762 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 

0486/0517, OCS–A 0487 and OCS–A 

0500) and along potential ECRs to 

landfall locations from New York to 

Massachusetts from the date of issuance 

through September 24, 2022, provided 

the previously described mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed initial IHA and the final initial 

IHA can be found at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-orstedwind-power-north-america-llc-sitecharacterization. We request comments 

on our analyses, the proposed Renewal 

IHA, and any other aspect of this Notice. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform our final decision on the 

request for MMPA authorization. 

Dated: January 3, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00016 Filed 1–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB685] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public joint meeting of its 

Habitat Committee via webinar to 

consider actions affecting New England 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). Recommendations from this 

group will be brought to the full Council 

for formal consideration and action, if 

appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: All meeting participants 

and interested parties can register to 

join the webinar at https://

attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ 

6570510383641205518. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Committee plans a discussion to 

designate a Habitat Area of Particular 

Concern in Southern New England: 

Articulate the problem and rationale for 

action, discuss potential objectives, and 

identify information sources to 

consider. Potentially recommend that 

the Council initiate a framework 

adjustment at their next meeting. Also 

on the agenda is the Northern Edge 

habitat management: Discuss a white 

paper documenting new information to 

consider should the Council wish to 

revise habitat management areas and 

restrictions on fishing in this region. 

The Committee can request additional 

information or analysis that would 

support future Council decision making 

on this issue. Because this action is not 

a 2022 work priority, the next Council 

decision on Northern Edge habitat 

management would be related to future 

prioritization of this work. 

The committee will also review a 

draft letter expressing Council concerns 

about the Amitie telecommunications 

cable project. Other business may be 

discussed as necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during these meetings. Action 

will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has 

been notified of the Council’s intent to 

take final action to address the 

emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 

(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to 

the date. This meeting will be recorded. 

Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy 

of the recording is available upon 

request. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: January 3, 2022. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00039 Filed 1–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB619] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Weapons 

Testing at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorizations; request for 

comments on proposed authorizations 

and possible renewals. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the United States Department of 

the Air Force (DAF) for authorization to 

take marine mammals incidental to 2 

years of activity related to testing of the 

Extended Range Cannon Artillery II 

(ERCA II) system at Vandenberg Air 

Force Base (VAFB), California. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue two consecutive 

one-year incidental harassment 

authorizations (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-time, oneyear renewal for each IHA that could be 

issued under certain circumstances and 

if all requirements are met, as described 

in Request for Public Comments at the 

end of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. The 

DAF’s activities are considered military 

readiness activities pursuant to the 

MMPA, as amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (2004 NDAA). 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than February 7, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 763 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108–136) 

removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

‘‘specified geographical region’’ 

limitations indicated above and 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ 

as applied to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity.’’ The activity for which 

incidental take of marine mammals is 

being requested addressed here qualifies 

as a military readiness activity. The 

definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHAs qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On July 15, 2021, NMFS received a 

request from the DAF for two 

consecutive IHAs to take marine 

mammals incidental to ERCA II testing 

at VAFB, California. The application 

was deemed adequate and complete on 

November 19, 2021. The DAF’s request 

is for take of California sea lions, Steller 

sea lions, harbor seals, and northern 

elephant seals by Level B harassment. 

Neither the DAF nor NMFS expects 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The DAF is proposing to conduct test 

activities of the ERCA II system at VAFB 

over 2 years and requested the issuance 

of two consecutive one-year IHAs. The 

ERCA II system is a multi-element, 

multi-phase test program of the U.S. 

Army’s (Army’s) next-generation 

artillery systems. Major components of 

the artillery system include the cannon, 

gun mount, artillery projectile, and 

propelling charges. These components 

would be sited at the existing 

deactivated Launch Facility (LF)–05 site 

on VAFB. The proposed activities 

would include testing of ERCA II by 

firing non-explosive projectiles over the 

Pacific Ocean at distances ranging from 

the shoreline to approximately 1,180 

miles (mi) (1,900 kilometers (km)) from 

the VAFB shoreline onto and beyond 

the Point Mugu Sea Range (PMSR). A 

total of 77 projectiles are proposed to be 

fired over 51 test event days (39 events 

in year 1 and 12 events in year 2). 

Dates and Duration 

The DAF anticipates that testing will 

occur over 2 years. The first proposed 

IHA would be effective from October 1, 

2023 to September 30, 2024, which 

would include 39 days of testing 

activities, and the second proposed IHA 

would be effective from October 1, 2024 

to September 30, 2025, which would 

include 12 days of testing activities. 

Geographic Region 

VAFB occupies approximately 99,100 

acres (400 square kilometers [km2]) of 

central Santa Barbara County, California 

(Figure 1), approximately halfway 

between San Diego and San Francisco. 

The base includes 42 miles (mi.) (68 km) 

of coastline with a variety of natural 

communities, including beaches, coastal 

salt marshes, rocky intertidal, kelp 

forests, and hard and soft bottom 

substrates. ERCA II would be installed 

at LF–05 which is an existing 

deactivated launch facility located on 

the northern end of VAFB, 4.5 mi. (7.2 

km) southeast of Point Sal. The site is 

located approximately 400 meters (m) 

from the cliffs, beach, and rocky 

shoreline. Test activities would require 

firing non-explosive projectiles over the 

Pacific Ocean with splash-down 

locations for the projectiles and 

components of the projectiles at 

distances ranging from the shoreline to 

approximately 1,180 mi (1,900 km) from 

the shoreline of VAFB, onto and beyond 

the PMSR. The PMSR is 36,000-squaremiles (93,200 km2) in size and is located 

adjacent to Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa 

Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties 

along the Pacific Coast of Southern 

California. PMSR includes controlled 

sea and associated airspace. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
764 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

ERCA II testing consists of 77 test 

events that would be conducted over 51 

days within a 24-month period starting 

in the late calendar year 2023 and 

continuing into calendar year 2025 

(Table 1). In addition to the projectiles, 

there are components of the projectiles 

that would land in the water at varying 

distances from LF–05. Three types of 

projectiles would be tested. The 

majority would be the Mass Simulant 

(Projectile A). Two other projectiles are 

the Terminal Flight Body PreProgrammed Maneuver (PPM) Projectile 

(Projectile B) and the Boost Demo, 

Capture Demo, and Final Demo 

projectile (Projectile C). Major 

components of the artillery system 

include the cannon, gun mount, artillery 

projectile, and propelling charges; these 

components would be sited at the 

existing deactivated LF–05 site on 

VAFB. The proposed activities would 

include testing ERCA II by firing nonexplosive projectiles over the Pacific 

Ocean at distances ranging from the 

shoreline to approximately 1,180 mi 

(1,900 km) from the shoreline of VAFB 

onto and beyond the PMSR. 

TABLE 1—ERCA II TEST SCHEDULE

Test event Test schedule Projectile 

type 

Number of 

tests 

Number of 

test event 

days 

Weapon Strength of Design ................................. 4QCY23 (4th Quarter, Calendar Year 2023) ....... A 35 30 

Pre-Programmed Maneuver ................................. 2QCY24 ................................................................ A

B 

3 

3 

3 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE EN06JA22.000</GPH>

Legern:\ * Launch Facifity (Lf}OS 

D Mintary h1stallalicm 0 

0 

20 40 

20. 4bMires 

E~cAlltl918t'iv02 

Figure 1. Vandenberg Air Force Base and Location of LF-05 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 765 

TABLE 1—ERCA II TEST SCHEDULE—Continued 

Test event Test schedule Projectile 

type 

Number of 

tests 

Number of 

test event 

days 

Boost Demo .......................................................... 2QCY24 ................................................................ A 

C 

6 

6 

6 

Capture Test ......................................................... 1QCY25 ................................................................ A 

C 

6 

6 

6 

Final Demo ........................................................... 2QCY25 ................................................................ A 

C 

6 

6 

6 

Total ............................................................... ............................................................................... .................... 77 51 

There would be a total of 35 Weapons 

Strength of Design (WSD) test events 

over the course of 30 test days with a 

maximum of two to three mass simulant 

(Projectile A) test firings per day. There 

would be three PPM test days over a 2- 

week period. For each PPM test day, 

there would be one mass simulant 

(Projectile A) fired to confirm 

instrumentation is working and one 

PPM configuration (Projectile B) fired. 

Each of the Boost Demo, Capture Test, 

and Final Demo test events would 

involve 6 days of testing over a 2 week 

period. For each test day, there would 

be one mass simulant (Projectile A) fired 

to confirm instrumentation and one 

Boost Demo, Capture Test, or Final 

Demo configuration (Projectile C) fired. 

In addition to the projectiles, there are 

components of the projectiles that 

would land in the water. With the 

exception of the WSD tests, all other 

tests include a ‘‘pusher plate’’ (having 

an approximate 12 inches [in.] diameter) 

that exits the muzzle along with the rest 

of the projectile and will splash down 

in the ocean. There is a chance that 

during PPM testing, sabot petals (5 in. 

x 5 in. x 45 in. and made of either 

aluminum or a carbon fiber composite) 

that fall from the projectile may fall into 

nearshore waters from the shoreline to 

approximately 1,150 feet (ft) (350 m) 

from shore. 

Figure 1–2 through Figure 1–7 in the 

Navy’s application (available at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-military-readinessactivities) show the potential impact or 

splash-down areas where the projectile 

and component parts for each test event 

are likely to fall. The potential splashdown area associated with Projectile A 

is mostly within 3 nautical miles (NM) 

from shore (Figure 1–2). During the PPM 

test (using Projectile B), the splashdown area is defined by the longer range 

and estimated dispersal area of the 

pusher plate, sabot petals, and the 

terminal flight body, which would 

splash down at different locations along 

the projectile flightpath (Figure 1–3, 

Figure 1–4, and Figure 1–5 in the 

application). For the Boost Demo, 

Capture Test, and Final Demo (using 

Projectile C), the potential splash-down 

area associated with the pusher plate is 

shown in Figure 1–7 in the application, 

and the potential splash-down area for 

all other component parts are shown in 

Figure 1–6 in the application. 

Characteristics of the debris, such as 

the size, weight, and composition of 

materials associated with each test, will 

determine the potential for debris 

recovery. The three projectiles and their 

physical characteristics are provided in 

Table 1–1 in the application. 

The weapon would fire all projectiles 

due west from the established gun 

position on the LF–05 site at VAFB 

(Figure 1–8 in the application). No 

nighttime tests would be conducted. 

The flightpath of the projectiles would 

transit within a narrow corridor into the 

PMSR (approximately 3 NM from the 

VAFB shoreline), with impact sites 

ranging from 3 NM offshore through the 

extent of the PMSR and beyond (Figure 

1–2, Figure 1–3, and Figure 1–6 in the 

application). However, only Projectile C, 

used in the Final Demo test, would 

impact beyond the PMSR, and of the six 

Final Demo tests, only two the 

projectiles would impact beyond the 

PMSR (Figure 1–6 in the application). 

The impact site would be monitored as 

part of the testing and include video 

impact scoring. Off-range DoD assets 

would participate in later scheduled test 

events and include the Pacific Tracker, 

RG–4 Global Hawks or MQ–9 Reapers, 

and Wave Gliders. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2021). 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 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’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. SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 

2021a). All values presented in Table 2 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

2020 U.S. Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 

2021a) and 2021 draft Pacific and 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
766 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

Alaska SARs (Carretta et al., 2021b, 

Muto et al., 2021) available online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports. 

TABLE 2—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 >320 

Steller sea lion .................... Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern U.S. ............................. -, -, N 43,201 (43,201, 2017) .... 2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina richardsi ............. California ................................... -, -, N 30,968 (N/A, 27,348, 

2012).

1,641 43 

Northern Elephant seal ....... Mirounga angustirostris ............ California Breeding ................... -, -, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 

2013).

5,122 13.7 

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/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports. 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. 

As indicated above, all four pinniped 

species (with four managed stocks) in 

Table 2 temporally and spatially cooccur with the activity to the degree that 

take is reasonably likely to occur, and 

we have proposed authorizing it. 

Additional pinniped species and 

numerous cetacean species are also 

known to inhabit the waters near VAFB. 

The Guadalupe fur seal can be expected 

to occur in both deeper waters of the 

open ocean and coastal waters within 

the ERCA II Project Area. Satellite 

tracking data from Guadalupe fur seals 

tagged at Guadalupe Island have 

demonstrated movements into the 

offshore waters between 50 and 300 km 

from the U.S. West Coast (Norris et al. 

2015; Norris 2017b, 2017a; Norris & 

Elorriaga-Verplancken 2020). Based on 

that data, the seals could occur in both 

deeper waters of the open ocean and 

coastal waters within the ERCA II 

Project Area. However, Guadalupe fur 

seals have not been observed at any 

VAFB haulout locations (U.S. Air Force 

2020; Evans 2020) and are not expected 

to be within the area exposed to in-air 

noise levels that may cause behavioral 

affects. The northern fur seal could 

occur in the ERCA II Project Area. 

Migrating seals and those along the U.S. 

West Coast are typically found over the 

edge of the continental shelf and slope 

(Kenyon & Wilke 1953; Sterling & Ream 

2004; Gentry 2009; Adams et al. 2014). 

Northern fur seals have not been 

observed at any VAFB haulout location 

(National Marine Fisheries Service 

2020b) and also are not expected to be 

within the area exposed to in-air noise 

levels that may cause behavioral affects. 

Given this information take was not 

requested by the DAF and is not 

proposed by NMFS for Guadalupe fur 

seals and Northern fur seals and these 

species will not be discussed further. 

The in-air noise created by the cannon 

firing and the supersonic flight of the 

projectile was analyzed by DAF for the 

potential transfer of sound energy 

through the air-water interface, resulting 

in underwater noise that could affect 

cetaceans in the Project Area. However, 

the potential for in-air noise to have any 

effect on at-sea marine mammals is 

extremely low. We have reviewed DAF’s 

analysis and conclusions, and concur. 

Cetaceans spend their entire lives in the 

water and spend most of their time (>90 

percent for most species) entirely 

submerged below the surface. When at 

the surface, cetacean bodies are almost 

entirely below the water’s surface, with 

only the blowhole exposed to allow 

breathing. This minimizes in-air noise 

exposure, both natural and 

anthropogenic, essentially 100 percent 

of the time, because their ears are nearly 

always below the water’s surface. 

Furthermore, due to the elevation of the 

LF–05 site approximately 95 ft. above 

sea level and the firing angle of the 

cannon upward and away from the 

water, the majority of the overpressure 

from the cannon blast and the sonic 

boom generated by the projectile would 

strike the water’s surface at angles 

greater than 14 degrees, and, therefore, 

the majority of in-air acoustic energy 

would not be transmitted underwater. 

Since the majority of the pressure 

generated by an in-air detonation is 

reflected at the water’s surface and 

remains in the air, peak pressure levels 

from the cannon blast and sonic boom 

from the projectile measured 

underwater are not likely to result in 

sound levels that would exceed marine 

mammal harassment thresholds 

underwater in the ERCA II Project Area. 

The DAF also analyzed the potential 

for a projectile or a component of a 

projectile to strike a marine mammal in 

one of the test-specific splash-down 

areas. The main variables used in the 

probability estimates include projectile 

and component dimensions, number of 

projectiles, size of the splash-down area, 

marine mammal presence and density 

within each splash-down area, season, 

and size (length and width) of 

representative adult marine mammals. 

The results of the probability 

calculations presented in Appendix A of 

the application show that, with a 

reasonably high degree of certainty due 

to the conservative assumptions made, 

marine mammals are highly unlikely to 

be struck by the projectiles or 

components from ERCA II testing. Given 

this information, the DAF and NMFS 

have determined that strikes from 

projectiles as well as underwater noise 

associated with cannon blasts and sonic 

booms would have a discountable effect 

on cetaceans in the ERCA II Project 

Area. 

Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) 

include areas of known importance for 

reproduction, feeding, or migration, or 

areas where small and resident 

populations are known to occur (Van 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 767 

Parijs, 2015). An interactive map of the 

BIAs may be found here: https://

cetsound.noaa.gov/biologicallyimportant-area-map. There are three 

BIAs off the West Coast of the 

continental United States with the 

potential to overlap portions of the 

PMSR. These include a designated blue 

whale feeding BIA from June to October, 

a humpback whale feeding BIA from 

April to November, and a gray whale 

migratory BIA from January to July and 

then from October to December. 

However, and as stated previously, 

neither strikes from projectiles nor 

underwater noise associated with 

cannon blasts and sonic booms are 

likely to impact these cetacean species 

and associated BIAs. 

California Sea Lion 

The California sea lion occurs in the 

eastern north Pacific from Puerto 

Vallarta, Mexico, through the Gulf of 

California and north along the west 

coast of North America to the Gulf of 

Alaska (Barlow et al., 2008; DeLong et 

al., 2017b; Jefferson et al., 2008). 

Typically, during the summer, 

California sea lions congregate near 

rookery islands and specific open-water 

areas. The primary rookeries off the 

coast of the United States are on San 

Nicolas (SNI), San Miguel, Santa 

Barbara, and San Clemente Islands (Le 

Boeuf & Bonnell 1980; Lowry et al., 

1992; Carretta et al., 2000; Lowry & 

Forney 2005; Lowry et al., 2017). 

Haulout sites are also found on Anacapa 

Island, Richardson Rock, Santa Catalina 

Island, Santa Cruz Island, and Santa 

Rosa Island in the Southern California 

Bight (Le Boeuf 2002; Lowry et al., 

2017). In the nonbreeding season, 

beginning in late summer, adult and 

subadult males migrate northward along 

the coast of California to Washington 

and return south the following spring 

(Laake, 2017; Lowry & Forney, 2005). 

Females and juveniles also disperse 

somewhat but tend to stay in the 

Southern California area, although north 

and west of the Channel Islands (Lowry 

& Forney, 2005; Melin & DeLong, 2000; 

Thomas et al., 2010). 

California sea lions can also be found 

in California open ocean and coastal 

waters (Barlow et al., 2008; Jefferson et 

al., 2008). Animals are usually found in 

waters over the continental shelf and 

slope; however, they are also known to 

occupy locations far offshore in deep, 

oceanic waters, such as Guadalupe 

Island and Alijos Rocks off Baja 

California (Jefferson et al., 2008; Melin 

et al., 2008; Urrutia & Dziendzielewski, 

2012; Zavala-Gonzalez & Mellink, 2000). 

California sea lions are the most 

frequently sighted pinnipeds offshore of 

Southern California during the spring, 

and peak abundance is during the May 

through August breeding season (Green 

et al., 1992; Keiper et al., 2005; Lowry 

et al., 2017). 

California sea lions haul out at sites 

in the southern portion of VAFB, which 

are located more than 20 mi. (32 km) 

south of LF–05, outside the area that 

would be impacted by any proposed 

activities. They have not been observed 

at any northern VAFB haulout locations, 

except for rare individuals affected by 

domoic acid poisoning (U.S. Air Force 

2020; Evans 2020). In 2019 a significant 

die-off of California sea lions, presumed 

to be caused by domoic acid toxicity 

associated with red tide algal blooms, 

was noted—this mortality event 

included most of Southern and Central 

California and included more than 80 

deceased California sea lions observed 

on VAFB beaches (U.S. Air Force 2020; 

Evans 2020). There is no known 

successful breeding of this species on 

VAFB. Approximately 3.2 mi. (5.9 km) 

north of LF–05 and beyond the VAFB 

boundary but within the Project Area, 

California sea lions have been observed 

at Lion Rock during the three most 

recent aerial surveys (2013, 2016, 2017) 

performed by NMFS (National Marine 

Fisheries Service 2020b). 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions range along the north 

Pacific from northern Japan to California 

(Perrin et al., 2009), with centers of 

abundance and distribution in the Gulf 

of Alaska and Aleutian Islands (Muto et 

al., 2020). There have also been reports 

of Steller sea lions in waters off Mexico 

as far south as the various islands off the 

port of Manzanillo in Colima, Mexico 

(Gallo-Reynoso et al., 2020). The Eastern 

U.S. stock (or DPS) of Steller sea lion is 

defined as the population occurring east 

of 144° W longitude. The locations and 

distribution of the Eastern population’s 

breeding sites along the U.S. Pacific 

coast have shifted northward, with 

fewer breeding sites in Southern 

California and more sites established in 

Washington and Southeast Alaska 

(Pitcher et al., 2007; Wiles 2015). San 

Miguel Island and Santa Rosa Island 

were, in the past, the southernmost 

rookeries and haulouts for the Steller 

sea lions, but their range contracted 

northward in the 20th century, and now 

An ̃ o Nuevo Island off central California 

is currently the southernmost rookery. 

Steller sea lions pups were known to be 

born at San Miguel Island up until 1981 

(Pitcher et al., 2007; National Marine 

Fisheries Service 2008; Muto et al., 

2020), and so, as the population 

continues to increase, it is anticipated 

that the Steller sea lions may reestablish a breeding colony on San 

Miguel Island in the future. In the 

Channel Islands and vicinity and 

despite the species’ general absence 

from the area, a consistent but small 

number of Steller sea lions (one to two 

individuals at a time) have been sighted 

in recent years. Approximately one to 

two adult and subadult male Steller sea 

lions have been seen hauled out at San 

Miguel Island each year during the fall 

and winter over the last decade, and 

adult and subadult males have 

occasionally been seen on rocks north of 

Northwest Point at San Miguel Island 

during the part of the summer in the 

past few years (Delong 2019). In 2011, 

a vagrant Steller sea lion was observed 

hauled out at the Point Loma Space and 

Naval Warfare Systems Command 

facility in San Diego Bay, and a vagrant 

individual was observed in the water at 

the entrance channel during the 

monitoring of a pile driving project in 

2015 (U.S. Department of the Navy 

2015). Aerial surveys for pinnipeds in 

the Channel Islands from 2011 to 2015 

encountered a single Steller sea lion at 

SNI in 2013 (Lowry et al., 2017). 

Additional sightings have included a 

single male that was seen hauled out on 

an oil production structure off Long 

Beach during the winter of 2015 and 

2016, a Steller observed in 2018 hauled 

out on a buoy outside Ventura Harbor, 

and a lone adult female who gave birth 

to and reared a pup on San Miguel 

Island in the summer of 2017 (Delong 

2019). 

In April and May 2012 Steller sea 

lions were observed at VAFB which was 

the first time this species had been 

reported at the Base over the past two 

decades. Since 2012, Steller sea lions 

have been observed occasionally in 

routine monthly surveys, with as many 

as 16 individuals recorded. In 2019, up 

to four Steller sea lions were observed 

on south VAFB during monthly marine 

mammal counts (U.S. Air Force 2020), 

and none have been observed during 

monthly counts in 2020 (U.S. Air Force 

In Prep.). Note that these locations are 

more than 20 mi. (32 km) south of LF– 

05 and are not within an area that 

would be impacted by any proposed 

activities. While flying to VAFB from 

Santa Maria for an unrelated project, 

contract biologists observed and 

photographed three Steller sea lions at 

Lion Rock in October 2017 (Ball 2017). 

This offshore rock haulout site is within 

an area exposed to in-air noise levels 

that may cause behavioral affects to 

pinnipeds at that haulout. 

Harbor Seal 

The harbor seal is one of the most 

widely distributed seals, found in nearly 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
768 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

all temperate coastal waters of the 

northern hemisphere (Jefferson et al., 

2008). Harbor seals are generally not 

present in the deep waters of the open 

ocean. Harbor seals, while primarily 

aquatic, also use the coastal terrestrial 

environment, where they haul out of the 

water periodically. Harbor seals are a 

coastal species, rarely found more than 

20 km from shore, and frequently 

occupying bays, estuaries, and inlets 

(Baird, 2001; Harvey & Goley, 2011; 

Jefferson et al., 2014) 

Ideal harbor seal habitat includes 

suitable haulout sites, shelter from high 

surf during the breeding periods, and 

sufficient food near haulout sites to 

sustain the population throughout the 

year. Haulout sites vary but include 

intertidal and subtidal rock outcrops, 

sandbars, sandy beaches, estuaries, and 

even peat banks in salt marshes (Burns, 

2009; Gilbert & Guldager, 1998; Wilson, 

1978). Harbor seals generally haul out in 

greatest numbers at low tides and 

during the afternoon, when it is usually 

warmest. The period from late May to 

early June corresponds with the peak 

molt season when the maximum 

number of harbor seals are onshore 

(Lowry et al., 2017). 

Harbor seals use haulouts along the 

shoreline at VAFB. Most haulout sites 

on VAFB are located on south VAFB, 

more than 20 mi. (32 km) south of LF– 

05 and are not within an area that 

would be impacted by any proposed 

activities. On north VAFB, there are two 

haulout locations near LF–05: Lion’s 

Head is 0.45 mi. (0.72 km) northwest 

and Little Sal is 2.15 mi. (3.45 km) 

northwest from LF–05. The Purisima 

Point haulout is 7.43 mi. (11.95 km) 

southwest of LF–05 and is located 

outside the area that would be impacted 

by any proposed activities. During 

monthly pinniped counts at haulouts 

during 2019, VAFB observed a 

maximum of 10 harbor seals at Little Sal 

and a maximum of 9 harbor seals at 

Lion’s Head (U.S. Air Force 2020). As of 

November 2020, a maximum of six 

harbor seals have been observed at Little 

Sal, and a maximum of four harbor seals 

have been observed at Lion’s head 

during the 2020 monthly counts (U.S. 

Air Force In Prep.). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

There are two distinct populations of 

northern elephant seals: One that breeds 

in Baja California, Mexico; and a 

population that breeds in California 

(Garcia-Aguilar et al., 2018). The 

northern elephant seals in the ERCA II 

Project Area are from the California 

Breeding stock, although elephant seals 

from Baja Mexico frequently migrate 

through the ERCA II Project Area 

(Aurioles-Gamboa & Camacho-Rios 

2007; Carretta et al., 2017; Carretta et al., 

2020). Northern elephant seals spend 

little time nearshore and migrate four 

times a year as they travel to and from 

breeding/pupping and molting areas, 

spending more than 80 percent of their 

annual cycle at sea (Robinson et al., 

2012; Lowry et al., 2014; Lowry et al., 

2017; Carretta et al., 2020). Peak 

abundance in California is during the 

January–February breeding season and 

during the time when adults return to 

molt from April to July (Lowry et al., 

2014; Lowry et al., 2017). 

Although northern elephant seals 

haul out at south VAFB locations, they 

were not observed at north VAFB haul 

outs in 2019 (U.S. Air Force 2020) or in 

2020 (U.S. Air Force In Prep.) Northern 

elephant seal occurrence on VAFB has 

become more frequent over the past 

decade (U.S. Air Force 2020) and 

northern elephant seals may begin to 

use areas where they have not 

previously been observed. Breeding has 

been observed on south VAFB since 

2017 (Evans 2020). 

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). 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). A functional group for 

pinnipeds exposed to sounds out of 

water was established with a hearing 

range shown in Table 3. This is based 

on behavioral measurements of hearing 

for several pinniped species. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUP FOR

PINNIPEDS (IN AIR) AND ITS GENERALIZED HEARING RANGE

Hearing group 

Generalized 

hearing 

range * 

Pinnipeds (in air) ............ 75 Hz to 30 kHz 

* Southall et al., 2007. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the 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 

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 decibel 

(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 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 769 

changes in sound pressure. For airborne 

sound pressure, the reference amplitude 

is usually 20 mPa and is expressed as dB 

re 20 mPa. The source level (SL) 

represents the SPL referenced at a 

distance of 1 m from the source while 

the received level is the SPL at the 

listener’s position. 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so that they 

may be accounted for in the summation 

of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 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). 

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., cannon 

fire, sonic booms, explosions, gunshots, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 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. There are no non-pulsed 

sounds associated with the ERCA II 

Project that could result in harassment 

of marine mammals. 

The effects of sounds on marine 

mammals are dependent on several 

factors, including the species, size, and 

behavior (feeding, nursing, resting, etc.) 

of the animal; the intensity and duration 

of the sound; and the sound propagation 

properties of the environment. Impacts 

to marine species can result from 

physiological and behavioral responses 

to both the type and strength of the 

acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008). 

The type and severity of behavioral 

impacts are more difficult to define due 

to limited studies addressing the 

behavioral effects of sounds on marine 

mammals. Potential effects from 

impulsive sound sources can range in 

severity from effects such as behavioral 

disturbance or tactile perception to 

physical discomfort, slight injury of the 

internal organs and the auditory system, 

or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). 

Masking 

Any man-made noise that is strong 

enough to be heard has the potential to 

reduce (mask) the ability of marine 

mammals to hear natural sounds at 

similar frequencies, including calls from 

conspecifics and environmental sounds 

such as surf noise. The infrequent 

cannon fire and corresponding sonic 

booms, (77 events on 51 days over 2 

calendar years) could cause masking, 

but it would be expected for no more 

than a very small fraction of the time 

during any single day. Occasional brief 

episodes of masking at VAFB would 

have no significant effects on the ability 

of pinnipeds to hear one another or to 

detect natural environmental sounds 

that may be relevant. Due to the 

expected sound levels of the activities 

proposed and the distance of the 

activity from marine mammal habitat, 

the effects of sounds from the proposed 

activities are unlikely to result in 

masking. Therefore, masking is not 

discussed further. 

Temporary or Permanent Hearing Loss 

Very strong sounds have the potential 

to cause temporary or permanent 

reduction in hearing sensitivity. 

Received sound levels must far exceed 

the animal’s hearing threshold for there 

to be any temporary hearing impairment 

or temporary threshold shift (TTS). For 

transient sounds, the sound level 

necessary to cause TTS is inversely 

related to the duration of the sound. 

Received levels must be even higher for 

there to be risk of permanent hearing 

impairment, or permanent threshold 

shift (PTS). Although it is possible that 

some pinnipeds may incur TTS during 

cannon fire and sonic booms from ERCA 

II testing, hearing impairment has not 

been measured for pinniped species 

exposed to these combined sound 

sources. Auditory brainstem response 

(i.e., hearing assessment using 

measurements of electrical responses of 

the brain) was used to demonstrate that 

harbor seals did not exhibit loss in 

hearing sensitivity following launches 

of large rockets with sonic booms at 

VAFB (Thorson et al., 1999; Thorson et 

al., 1998). However, the hearing tests 

did not begin until at least 45 minutes 

after the launch; therefore, harbor seals 

may have incurred TTS which was 

undetectable by the time testing was 

begun. There was no sign of PTS in any 

of the harbor seals tested (Thorson et al., 

1999; Thorson et al., 1998). 

In general, if any TTS were to occur 

to pinnipeds, it is expected to be mild 

and reversible. It is possible that some 

artillery fire as measured very close to 

the firing location may exceed the 

permanent threshold shift (PTS) criteria, 

but it is not expected that any pinnipeds 

would be close enough to the cannons 

to be exposed to sounds strong enough 

to cause PTS. Due to the expected sound 

levels of the activities proposed and the 

distance of the activity from marine 

mammal habitat, the effects of sounds 

from the proposed activities are unlikely 

to result in PTS and therefore, PTS is 

not discussed further. 

Non-Auditory Physical or Physiological 

Effects 

If noise-induced stress does occur in 

marine mammals, it is expected to occur 

primarily in those exposed to chronic or 

frequent noise. It is very unlikely that it 

would occur in animals, specifically 

California sea lions, Steller sea lions, 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
770 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

harbor seals, and northern elephant 

seals, exposed to only a few very brief 

cannon fire and accompanying sonic 

booms over the course of 2 years. Due 

to the expected sound levels of the 

activities proposed and the distance of 

the activity from marine mammal 

habitat, the effects of sounds from the 

proposed activities are unlikely to result 

in non-auditory physical or 

physiological responses and are not 

discussed further in this section. 

Disturbance Reactions 

Cannon fire and sonic booms are 

characterized by sudden onset of sound, 

moderate to high peak sound levels, and 

short sound duration. Disturbance 

includes a variety of effects, including 

subtle changes in behavior, more 

conspicuous changes in activities, and 

displacement. Behavioral responses to 

sound are highly variable and contextspecific 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; Southall et al., 2007). Pinnipeds 

may be exposed to airborne sounds that 

have the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment, depending on an animal’s 

distance from the cannon fire and sonic 

booms. Sound could cause hauled out 

pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their 

normal behavior, such as temporarily 

abandoning their habitat. The onset of 

noise can result in temporary, shortterm 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). 

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). 

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). 

While there are no data on pinniped 

behavioral impacts associated with 

cannon fire and sonic booms, the results 

from studies at beaches exposed to 

acoustic disturbance arising from 

missile launches and associated sonic 

booms at VAFB and SNI are highly 

variable (Holst et al. 2005, Ugoretz and 

Greene Jr. 2012). The DAF has also 

monitored pinniped responses to rocket 

launches at the Northern Channel 

Islands (NCI) during numerous launches 

over the past two decades. 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 

generally being much less responsive. 

Because Steller sea lions occur in the 

project area relatively infrequently, no 

data has been recorded on their 

reactions to sonic booms. Northern 

elephant seals generally exhibit no 

reaction at all, except perhaps a headsup 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 or up to an 

hour or two of each launch, regardless 

of species. 

Responsiveness also varies with time 

of year and age class, with juvenile 

pinnipeds being more likely to react by 

leaving the haulout site. The probability 

and type of behavioral response will 

also depend on the season, the group 

composition of the pinnipeds, and the 

type of activity in which they are 

engaged. For example, in some cases, 

harbor seals have been found to be more 

responsive during the pupping/breeding 

season (Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 

2008) while in others, mothers and pups 

seem to react less to launches than lone 

individuals (Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 

2012), and California sea lions seem to 

be consistently less responsive during 

the pupping season (Holst et al., 2010; 

Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; 

Holst et al., 2011; Holst et al., 2005b; 

Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). Though 

pup abandonment could theoretically 

result from these reactions, site-specific 

monitoring data indicate that pup 

abandonment is not likely to occur as a 

result of the specified activity because it 

has not been previously observed. While 

the reactions are variable, and can 

involve abrupt movements by some 

individuals, biological impacts of these 

responses appear to be limited. 

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 activities would result in 

any temporary or permanent effects on 

the habitats used by the marine 

mammals in the proposed area, 

including the food sources they use (i.e., 

fish and invertebrates) since underwater 

sound levels are low. These low 

underwater sound levels are not 

expected to cause any impacts to prey 

species, including physical injury, 

behavioral disturbance, or survivability. 

Therefore, it is not expected that the test 

activities would impact feeding success 

of pinnipeds. 

While it is anticipated that the 

proposed activity may result in marine 

mammals avoiding certain haulout areas 

in close proximity to LF–05 due to 

temporary ensonification of out-of-water 

habitat, this impact to habitat is 

temporary and reversible and was 

considered in further detail earlier in 

this document, as behavioral 

modification. No impacts are 

anticipated to prey species and in-water 

habitat frequented by pinnipeds. The 

main impact associated with the 

proposed activity will be temporarily 

elevated in-air noise levels and the 

associated direct effects on marine 

mammals, previously discussed in this 

notice. 

Debris projectiles or materials 

associated with firing the projectiles are 

not expected to impact beaches. The 

DAF would recover all debris found on 

land in the vicinity of pinniped haulout 

sites. Dense debris falling into the water 

farther offshore, including the 

projectiles, would sink quickly to the 

seafloor in deep waters and would not 

be recovered. Debris would be 

distributed within the predicted splashdown areas rather than concentrated in 

a single location, and it is unlikely that 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 771 

marine mammals would encounter the 

debris in the water column or in the 

benthic environment. None of the 

debris, which is primarily composed of 

metal, would negatively affect benthic 

habitat. 

Overall, the proposed test activities 

are not expected to cause significant 

impacts or have permanent, adverse 

effects on pinniped habitats or on their 

foraging habitats and prey. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform NMFS’ negligible 

impact analysis and determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

For this military readiness activity, the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as (i) Any 

act that injures or has the significant 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A harassment); or (ii) Any act that 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of natural 

behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a 

point where the behavioral patterns are 

abandoned or significantly altered 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to airborne sounds from 

cannon fire and sonic booms. Based on 

the nature of the activity, Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment in 

the form of TTS are 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) the number of 

days of activities. We note that while 

these basic factors can contribute to a 

basic calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the proposed 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. Generally, for in-air sounds, 

NMFS predicts that harbor seals 

exposed above received levels of 90 dB 

re 20 mPa (rms) will be behaviorally 

harassed, and other pinnipeds will be 

harassed when exposed above 100 dB re 

20 mPa (rms). However, more recent data 

suggest that pinnipeds will be harassed 

when exposure is above 100 dB SEL 

(unweighted) (Criteria and Thresholds 

for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis (Phase III) Technical 

Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2017)) as shown in Table 4. NMFS 

helped develop the Phase III criteria and 

previously used this threshold for the 

SNI, PMSR incidental harassment 

authorization (84 FR 28,462; June 19, 

2019). Therefore, NMFS is using 100 dB 

re 20 mPa2s SEL (unweighted) here. 

TABLE 4—BEHAVIORAL THRESHOLD

FOR IMPULSIVE SOUND FOR PINNIPEDS

Species 

Level B harassment 

by behavior disturbance threshold 

All pinniped species 

(in-air).

100 dB re 20 μPa2s 

SEL (unweighted). 

Each time the ERCA II cannon is fired 

it would generate blast noise from the 

cannon firing and a nearly simultaneous 

sonic boom from the projectile as it 

travels along its flight path. The blast 

noise can be described as an 

overpressure, and would be highest in 

the immediate vicinity of the cannon 

and dissipate with distance from the 

LF–05 site. Peak sound pressure level 

(SPL) from the blast is predicted to 

reach 159 decibels related to 20 

micropascals dB (re 20 mPa) on the 

beach due west of the LF–05 site (See 

Figure 6–1 in application). As the sound 

propagates farther offshore and away 

from the cannon, the peak SPL 

decreases, such that SPL would be less 

than 140 dB approximately 1 km west 

of the LF–05 site and less than 135 dB 

2 km west of the site. The projectile 

generates a sonic boom, another highenergy impulsive sound or 

overpressure. The sound from the 

cannon fire and blast and the sonic 

boom would reach the beach nearly 

simultaneously, and the two sounds 

would be indistinguishable to pinnipeds 

on the beach or just offshore. 

TABLE 5—TTS/PTS IN-AIR THRESHOLDS FOR PINNIPEDS IN-AIR

Group 

Impulsive 

TTS threshold 

SEL 

(weighted) 

TTS threshold 

Peak SPL 

(unweighted) 

PTS threshold 

SEL 

(weighted) 

PTS threshold 

Peak SPL 

(unweighted) 

All other Pinnipeds ........................................................................................... 146 170 161 176 

Harbor seals .................................................................................................... 123 155 138 161

Modeling predicts that the SPL from 

the sonic boom would reach 21 pounds 

per square foot (psf) (equivalent to 153.6 

dB re 20 mPa) on the beach due west of 

the LF–05 site (Figure 6–2). Assuming 

that the sound from the two acoustic 

events, the blast from the cannon and 

the sonic boom from by the projectile, 

arrives on the beach at the same time, 

the sound experienced by a pinniped on 

the beach would be more intense than 

would be experienced from either 

source independently. Because SPLs are 

expressed in decibels, which is based on 

a logarithmic scale, the SPLs cannot 

simply be summed. Instead, the SPLs 

must first be converted from decibels to 

units of Pascals (Pa) before they are 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
772 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

summed, and then the total SPL can be 

converted back to decibels for 

comparison with the marine mammal 

thresholds. The formula used to 

calculate the total SPL is dependent on 

the square of the SPLs divided by a 

reference pressure (e.g., 20 dB mPa), 

making the summation less intuitive. 

Using the equation below, where p1 = 

1,782.5 Pa (equivalent to 159 dB) and p2

= 957.6 Pa (equivalent to 153.6 dB), the 

total SPL is 160.1 dB re 20 mPa. 

The in-air SPL generated by the 

combined cannon blast and sonic boom 

(160.1 dB re 20 mPa) is likely only to 

exceed the TTS threshold (155 dB re 20 

mPa) shown in Table 5 onshore directly 

west of LF–05, between the site and the 

shoreline. The 155 dB re 20 mPa 

threshold only applies to harbor seals. 

The TTS threshold for all other 

pinnipeds is 170 dB re 20 mPa as shown 

in Table 5 which is well above 

calculated in-air sound levels. This area 

consists of approximately 0.15 km of 

rocky shoreline and 0.20 km of narrow 

sandy beach, with an approximate 

maximum of 150 feet of dry sand at low 

tides, comprising the northern tip of 

Minuteman Beach. Three pinniped 

species (California sea lion, northern 

elephant seal, and Pacific harbor seal) 

could potentially utilize this location. 

However, observations of live pinnipeds 

on Minuteman Beach are very 

infrequent and have been limited to 

only California sea lions, and appear 

coincident with elevated concentrations 

of domoic acid (red tide) in nearshore 

waters (Evans 2020). Harbor seals have 

never been observed at this location. 

Because of their rare occurrence on 

Minuteman Beach and the lack of 

documented use of the coastal strand 

area between LF–05 and Minuteman 

Beach, it is very unlikely that any 

marine mammals, including harbor 

seals, would be present in that portion 

of the Project Area. In summary, and 

based on this analysis, TTS effects 

would be very unlikely for harbor seals 

and discountable for all other pinniped 

species. In addition, no PTS or other 

direct injury to pinnipeds is anticipated 

from in-air noise caused by ERCA II 

testing activities. 

The nearest pinniped haulout from 

LF–05 is Lion’s Head, which is 

approximately 0.5 km distant and is 

used by harbor seals. California sea 

lions could also use this location but 

have not been observed in the past 6 

years of monthly counts performed by 

the DAF (U.S. Air Force 2020; Evans 

2020). The maximum in-air SPL 

received at Lion’s Head from the cannon 

blast is predicted to be 148 dB re 20 mPa 

(See Figure 6–1 in application), and the 

SPL from the sonic boom is predicted to 

be 8.5 psf (146.2 dB re 20 mPa; Figure 

6–2 in application). The combined SPL 

received on the beach at Lion’s Head, 

assuming noise from both sources 

arrived simultaneously, would be 150.2 

dB re 20 mPa (calculated as described in 

the previous section). This total SPL is 

less than the TTS threshold for all 

pinniped hearing groups. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

To conservatively estimate the 

number of pinnipeds that would 

potentially be exposed to noise levels 

above the Level B harassment 

behavioral threshold during test events, 

the analysis considered the maximum 

number of pinnipeds observed at 

haulouts within the predicted 100 dB re 

20 mPa2sec or greater SEL. The furthest 

haulout within this area is Lion Rock, 

predicted to receive an SEL of 130 dB 

re 20 mPa2sec, which exceeds the 100 dB 

re 20 mPa2sec threshold for behavioral 

reactions (Figure 6–3 in application). 

Therefore, pinnipeds observed at the 

Lion Rock haulout were included to 

estimate the numbers of pinnipeds 

exposed during each test event day. 

During the WSD test event, the cannon 

will be fired multiple times per day. 

Because the analysis assumes all 

hauled-out pinnipeds would react to the 

initial noise by either an alert reaction, 

reorienting their position on land, or 

leaving the haulout and returning to the 

water, multiple cannon blasts in 

succession would result in only one 

take for each individual on a given day. 

A total of 35 tests would occur during 

the WSD test event which uses only 

Projectile A. Ten tests would occur 

during the weeks 1 and 2 and the 

remaining 25 tests would occur over the 

course of 13 test days during weeks 3 

through 5. For the PPM test event one 

Projectile A and one Projectile B would 

be fired on each of 3 days during a 2- 

week period. Similarly, for each of the 

Boost Demo, Capture Test, and Final 

Demo test events, one Projectile A and 

one Projectile C would be fired on each 

of 6 test days over a 2-week period. Over 

the entire testing period (from calendar 

year 2023 through 2025) there would be 

a total of 51 days when test events 

would produce in-air noise at levels that 

could potentially result in take of 

pinnipeds by Level B harassment. 

Estimated take of California sea lions 

by Level B harassment was calculated 

by taking the highest number of 

individuals (n=883) observed on a 

single day during the three most recent 

aerial surveys (2013, 2016, 2017) of Lion 

Rock multiplied by the number of days 

(39 for year 1 and 12 for year 2) over 

which each test event would occur. 

Surveys were performed by NMFS 

(NMFS 2020b). The total number of 

exposures to in-air noise from the 

proposed testing would result in an 

estimated 34,437 takes by Level B 

harassment during Year 1 and 10,596 

takes by Level B harassment during Year 

2 (Table 6, Table 7). Therefore the DAF 

requested, and NMFS proposes to 

authorize, this amount of Level B 

harassment by behavioral disruption for 

the Year 1 and Year 2 IHAs, 

respectively. 

The DAF estimated take by Level B 

harassment by assuming that the 

number of Steller sea lions (n=3) 

observed once at Lion Rock in October 

2017 could occur during each day of 

testing. The total number of exposures 

to in-air noise from the proposed testing 

would result in an estimated 117 takes 

by Level B harassment in Year 1 and 36 

takes by Level B harassment in Year 2. 

The DAF requested and NMFS proposes 

to authorize 117 takes during Year 1 and 

36 takes during Year 2 by Level B 

harassment from behavioral disruption, 

as shown in Table 6 and Table 7. 

Take of harbor seals was calculated by 

taking the highest number observed 

hauled out at Little Sal (n=10) and 

Lion’s Head (n=9) during monthly 

counts in 2019 and 2020 (U.S. Air Force 

2020, In Prep.), resulting in a total of 19 

harbor seals for each test event. This 

resulted in an estimate of 741 takes in 

Year 1 and 228 takes in Year 2 by Level 

B harassment. Therefore, the DAF 

requested and NMFS proposes to 

authorize 741 takes during Year 1 and 

228 takes during Year 2 by Level B 

harassment from behavioral disruption 

(Table 6, Table 7). 

Northern elephant seals have not been 

observed hauled out at any locations 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE EN06JA22.001</GPH>

Total SPLds - 10 * log10 ( (::) 

2 

+ (::) ') 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 773 

within the project area in which Level 

B harassment could occur. However, 

overall numbers have been increasing 

on VAFB over the past decade (U.S. Air 

Force 2020), and it is possible that 

northern elephant seals may begin to 

occupy areas where they have not 

previously been observed. The DAF, 

therefore, conservatively assumed that 

one northern elephant seal may be 

exposed to in-air noise resulting in 

behavioral disturbance during each test 

event. Therefore, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 39 takes during Year 1 and 12 

takes during Year 2 by Level B 

harassment from behavioral disruption 

(Table 6, Table 7). 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY TEST EVENT AND TEST SCHEDULE

Test dates IHA Year 1 

(4QCY23–2QCY24) 

IHA Year 2 

(1QCY25–2QCY25) 

Test event WSD PPM Boost demo Capture test Final demo 

California sea lion ................................................................ 26,490 2,649 5,298 5,298 5,298 

Steller sea lion ..................................................................... 90 9 18 18 18 

Harbor seal .......................................................................... 570 57 114 114 114 

Northern elephant seal ........................................................ 30 3 6 6 6 

All .................................................................................. 27,180 2,718 5,436 5,436 5,436 

TABLE 7—LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE ESTIMATES BY YEAR

Species 

Estimated 

number of 

Level B 

harassment 

events 

Year 1 

Estimated 

number of 

Level B 

harassment 

events 

Year 2 

California Sea lion ................................................................................................................................................... 34,437 10,596 

Steller sea lion ......................................................................................................................................................... 117 36 

Harbor seal .............................................................................................................................................................. 741 228 

Northern elephant seal ............................................................................................................................................ 39 12 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004 

amended the MMPA as it relates to 

military readiness activities and the 

incidental take authorization process 

such that ‘‘least practicable impact’’ 

shall include consideration of personnel 

safety, practicality of implementation, 

and impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) and the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The DAF must employ PSOs at 

established monitoring locations as 

described in the Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting section. PSOs must 

monitor the project area to the 

maximum extent possible based on the 

required number of PSOs, required 

monitoring locations, and 

environmental conditions. 

The DAF, when practicable, would 

perform ERCA II test activities when 

tides are greater than 1.0 foot (0.3 m). 

This is when haulouts tend to be 

unoccupied by pinnipeds and would 

reduce the number of exposures. 

To prevent unauthorized take of 

marine mammals, test activities must be 

halted upon observation of either a 

species for which incidental take is not 

authorized or a species for which 

incidental take has been authorized but 

the authorized number of takes has been 

met. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
774 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and the level of taking or 

impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring and Recording 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs) 

would commence monitoring at Lion’s 

Head, Little Sal, northern end of 

Minuteman Beach (beach between 

Minuteman Beach parking area and LF– 

05), and Lion Rock at least 72 hours 

prior to ERCA II test events and 

continue until at least 48 hours after 

each event. PSO’s would be stationed at 

locations offering the best possible view 

of individual haulout sites. During each 

daily monitoring effort, surveys (counts 

with binoculars and spotting scopes, if 

necessary) would be conducted hourly 

for 6 hours (6 counts per day) centered 

around the late morning or afternoon 

low tides as much as possible. Monitors 

will record species; number of animals 

hauled out; general behavior; presence 

of pups; age class; and gender. 

Environmental conditions will also be 

monitored including tide, wind speed, 

air temperature, and swell. 

PSOs cannot be present to survey 

Little Sal and Lion’s Head when live 

cannon fire is underway for safety 

purposes, therefore, video recording of 

pinnipeds would be conducted during 

live fire testing in order to record any 

reaction to the blast noise and sonic 

boom. Lion Rock is approximately 0.25 

mi (0.4 km) from the closest observation 

location and only half of the offshore 

rock is visible from land so it may be 

monitored via drone rather than 

traditional survey methods (spotting 

scopes and binoculars). The DAF would 

prefer to use a drone so that the entire 

rock can be observed. However, if DAF 

is unable to secure necessary permits, 

protected species observers (PSOs) 

would use a spotting scope to observe 

reactions during test events as an 

alternative. 

Reporting 

Technical reports will be submitted to 

the NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources 

within 90 days from the date that each 

IHA expires. This report will provide 

full documentation of methods, results, 

and interpretation pertaining to ERCA II 

testing activities covered under these 

proposed IHAs. 

The DAF will submit reports that 

include: 

• Summary of test activities (dates 

and times); 

• Summary of mitigation and 

monitoring measures implemented; 

• Number, species, and any other 

relevant information regarding marine 

mammals observed and estimated 

exposed/taken during activities; 

• Description of the observed 

behaviors (in both presence and absence 

of test activities); 

• Environmental conditions when 

observations were made including 

visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind 

speed and direction, tides, and swell 

height and direction; and 

• Assessment of the implementation 

and effectiveness of mitigation and 

monitoring measures. 

If a dead or seriously injured 

pinniped is found during post-firing 

monitoring, the incident must be 

reported to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources and NMFS West 

Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator 

immediately. In the unanticipated event 

that any cases of pinniped mortality are 

judged to result from ERCA II testing 

activities at any time during the period 

covered by these IHAs, this will be 

reported to NMFS and the West Coast 

Stranding Coordinator. The report must 

include the following information: 

1. Time and date of the incident; 

2. Description of the incident; 

3. Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, cloud cover, 

and visibility); 

4. Description of all marine mammal 

observations and active sound source 

use in the 24 hours preceding the 

incident; 

5. Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

6. Fate of the animal(s); and 

7. Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Testing activities must not resume 

until NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. If 

it is determined that the unauthorized 

take was caused by ERCA II activities, 

NMFS will work with the Holder to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. The DAF may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., 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’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 775 

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. 

The specified activities may result in 

take, in the form of Level B harassment 

(behavioral disturbance) only, from 

airborne sounds associated with ERCA 

II cannon fire and accompanying sonic 

booms. Based on the best available 

information, including monitoring 

reports from similar activities (i.e., 

missile launches and sonic booms) at 

VAFB and nearby launch facilities, 

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 cannon fire and sonic 

booms. Repeated exposures of 

individuals to levels of sound that may 

cause Level B harassment are unlikely 

to result in TTS or PTS. Thresholds for 

PTS are higher than modeled sound 

levels across the entirety of the Project 

Area, and thresholds would not be 

exceeded or 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. 

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, even in the 

instances of pinnipeds being 

behaviorally disturbed by cannon fire 

and associated sonic booms at VAFB 

and nearby launch facilities no evidence 

has been presented of abnormal 

behavior, injuries or mortalities, or pup 

abandonment as a result of sonic booms. 

These findings came as a result of more 

than two decades of surveys at VAFB. 

Post missile-launch monitoring 

generally reveals a return to normal 

behavioral patterns within minutes up 

to an hour or two of each launch, 

regardless of species (SAIC 2012). 

Therefore, in-air sound associated with 

canon firing and associated sonic booms 

is not expected to impact reproductive 

rates or population levels of affected 

species. 

We do not anticipate that the 

proposed activities would result in any 

temporary or permanent effects on the 

habitats used by the marine mammals in 

the proposed area, including the food 

sources they use (i.e., fish and 

invertebrates) since underwater sound 

levels would not affect prey species. 

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 stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• No impacts to cetaceans are 

anticipated; 

• No impacts in the form of TTS or 

PTS are expected 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), 

which are not expected to adversely 

affect the fitness of any individuals or 

populations; 

• The proposed activities are 

expected to result in no long-term 

changes in the use by pinnipeds of 

haulouts in the project area, based on 

over 20 years of monitoring data; 

• No impacts to marine mammal 

habitat/prey are expected; and 

• The expected 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 for both the Year 1 IHA and the 

Year 2 IHA the total marine mammal 

take from the proposed activity will 

have a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

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 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorizations 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

two distinct and consecutive one-year 

IHAs to the Department of the Air Force 

for conducting Extended Range Cannon 

Artillery II testing at Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, California from October 1, 

2023 to September 30, 2024 (Year 1) and 

from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 

2025 (Year 2) provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Drafts of the proposed IHAs can be 

found at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorizations, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHAs for the proposed ERCA II testing. 

We also request at this time comment on 

the potential renewal of these proposed 

IHAs as described in the paragraph 

below. Please include with your 

comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform 

decisions on the request for these IHAs 

or subsequent Renewal IHAs. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, 1 year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
776 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) A request for renewal is received 

no later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

(2) The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

• An explanation that the activities to 

be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

• A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

(3) Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: January 3, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00032 Filed 1–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB697] 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Pacific Council) 

Groundfish Subcommittee of the 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) will hold an online meeting to 

review the 2021 groundfish stock 

assessment process and discuss process 

improvements for the next stock 

assessment cycle. 

DATES: The online meeting will be held 

Tuesday, January 25, 2022, from 12:30 

p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Pacific Standard Time 

(PST) or until business for the day is 

completed. 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held 

online. Specific meeting information, 

including directions on how to join the 

meeting and system requirements will 

be provided in the meeting 

announcement on the Pacific Council’s 

website (see www.pcouncil.org). You 

may send an email to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov) or contact him at (503) 820– 

2412 for technical assistance. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; 

telephone: (503) 820–2413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participants in the Pacific Council’s 

2021 groundfish stock assessment 

process will hold a meeting via webinar 

to review and evaluate the 2021 stock 

assessment review (STAR) process. The 

goal of the webinar is to solicit process 

improvements to recommend for future 

groundfish stock assessments and STAR 

panel reviews. Process 

recommendations will be provided to 

the Pacific Council at their March 2022 

meeting. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov; (503) 820–2412) at least 10 

days prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: January 3, 2022. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00040 Filed 1–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2021–0033] 

Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility 

Response Pilot Program 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is 

implementing a pilot program to 

evaluate the effects of permitting 

applicants to defer responding to subject 

matter eligibility (SME) rejections in 

certain patent applications. Under this 

pilot program, applicants may receive 

invitations to participate if their 

applications meet the criteria for the 

program as specified in this notice, 

including a criterion that the claims in 

the application necessitate rejections on 

SME and other patentability-related 

grounds. An applicant who accepts the 

invitation to participate in this pilot 

program must still file a reply to every 

Office action mailed in the application, 

but is permitted to defer responding to 

SME rejections until the earlier of final 

disposition of the application, or the 

withdrawal or obviation of all other 

outstanding rejections. This notice 

outlines the conditions, eligibility 

requirements, and guidelines of the 

pilot program. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 7, 2022 to ensure consideration. 

Pilot Duration: Invitations to 

participate in the Deferred Subject 

Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) 

Pilot Program will be mailed during the 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE