1 fuel 

(kerosene). The RD180 engine provides 

840,000 lbs of thrust on liftoff. There is 

a Centaur upper stage (3.1 m (10.2 ft) in 

diameter and 12.7 m (41.7 ft) high) 

powered by a liquid oxygen and liquid 

hydrogen fuel. 

(2) Delta IV 

The Delta IV is launched from SLC– 

6, which is 2.3 km (1.4 mi) north of the 

main harbor seal haulout site at North 

Rocky Point (see Figure 2 in the USAF 

application). The Delta IV family of 

launch vehicles consists of five launch 

vehicle configurations utilizing a CBC 

first stage (liquid fueled) and zero, two, 

or four strap on solid rocket GEMs. The 

Delta IV comes in four medium lift 

configurations and one heavy lift 

configuration consisting of multiple 

CBCs. The Delta IV can carry payloads 

from 4,210 to 13,130 kg (9,281 to 28,947 

lbs) into geosynchronous transfer orbit. 

(3) Falcon 9 

The Falcon 9 is SpaceX’s launch 

vehicle. The Falcon 9 is a two-stage 

rocket designed and manufactured by 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 325 

SpaceX for transport of satellites into 

orbit. The First Stage of the Falcon 9 is 

designed to be reusable, while the 

second stage is not reusable. The Falcon 

9 First Stage is 12 ft (3.7 m) in diameter 

and 160 ft (48.8 m) in height, including 

the interstage that would remain 

attached during landing. 

(4) Minotaur 

The Minotaur I is a four stage, all 

solid propellant ground launch vehicle 

and is launched from SLC–8 on south 

VAFB (Figure 2 in the USAF 

application), approximately 1.6 km (1 

mi) from the North Rocky Point haulout 

site. The launch vehicle consists of 

modified Minuteman II Stage I and 

Stage II segments, mated with Pegasus 

upper stages (Orbital Sciences 

Corporation, 2006). The Minotaur is a 

small vehicle, approximately 19.2 m (63 

ft) tall (Orbital Sciences Corporation 

2006b), with approximately 215,000 lbs 

of thrust. 

(5) Taurus 

The standard Taurus is a small launch 

vehicle, at approximately 24.7 m (81 ft) 

tall and is launched in two different 

configurations (Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and 

standard) with different first stages 

providing 500,000 or 400,000 lbs of 

thrust, respectively. The different 

vehicle configurations have different 

thrust characteristics, with the standard 

configuration providing less thrust than 

DARPA. The Taurus is launched from 

576E on north VAFB, approximately 0.5 

km (0.3 mi) from the Spur Road harbor 

seal haulout site and 2.3 km (1.4 mi) 

from the Purisima Point haulout site 

(see Figure 3 in the USAF application). 

SpaceX Falcon 9 First Stage Recovery 

Activities 

As described above, the Falcon 9 is a 

two-stage rocket designed and 

manufactured by SpaceX for transport of 

satellites into orbit. The First Stage of 

the Falcon 9 is designed to be reusable, 

while the second stage is not reusable. 

The proposed action includes up to 

twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries 

per year. The Falcon 9 First Stage is 

recovered via an in-air boost-back 

maneuver and landings at VAFB or at a 

contingency landing location offshore. 

The Falcon 9 First Stage is the only 

rocket type that may be recovered via 

boost-back and landing as part of the 

proposed action. 

After launch of the Falcon 9, the 

boost-back and landing sequence begins 

when the rocket’s First Stage separates 

from the second stage and the Merlin 

engines of the First Stage cut off. After 

First Stage engine cutoff, rather than 

dropping the First Stage in the Pacific 

Ocean, exoatmospheric cold gas 

thrusters are triggered to flip the First 

Stage into position for retrograde burn. 

Three of the nine First Stage Merlin 

engines are restarted to conduct the 

retrograde burn in order to reduce the 

velocity of the First Stage and to place 

the First Stage in the correct angle to 

land. Once the First Stage is in position 

and approaching its landing target, the 

three engines cut off to end the boostback burn. The First Stage then 

performs a controlled descent using 

atmospheric resistance to slow the stage 

down and guide it to the landing pad 

target. The First Stage is outfitted with 

grid fins that allow cross range 

corrections as needed. The landing legs 

on the First Stage then deploy in 

preparation for a final single engine 

burn that slow the First Stage to a 

velocity of zero before landing on the 

landing pad at SLC–4W. 

During the First Stage’s descent, a 

sonic boom would be generated when 

the First Stage reaches a rate of travel 

that exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic 

booms would occur in proximity to the 

landing area with the highest sound 

levels generated from sonic booms 

generally focused in the direction of the 

landing area, and may be heard during 

or briefly after the boost-back and 

landing, depending on the location of 

the receiver. Model results have 

indicated a boost-back and landing of 

the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W 

could produce sonic booms with 

overpressures that would potentially be 

as high as 8.5 psf at VAFB and 

potentially as high as 3.1 psf at the NCI 

(ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc, 2018). 

At the time of this proposed rule, only 

one recovery of the Falcon 9 First Stage, 

including the boost-back and landing of 

the Falcon 9 First Stage, had occurred 

at VAFB. Acoustic monitoring data from 

that event demonstrated that the sonic 

boom at the haulout nearest the landing 

location was measured at 1.78 psf and 

the maximum landing engine noise was 

estimated at 96.66 dB (ManTech SRS 

Technologies, Inc, 2018). Monitoring at 

the NCI was not required during this 

activity as sonic boom modeling prior to 

the activity indicated no sonic boom 

would impact the NCI (ManTech SRS 

Technologies, Inc, 2018). 

As a contingency action to landing the 

Falcon 9 First Stage on the SLC–4W pad 

at VAFB, SpaceX may return the Falcon 

9 First Stage booster to a barge in the 

Pacific Ocean. The barge is specifically 

designed to be used as a First Stage 

landing platform and would be located 

at least 27 nm (50 km) offshore of VAFB 

or within an area even further offshore 

called the Iridium Landing Area. These 

contingency landing locations would be 

used when landing at SLC–4W would 

not be feasible. The maneuvering and 

landing process described above for a 

pad landing would be the same for a 

barge landing. Sonic boom modeling 

indicates that landings that occur at 

either of the proposed contingency 

landing locations offshore would result 

in sonic booms below 1.0 psf at any 

pinniped haulouts, thus marine 

mammal harassment is not an expected 

outcome from landings at those 

contingency landing locations offshore. 

Landing noise would be generated 

during each boost-back event. SpaceX 

proposes to use a three-engine burn 

during landing. This engine burn, 

lasting approximately 17 seconds, 

would generate noise between 70 and 

110 decibels (dB) re 20 micro Pascals 

(mPa) (non-pulse, in-air noise) centered 

on SLC–4W. This landing noise event 

would be of short duration 

(approximately 17 seconds). Although, 

during a landing event at SLC–4W, 

landing noise between 70 and 90 dB 

would be expected to overlap pinniped 

haulout areas at and near Point Arguello 

and Purisima Point, no pinniped 

haulouts would experience landing 

noise of 90 dB or greater. 

The boost-back and landing of the 

Falcon 9 First Stage occurs less than 10 

minutes after the Falcon 9 launches 

from VAFB (USAF, 2018). Hauled out 

pinnipeds may respond to a sonic boom 

associated with a Falcon 9 First Stage 

boost-back and landing by alerting, 

moving or flushing to the water. 

However, any pinnipeds that respond to 

a Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and 

landing by moving or flushing to the 

water are expected to be the same 

individuals that responded in such a 

way to the initial launch of the rocket, 

less than 10 minutes prior to the boostback and landing. NMFS would 

consider those individual marine 

mammals to have been taken by the 

stimuli associated with the initial 

launch, and would therefore not 

consider them as taken again by the 

boost-back and landing less than 10 

minutes later, as we do not consider an 

individual marine mammal to be taken 

given noise exposure more than once 

within a 24 hour period. We expect that 

individual marine mammals that do not 

respond to the stimuli associated with 

the launch of the rocket will also not 

respond to the stimuli associated with 

the boost-back and landing of the Falcon 

9 First Stage less than 10 minutes later. 

Therefore, Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

activities will not result in any 

additional marine mammals being 

taken, beyond those taken by the 

launch. As the potential for take 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
326 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

resulting from the boost-back and 

landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage is so 

low as to be discountable, Falcon 9 First 

Stage recovery is not analyzed further in 

this document. 

Missile Launch Activities 

A variety of small missiles are 

launched from various facilities on 

north VAFB, including Minuteman III, 

an ICBM which is launched from 

underground silos. In addition, several 

types of interceptor and target vehicles 

are launched for the Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA). The MDA develops 

various systems and elements, including 

the Ballistic Missile Defense System 

(BMDS). 

The BMDS test plans, including those 

involving tests from VAFB, are subject 

to constant change as the BMDS is being 

developed. It is difficult for the MDA to 

predict its launch schedule or number 

of launches over the next five years. 

However, due to test resource 

limitations, MDA does not envision 

conducting more than three missile tests 

per quarter (on average) over the next 

five years from VAFB, and none of the 

missiles would be larger than the 

Minuteman III. As described above, the 

USAF anticipates not more than 15 

missile launches would occur in any 

year between 2019 through 2024. 

LF–09 is the closest active missile 

launch facility to a haulout area, located 

about 0.5 km from Little Sal (see Figure 

3 in the application). The trajectories of 

all missile launches are nearly due 

westward; thus, they do not cause sonic 

boom impacts on the NCI and therefore 

take of marine mammals on the NCI 

from missile launches is not an 

expected outcome of the specified 

activities. 

Aircraft and Helicopter Operations 

The VAFB airfield, located on north 

VAFB, supports various aircraft 

operations. Aircraft operations include 

tower operations, such as take-offs and 

landings (training operations), and range 

operations such as overflights and flight 

tests. Over the past five years, an 

average of slightly more than 600 flights 

has occurred each year. 

Fixed-wing aircraft use VAFB for 

various purposes, including delivering 

rocket or missile components, highaltitude launches of space vehicles and 

emergency landings. VAFB is also used 

for flight testing, evaluation of fixedwing aircraft and training exercises, 

including touch and goes. Three 

approved routes are used that avoid 

established pinniped haulout sites. 

Aircraft flown through VAFB airspace 

and supported by 30th Space Wing 

include, but are not limited to: B–1 and 

B–2 bombers, F–15, F–16 and F–22 

fighters, V/X–22s, and KC–135 tankers. 

Helicopter operations also occur at 

VAFB, but the number of helicopter 

operations at VAFB has decreased 

considerably since 2008 when the 

deactivation of the VAFB helicopter 

squadron occurred. Other squadrons 

and units occasionally use VAFB for 

purposes such as transiting through the 

area, exercises and launch mission 

support. Emergency helicopter 

operations, including but not limited to 

search-and-rescue and wildfire 

containment actions, also occur 

occasionally. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems (also 

known as ‘‘drone’’) operations at VAFB 

represent a relatively new activity but 

may increase over the next five years. 

UAS operations may include either 

rotary or fixed wing aircraft. These are 

typically divided into as many as six 

classes which graduate in size from 

class 0 (which are often smaller than 5 

inches in diameter and always weigh 

less than one pound) to Class 5 (which 

can be as large as a small piloted 

aircraft) (Table 5). UAs classes 0, 1, 2 

and 3 can be used in almost any 

location, while classes 4 and 5 typically 

require a runway and for that reason 

would only be operated from the VAFB 

airfield. 

TABLE 5—CLASSES OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

Class Weight 

(pounds) 

Minimum 

dimension 

Maximum 

dimension 

Typical 

operating 

altitude 

(feet) 

Typical airspeed 

(knots) 

0 ................................. <1 ................................. ‘‘large insect’’ ............ 50 cm ........................ Any ............................ any. 

1 ................................. 1–20 ............................. >50 cm ...................... 2 meters .................... <1,200 ....................... <100. 

2 ................................. 21–55 ........................... >2 m .......................... 10 meters .................. <3,500 ....................... <250. 

3 ................................. <1,320 .......................... >10 meters ................ n/a ............................. <18,000 ..................... <250. 

4 ................................. >1,320 .......................... >10 meters ................ n/a ............................. <18,000 ..................... Any. 

5 ................................. >1,320 .......................... >10 meters ................ n/a ............................. <18,000 ..................... Any. 

Take of hauled out pinnipeds from 

aircraft operations may occur as a result 

of visual or auditory stimuli in limited 

instances where the aircraft operate at 

low altitudes near pinniped haulouts. 

While harassment of hauled out 

pinnipeds from Class 0, 1 or 2 UAS is 

unlikely to occur at altitudes of 200 feet 

and above (Erbe et al., 2017; Pomeroy et 

al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2016; Sweeney 

and Gelatt, 2017), information on 

pinniped responses to larger UASs is 

not widely available. However, based on 

the specifications of Class 3, 4 and 5 

UASs (Table 5), the likelihood of 

harassment resulting from overflights by 

UASs of that size would likely depend 

on several factors including noise 

signature and means of propulsion (i.e., 

rocket propelled or engine propelled). 

Except for take-off and landing actions, 

a minimum altitude of 300 feet will be 

maintained for Class 0–2 UAS over all 

known marine mammal haulouts when 

marine mammals are present. Class 3 

UAS will maintain a minimum altitude 

of 500 feet, except at take-off and 

landing. No Class 4 or 5 UAS will be 

flown below 1,000 feet over haulouts. 

The USAF anticipates that take of 

marine mammals from aircraft 

operations would be minimal; however, 

to be conservative, the USAF has 

requested authorization for incidental 

take as a result of aircraft operations. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

There are six marine mammal species 

with expected occurrence in the project 

area (including at VAFB, on the NCI, 

and in the waters surrounding VAFB 

and the NCI) that are expected to be 

affected by the specified activities. 

These are listed in Table 6. This section 

provides summary information 

regarding local occurrence of these 

species. We have reviewed USAF’s 

species descriptions, including life 

history information, for accuracy and 

completeness and refer the reader to 

Section 3 of the USAF’s application, as 

well as to NMFS’ Stock Assessment 

Reports (SAR; https:// 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 327 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/

population-assessments#marinemammals), rather than reprinting all of 

the information here. Additional general 

information about these species (e.g., 

physical and behavioral descriptions) 

may be found on NMFS’ website 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies). 

There are an additional 28 species of 

cetaceans with expected or possible 

occurrence in the project area. However, 

we have determined that the only 

potential stressors associated with the 

specified activities that could result in 

take of marine mammals (i.e., launch 

noise, sonic booms and aircraft 

operations) only have the potential to 

result in harassment of marine 

mammals that are hauled out of the 

water. Therefore, we have concluded 

that the likelihood of the proposed 

activities resulting in the harassment of 

any cetacean to be so low as to be 

discountable. As we have concluded 

that the likelihood of any cetacean being 

taken incidentally as a result of USAF’s 

proposed activities to be so low as to be 

discountable, cetaceans are not 

considered further in this proposed rule. 

Table 6 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the vicinity 

of the project during the project 

timeframe that are likely to be affected 

by the specified activities, and 

summarizes 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’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or proposed for authorization 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’s 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’s U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs 

(e.g., Carretta et al., 2018; Muto et al., 

2018). All values presented in Table 6 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

2017 SARs (Carretta et al., 2018; Muto 

et al., 2018) and draft 2018 SARs 

(available online at: https://www.

fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/populationassessments#marine-mammals). 

TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most 

recent 

abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): 

California sea lion ............... Zalophus californianus .............. U.S. ........................................... -; N 257,606 (n/a, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 ≥197 

Northern fur seal ................. Callorhinus ursinus ................... California ................................... -; N 14,050 (n/a, 7,524, 2013) 451 ≥0.8 

Steller sea lion .................... Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern U.S. ............................. -; N 41,638 (n/a, 41,638, 

2015).

2,498 108 

Guadalupe fur seal ............. Arctocephalus philippii 

townsendi.

Mexico ....................................... T/D; Y 20,000 (n/a, 15,830, 

2010).

542 ≥3.2 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Pacific harbor seal ..................... Phoca vitulina richardii .............. California ................................... -; N 30,968 (n/a, 27,348, 

2012).

1,641 30 

Northern elephant seal .............. Mirounga angustirostris ............ California breeding .................... -; N 179,000 (n/a, 81,368, 

2010).

4,882 4 

1Endangered 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/topic/population-assessments#marine-mammals. CV is coefficient of 

variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3These 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. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas and 

that may be affected by the proposed 

activities are included in Table 6. As 

described below, all six species (with 

six managed stocks) temporally and 

spatially co-occur with the activity to 

the degree that take is reasonably likely 

to occur. 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters and shoreline areas of 

the northern hemisphere from temperate 

to polar regions. The eastern North 

Pacific subspecies is found from Baja 

California north to the Aleutian Islands 

and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines 

of evidence support the existence of 

geographic structure among harbor seal 

populations from California to Alaska 

(Carretta et al., 2016). However, because 

stock boundaries are difficult to 

meaningfully draw from a biological 

perspective, three separate harbor seal 

stocks are recognized for management 

purposes along the west coast of the 

continental United States: (1) 

Washington inland waters, (2) Oregon 

and Washington coast, and (3) 

California (Carretta et al., 2016). In 

addition, harbor seals may occur in 

Mexican waters, but these animals are 

not considered part of the California 

stock. Only the California stock is 

considered in these proposed 

regulations due to the distribution of the 

stock and the geographic scope of the 

proposed activities. Although the need 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
328 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

for stock boundaries for management is 

real and is supported by biological 

information, it should be noted that the 

exact placement of a boundary between 

California and Oregon for stock 

delineation purposes was largely a 

political/jurisdictional convenience 

(Carretta et al. 2015). 

Pacific harbor seals are nonmigratory, 

with local movements associated with 

such factors as tides, weather, season, 

food availability, and reproduction 

(Scheffer and Slipp 1944, Fisher 1952, 

Bigg 1969, 1981, Hastings et al. 2004). 

In California, over 500 harbor seal 

haulout sites are widely distributed 

along the mainland and offshore 

islands, and include rocky shores, 

beaches and intertidal sandbars (Lowry 

et al. 2005). Harbor seals mate at sea and 

females give birth during the spring and 

summer, though the pupping season 

varies with latitude. Harbor seal 

pupping takes place at many locations 

and rookery size varies from a few pups 

to many hundreds of pups. 

Harbor seals are the most common 

marine mammal inhabiting VAFB, 

congregating on multiple rocky haulout 

sites along the VAFB coastline. They are 

local to the area, rarely traveling more 

than 50 km from haulout sites (pers 

comm., M. Lowry, NMFS SWFSC, to J. 

Carduner, NMFS OPR). There are 12 

harbor seal haulout sites on south 

VAFB; of these, 10 sites represent an 

almost continuous haulout area which 

is used by the same animals. Virtually 

all of the haulout sites at VAFB are used 

during low tides and are wave-washed 

or submerged during high tides. 

Additionally, the harbor seal is the only 

species that regularly hauls out near the 

VAFB harbor. The main harbor seal 

haulouts on VAFB are near Purisima 

Point and at Lion’s Head (approximately 

0.6 km south of Point Sal) on north 

VAFB and between the VAFB harbor 

north to South Rocky Point Beach on 

south VAFB (ManTech 2009) (see Figure 

2 in the USAF’s application). 

Pups are generally present in the 

region from March through July (USAF, 

2018). The best available information of 

harbor seal abundance on VAFB is 

USAF monthly survey data. Within the 

affected area on VAFB, a total of up to 

332 adults and 34 pups have been 

recorded, at all haulouts combined, in 

monthly counts from 2013 to 2015 

(ManTech 2015). The harbor seal 

population at VAFB has undergone an 

apparent decline in recent years (USAF, 

2018). This decline has been attributed 

to a series of natural landslides at south 

VAFB, resulting in the abandonment of 

many haulout sites. These slides have 

also resulted in extensive down-current 

sediment deposition, making these sites 

accessible to coyotes, which are now 

regularly seen in the area. Some of the 

displaced seals have moved to other 

sites at south VAFB, while others likely 

have moved to Point Conception, about 

6.5 km south of the southern boundary 

of VAFB (USAF, 2018). 

Harbor seals also haul out, breed, and 

pup in isolated beaches and coves 

throughout the coasts of San Miguel 

Island (SMI), Santa Rosa Island (SRI), 

San Nicolas Island (SNI) and Santa Cruz 

Island (SCI) (Lowry, 2002). The best 

available information of harbor seal 

abundance on the NCI is NMFS aerial 

survey data from 2011–2015 (Lowry et 

al., 2017). During aerial surveys 

conducted by NMFS from 2011–2015, a 

mean of 589 harbors seals was recorded 

at SMI, a mean of 181 was recorded at 

SCI, and a mean of 247 was recorded at 

SRI (Lowry et al., 2017). On SMI, they 

occur along the north coast at Tyler 

Bight and from Crook Point to Cardwell 

Point. Additionally, they regularly breed 

on SMI. On Santa Cruz Island, they 

inhabit small coves and rocky ledges 

along much of the coast. Harbor seals 

are scattered throughout Santa Rosa 

Island and also are observed in small 

numbers on Anacapa Island. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions range from the 

Gulf of California north to the Gulf of 

Alaska, with breeding areas located in 

the Gulf of California, western Baja 

California, and southern California. Five 

genetically distinct geographic 

populations have been identified: (1) 

Pacific Temperate, (2) Pacific 

Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of 

California, (4) Central Gulf of California 

and (5) Northern Gulf of California 

(Schramm et al., 2009). Rookeries for 

the Pacific Temperate population are 

found within U.S. waters and just south 

of the U.S.-Mexico border, and animals 

belonging to this population may be 

found from the Gulf of Alaska to 

Mexican waters off Baja California. 

Animals belonging to other populations 

(e.g., Pacific Subtropical) may range into 

U.S. waters during non-breeding 

periods. For management purposes, a 

stock of California sea lions comprising 

those animals at rookeries within the 

United States is defined (i.e., the U.S. 

stock of California sea lions) (Carretta et 

al., 2017). 

Beginning in January 2013, elevated 

strandings of California sea lion pups 

were observed in southern California, 

with live sea lion strandings nearly 

three times higher than the historical 

average. Findings to date indicate that a 

likely contributor to the large number of 

stranded, malnourished pups was a 

change in the availability of sea lion 

prey for nursing mothers, especially 

sardines. The Working Group on Marine 

Mammal Unusual Mortality Events 

determined that the ongoing stranding 

event meets the criteria for an Unusual 

Mortality Event (UME) and declared 

California sea lion strandings from 2013 

through 2017 to be one continuous 

UME. The causes and mechanisms of 

this event remain under investigation. 

For more information on the UME, see: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-life-distress/2013-2017- 

california-sea-lion-unusual-mortalityevent-california. 

Rookery sites in southern California 

are limited to SMI and the southerly 

Channel Islands of San Nicolas, Santa 

Barbara, and San Clemente (Carretta et 

al., 2015). Males establish breeding 

territories during May through July on 

both land and in the water. Females 

come ashore in mid-May and June 

where they give birth to a single pup 

approximately four to five days after 

arrival and will nurse pups for about a 

week before going on their first feeding 

trip. Adult and juvenile males will 

migrate as far north as British Columbia, 

Canada while females and pups remain 

in southern California waters in the 

non-breeding season. In warm water (El 

Nin ̃ o) years, some females are found as 

far north as Washington and Oregon, 

presumably following prey. 

The best available information on 

California sea lion abundance on VAFB 

is USAF monthly survey data. California 

sea lions are common offshore of VAFB 

and haul out on rocks and beaches along 

the coastline of VAFB. At south VAFB, 

California sea lions haul out on north 

Rocky Point, with numbers often 

peaking in spring. They have been 

reported at Point Arguello and Point 

Pedernales (both on south VAFB) in the 

past, although none have been noted 

there over the past several years. 

Individual sea lions have been noted 

hauled out throughout the VAFB coast; 

these were transient or stranded 

specimens. They regularly haul out on 

Lion Rock, north of VAFB and 

immediately south of Point Sal, and 

occasionally haul out on Point 

Conception, south of VAFB. In 2014, 

counts of California sea lions at 

haulouts on VAFB increased 

substantially, ranging from 47 to 416 

during monthly counts. Despite their 

prevalence at haulout sites at VAFB, 

California sea lions rarely pup on the 

VAFB coastline (ManTech 2015); no 

pups were observed in 2013 or 2014 

(ManTech 2015) and 1 pup was 

observed in 2015 (VAFB, unpub. data). 

Successful pupping has never been 

observed on VAFB; one possible 

explanation is that only California sea 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 329 

lions affected by domoic acid toxicity 

give birth at VAFB. These pups are 

either stillborn or very likely do not 

survive long (USAF, 2018). 

Pupping occurs in large numbers on 

SMI at the rookeries found at Point 

Bennett on the west end of the island 

and at Cardwell Point on the east end 

of the island (Lowry 2002). Sea lions 

haul out at the west end of Santa Rosa 

Island at Ford Point and Carrington 

Point. A few California sea lions have 

been born on Santa Rosa Island, but no 

rookery has been established. On Santa 

Cruz Island, California sea lions haul 

out from Painted Cave almost to Fraser 

Point, on the west end. California sea 

lions also haul out at Gull Island, off the 

south shore near Punta Arena. Pupping 

appears to be increasing there. Sea lions 

also haul out near Potato Harbor, on the 

northeast end of Santa Cruz. California 

sea lions haul out by the hundreds on 

the south side of East Anacapa Island 

(Lowry et al., 2017). 

The best available information on 

California sea lion abundance on the 

NCI is NMFS aerial survey data from 

2011–2015 (Lowry et al., 2017). During 

aerial surveys from 2011–2015, a mean 

of 62,150 California sea lions were 

recorded at haulouts on SMI, a mean of 

1322 was recorded at SCI and a mean 

of 944 was recorded at SRI (Lowry et al., 

2017). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals range in the 

eastern and central North Pacific Ocean, 

from as far north as Alaska and as far 

south as Mexico. They spend much of 

the year, generally about nine months, 

in the ocean. They spend much of their 

lives underwater, diving to depths of 

about 1,000 to 2,500 ft (330–800 m) for 

20- to 30-minute intervals with only 

short breaks at the surface, and are 

rarely seen at sea for this reason. 

Northern elephant seals breed and give 

birth in California and Baja California 

(Mexico), primarily on offshore islands, 

from December to March (Stewart et al. 

1994). Adults return to land between 

March and August to molt, with males 

returning later than females. Adults 

return to their feeding areas again 

between their spring/summer molting 

and their winter breeding seasons. 

Populations of northern elephant 

seals in the U.S. and Mexico are derived 

from a few tens or hundreds of 

individuals surviving in Mexico after 

being nearly hunted to extinction 

(Stewart et al., 1994). Given the recent 

derivation of most rookeries, no genetic 

differentiation would be expected. 

Although movement and genetic 

exchange continues between rookeries, 

most elephant seals return to their natal 

rookeries when they start breeding 

(Huber et al., 1991). The California 

breeding population is now 

demographically isolated from the Baja 

California population and is considered 

to be a separate stock. 

The best available information on 

northern elephant seal abundance on 

VAFB is USAF monthly survey data. 

Northern elephant seals haul out 

sporadically on rocks and beaches along 

the coastline of VAFB; monthly counts 

in 2013 and 2014 recorded between 0 

and 191 elephant seals within the 

affected area (ManTech 2015). Northern 

elephant seal pupping at VAFB was 

documented for the first time in January 

2017 with 18 pups born and weaned. In 

January 2018, a total of 25 pups were 

observed born and weaned. (USAF, 

2018). 

The best available information on 

northern elephant seal abundance on 

the NCI is NMFS aerial survey data from 

2011–2015 (Lowry et al., 2017). Point 

Bennett on the west end of SMI is the 

primary northern elephant seal rookery 

in the NCI, with another rookery at 

Cardwell Point on the east end of SMI 

(Lowry 2002). They also pup and breed 

on Santa Rosa Island, mostly on the 

west end. Northern elephant seals are 

rarely seen on Santa Cruz and Anacapa 

Islands. During aerial surveys of the NCI 

conducted by NMFS from 2011–2015, a 

mean of 2,350 northern elephant seals 

was recorded at SMI, and a mean of 816 

was recorded at SRI. None were 

observed at Santa Cruz Island (Lowry et 

al., 2017). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are distributed 

mainly around the coasts to the outer 

continental shelf along the North Pacific 

rim from northern Hokkaido, Japan 

through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk 

Sea, Aleutian Islands and central Bering 

Sea, southern coast of Alaska and south 

to California (Loughlin et al., 1984). The 

species as a whole was ESA-listed as 

threatened in 1990 (55 FR 49204, 

November 26, 1990). In 1997, the 

species was divided into western and 

eastern distinct population segments 

(DPS), with the western DPS reclassified 

as endangered under the ESA and the 

eastern DPS retaining its threatened 

listing (62 FR 24345, May 5, 2997). On 

October 23, 2013, NMFS found that the 

eastern DPS has recovered; as a result of 

the finding, NMFS removed the eastern 

DPS from ESA listing. Only the eastern 

DPS is considered in this proposed 

authorization due to its distribution and 

the geographic scope of the action. 

Prior to 2012, there were no records 

of Steller sea lions observed at VAFB. In 

April and May 2012, Steller sea lions 

were observed hauled out at North 

Rocky Point on VAFB, representing the 

first time the species had been observed 

at VAFB during launch monitoring and 

monthly surveys conducted over the 

past two decades (MMCG and SAIC, 

2013). The best available information on 

Steller sea lion abundance on VAFB is 

USAF monthly surveys. Since 2012, 

Steller sea lions have been observed 

frequently in routine monthly surveys, 

with as many as 16 individuals 

recorded. In 2017, the highest number 

observed at VAFB was 11, in July 

(CEMML, 2018). Steller sea lions once 

had two small rookeries on SMI, but 

these were abandoned after the 1982– 

1983 El Nin ̃ o event (DeLong and Melin, 

2000, Lowry, 2002); these rookeries 

were once the southernmost colonies of 

the eastern stock of this species. Due to 

their very limited numbers on the NCI, 

survey data for Steller sea lions on the 

NCI is not available, therefore the best 

available information on abundance on 

the NCI is anecdotal information from 

subject matter experts. In recent years, 

between two to four juvenile and adult 

males have been observed on a 

somewhat regular basis on San Miguel 

Island (pers. comm. Sharon Melin, 

NMFS Marine Mammal Center (MML), 

to J. Carduner, NMFS). Steller sea lions 

have not been observed on the other 

Channel Islands. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Northern fur seals occur from 

southern California north to the Bering 

Sea and west to the Okhotsk Sea and 

Honshu Island, Japan. Due to differing 

requirements during the annual 

reproductive season, adult males and 

females typically occur ashore at 

different, though overlapping, times. 

Adult males occur ashore and defend 

reproductive territories during a three 

month period from June through 

August, though some may be present 

until November (well after giving up 

their territories). Adult females are 

found ashore for as long as six months 

(June–November). After their respective 

times ashore, fur seals of both sexes 

spend the next seven to eight months at 

sea (Roppel, 1984). Peak pupping is in 

early July and pups are weaned at three 

to four months. Some juveniles are 

present year-round, but most juveniles 

and adults head for the open ocean and 

a pelagic existence until the next year. 

Northern fur seals exhibit high site 

fidelity to their natal rookeries. Two 

stocks of northern fur seals are 

recognized in U.S. waters: An eastern 

Pacific stock and a California stock 

(formerly referred to as the San Miguel 

Island stock). Only the California stock 

is considered in this proposed 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
330 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

authorization due to its geographic 

distribution. 

Northern fur seals have rookeries on 

SMI at Point Bennett and on Castle 

Rock. 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 NCI comes from 

subject matter experts which indicates 

the population is at its maximum in 

summer (June–August) with an 

estimated 13,384 animals at SMI, 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). SMI is the only 

island in the NCI on which northern fur 

seals have been observed, and on SMI 

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). Although the population at SMI 

was established by individuals from 

Alaska and Russian Islands during the 

late 1960s, most individuals currently 

found on SMI are considered resident to 

the island. No haulout or rookery sites 

exist for northern fur seals on the 

mainland coast. The only individuals 

that appear on mainland beaches are 

stranded animals. 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

Guadalupe fur seals are found along 

the west coast of the United States, with 

the majority of the population found on 

islands in Mexico. They 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. They are typically found on 

shores with abundant large rocks, often 

at the base of large cliffs (Belcher and 

Lee, 2002). Increased strandings of 

Guadalupe fur seals started occurring 

along the entire coast of California in 

early 2015. This event was declared a 

marine mammal UME. Strandings were 

eight times higher than the historical 

average, peaking from April through 

June 2015, and have since lessened but 

continue at a rate that is well above 

average. Most stranded individuals have 

been weaned pups and juveniles (1–2 

years old). For more information on this 

UME, see: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2015-2018- 

guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortalityevent-california. 

Comprehensive survey data on 

Guadalupe fur seals in the NCI is not 

readily available, therefore the best 

available information on Guadalupe fur 

seal abundance is from subject matter 

experts. On SMI, one to several male 

Guadalupe fur seals had been observed 

annually between 1969 and 2000 

(DeLong and Melin, 2000) and juvenile 

animals of both sexes have been seen 

occasionally over the years (Stewart et 

al., 1987). The first adult female at San 

Miguel Island was seen in 1997. In June 

1997, she gave birth to a pup in rocky 

habitat along the south side of the island 

and, over the next year, reared the pup 

to weaning age. This was apparently the 

first pup born in the Channel Islands in 

at least 150 years. Since 2008, 

individual adult females, subadult 

males, and between one and three pups 

have been observed annually on SMI. 

There are estimated to be approximately 

20–25 individuals that have fidelity to 

San Miguel, mostly inhabiting the 

southwest and northwest ends of the 

island. A total of 14 pups have been 

born on the island since 2009, with no 

more than 3 born in any single season 

(pers. comm., S. Melin, NMFS MML, to 

J. Carduner, NMFS OPR). Thirteen 

individuals and two pups were 

observed in 2015 (NMFS 2016). No 

haulout or rookery sites exist for 

Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland 

coast, including VAFB. The only 

individuals that do appear on mainland 

beaches are stranded animals. 

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 lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (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): 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz; and 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Six species of 

marine mammal (four otariid and two 

phocid species) have the reasonable 

potential to co-occur with the proposed 

activities. Please refer to Table 6. 

TABLE 4—RELEVANT MARINE MAMMAL

FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUPS AND

THEIR GENERALIZED HEARING

RANGES

Hearing group Generalized 

hearing range * 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals).50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals).60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the 

entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within 

the group), where individual species’ hearing ranges 

are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range 

chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized 

composite audiogram, with the exception for lower 

limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and 

PW pinniped (approximation). 

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 specified 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 331 

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 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. 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. Note that all 

airborne sound levels in this document 

are referenced to a pressure of 20 mPa. 

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 mPa2-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). 

A-weighting is applied to instrumentmeasured sound levels in an effort to 

account for the relative loudness 

perceived by the human ear, as the ear 

is less sensitive to low audio 

frequencies, and is commonly used in 

measuring airborne noise. The relative 

sensitivity of pinnipeds listening in air 

to different frequencies is more-or-less 

similar to that of humans (Richardson et 

al., 1995), so A-weighting may, as a first 

approximation, be relevant to pinnipeds 

listening to moderate-level sounds. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from a given activity 

may be a negligible addition to the local 

environment or could form a distinctive 

signal that may affect marine mammals. 

Details of source types are described in 

the following text. 

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 nonpulsed 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). 

The effects of sounds from the 

proposed activities are expected to 

result in behavioral disturbance of 

marine mammals. Due to the expected 

sound levels of the activities proposed 

and the distance of the activity from 

marine mammal habitat, the effects of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
332 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

sounds from the proposed activities are 

not expected to result in temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment (TTS 

and PTS, respectively), non-auditory 

physical or physiological effects, or 

masking in marine mammals. Data from 

monitoring reports associated with 

authorizations issued by NMFS 

previously for similar activities in the 

same location as the planned activities 

(described further below) provides 

further support for the assertion that 

TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects, and masking are 

not likely to occur (USAF 2013b; SAIC 

2012). Therefore, TTS, PTS, nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects, and masking are not discussed 

further in this section. 

Disturbance Reactions 

Disturbance includes a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior, more conspicuous changes in 

activities, and displacement. Behavioral 

responses to sound are highly variable 

and context-specific and reactions, if 

any, depend on species, state of 

maturity, experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 

time of day, and many other factors 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 

2003; Southall et al., 2007). 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. The opposite 

process is sensitization, when an 

unpleasant experience leads to 

subsequent responses, often in the form 

of avoidance, at a lower level of 

exposure. Behavioral state may affect 

the type of response as well. For 

example, animals that are resting may 

show greater behavioral change in 

response to disturbing sound levels than 

animals that are highly motivated to 

remain in an area for feeding 

(Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; 

Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have shown 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud underwater 

sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 

Finneran et al., 2003). 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). 

Marine mammals that occur in the 

project area could be exposed to 

airborne sounds that have the potential 

to result in behavioral harassment, 

depending on an animal’s distance from 

the sound. Airborne sound could 

potentially affect pinnipeds that are 

hauled out. Most likely, airborne sound 

would cause behavioral responses 

similar to those discussed above in 

relation to underwater sound. For 

instance, anthropogenic sound could 

cause hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit 

changes in their normal behavior, such 

as temporarily abandoning their habitat. 

Hauled out pinnipeds may flush from a 

haulout into the water. Though pup 

abandonment could theoretically result 

from these reactions, site-specific 

monitoring data (described below) 

indicate that pup abandonment is not 

likely to occur as a result of the 

specified activity. 

Potential Effects From the Specified 

Activity 

This section includes a discussion of 

the active acoustic sound sources 

associated with the USAF’s proposed 

activity and the likelihood for these 

sources to result in harassment of 

marine mammals. Potential acoustic 

sources associated with the USAF’s 

proposed activity include launch noise, 

sonic booms, and aircraft noise. Marine 

mammals on the NCI would be 

impacted only by sonic booms 

associated with the proposed activities 

(i.e., launch noise and aircraft noise are 

not expected to impact marine 

mammals on the NCI), while marine 

mammals on VAFB would be impacted 

by launch noise, aircraft noise and sonic 

booms from Falcon 9 boost-backs and 

landings (however, as described above, 

sounds associated with Falcon 9 First 

Stage boost-backs and landings are not 

expected to result in additional take of 

marine mammals and are therefore not 

addressed here). Sounds produced by 

the proposed activities are expected to 

be impulsive, due to sonic booms, and 

non-pulse noise, due to aircraft sounds. 

All noises resulting from the USAF’s 

proposed activities that may impact 

marine mammals are airborne. 

Sonic Boom 

Sonic booms may disturb pinnipeds 

that are hauled out of the water in the 

area of exposure, depending on the 

species exposed and the level of the 

sonic boom. The USAF has monitored 

pinniped responses to rocket launches 

on VAFB and the NCI during numerous 

launches over the past two decades. 

Observed reactions of pinnipeds at the 

NCI to sonic booms have ranged from no 

response to heads-up alerts, from startle 

responses to some movements on land, 

and from some movements into the 

water to very rare stampedes. 

Data from launch monitoring reports 

by the USAF on the NCI have shown 

that pinniped reactions to sonic booms 

are correlated with the level of the sonic 

boom. Table 7 presents a summary of 

monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999 

to 2017 during which acoustic 

measurements were successfully 

recorded and during which pinnipeds 

were observed. Monitoring data has 

consistently shown that reactions 

among pinnipeds to sonic booms vary 

between species, with harbor seals 

typically responding at the highest rates, 

followed by California sea lions, with 

northern elephant seals and northern fur 

seals generally being much less 

responsive (Table 7). Because Steller sea 

lions and Guadalupe fur seals occur in 

the project area relatively infrequently, 

no data has been recorded on their 

reactions to sonic booms. At the NCI, 

harbor seals have been observed to 

respond at higher rates to sonic booms 

than other species present there (Table 

7). California sea lions have also 

sometimes shown reactiveness to sonic 

booms, with pups sometimes reacting 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 333 

more than adults, (Table 7). Northern 

fur seals generally show little or no 

reaction. Northern elephant seals 

generally exhibit no reaction at all, 

except perhaps a heads-up response or 

some stirring, especially if sea lions in 

the same area or mingled with the 

elephant seals react strongly to the 

boom. Post-launch monitoring generally 

reveals a return to normal patterns 

within minutes up to an hour or two of 

each launch, regardless of species (SAIC 

2012). 

Monitoring data also show that 

reactions to sonic booms tend to be 

insignificant below 1.0 psf and that, 

even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the 

animals present have reacted to the 

sonic boom depending on the species. 

Lower energy sonic booms (< 1.0 psf) 

have typically resulted in little to no 

behavioral responses, including head 

raising and briefly alerting but returning 

to normal behavior shortly after the 

stimulus (Table 7). More powerful sonic 

booms have sometimes resulted in some 

species of pinnipeds flushing from 

haulouts. 

TABLE 7—OBSERVED PINNIPED RESPONSES TO SONIC BOOMS AT SAN MIGUEL ISLAND, BASED ON USAF LAUNCH

MONITORING REPORTS

Launch event 

Sonic 

boom 

level 

(psf) 

Monitoring location Species observed and responses 

Athena II (April 27, 1999) .......... 1.0 Adams Cove ............................. California sea lion: 866 alerted; 232 (27%) flushed into water. 

Northern elephant seal: alerted but did not flush. 

Northern fur seal: alerted but did not flush. 

Athena II (September 24, 1999) 0.95 Point Bennett ............................ California sea lion: 12 of 600 (2%) flushed into water. 

Northern elephant seal: alerted but did not flush. 

Northern fur seal: alerted but did not flush. 

Delta II 20 (November 20, 2000) 0.4 Point Bennett ............................ California sea lion: 60 pups flushed into water; no reaction from 

focal group. 

Northern elephant seal: no reaction. 

Atlas II (September 8, 2001) ..... 0.75 Cardwell Point .......................... California sea lion (Group 1): no reaction (1,200 animals). 

California sea lion (Group 2): no reaction (247 animals). 

Northern elephant seal: no reaction. 

Harbor seal: 2 of 4 flushed into water. 

Delta II (February 11, 2002) ...... 0.64 Point Bennett ............................ California sea lions and northern fur seals: no reaction among 

485 animals in 3 groups. 

Northern elephant seal: no reaction among 424 animals in 2 

groups. 

Atlas II (December 2, 2003) ...... 0.88 Point Bennett ............................ California sea lion: approximately 40% alerted; several flushed 

to water (number unknown—night launch). 

Northern elephant seal: no reaction. 

Delta II (July 15, 2004) .............. 1.34 Adams Cove ............................. California sea lion: 10% alerted (number unknown—night 

launch). 

Atlas V (March 13, 2008) ........... 1.24 Cardwell Point .......................... Northern elephant seal: no reaction (109 pups).

Delta II (May 5, 2009) ................ 0.76 West of Judith Rock ................. California sea lion: no reaction (784 animals). 

Atlas V (April 14, 2011) ............. 1.01 Cuyler Harbor ........................... Northern elephant seal: no reaction (445 animals). 

Atlas V (September 13, 2012) ... 2.10 Cardwell Point .......................... California sea lion: no reaction (460 animals). 

Northern elephant seal: no reaction (68 animals). 

Harbor seal: 20 of 36 (56%) flushed into water. 

Atlas V (April 3, 2014) ............... 0.74 Cardwell Point .......................... Harbor seal: 1 of ∼25 flushed into water; no reaction from others. 

Atlas V (December 12, 2014) .... 1.18 Point Bennett ............................ Calif. sea lion: 5 of ∼225 alerted; none flushed. 

Atlas V (October 8, 2015) .......... 1.96 East Adams Cove of Point 

Bennett.

Calif. sea lion: ∼60% of CSL alerted and raised their heads. 

None flushed. 

Northern elephant seal: No visible response to sonic boom, 

none flushed. 

Northern fur seal: 60% alerted and raised their heads. None 

flushed. 

Atlas V (March 1, 2017) ............. a ∼0.8 Cuyler Harbor on San Miguel 

Island.

Northern elephant seal: 13 of 235 (6%) alerted; none flushed. 

aPeak sonic boom at the monitoring site was ∼2.2 psf, but was in infrasonic range—not audible to pinnipeds. Within the audible frequency 

spectrum, boom at monitoring site estimated at ∼0.8 psf. 

Monitoring data also suggests that, for 

those pinnipeds that flush from 

haulouts in response to sonic booms, 

the amount of time it takes those 

animals to begin returning to the 

haulout site and for numbers of animals 

to return to pre-launch levels is 

correlated with sonic boom levels. 

Pinnipeds may begin to return to the 

haulout site within 2–55 minutes of the 

launch disturbance, and the haulout site 

usually returned to pre-launch levels 

within 45–120 minutes. Monitoring data 

from launch of the Athena IKONOS 

rocket in 2012 showed harbor seals that 

flushed to the water on exposure to the 

sonic boom at SMI began to return to the 

haulout approximately 16–55 minutes 

post-launch (Thorson et al., 1999). 

Monitoring data from the launch of the 

Delta IV in 2012 showed harbor seals 

that flushed to the water at VAFB in 

response to the launch noise returned to 

the haulout approximately 30 minutes 

later (ManTech SRS Technologies, 

2012). 

Based on two decades of monitoring 

reports, pinniped responses to sonic 

booms range from no response, to head 

raises and movements in response to the 

stimuli, to flushing to the water. Injury 

and mortality are not expected to result 

from exposure to sonic booms and this 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
334 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

is supported by two decades of 

monitoring reports which have shown 

no documented pinniped mortalities or 

serious associated with sonic booms, 

and no pup abandonment as a result of 

sonic booms. No sustained decreases in 

numbers of animals observed at 

haulouts have been observed after the 

stimulus. These findings came as a 

result of more than two decades of 

research by numerous qualified, 

independent researchers, from 1991 

through 2018. These patterns are 

anticipated to continue. 

Launch Noise 

Whereas sonic booms represent the 

primary source of noise on the NCI from 

the USAF’s proposed activities, on 

VAFB the sound associated with 

launches represents the primary source 

of noise from the USAF’s proposed 

activities. The operation of launch 

vehicle engines produces significant 

sound levels. Generally, noise is 

generated from three sources during 

launches: (1) Combustion noise from 

launch vehicle chambers; (2) jet noise 

generated by the interaction of the 

exhaust jet and the atmosphere; (3) 

combustion noise from the post-burning 

of combustion products. Launch noise 

levels are highly dependent on the type 

of first-stage booster and the fuel used 

to propel the vehicle. 

Pre- and post-launch pinniped 

monitoring by marine mammal 

observers occurs at haulouts near 

launch sites. Pre- and post-launch data 

has shown that as many or more 

animals are typically hauled out after 

the launch than were present prior to 

the launch, unless rising tides, breakers 

or other disturbances are involved 

(SAIC 2012). When launches occurred 

during high tides at VAFB, no impacts 

have been recorded because virtually all 

haulout sites were submerged. As with 

sonic booms, observed reactions of 

pinnipeds at VAFB to launch noise has 

included startle responses and 

movements into the water. No pinniped 

mortalities and no pup abandonment 

have been documented as a result of 

launch noise. These patterns are 

anticipated to continue. 

Available monitoring data on 

pinniped behavior during launches is 

more limited than pre- and post-launch 

data as marine mammal observers are 

not able to access pinniped haulouts 

near launch sites during launches due to 

safety concerns. Video monitoring of 

pinnipeds during launches is not always 

feasible due to launches occurring in 

darkness or poor visibility conditions 

but has been used successfully during a 

limited number of launches that 

occurred in daylight and with good 

visibility conditions. Data from the 

limited number of launches where video 

monitoring during launches was 

successful indicates that all harbor seals 

and California sea lions have flushed to 

the water during launches while 10 

percent or less of northern elephant 

seals have flushed to the water during 

launch. However, it should be noted 

that available video monitoring data is 

very limited so it is difficult to draw 

broad conclusions on responses to 

launches based on the small sample 

sizes of available data (i.e., there is only 

one launch for which video monitoring 

data is available for California sea lions). 

We also note that video monitoring 

during launches is typically conducted 

at haulouts on VAFB close to the launch 

location, thus the rate at which 

pinnipeds respond to launches at 

haulouts on VAFB that are further away 

from the launch location remain largely 

unknown, further complicating our 

ability to draw conclusions on pinniped 

response rates during launches. 

To determine if harbor seals 

experience changes in their hearing 

sensitivity as a result of launch noise, 

ABR testing was previously conducted 

on 21 harbor seals during four Titan IV 

launches, one Taurus launch, and two 

Delta IV launches by the USAF in 

accordance with issued scientific 

research permits. Following standard 

ABR testing protocol, the ABR was 

measured from one ear of each seal 

using sterile, sub-dermal, stainless steel 

electrodes. A conventional electrode 

array was used, and low-level white 

noise was presented to the non-tested 

ear to reduce any electrical potentials 

generated by the non-tested ear. A 

computer was used to produce the click 

and an 8 kilohertz (kHz) tone burst 

stimuli, through standard audiometric 

headphones. Over 1,000 ABR 

waveforms were collected and averaged 

per trial. Initially the stimuli were 

presented at SPLs loud enough to obtain 

a clean reliable waveform, and then 

decreased in 10 dB steps until the 

response was no longer reliably 

observed. Once response was no longer 

reliably observed, the stimuli were then 

increased in 10 dB steps to the original 

SPL. By obtaining two ABR waveforms 

at each SPL, it was possible to quantify 

the variability in the measurements. 

Good replicable responses were 

measured from most of the seals, with 

waveforms following the expected 

pattern of an increase in latency and 

decrease in amplitude of the peaks, as 

the stimulus level was lowered. One 

seal had substantial decreased acuity to 

the 8 kHz tone-burst stimuli prior to the 

launch. The cause of this hearing loss 

was unknown but was most likely 

congenital or from infection. Another 

seal had a great deal of variability in 

waveform latencies in response to 

identical stimuli. This animal moved 

repeatedly during testing, which may 

have reduced the sensitivity of the ABR 

testing on this animal for both the click 

and 8 kHz tone burst stimuli. Two of the 

seals were released after pre-launch 

testing but prior to the launch of the 

Titan IV B–34, as the launch was 

delayed for over five days, with five 

days being the maximum duration 

permitted to hold the seals for testing. 

Detailed analysis of the changes in 

waveform latency and waveform 

replication of the ABR measurements 

for the 14 seals, showed no detectable 

changes in the seals’ hearing sensitivity 

as a result of exposure to the launch 

noise. The delayed start (1.75 to 3.5 hr 

after the launches) for ABR testing 

allows for the possibility that the seals 

may have recovered from a temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) before testing 

began. However, it can be said with 

confidence that the post-launch tested 

animals did not have permanent hearing 

changes due to exposure to the launch 

noise from the Titan IV, Taurus, or Delta 

IV SLVs. 

No sustained decreases in numbers of 

animals observed at haulouts have been 

observed after launches. No pup 

abandonment has been documented as a 

result of launch noise and no 

documented pinniped mortalities have 

been associated with launch noise on 

VAFB. These patterns are expected to 

continue. 

Aircraft and Helicopter Operations 

The USAF does not monitor pinniped 

responses to aircraft and helicopter 

operations, including UAS operations, 

on VAFB. As described above, except 

for take-off and landing actions, a 

minimum altitude of 300 feet will be 

maintained for Class 0–2 UAS over all 

known marine mammal haulouts when 

marine mammals are present. Class 3 

UAS will maintain a minimum altitude 

of 500 feet, except at take-off and 

landing. No Class 4 or 5 UAS will be 

flown below 1,000 feet over haulouts. 

The available literature indicates that 

harassment of hauled out pinnipeds, as 

a result of visual or auditory stimuli, 

from Class 0–2 UAS is unlikely to occur 

at altitudes of 300 feet and above (Erbe 

et al., 2017; Pomeroy et al., 2015; 

Sweeney et al., 2016; Sweeney and 

Gelatt, 2017). Information on pinniped 

responses to larger UASs, including 

Class 3 UASs, is not available. However, 

based on the specifications of Class 3 

UASs (Table 5), the likelihood of marine 

mammal harassment resulting from 

overflights by UASs of that size would 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 335 

likely depend on several factors 

including noise signature and means of 

propulsion (i.e., rocket propelled or 

engine propelled). The specifications for 

potential Class 3 UASs that would be 

used by USAF are not known at this 

time as this is a relatively new activity 

at VAFB and as UAS technology is 

changing rapidly it is difficult for the 

USAF to predict which types of UAS 

will be used between 2019 and 2024. 

While unlikely, it is possible that take 

of marine mammals could occur as a 

result of Class 3 UASs flown at 500 feet 

or above, depending on noise signature 

and means of propulsion of the UAS. In 

addition, occasional helicopter and 

aircraft operations involving search-andrescue missions, delivery of space 

vehicle components, launch mission 

support, security reconnaissance, and 

training flights occur at VAFB and have 

the potential to result in harassment of 

hauled out pinnipeds. While monitoring 

data is not available, we anticipate that 

pinniped responses to aircraft and 

helicopter operations will be similar to 

those exhibited in response to sonic 

booms and launch noise (i.e., some head 

raises, movements in response to the 

stimulus, and possibly flushing to the 

water). 

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 specified 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 proposed rule. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this proposed 

rule, which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to sounds associated 

with the planned activities. 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 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 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of sound above which exposed 

marine mammals would be reasonably 

expected to be behaviorally harassed 

(equated to Level B harassment) or to 

incur PTS of some degree (equated to 

Level A harassment). Thresholds have 

also been developed identifying the 

received level of in-air sound above 

which exposed pinnipeds would likely 

be behaviorally harassed. 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—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. For in-air sounds, NMFS 

predicts that harbor seals exposed above 

received levels of 90 dB re 20 mPa (rms) 

will be behaviorally harassed, and other 

pinnipeds will be harassed when 

exposed above 100 dB re 20 mPa (rms) 

(Table 8). 

TABLE 8—NMFS CRITERIA FOR

PINNIPED HARASSMENT FROM EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE SOUND

Species 

Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

Harbor seals .......................... 90 dB re 20 

μPa. 

All other pinniped species ..... 100 dB re 20 

μPa. 

In the absence of site-specific data, 

NMFS typically relies on the acoustic 

criteria shown in Table 8 to estimate 

take as a result of exposure to airborne 

sound. However, in this case, more than 

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 USAF at VAFB 

and the NCI over the past 20 years has 

shown that pinniped reactions to sonic 

booms and launch noise vary depending 

on the species, the intensity of the 

stimulus, and the location (i.e., on 

VAFB or the NCI). At the NCI, harbor 

seals have tended to react more strongly 

to sonic booms than most other species, 

with California sea lions also appearing 

to be somewhat more sensitive to sonic 

booms than some other pinniped 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
336 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

species (Table 7). Northern fur seals 

generally show little or no reaction, and 

northern elephant seals generally 

exhibit no reaction at all, except 

perhaps a heads-up response or some 

stirring, especially if sea lions in the 

same area mingled with the elephant 

seals react strongly to the boom (Table 

7). No data is available on Steller sea 

lion or Guadalupe fur seal responses to 

sonic booms. There is less data available 

on pinniped responses during launches, 

but the available data indicates that all 

harbor seals and California sea lions 

have tended to flush to the water during 

launches while 10 percent or less of 

northern elephant seals have flushed to 

the water during launch. 

Ensonified Area 

The USAF is not able to predict the 

exact areas that will be impacted by 

noise associated with the specified 

activities, including sonic booms, 

launch noise and aircraft noise. 

Numerous launch locations are utilized 

on VAFB, each of which results in 

different parts of the base (and different 

haulouts) being ensonified by launch 

noise during launches. Different space 

launch vehicles have varying 

trajectories which result in different 

sonic boom ‘‘footprints’’, which are 

likely to impact different areas on the 

NCI. In addition, rocket launches by 

private entities on VAFB are expected to 

increase over the next 5 years and the 

USAF is not able to predict the 

trajectories of these future rocket launch 

programs. Therefore, for the purposes of 

estimating take, we conservatively 

estimate that all haulouts on VAFB will 

be ensonified by launch noise during a 

rocket or missile launch. On the NCI, 

sonic booms from launches sometimes 

impact San Miguel Island (SMI) and 

occasionally Santa Rosa Island (SRI); 

Santa Cruz and Anacapa Islands are not 

expected to be impacted by sonic booms 

in excess of 1.0 psf (USAF, 2018) 

therefore only marine mammals on San 

Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands may 

potentially be taken by sonic booms. We 

estimate that, when a sonic boom 

impacts the NCI, 25 percent of pinniped 

haulouts on San Miguel and Santa Rosa 

Islands will be ensonified by a sonic 

boom above 1.0 psf. We consider this to 

be a conservative assumption based on 

sonic boom models which show that 

areas predicted to be impacted by a 

sonic boom with peak overpressures of 

1.0 psf and above are typically limited 

to isolated parts of a single island, and 

sonic boom model results tend to 

overestimate actual recorded sonic 

booms on the NCI (pers. comm. R. 

Evans, USAF, to J. Carduner, NMFS 

OPR). 

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. 

Data collected from marine mammal 

surveys, including monthly marine 

mammal surveys conducted by the 

USAF at VAFB as well as data collected 

by NMFS at NCI, represent the best 

available information on the occurrence 

of the six pinniped species expected to 

occur in the project area. Monthly 

marine mammal surveys at VAFB are 

conducted to document the abundance, 

distribution and status of pinnipeds at 

VAFB. When possible, these surveys are 

timed to coincide with the lowest 

afternoon tides of each month, when the 

greatest numbers of animals are usually 

hauled out. Data gathered during 

monthly surveys include: Species, 

number, general behavior, presence of 

pups, age class, gender, reactions to 

natural or human-caused disturbances, 

and environmental conditions. The 

quality and amount of information 

available on pinnipeds in the project 

area varies depending on species; some 

species are surveyed regularly at VAFB 

and the NCI (e.g., California sea lion), 

while other species are surveyed less 

frequently (e.g., northern fur seals and 

Guadalupe fur seals). However, the best 

available data was used to estimate take 

numbers. Take estimates for all species 

are shown in Table 13. 

Harbor Seal—Pacific harbor seals are 

the most common marine mammal 

inhabiting VAFB, congregating on 

several rocky haulout sites along the 

VAFB coastline. They also haul out, 

breed, and pup in isolated beaches and 

coves throughout the coasts of the NCI. 

Data from VAFB monthly surveys for 

the three most recent years for which 

data is available (2015, 2016 and 2017) 

shows the mean number of harbor seals 

recorded on VAFB during those years 

was 255 (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018). 

The USAF estimated the number of 

harbor seals that may be hauled out at 

VAFB during all months of the year 

from 2019–2024 to be 300; we think this 

is a reasonable estimate given the 

monthly survey data as described above 

and the fluctuations in harbor seal 

numbers observed on VAFB; therefore, 

take of harbor seals at VAFB was 

estimated based on a conservative 

estimate of 300 harbor seals hauled out 

during any month on VAFB. Take of 

harbor seals at the NCI was estimated 

based on the mean count totals from 

survey data collected on SMI, SRI, and 

Richardson Rock (located 10 km 

northwest of SMI), from 2011 to 2015 by 

the NMFS SWFSC (Lowry et al., 2017). 

California sea lion—California sea 

lions are common offshore of VAFB and 

haul out on rocks and beaches along the 

coastline of VAFB where their numbers 

have been increasing in recent years, 

though pupping rarely occurs on the 

VAFB coastline. They haul out in large 

numbers on the NCI and rookeries exist 

on SMI. The data from monthly marine 

mammal surveys at VAFB from 2015, 

2016 and 2017 shows a mean of 11 

California sea lions recorded at VAFB 

(CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018). However, 

numbers of California sea lions appear 

to be increasing at VAFB, with a mean 

of 21 recorded during surveys in 2017 

including 68 recorded in September 

2017 (CEMML, 2018). The USAF 

estimated in their application that up to 

125 California sea lions may be hauled 

out at VAFB during any month of the 

year; however, based on the monthly 

survey data, for the purposes of 

estimating take we conservatively 

estimate that up to 75 California sea 

lions may be hauled out during any 

month of the year. Take of California sea 

lions at the NCI was estimated based on 

the mean count totals from survey data 

collected on SMI, SRI, and Richardson 

Rock from 2011 to 2015 by the NMFS 

SWFSC (Lowry et al., 2017). 

Steller Sea Lion—Steller sea lions 

occur in very small numbers at VAFB 

and on SMI. They do not currently have 

rookeries at VAFB or the NCI. Data from 

monthly marine mammal surveys at 

VAFB from 2015, 2016 and 2017 show 

a mean of 2.4 Steller sea lions recorded 

at VAFB (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018). 

The USAF estimated the number of 

Steller sea lions that may be hauled out 

at VAFB during all months of the year 

from 2019–2024 to be 3. We consider 

this a reasonable estimate based on 

monthly survey data. Steller sea lions 

haul out in very small numbers on SMI, 

and comprehensive survey data for 

Steller sea lions in the NCI is not 

available. Take of Steller sea lions on 

the NCI was estimated based on subject 

matter expert input indicating that a 

maximum of 4 Steller sea lions have 

been observed on SMI at any time (pers. 

comm., S. Melin, NMFS Marine 

Mammal Laboratory (MML), to J. 

Carduner, NMFS OPR). 

Northern elephant seal—Northern 

elephant seals haul out sporadically on 

rocks and beaches along the coastline of 

VAFB and at Point Conception and have 

rookeries on SMI and SRI and at one 

location at VAFB. Data from monthly 

marine mammal surveys at VAFB from 

2015, 2016 and 2017 show a mean of 

39.4 northern elephant seals recorded at 

VAFB (CEMML 2016, 2017, 2018). The 

USAF estimated the number of northern 

elephant seals that may be hauled out at 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 337 

VAFB during all months of the year 

from 2019–2024 to be 60. However, a 

mean of 76.3 northern elephant seals 

was recorded at VAFB in 2017 (CEMML, 

2018), suggesting northern elephant seal 

numbers at VAFB may be increasing. 

For the purposes of estimating take on 

VAFB, we therefore conservatively 

estimate that the number of northern 

elephant seals that may be hauled out at 

VAFB during all months of the year 

from 2019–2024 to be 100. Take of 

northern elephant seals at the NCI was 

estimated based on the mean count 

totals from survey data collected on 

SMI, SRI, and Richardson Rock from 

2011 to 2015 by the NMFS SWFSC 

(Lowry et al., 2017). 

Northern fur seal—Northern fur seals 

have rookeries on SMI, the only island 

in the NCI on which they have been 

observed. No haulouts or rookeries exist 

for northern fur seals on the mainland 

coast, including VAFB, therefore no take 

of northern fur seals is expected at 

VAFB. Comprehensive survey data for 

northern fur seals in the project area is 

not available. Estimated take of northern 

fur seals was therefore based on subject 

matter expert input which indicated 

that from June through August, the 

population at SMI is at its maximum, 

with an estimated 13,384 animals at 

SMI (Carretta et al., 2015), with 

approximately 7,000 present from 

September through November, and 

approximately 125 present from 

November through May (pers. comm., S. 

Melin, NMFS Marine Mammal 

Laboratory (MML) to J. Carduner, NMFS 

OPR). 

Guadalupe fur seal—There are 

estimated to be approximately 20–25 

individual Guadalupe fur seals that 

have fidelity to San Miguel Island (pers. 

comm. S. Melin, NMFS MML, to J. 

Carduner, NMFS OPR). No haulouts or 

rookeries exist for Guadalupe fur seals 

on the mainland coast, including VAFB, 

therefore no take of Guadalupe fur seals 

is expected at VAFB. Survey data on 

Guadalupe fur seals in the project area 

is not available. Estimated take of 

Guadalupe fur seals was based on the 

maximum number of Guadalupe fur 

seals observed at any time on SMI (13) 

(pers. comm., J. LaBonte, ManTech SRS 

Technologies Inc., to J. Carduner, 

NMFS, Feb. 29, 2016); it was therefore 

conservatively assumed that 13 

Guadalupe fur seals may be hauled out 

the NCI at any given time. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

NMFS currently uses a three-tiered 

scale to determine whether the response 

of a pinniped on land to stimuli rises to 

the level of behavioral harassment 

under the MMPA (Table 9). NMFS 

considers the behaviors that meet the 

definitions of both movements and 

flushes in Table 9 to qualify as 

behavioral harassment. Thus a pinniped 

on land is considered by NMFS to have 

been behaviorally harassed if it moves 

greater than two times its body length, 

or if the animal is already moving and 

changes direction and/or speed, or if the 

animal flushes from land into the water. 

Animals that become alert without such 

movements are not considered harassed. 

See Table 9 for a summary of the 

pinniped disturbance scale. 

TABLE 9—LEVELS OF PINNIPED BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE ON LAND

Level Type of response Definition 

Characterized as 

behavioral 

harassment by 

NMFS 

1 ......................... Alert .............................................. Seal head orientation or brief movement in response to disturbance, 

which may include turning head towards the disturbance, craning 

head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, changing from a lying to a sitting position, or brief movement 

of less than twice the animal’s body length.

No. 

2 ......................... Movement ..................................... Movements in response to the source of disturbance, ranging from 

short withdrawals at least twice the animal’s body length to longer 

retreats over the beach, or if already moving a change of direction 

of greater than 90 degrees.

Yes. 

3 ......................... Flush ............................................. All retreats (flushes) to the water ........................................................ Yes. 

Take estimates were calculated 

separately for each stock in each year 

the proposed regulations would be valid 

(from 2019–2024), on both VAFB and 

the NCI, based on the number of 

animals assumed hauled out at each 

location that are expected to be 

behaviorally harassed by the stimuli 

associated with the specified activities 

(i.e., launch, sonic boom, or aircraft 

noise). First, the number of hauled out 

animals per month was estimated at 

both VAFB and the NCI for each stock, 

based on survey data and subject matter 

expert input as described above. Then 

we estimated the number of hauled out 

animals per month that would be 

behaviorally harassed, by applying a 

correction factor to account for the 

likelihood that the animals would 

respond at a Level 2 or 3 response 

(Table 9). Those correction factors differ 

depending on the location (i.e. VAFB or 

the NCI) and on the reactiveness of each 

species to the stimuli (Table 10), and are 

based on the best available information 

(in this case, several years of monitoring 

data on both VAFB and the NCI (Table 

7)). 

TABLE 10—PROPORTION OF EACH SPECIES ASSUMED TO BE HARASSED BY LAUNCH OR SONIC BOOM ON VAFB AND THE

NCI 

Species (stock) 

Proportion of 

individuals 

assumed 

taken per 

sonic 

boom (NCI) 

(percent) 

Proportion 

of individuals 

assumed 

taken 

per launch 

(VAFB) 

(percent) 

Harbor seal (CA) ...................................................................................................................................................... 50 100 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
338 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10—PROPORTION OF EACH SPECIES ASSUMED TO BE HARASSED BY LAUNCH OR SONIC BOOM ON VAFB AND THE

NCI—Continued 

Species (stock) 

Proportion of 

individuals 

assumed 

taken per 

sonic 

boom (NCI) 

(percent) 

Proportion 

of individuals 

assumed 

taken 

per launch 

(VAFB) 

(percent) 

CA sea lion (US) ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 100 

NES (CA breeding) .................................................................................................................................................. 5 15 

Steller Sea Lion (Eastern) ....................................................................................................................................... 50 100 

Northern fur seal (CA) ............................................................................................................................................. 25 (n/a) 

Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico) ................................................................................................................................... 50 (n/a) 

As described above, for pinnipeds on 

VAFB, we conservatively assumed that 

all pinnipeds at all haulouts would be 

impacted by launch noise. This is a 

conservative assumption, as some 

haulouts are separated by several miles 

from launch locations, and presumably 

pinnipeds at haulouts further from the 

launch location would not react at the 

same rates as those located near the 

launch. For pinnipeds on the NCI, as 

described above we conservatively 

assume that 25% of haulouts would be 

impacted by a sonic boom with a psf 

above 1.0, if such a sonic boom were to 

impact the NCI (not all launches result 

in sonic booms on the NCI). Thus, for 

pinnipeds on the NCI, an additional .25 

correction factor was applied to the take 

estimate, to account for the fact that 

approximately 25 percent of haulouts on 

the NCI are expected to be impacted by 

a sonic boom with a psf above 1.0, if 

such a sonic boom were to impact the 

NCI, while for launches on VAFB, we 

conservatively assume all pinnipeds 

will be exposed to launch noise. Take 

was calculated monthly, as abundance 

estimates for some species vary on 

VAFB and the NCI depending on 

season. 

The resulting numbers were then 

multiplied by the number of activities 

(sonic booms or launches) estimated to 

occur in a month, and then summed to 

get total numbers of each stock 

estimated to be taken at each location 

per year. The USAF provided estimates 

of rocket and missile launches 

anticipated per year (Table 1), and the 

number of sonic booms above 1.0 psf 

estimated to impact the NCI per year 

(Table 2). Thus for pinnipeds on VAFB, 

the number of launches estimated per 

year was used to estimate take in each 

year (e.g., in 2023, the USAF expects 

100 rocket and 15 missile launches will 

occur, thus 115 launches was used to 

estimate takes on VAFB in 2023). For 

pinnipeds on the NCI, the number of 

sonic booms above 1.0 psf estimated per 

year was used to estimate take in each 

year (e.g., in 2023, the USAF expects 19 

sonic booms above 1.0 to impact the 

NCI, thus 19 sonic booms was used to 

estimate takes on the NCI in 2023). Note 

that the proposed rule would only be 

valid for 3 months in the year 2024, thus 

the highest number of launches and 

sonic booms anticipated to occur in any 

single year during the period of validity 

for the proposed rule would be in 2023, 

despite the fact that more launches are 

anticipated to occur in calendar year 

2024. 

Monitoring data on pinniped 

responses to aircraft, helicopter and 

UAS related stimuli is not available. 

The USAF estimated that 3,000 

instances of harbor seal harassment and 

500 instances of California sea lion 

harassment would occur over the 5 

years that the proposed regulations 

would be valid, thus we divided those 

numbers (3,000 instances of harbor seal 

harassment and 500 instances of 

California sea lion harassment) by 5 to 

estimate the numbers of take per year 

and we propose to authorize the 

numbers shown in Table 11. 

The numbers of incidental take 

expected to occur on VAFB as a result 

of the specified activities is shown in 

Table 11. The numbers of incidental 

take expected to occur on the NCI as a 

result of the specified activities is 

shown in Table 12. The total numbers 

of incidental take expected to occur and 

proposed for authorization are shown in 

Table 13. The take estimates presented 

in Tables 11, 12 and 13 are based on the 

best available information on marine 

mammal populations in the project 

location and responses among marine 

mammals to the stimuli associated with 

the proposed activities and are 

considered conservative. 

TABLE 11—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS TAKEN ON VAFB PER YEAR, AS A RESULT OF ROCKET AND

MISSILE LAUNCHES AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

Species (stock) 

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 * 

Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft Launches Aircraft 

Harbor seal (CA) 9,000 600 11,250 600 14,625 600 20,250 600 34,500 600 7,031 600 

CA sea lion (US) 3,000 100 3,750 100 4,875 100 6,750 100 8,625 100 2,344 100 

NES (CA breeding) ................. 600 0 750 0 975 0 1,350 0 1,725 0 469 0 

Steller Sea Lion 

(Eastern) ........ 120 0 150 0 195 0 270 0 345 0 94 0 

Northern fur seal 

(CA) ............... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Guadalupe fur 

seal (Mexico) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

* Based on launches and aircraft operations occurring during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only in 2024). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 339 

TABLE 12—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS TAKEN ON THE NCI PER YEAR

Species (stock) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 

Harbor seal (CA) ...................................................................................... 523 732 1,151 1,464 1,987 523 

CA sea lion (US) ...................................................................................... 17,705 24,787 38,951 49,573 67,278 16,419 

NES (CA breeding) .................................................................................. 2,412 3,377 5,306 6,754 9,165 4,516 

Steller Sea Lion (Eastern) ....................................................................... 10 14 22 28 38 10 

Northern fur seal (CA) ............................................................................. 850 1,190 1,870 2,380 3,231 23 

Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico) ................................................................... 33 46 72 91 124 33 

* Based on sonic booms occurring during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only in 2024). 

TABLE 13—TOTAL ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS, AND PERCENTAGE OF MARINE MAMMAL POPULATIONS, 

POTENTIALLY TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

Species (stock) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 1

Highest 

total take 

over a 

single year 

Stock 

abundance 

Percentage 

of stock 

taken 2

Harbor seal (CA) ....................... 10,123 12,582 16,376 22,314 37,087 8,154 37,087 30,968 3 7.1 

CA sea lion (US) ....................... 20,805 28,637 43,926 56,423 76,003 18,863 76,003 257,606 29.5 

NES (CA breeding) ................... 3,012 4,127 6,281 8,104 10,890 4,985 10,890 179,000 6.1 

Steller Sea Lion (Eastern) ......... 130 164 217 298 383 104 383 52,139 0.7 

Northern fur seal (CA) ............... 850 1,190 1,870 2,380 3,231 23 3,231 14,050 23.0 

Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico) ..... 33 46 72 91 124 33 124 20,000 0.6 

1Take numbers shown reflect only the takes that would occur during the period of validity for the proposed rule (January through March only in 2024). 

2As numbers of take proposed for authorization vary by year, the estimates shown for percentages of stock taken are based on takes proposed for authorization in 

2023 which has the highest take numbers proposed for authorization in any single year. 3Take totals shown for harbor seals reflect the number of instances of harassment proposed for authorization, however, for purposes of determining the percent of 

stock taken we use the number of individual animals estimated to be taken (2,188 per year). See further explanation in the section on ‘‘small numbers’’ below. 

Proposed Mitigation 

Under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA, NMFS must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to such activity, and other means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

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 

(‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’). 

NMFS does not have a regulatory 

definition for ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact.’’ However, NMFS’s 

implementing 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)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, we 

carefully consider two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, implementation of the 

measure(s) is expected to reduce 

impacts to marine mammal species or 

stocks, their habitat, and their 

availability for subsistence uses. This 

analysis will consider such things as the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

(such as likelihood, scope, and range), 

the likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented, and the 

likelihood of successful 

implementation. 

(2) The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Practicability of implementation may 

consider such things as cost, impact on 

operations, personnel safety, and 

practicality of implementation. 

Launch Mitigation 

For missile and rocket launches, 

unless constrained by other factors 

(including, but not limited to, human 

safety, national security concerns or 

launch trajectories), launches will be 

scheduled to avoid the harbor seal 

pupping season (e.g., March through 

June) when feasible. The USAF would 

also avoid, whenever possible, launches 

which are predicted to produce a sonic 

boom on the NCI during the harbor seal 

pupping season (e.g., March through 

June). 

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 (e.g., Point Sal, 

Purisima Point, Rocky Point), except in 

emergencies or for real-time security 

incidents (i.e., search-and-rescue, firefighting) and except for one area near 

the VAFB harbor over which aircraft 

may be flown to within 500 ft of a 

haulout. Except for take-off and landing 

actions, a minimum altitude of 300 feet 

will be maintained for Class 0–2 UAS 

over all known marine mammal 

haulouts when marine mammals are 

present. Class 3 will maintain a 

minimum altitude of 500 feet, except at 

take-off and landing. A minimum 

altitude of 1,000 feet will be maintained 

over haulouts for Class 4 or 5 UAS. 

We have carefully evaluated the 

USAF’s proposed mitigation measures 

and considered a range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

we prescribed the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Based on our 

evaluation of these measures, we have 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammal 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 stock for 

subsistence uses. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an LOA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of the 

authorized taking. NMFS’s MMPA 

implementing regulations further 

describe the information that an 

applicant should provide when 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
340 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

requesting an authorization (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(13)), including the means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of significant 

interactions with marine mammal 

species in action area (e.g., animals that 

came close to the vessel, contacted the 

gear, or are otherwise rare or displaying 

unusual behavior). 

• 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 important physical 

components of marine mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

The USAF has proposed a suite of 

monitoring measures on both VAFB and 

the NCI to document impacts of the 

specified activities on marine mammals. 

These proposed monitoring measures 

are described below. 

Monitoring at VAFB 

Monitoring requirements for launches 

and landings at VAFB would be 

dependent on the season and on the 

type of rocket or missile being launched 

(or landed in the case of the Falcon 9) 

(Table 14). Acoustic and biological 

monitoring at VAFB would be required 

for all rocket types during the harbor 

seal and elephant seal pupping seasons 

at VAFB (e.g., January 1 through July 31) 

to ensure that responses of pups to the 

specified activities are monitored and 

recorded. Acoustic and biological 

monitoring at VAFB would also be 

required for all launches of any space 

launch vehicle types that have not been 

previously monitored three times, for 

any space launch vehicle types that 

have been previously monitored but for 

which the launch is predicted to be 

louder than previous launches of that 

rocket type (based on modeling by 

USAF) and, for new types of missiles, 

regardless of the time of year. Falcon 9 

First Stage recovery activities (i.e., 

boost-back and landings) with sonic 

booms that have a predicted psf of >1.0 

on VAFB (based on sonic boom 

modeling performed prior to launch) 

would be monitored at VAFB, at any 

time of year. 

TABLE 14—PROPOSED MONITORING MEASURES AT VAFB 

Dates Monitoring requirement on VAFB 

Year round ...................................... • Launches of new space launch vehicles that have not been monitored 3 previous times. 

• Launches of existing space launch vehicles that are expected to be louder than previous launches of the 

same vehicle type. 

• Launches of new types of missiles that have not been monitored 3 previous times. 

• Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries with a predicted psf of >1.0 on VAFB. 

Jan 1–July 31 .................................. • Launches of all space launch vehicles. 

Marine mammal monitoring at VAFB 

must be conducted by at least one 

NMFS-approved marine mammal 

observer trained in marine mammal 

science. Authorized marine mammal 

observers must have demonstrated 

proficiency in the identification of all 

age and sex classes of both common and 

uncommon pinniped species found at 

VAFB and must be knowledgeable of 

approved count methodology and have 

experience in observing pinniped 

behavior, especially in response to 

human disturbances. 

Monitoring at the haulout site closest 

to the facility where the space launch 

vehicle will be launched would begin at 

least 72 hours prior to the launch and 

would continue until at least 48 hours 

after the launch. Monitoring for each 

launch would include multiple surveys 

during each day of monitoring (typically 

between 4–6 surveys per day) that 

would record: Species, number, general 

behavior, presence of pups, age class, 

gender, and reaction to launch noise, or 

to natural or other human-caused 

disturbances. Environmental conditions 

would also be recorded, including: 

Visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind 

speed and direction, tides, and swell 

height and direction. 

For launches that occur during the 

elephant seal and harbor seal pupping 

seasons (January 1 through July 31) a 

follow-up survey would be conducted 

within two weeks of the launch to 

monitor for any potential adverse 

impacts to pups. For launches that 

occur during daylight, time-lapse photo 

and/or video recordings would occur 

during launch, as marine mammal 

observers are not allowed to be present 

within the launch area or at haulouts on 

VAFB at the time of launch for safety 

reasons. The USAF would also use night 

video monitoring to record responses of 

pinnipeds to launches that occur in 

darkness, if feasible. Night video 

monitoring may not be practical 

depending on whether technology is 

available that can reliably and remotely 

record responses of pinnipeds at remote 

haulout locations. 

In addition to monitoring pinniped 

responses to the proposed activities on 

VAFB, the USAF proposes to continue 

to conduct monthly marine mammal 

surveys on VAFB. Monthly surveys 

have been carried out at VAFB for 

several years and have provided 

valuable data on abundance, habitat use, 

and seasonality of pinnipeds on VAFB. 

The goals of the monthly surveys 

include assessing haulout patterns and 

relative abundance over time, resulting 

in improved understanding of pinniped 

population trends at VAFB and better 

enabling assessment of potential longterm impacts of USAF operations. When 

possible, these surveys would be timed 

to coincide with the lowest afternoon 

tides of each month, when the greatest 

numbers of animals are typically hauled 

out. During the monthly surveys, a 

NMFS-approved observer would record: 

Species, number, general behavior, 

presence of pups, age class, gender, and 

any reactions to natural or humancaused disturbances. Environmental 

conditions would also be recorded, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 341 

including: Visibility, air temperature, 

clouds, wind speed and direction, tides, 

and swell height and direction. 

Monitoring at the NCI 

As described previously, sonic booms 

are the only stimuli associated with the 

proposed activities that have the 

potential to result in harassment of 

marine mammals on the NCI. As 

pinniped responses on the NCI are 

dependent on the species and on the 

intensity of the sonic boom (Table 7), 

requirements for monitoring on the NCI 

would vary by season and would 

depend on the expected sonic boom 

level and the pupping seasons of the 

species expected to be present. Sonic 

boom modeling would be performed 

prior to all rocket launches and Falcon 

9 recoveries. Acoustic and biological 

monitoring would be conducted on the 

NCI if the sonic boom model indicates 

that pressures from a sonic boom are 

expected to reach or exceed the levels 

shown in Table 15. These dates have 

been determined based on seasons when 

pups may be present for the species that 

are most responsive to sonic booms on 

the NCI based on several years of 

monitoring data (e.g., harbor seals and 

California sea lions) (Table 7). 

TABLE 15—MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ON THE NORTHERN CHANNEL

ISLANDS BY SEASON

Sonic boom level 

(modeled) Dates 

>2 psf ................... March 1–July 31. 

>3 psf ................... August 1–September 30. 

>4 psf ................... October 1–February 28. 

Marine mammal monitoring would be 

conducted at the closest significant 

haulout site to the modeled sonic boom 

impact area. The monitoring site would 

be selected based upon the model 

results, with emphasis placed on 

selecting a location where the maximum 

sound pressures are predicted and 

where pinnipeds are expected to be 

present that are considered most 

sensitive in terms of responses to sonic 

booms. Monitoring the responses of 

mother-pup pairs of any species would 

also be prioritized. Given the large 

numbers of pinnipeds found on some 

island beaches, smaller focal groups 

would be monitored. Estimates of the 

numbers of pinnipeds present on the 

entire beach would be made and their 

reactions to the launch noise would be 

documented. Specialized acoustic 

instruments would also be used to 

record sonic booms at the marine 

mammal monitoring location. 

Monitoring would be conducted by at 

least one NMFS-approved marine 

mammal observer, trained in marine 

mammal science. Monitors would be 

deployed to the monitoring location 

before, during and after the launch, with 

monitoring commencing at least 72 

hours prior to the launch, occurring 

during the launch and continuing until 

48 hours after the launch (unless no 

sonic boom is detected by the monitors 

during the launch and/or by the 

acoustic recording equipment, at which 

time monitoring would be 

discontinued). If the launch occurs in 

darkness, night vision equipment would 

be used. The USAF would also conduct 

video monitoring, including the use of 

night video monitoring, when feasible 

(video monitoring is not always 

practicable due to conditions such as 

fog, glare, and a lack of animals within 

view from a single observation point). 

During the pupping season of any 

species potentially affected by a sonic 

boom, a follow-up survey would occur 

within two weeks of the launch to 

assess any potential adverse effects on 

pups. 

Monitoring for each launch would 

include multiple surveys each day that 

record, when possible: Species, number, 

general behavior, presence of pups, age 

class, gender, and reaction to sonic 

booms or natural or human-caused 

disturbances. Remarks would be 

recorded, including the nature and 

cause of any natural or human-related 

disturbance, including response to the 

sonic boom. When flushing behavior is 

observed, the amount of time it takes for 

hauled out animals to return to the 

beach is recorded, if length of recording 

allows. Environmental conditions 

would also be recorded, including: 

Visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind 

speed and direction, tides, and swell 

height and direction. 

The USAF has complied with the 

monitoring requirements under the 

previous LOAs issued from 2013 

through 2018. 

Reporting 

Proposed reporting requirements 

would include launch monitoring 

reports submitted after each launch and 

annual reports describing all activities 

conducted at VAFB that are covered 

under this proposed rule during each 

year. 

A launch monitoring report 

containing the following information 

would be submitted to NMFS within 90 

days after each rocket launch: 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 (based on the 

description of responses in Table 9), 

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, including in 

response to launch noise or sonic boom. 

Launch reports would also include 

date(s) and time(s) of each launch (and 

sonic boom, if applicable); 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 Office 

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. 

An annual report would be submitted 

to NMFS on March 1 of each year that 

would summarize the data reported in 

all launch reports for the previous 

calendar year (as described above) 

including a summary of documented 

numbers of instances of harassment 

incidental to the specified activities. 

Annual reports would also describe any 

documented takings incidental to the 

specified activities not included in the 

launch reports (e.g., takes incidental to 

aircraft or helicopter operations). 

A final comprehensive report would 

be submitted to NMFS no later than 180 

days prior to expiration of these 

regulations. This report must summarize 

the findings made in all previous 

reports and assess both the impacts at 

each of the major rookeries and an 

assessment of any cumulative impacts 

on marine mammals from the specified 

activities. 

The USAF has complied with the 

reporting requirements under the 

previous LOAs issued from 2013 

through 2018. 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
342 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel 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’ 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 6, 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 (behavioral 

disturbance) only, from airborne sounds 

of rocket launches and sonic booms and 

from sounds or visual stimuli associated 

with aircraft. Based on the best available 

information, including monitoring 

reports from similar activities that have 

been authorized by NMFS, behavioral 

responses will likely be limited to 

reactions such as alerting to the noise, 

with some animals possibly moving 

toward or entering the water, depending 

on the species and the intensity of the 

sonic boom or 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. 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 over 20 years of launch monitoring 

at VAFB and the NCI, no serious injury 

or mortality of marine mammals is 

anticipated as a result of the proposed 

activities. 

Even in the instances of pinnipeds 

being behaviorally disturbed by sonic 

booms from rocket launches at VAFB, 

no evidence has been presented of 

abnormal behavior, injuries or 

mortalities, or pup abandonment as a 

result of sonic booms (SAIC 2013, 

CEMML 2018). These findings came as 

a result of more than two decades of 

surveys at VAFB and the NCI (MMCG 

and SAIC, 2012). Post-launch 

monitoring generally reveals a return to 

normal behavioral patterns within 

minutes up to an hour or two of each 

launch, regardless of species. For 

instance, a total of eight Delta II and 

Taurus space vehicle launches occurred 

from north VAFB, near the Spur Road 

and Purisima Point haulout sites, from 

February, 2009 through February, 2014. 

Of these eight launches, three occurred 

during the harbor seal pupping season. 

The continued use by harbor seals of the 

Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout 

sites indicates that it is unlikely that 

these rocket launches (and associated 

sonic booms) resulted in long-term 

disturbances of pinnipeds using the 

haulout sites. San Miguel Island 

represents the most important pinniped 

rookery in the lower 48 states, and as 

such extensive research has been 

conducted there for decades. From this 

research, as well as stock assessment 

reports, it is clear that VAFB operations 

(including associated sonic booms) have 

not had any significant impacts on the 

numbers of animals observed at San 

Miguel Island rookeries and haulouts 

(SAIC 2012). The number of California 

sea lions documented on VAFB via 

monthly marine mammal surveys 

increased substantially in 2017 

compared to the numbers recorded in 

previous years, and northern elephant 

seal pupping was documented on VAFB 

for the first time in 2017, providing 

further evidence that the proposed 

activities, which are ongoing, have not 

negatively impacted annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

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, 

at worst, temporary modifications in 

behavior (i.e., short distance movements 

and occasional flushing into the water 

with return to haulouts within 

approximately 90 minutes), 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 over 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 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 343 

See Table 13 for information relating 

to this small numbers analysis (i.e., 

numbers of take proposed for 

authorization on an annual basis). We 

propose to authorize incidental take of 

6 marine mammal stocks. The amount 

of taking proposed for authorization on 

an annual basis is less than one-third of 

the most appropriate abundance 

estimate for five of these species or 

stocks; therefore, the numbers of take 

proposed for authorization would be 

considered small relative to those 

relevant stocks or populations. 

The estimated taking for harbor seals 

comprises greater than one-third of the 

best available stock abundance. 

However, due to the nature of the 

specified activity—launch activities 

occurring at specific locations, rather 

than a mobile activity occurring 

throughout the stock range—the 

available information shows that only a 

portion of the stock would likely be 

impacted. It is important to note that the 

number of expected takes does not 

necessarily represent the number of 

individual animals expected to be taken, 

and that our small numbers analysis 

accounts for this fact. Multiple 

exposures to Level B harassment can 

accrue to the same individual animals 

over the course of an activity that occurs 

multiple times in the same area (such as 

the USAF’s proposed activity). This is 

especially likely in the case of species 

that have limited ranges and that have 

site fidelity to a location within the 

project area, as is the case with Pacific 

harbor seals. 

As described above, harbor seals are 

non-migratory, rarely traveling more 

than 50 km from their haulout sites. 

Thus, while the estimated number of 

annual instances of take may not be 

considered small relative to the 

estimated abundance of the California 

stock of Pacific harbor seals of 30,968 

(Carretta et al. 2017), a substantially 

smaller number of individual harbor 

seals is expected to occur within the 

project area. We expect that, because of 

harbor seals’ documented site fidelity to 

haulout locations at VAFB and the NCI, 

and because of their limited ranges, the 

same individual harbor seals are likely 

to be taken repeatedly over the course 

of the proposed activities. Therefore, the 

proposed number of instances of Level 

B harassment that could be authorized 

for harbor seals per year over the 5-year 

period of validity of the proposed 

regulations is expected to accrue to a 

much smaller number of individual 

harbor seals encompassing a small 

portion of the overall stock. Thus, while 

we propose to authorize the instances of 

incidental take of harbor seals shown in 

Table 13, we believe that the number of 

individual harbor seals that would be 

incidentally taken by the proposed 

activities would, in fact, be substantially 

lower than this number. We base the 

small numbers determination on the 

number of individuals taken versus the 

number of instances of take, as is 

appropriate when the information is 

available. 

To estimate the number of individual 

harbor seals expected to be taken by 

Level B harassment by the proposed 

activities, we estimated the maximum 

number of individual harbor seals that 

could potentially be taken per activity 

(i.e., launch, landing, or aircraft 

activity), both on the NCI and at VAFB. 

As described above, due to harbor seals’ 

limited ranges and site fidelity to 

haulout locations at VAFB and the NCI, 

we believe the maximum number of 

individual harbor seals that could be 

taken per activity (i.e., launch, landing, 

or aircraft activity) represents a 

conservative estimate of the number of 

individual harbor seals that would be 

taken over the course of a year. On 

VAFB, monthly marine mammal 

surveys conducted by the USAF 

represent the best available information 

on harbor seal abundance. The 

maximum number of harbor seals 

documented during monthly marine 

mammal surveys at VAFB in the years 

2015, 2016 and 2017 was 821 seals (in 

October, 2015). On the NCI, marine 

mammal surveys conducted from 2011– 

2015 (Lowry et al., 2017) represents the 

best available information on harbor 

seal abundance. The maximum number 

of seals documented in surveys from 

2011 through 2015 (the most recent 

information available) was 1,367 seals 

(in July, 2015) (Lowry et al., 2017). 

Therefore, we conservatively estimate 

that the maximum number of harbor 

seals that could potentially be taken per 

activity (i.e., lunch, landing, or aircraft 

activity) is 2,188 harbor seals, which 

represents the combined maximum 

number of seals expected to be present 

on the NCI and VAFB during any given 

activity. As we believe the same 

individuals are likely to be taken 

repeatedly over the duration of the 

proposed activities, we use this estimate 

of 2,188 individual animals taken per 

activity (i.e., launch, landing, or aircraft 

activity) for the purposes of estimating 

the percentage of the stock abundance 

likely to be taken (7.1 percent). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected 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. 

Adaptive Management 

The regulations governing the take of 

marine mammals incidental to the 

USAF’s activities at VAFB would 

contain an adaptive management 

component. 

The reporting requirements associated 

with this proposed rule are designed to 

provide NMFS with monitoring data 

from the previous year to allow 

consideration of whether any changes 

are appropriate. The use of adaptive 

management allows NMFS to consider 

new information from different sources 

to determine (with input from the Navy 

regarding practicability) on an annual or 

biennial basis if mitigation or 

monitoring measures should be 

modified (including additions or 

deletions). Mitigation measures could be 

modified if new data suggests that such 

modifications would have a reasonable 

likelihood of reducing adverse effects to 

marine mammals and if the measures 

are practicable. 

The following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data to be 

considered through the adaptive 

management process: (1) Results from 

monitoring reports, as required by 

MMPA authorizations; (2) results from 

general marine mammal and sound 

research; and (3) any information which 

reveals that marine mammals may have 

been taken in a manner, extent, or 

number not authorized by these 

regulations or subsequent LOAs. 

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. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

ITAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the NMFS West Coast Region 

Protected Resources Division Office, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
344 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

There is one marine mammal species 

(Guadalupe fur seal) listed under the 

ESA with confirmed occurrence in the 

area expected to be impacted by the 

proposed activities. The Permits and 

Conservation Division has requested 

initiation of section 7 consultation with 

the West Coast Region Protected 

Resources Division Office for the 

issuance of this ITA. NMFS will 

conclude the ESA consultation prior to 

reaching a determination regarding the 

proposed issuance of the authorization. 

Request for Information 

NMFS requests interested persons to 

submit comments, information, and 

suggestions concerning the USAF’s 

request and the proposed regulations 

(see ADDRESSES). All comments will be 

reviewed and evaluated as we prepare a 

final rule and make final determinations 

on whether to issue the requested 

authorization. This proposed rule and 

referenced documents provide all 

environmental information relating to 

our proposed action for public review. 

Classification 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established to implement Executive 

Order 12866, the Office of Management 

and Budget has determined that this 

proposed rule is not significant. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Chief Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce has certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Air Force is the sole entity that 

would be subject to the requirements in 

these proposed regulations, and the U.S. 

Air Force is not a small governmental 

jurisdiction, small organization, or small 

business, as defined by the RFA. 

Because of this certification, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required and none has been prepared. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

However, this rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to the provisions of the PRA 

because the applicant is a Federal 

agency. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Marine 

mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

Dated: January 17, 2019. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 217 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 217—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE 

MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO 

SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 217 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Revise subpart G to read as follows: 

Subpart G—Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Air Force Launches and 

Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California 

Sec. 

217.60 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

217.61 Effective dates. 

217.62 Permissible methods of taking. 

217.63 Prohibitions. 

217.64 Mitigation. 

217.65 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

217.66 Letters of Authorization. 

217.67 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

217.68–217.69 [Reserved] 

§ 217.60 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the 30th Space Wing, United 

States Air Force (USAF) and those 

persons it authorizes to conduct 

activities on its behalf for the taking of 

marine mammals that occurs in the 

areas outlined in paragraph (b) of this 

section and that occurs incidental to 

rocket and missile launches and aircraft 

and helicopter operations. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

the USAF may be authorized in a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs 

from activities originating at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

§ 217.61 Effective dates. 

Regulations in this subpart are 

effective from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], through [DATE 5 YEARS 

AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

§ 217.62 Permissible methods of taking. 

Under LOA issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.60 

the Holder of the Letter of Authorization 

(herein after the USAF) may 

incidentally, but not intentionally, take 

marine mammals by Level B 

harassment, within the area described in 

§ 217.60(b), provided the activity is in 

compliance with all terms, conditions, 

and requirements of the regulations in 

this subpart and the appropriate Letter 

of Authorization. 

§ 217.63 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 217.62 and 

authorized by a Letter of Authorization 

issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter 

and 217.66, no person in connection 

with the activities described in § 217.60 

may: 

(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or a LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 218.26 of this chapter; 

(b) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in such LOAs; 

(c) Take any marine mammal 

specified in such LOAs in any manner 

other than as specified; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in such LOAs if NMFS determines such 

taking results in more than a negligible 

impact on the species or stocks of such 

marine mammal; or 

(e) Take a marine mammal specified 

in such LOAs if NMFS determines such 

taking results in an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the species or stock of such 

marine mammal for taking for 

subsistence uses. 

§ 217.64 Mitigation. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 217.60(a), the mitigation 

measures contained in any Letter of 

Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 

of this chapter and 217.66 must be 

implemented. These mitigation 

measures include (but are not limited 

to): 

(a) For missile and rocket launches, 

the USAF must avoid, whenever 

possible, launches during the harbor 

seal pupping season of March through 

June, unless constrained by factors 

including, but not limited to, human 

safety, national security, or launch 

mission objectives. 

(b) For rocket launches, the USAF 

must avoid, whenever possible, 

launches which are predicted to 

produce a sonic boom on the Northern 

Channel Islands from March through 

June. 

(c) Aircraft and helicopter flight paths 

must maintain a minimum distance of 

1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized 

pinniped haulouts and rookeries, 

whenever possible, except for one area 

near the VAFB harbor over which 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 345 

aircraft may be flown to within 500 ft 

of a haulout, and except in emergencies 

or for real-time security incidents, 

which may require approaching 

pinniped haulouts and rookeries closer 

than 1,000 ft (305 m). 

(d) If post-launch surveys determine 

that an injurious or lethal take of a 

marine mammal has occurred, the 

launch procedure and the monitoring 

methods must be reviewed, in 

cooperation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), and 

appropriate changes must be made 

through modification to a Letter of 

Authorization, prior to conducting the 

next launch under that Letter of 

Authorization. 

§ 217.65 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) To conduct monitoring of rocket 

launch activities, the USAF must either 

use video recording, or must designate 

a qualified on-site individual approved 

in advance by NMFS, with 

demonstrated proficiency in the 

identification of all age and sex classes 

of both common and uncommon 

pinniped species found at VAFB and 

knowledge of approved count 

methodology and experience in 

observing pinniped behavior, as 

specified in the Letter of Authorization, 

to monitor and document pinniped 

activity as described in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (9) of this section: 

(1) For any launches of space launch 

vehicles or recoveries of the Falcon 9 

First Stage occurring from 1 January 

through 31 July, pinniped activity at 

VAFB must be monitored in the vicinity 

of the haulout nearest the launch 

platform, or, in the absence of pinnipeds 

at that location, at another nearby 

haulout, for at least 72 hours prior to 

any planned launch, and continue for a 

period of time not less than 48 hours 

subsequent to the launch; 

(2) For any launches of new space 

launch vehicles that have not been 

monitored during at least 3 previous 

launches occurring from 1 August 

through 31 December, pinniped activity 

at VAFB must be monitored in the 

vicinity of the haulout nearest the 

launch or landing platform, or, in the 

absence of pinnipeds at that location, at 

another nearby haulout, for at least 72 

hours prior to any planned launch, and 

continue for a period of time not less 

than 48 hours subsequent to launching; 

(3) For any launches of existing space 

launch vehicles that are expected to 

result in louder launch noise or sonic 

booms than previous launches of the 

same vehicle type occurring from 1 

August through 31 December, pinniped 

activity at VAFB must be monitored in 

the vicinity of the haulout nearest the 

launch or landing platform, or, in the 

absence of pinnipeds at that location, at 

another nearby haulout, for at least 72 

hours prior to any planned launch, and 

continue for a period of time not less 

than 48 hours subsequent to launching; 

(4) For any launches of new types of 

missiles occurring from 1 August 

through 31 December, pinniped activity 

at VAFB must be monitored in the 

vicinity of the haulout nearest the 

launch or landing platform, or, in the 

absence of pinnipeds at that location, at 

another nearby haulout, for at least 72 

hours prior to any planned launch, and 

continue for a period of time not less 

than 48 hours subsequent to launching; 

(5) For any recoveries of the Falcon 9 

First Stage occurring from 1 August 

through 31 December that are predicted 

to result in a sonic boom of 1.0 psf or 

above on VAFB, pinniped activity at 

VAFB must be monitored in the vicinity 

of the haulout nearest the launch or 

landing platform, or, in the absence of 

pinnipeds at that location, at another 

nearby haulout, for at least 72 hours 

prior to any planned launch, and 

continue for a period of time not less 

than 48 hours subsequent to launching; 

(6) For any launches or rocket 

recoveries occurring from March 1 

through July 31), follow-up surveys 

must be conducted within 2 weeks of 

the launch; 

(7) For any launches or Falcon 9 

recoveries, pinniped activity at the 

Northern Channel Islands must be 

monitored, if it is determined by 

modeling that a sonic boom of greater 

than 2.0 psf is predicted to impact one 

of the islands between March 1 and July 

31, greater than 3.0 psf between August 

1 and September 30, and greater than 

4.0 psf between October 1 and February 

28. Monitoring will be conducted at the 

haulout site closest to the predicted 

sonic boom impact area, or, in the 

absence of pinnipeds at that location, at 

another nearby haulout; 

(8) For any launches or Falcon 9 

recoveries during which marine 

mammal monitoring is required, 

acoustic measurements must be made of 

those launch vehicles that have not had 

sound pressure level measurements 

documented previously; and 

(9) Marine mammal monitoring must 

include multiple surveys each day that 

record the species, number of animals, 

general behavior, presence of pups, age 

class, gender and reaction to launch 

noise, sonic booms or other natural or 

human caused disturbances, in addition 

to recording environmental conditions 

such as tide, wind speed, air 

temperature, and swell. 

(b) The USAF must submit a report to 

the Administrator, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, and Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, within 90 days after 

each launch. This report must contain 

the following information: 

(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the launch; 

(2) Design of the monitoring program; 

and 

(3) Results of the monitoring program, 

including, but not necessarily limited 

to: 

(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on 

the haulout prior to commencement of 

the launch; 

(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may 

have been harassed as noted by the 

number of pinnipeds estimated to have 

moved in response to the source of 

disturbance, ranging from short 

withdrawals at least twice the animal’s 

body length to longer retreats over the 

beach, or if already moving a change of 

direction of greater than 90 degree, or, 

entered the water as a result of launch 

noise; 

(iii) For any marine mammals that 

entered the water, the length of time 

they remained off the haulout; and 

(iv) Behavioral modifications by 

pinnipeds that were likely the result of 

launch noise or the sonic boom. 

(c) If the authorized activity identified 

in § 217.60(a) is thought to have resulted 

in the mortality or injury of any marine 

mammals or in any take of marine 

mammals not identified in § 217.62, 

then the USAF must notify the Director, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the stranding coordinator, West 

Coast Region, NMFS, within 48 hours of 

the discovery of the injured or dead 

marine mammal. 

(d) An annual report must be 

submitted on March 1 of each year to 

the Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS. 

(e) A final report must be submitted 

at least 180 days prior to [DATE 5 

YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS. This report will: 

(1) Summarize the activities 

undertaken and the results reported in 

all previous reports; 

(2) Assess the impacts at each of the 

major rookeries; 

(3) Assess the cumulative impacts on 

pinnipeds and other marine mammals 

from the activities specified in 

§ 217.60(a); and 

(4) State the date(s), location(s), and 

findings of any research activities 

related to monitoring the effects on 

launch noise, sonic booms, and harbor 

activities on marine mammal 

populations. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
346 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

§ 217.66 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

the USAF must apply for and obtain a 

Letter of Authorization. 

(b) A Letter of Authorization, unless 

suspended or revoked, may be effective 

for a period of time not to exceed [DATE 

5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(c) If a Letter of Authorization expires 

prior to [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the USAF may apply for and obtain a 

renewal of the Letter of Authorization. 

(d) In the event of projected changes 

to the activity or to mitigation and 

monitoring measures required by a 

Letter of Authorization, the USAF must 

apply for and obtain a modification of 

the Letter of Authorization as described 

in § 217.67. 

(e) The Letter of Authorization will 

set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact (i.e., 

mitigation) on the species, its habitat, 

and on the availability of the species for 

subsistence uses; and 

(3) Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(f) Issuance of the Letter of 

Authorization shall be based on a 

determination that the level of taking 

will be consistent with the findings 

made for the total taking allowable 

under these regulations. 

(g) Notice of issuance or denial of a 

Letter of Authorization shall be 

published in the Federal Register 

within 30 days of a determination. 

§ 217.67 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 

217.66 for the activity identified in 

§ 217.60(a) shall be renewed or modified 

upon request by the applicant, provided 

that: 

(1) The proposed specified activity 

and mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures, as well as the 

anticipated impacts, are the same as 

those described and analyzed for these 

regulations (excluding changes made 

pursuant to the adaptive management 

provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section); and 

(2) NMFS determines that the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures required by the previous 

Letter of Authorization under these 

regulations were implemented. 

(b) For Letter of Authorization 

modification or renewal requests by the 

applicant that include changes to the 

activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or 

reporting (excluding changes made 

pursuant to the adaptive management 

provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section) that do not change the findings 

made for the regulations or result in no 

more than a minor change in the total 

estimated number of takes (or 

distribution by species or years), NMFS 

may publish a notice of proposed Letter 

of Authorization in the Federal 

Register, including the associated 

analysis of the change, and solicit 

public comment before issuing the 

Letter of Authorization. 

(c) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 

217.66 for the activity identified in 

§ 217.60(a) may be modified by NMFS 

under the following circumstances: 

(1) Adaptive management. NMFS may 

modify (including augment) the existing 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures (after consulting with the 

USAF regarding the practicability of the 

modifications) if doing so creates a 

reasonable likelihood of more 

effectively accomplishing the goals of 

the mitigation and monitoring. 

(i) Possible sources of data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures in a Letter of Authorization: 

(A) Results from the USAF’s 

monitoring from the previous year(s). 

(B) Results from other marine 

mammal and/or sound research or 

studies. 

(C) Any information that reveals 

marine mammals may have been taken 

in a manner, extent or number not 

authorized by these regulations or 

subsequent Letters of Authorization. 

(ii) If, through adaptive management, 

the modifications to the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting measures are 

substantial, NMFS will publish a notice 

of proposed Letter of Authorization in 

the Federal Register and solicit public 

comment. 

(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines 

that an emergency exists that poses a 

significant risk to the well-being of the 

species or stocks of marine mammals 

specified in § 217.62, a Letter of 

Authorization may be modified without 

prior notice or opportunity for public 

comment. Notice would be published in 

the Federal Register within 30 days of 

the action. 

§§ 217.68–217.69 [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2019–00090 Filed 1–23–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1