49332 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

nongovernmental organizations, and the 

private sector. 

Dated: September 28, 2017. 

David Holst, 

Acting Chief Financial Officer/CAO, Office 

of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21577 Filed 10–23–17; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KD–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF788 

North 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 North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

Groundfish Plan Team will meet 

November 13 through November 17, 

2017. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Monday, November 13, 2017 to Friday, 

November 17, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m. Pacific Time. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 

Traynor Room 2076, 7600 Sand Point 

Way NE., Building 4, Seattle, WA 

98115. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252; telephone: (907) 271–2809. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana Stram or Jim Armstrong, Council 

staff; telephone: (907) 271–2809. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

Monday, November 13 to Friday, 

November 17, 2017 

The Plan Teams will compile and 

review the annual Groundfish Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

(SAFE) reports, (including the Economic 

Report, the Ecosystems/assessment and 

status report, and the stock assessments 

for BSAI and GOA groundfishes), and 

recommend final groundfish harvest 

specifications for 2017/2018. 

The Agenda is subject to change, and 

the latest version will be posted at 

http://www.npfmc.org/fisherymanagement-plan-team/goa-bsaigroundfish-plan-team/. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Shannon Gleason 

at (907) 271–2809 at least 7 working 

days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: October 20, 2017. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23190 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF507 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Boost-Back and 

Landing of Falcon 9 Rockets 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Space Exploration Technology 

Corporation (SpaceX) for authorization 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

boost-back and landing of Falcon 9 

rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base in 

California, and at contingency landing 

locations in the Pacific Ocean. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

SpaceX to incidentally take marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

during the specified activity. 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. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than November 24, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Carduner@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 received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/research.htm 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: 

Jordan Carduner, 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: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/research.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49333 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action with respect to 

potential impacts on the human 

environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in CE 

B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 

216–6A, which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of the proposed IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

in making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received a request from SpaceX 

for an IHA to take marine mammals 

incidental to Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery activities, including in-air 

boost-back maneuvers and landings of 

the First Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in 

California, and at contingency landing 

locations offshore. SpaceX’s request was 

for harassment only and NMFS concurs 

that mortality is not expected to result 

from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

SpaceX’s application for incidental 

take authorization was received on July 

11, 2017. SpaceX submitted a revised 

version of the request on October 13, 

2017. This revised version of the 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete. The planned activity may 

exceed one year, hence subsequent 

MMPA incidental harassment 

authorizations may be requested for this 

particular activity. 

The planned activities include in-air 

boost-back maneuvers and landings of 

the First Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket. 

The action may occur as many as 12 

times and may occur at any time of year. 

Species that are expected to be taken by 

the planned activity include harbor seal, 

California sea lion, Steller sea lion, 

northern elephant seal, northern fur 

seal, and Guadalupe fur seal. SpaceX’s 

activities are expected to produce noise, 

in the form of sonic booms, that are 

expected to result in harassment of 

marine mammals that are hauled out of 

the water. Take by Level B harassment 

only is expected; no injury or mortality 

of marine mammals is expected to result 

from the proposed activity. 

If issued, this would be the second 

IHA issued for this activity. SpaceX 

applied for, and was granted, an IHA in 

2016 that was valid from June 30, 2016 

through June 29, 2017 (81 FR 34984, 

June 30, 2016). SpaceX complied with 

all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHA. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket 

designed and manufactured by SpaceX 

for transport of satellites and SpaceX’s 

Dragon spacecraft into orbit. SpaceX 

currently operates the Falcon Launch 

Vehicle Program at Space Launch 

Complex 4E (SLC–4E) at VAFB. SpaceX 

proposes regular employment of First 

Stage recovery by returning the Falcon 

9 First Stage to SLC–4 West (SLC–4W) 

at VAFB for potential reuse, up to 

twelve times per year. This includes 

performing boost-back maneuvers (inair) and landings of the Falcon 9 First 

Stage on the pad at SLC–4W. The reuse 

of the Falcon 9 First Stage enables 

SpaceX to efficiently conduct lower cost 

launch missions from VAFB in support 

of commercial and government clients. 

Although SLC–4W is the preferred 

landing location, SpaceX has identified 

the need for contingency landing 

locations should it not be feasible to 

land the First Stage at SLC–4W. The 

first contingency landing option is on a 

barge located at least 27 nautical miles 

(nm) (50 kilometers (km) offshore of 

VAFB. The second contingency landing 

option is on a barge within the Iridium 

Landing Area, an area approximately 

33,153 square kilometers (km2) area that 

is located approximately 122 nm (225 

km) southwest of San Nicolas Island 

and 133 nm (245 km) southwest of San 

Clemente Island (see Figure 1–3 in the 

IHA application). 

During descent, a sonic boom 

(overpressure of high-energy impulsive 

sound) would be generated when the 

First Stage reaches a rate of travel that 

exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic 

booms would occur in proximity to the 

landing areas and may be heard during 

or briefly after the boost-back and 

landing, depending on the location of 

the observer. Sound from the sonic 

boom would have the potential to result 

in harassment of marine mammals, 

either on the mainland at or near VAFB, 

or at the Northern Channel Islands 

(NCI), as described in more detail later 

in this document. 

Dates and Duration 

The planned project would occur 

from December 1, 2017 through 

November 30, 2018. Up to twelve 

Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities 

would occur per year. Precise dates of 

Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities 

are not known. Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery activities may take place at any 

time of year and at any time of day. The 

IHA, if issued, would be valid from 

December 1, 2017 through November 

30, 2018. 

Specified Geographic Region 

Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

activities will originate at VAFB. Areas 

potentially affected include VAFB, areas 

on the coastline surrounding VAFB and 

the NCI. VAFB operates as a missile test 

base and aerospace center, supporting 

west coast space launch activities for 

the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Department 

of Defense, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, and commercial 

contractors. VAFB is the main west 

coast launch facility for placing 

commercial, government, and military 

satellites into polar orbit on expendable 

(unmanned) launch vehicles, and for 

testing and evaluating intercontinental 

ballistic missiles and sub-orbital target 

and interceptor missiles. 

VAFB occupies approximately 99,100 

acres of central Santa Barbara County, 

California. VAFB is divided by the 

Santa Ynez River and State Highway 

246 into two distinct parts: North Base 

and South Base. SLC–4W is located on 

South Base, approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 

km) inland from the Pacific Ocean (see 

Figure 1–2 in SpaceX’s IHA 

application). SLC–4E, the launch facility 

for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 program, is 

located approximately 427 meters (m) to 

the east of SLC–4W, the proposed 

landing site for the Falcon 9 First Stage 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49334 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

(see Figure 1–2 in SpaceX’s IHA 

application). 

Although SLC–4W is the preferred 

landing location, SpaceX has identified 

the need for a contingency landing 

option. As described above, a 

contingency landing would occur on a 

barge located either at a pre-determined 

location at least 27 nautical miles (nm) 

(50 km) offshore of VAFB (see Figure 1– 

7 in the IHA application) or within the 

Iridium Landing Area located 

approximately 122 nm (225 km) 

southwest of San Nicolas Island and 133 

nm (245 km) southwest of San Clemente 

Island (see Figure 1–8 in the IHA 

application). The NCI are also 

considered part of the project area for 

the purposes of this proposed 

authorization, as landings at VAFB 

could result in sonic booms that impact 

the NCI. The NCI are four islands (San 

Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and 

Anacapa) located approximately 50 km 

south of Point Conception, which is 

located on the mainland approximately 

6.5 km south of the southern border of 

VAFB. The closest part of the NCI to 

VAFB (Harris Point on San Miguel 

Island (SMI)) is located more than 55 

km south-southeast of SLC–4E, the 

launch facility for the Falcon 9 rocket. 

Detailed Description of Specific 

Activities 

The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket 

designed and manufactured by SpaceX 

for transport of satellites and SpaceX’s 

Dragon spacecraft into orbit. The First 

Stage of the Falcon 9 is designed to be 

reusable, while the second stage is not 

reusable. The Falcon 9 First Stage is 12 

feet (ft.) in diameter and 160 ft. in 

height, including the interstage that 

would remain attached during landing. 

The proposed action includes up to 

twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries, 

including in-air boost-back maneuvers 

and landings of the First Stage, at VAFB 

or at a contingency landing location as 

described above. 

After launch of the Falcon 9, the 

boost-back and landing sequence begins 

when the rocket’s First Stage separates 

from the second stage and the Merlin 

engines of the First Stage cut off. After 

First Stage engine cutoff, rather than 

dropping the First Stage in the Pacific 

Ocean, exoatmospheric cold gas 

thrusters would be triggered to flip the 

First Stage into position for retrograde 

burn. Three of the nine First Stage 

Merlin engines would be restarted to 

conduct the retrograde burn in order to 

reduce the velocity of the First Stage 

and to place the First Stage in the 

correct angle to land. Once the First 

Stage is in position and approaching its 

landing target, the three engines would 

cut off to end the boost-back burn. The 

First Stage would then perform a 

controlled descent using atmospheric 

resistance to slow the stage down and 

guide it to the landing pad target. The 

First Stage is outfitted with grid fins that 

allow cross range corrections as needed. 

The landing legs on the First Stage 

would then deploy in preparation for a 

final single engine burn that would slow 

the First Stage to a velocity of zero 

before landing on the landing pad at 

SLC–4W. 

During descent, a sonic boom 

(overpressure of high-energy impulsive 

sound) would be generated when the 

First Stage reaches a rate of travel that 

exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic 

booms would occur in proximity to the 

landing area with the highest sound 

levels generated from sonic booms 

generally focused in the direction of the 

landing area, and may be heard during 

or briefly after the boost-back and 

landing, depending on the location of 

the observer. Sound from the sonic 

booms would have the potential to 

result in harassment of marine 

mammals, as described in greater detail 

later in this document. Based on model 

results, a boost-back and landing of the 

Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W would 

produce sonic booms with 

overpressures that would potentially be 

as high as 8.5 pounds per square foot 

(psf) at VAFB and potentially as high as 

3.1 psf at the NCI. Sonic boom modeling 

indicates that landings that occur at 

either of the proposed contingency 

landing locations offshore would result 

in sonic booms below 1.0 psf. Take of 

marine mammals that are hauled out of 

the water are expected to occur only 

when those hauled out marine 

mammals experience sonic booms 

greater than 1.0 psf (this is discussed in 

greater detail below in the section on 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment). Therefore, take of marine 

mammals may occur as a result of 

landings that occur at VAFB; however, 

take of marine mammals is not expected 

to occur as a result of landings that 

occur at either of the proposed 

contingency landing locations offshore. 

Please see Figure 1–4 in the IHA 

application for a graphical depiction of 

the boost-back and landing sequence, 

and see Figure 1–5 in the IHA 

application for an example of the boostback trajectory of the First Stage and the 

second stage trajectory. 

As a contingency action to landing the 

Falcon 9 First Stage on the SLC–4W pad 

at VAFB, SpaceX proposes to return the 

Falcon 9 First Stage booster to a barge 

in the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1–6 in the 

IHA application). The barge is 

specifically designed to be used as a 

First Stage landing platform and would 

be located at least 27 nm (50 km) 

offshore of VAFB (Figure 1–7 in the IHA 

application) or within the Iridium 

Landing Area (Figure 1–8 in the IHA 

application). These contingency landing 

locations would be used when landing 

at SLC–4W would not be feasible. The 

maneuvering and landing process 

described above for a pad landing 

would be the same for a barge landing. 

Three vessels would be required to 

support a barge landing, if it were 

required: A barge/landing platform (300 

ft long and 150 ft wide); a support vessel 

(165 ft long research vessel); and an 

ocean tug (120 ft long open water 

commercial tug). 

Landing Noise 

Landing noise would be generated 

during each boost-back event. SpaceX 

proposes to use a three-engine burn 

during landing. This engine burn, 

lasting approximately 17 seconds, 

would generate noise between 70 and 

110 decibels (dB) re 20 mPa (non-pulse, 

in-air noise) centered on SLC–4W, but 

affecting an area up to 15 nm (27.8 km) 

offshore of VAFB (Figure 2–10 in the 

IHA application). This landing noise 

event would be of short duration 

(approximately 17 seconds). Although, 

during a landing event at SLC–4W, 

landing noise between 70 and 90 dB 

would be expected to overlap pinniped 

haulout areas at and near Point Arguello 

and Purisima Point, no pinniped 

haulouts would experience landing 

noises of 90 dB or greater (see Figure 2– 

10 in the IHA application). 

NMFS’s recommended acoustic 

thresholds for in-air acoustic impacts 

assume that Level B harassment of 

harbor seals occurs at 90 dB rms re 20 

mPa and Level B harassment of all other 

pinnipeds occurs at 100 dB rms re 20 

mPa (Table 1). Therefore, harassment of 

marine mammals hauled out at VAFB 

from engine noise generated during 

landings is not expected to occur. 

Engine noise would also be produced 

during a contingency barge landing of 

the Falcon 9 First Stage. Engine noise 

during a barge landing is expected to be 

between 70 and 110 dB re 20 mPa 

affecting a radial area up to 15 nm (27.8 

km) around the contingency landing 

location (Figure 2–11 in the IHA 

application) and the Iridium 38 Landing 

Area (Figure 2–12 in the IHA 

application). No pinniped haulouts are 

located within the areas predicted to 

experience engine noise of 90 dB and 

above during Falcon 9 First Stage 

landings at contingency landing 

locations and the Iridium Landing Area 

(Figures 2–11 and 2–12 in the IHA 

application). Therefore, the likelihood 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49335 

of engine noise associated with the 

landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage 

resulting in take of marine mammals is 

considered so low as to be discountable, 

and landing noise is therefore not 

discussed further in this document. 

TABLE 1—RECOMMENDED CRITERIA

FOR PINNIPED HARASSMENT FROM

EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE SOUND

Species Level B harassment 

threshold 

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

All other pinniped 

species.

100 dB re 20 μPa. 

Unsuccessful Barge Landing 

In the event of an unsuccessful barge 

landing, the First Stage would explode 

upon impact with the barge. The direct 

sound from an explosion would last less 

than a second. Furthermore, the 

proposed activities would be dispersed 

in time, with maximum of twelve barge 

landing attempts occurring within a 

twelve month time period. If an 

explosion occurred on the barge, as in 

the case of an unsuccessful barge 

landing attempt, some amount of the 

explosive energy would be transferred 

through the ship’s structure and would 

enter the water and propagate away 

from the ship. 

There is very little published 

literature on the ratio of explosive 

energy that is absorbed by a ship’s hull 

versus the amount of energy that is 

transferred through the ship into the 

water. However, based on the best 

available information, we have 

determined that exceptionally little of 

the acoustic energy from the explosion 

would transmit into the water (Yagla 

and Stiegler, 2003). An explosion on the 

barge would create an in-air blast that 

propagates away in all directions, 

including toward the water’s surface; 

however the barge’s deck would act as 

a barrier that would attenuate the energy 

directed downward toward the water 

(Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). Most sound 

enters the water in a narrow cone 

beneath the sound source (within 13 

degrees of vertical). Since the explosion 

would occur on the barge, most of this 

sound would be reflected by the barge’s 

surface, and sound waves would 

approach the water’s surface at angles 

higher than 13 degrees, minimizing 

transmission into the ocean. An 

explosion on the barge would also send 

energy through the barge’s structure, 

into the water, and away from the barge. 

This effect was investigated in 

conjunction with the measurements 

described in Yagla and Steigler (2003). 

Yagla and Steigler (2003) reported that 

the energy transmitted through a ship to 

the water for the firing of a typical 5- 

inch round was approximately six 

percent of that from the air blast 

impinging on the water (Yagla and 

Stiegler, 2003). Therefore, sound 

transmitted from the blast through the 

hull into the water was a minimal 

component of overall firing noise, and 

would likewise be expected to be a 

minimal component of an explosion 

occurring on the surface of the barge. 

Depending on the amount of fuel 

remaining in the booster at the time of 

the explosion, the intensity of the 

explosion would likely vary. Based on 

previous Falcon 9 boost-back and 

landing activities, the explosive 

equivalence of the First Stage with 

maximum fuel and oxidizer would be 

expected to be approximately 500 lb. of 

trinitrotoluene (TNT). Explosion shock 

theory has proposed specific 

relationships for the peak pressure and 

time constant in terms of the charge 

weight and range from the detonation 

position (Pater 1981; Plotkin et al. 

2012). For an in-air explosion 

equivalent to 500 lb. of TNT, at 0.5 feet 

the explosion would be approximately 

250 dB re 20 mPa. Based on the 

assumption that the structure of the 

barge would absorb and reflect 

approximately 94 percent of this energy, 

with approximately six percent of the 

energy from the explosion transmitted 

into the water (Yagla and Stiegler, 

2003), the amount of energy that would 

be transmitted into the water would be 

far less than the lowest threshold for 

Level B harassment for both pinnipeds 

and cetaceans based on NMFS’s current 

acoustic criteria for in-water explosive 

noise (160 dB re 1 mpa). As a result, the 

likelihood of in-water sound generated 

by an explosion of the Falcon 9 First 

Stage during an unsuccessful barge 

landing attempt resulting in take of 

marine mammals is considered so low 

as to be discountable and is therefore 

not discussed further in this document. 

As discussed above, in the event of an 

unsuccessful contingency landing 

attempt, the First Stage would be 

expected to explode upon impact with 

the barge. SpaceX has experience 

performing recovery operations after 

water and unsuccessful barge landings 

for previous Falcon 9 First Stage landing 

attempts. This experience, in addition to 

the debris catalog that identifies all 

floating debris, has revealed that 

approximately 25 pieces of debris 

remain floating after an unsuccessful 

barge landing. The approximately 25 

pieces of debris would primarily be 

made of Carbon Over Pressure Vessels 

(COPVs), the liquid oxygen fill line, and 

carbon fiber constructed legs. The vast 

majority of debris would be recovered. 

All other debris is expected to sink to 

the bottom of the ocean. Denser debris 

that would not float on the surface 

would sink relatively quickly and is 

composed of inert materials which 

would not affect water quality or bottom 

substrate potentially used by marine 

mammals. The rate of deposition would 

vary with the type of debris; however, 

none of the debris is so dense or large 

that benthic habitat would be degraded. 

The surface area potentially impacted 

with debris would be less than 0.46 

km2. Since the area impacted by debris 

is very small, the likelihood of adverse 

effects to marine mammals is very low. 

During previous landing attempts in 

other locations, SpaceX has performed 

successful debris recovery. All of the 

recovered debris would be transported 

back to Long Beach Harbor for proper 

disposal. Most of the fuel remaining in 

the First Stage would be released onto 

the barge deck at the location of impact. 

Therefore, the likelihood of take of 

marine mammals as a result of contact 

with exploded First Stage materials is 

considered so low as to be discountable, 

and explosion of the Falcon 9 First 

Stage is therefore not discussed further 

in this document. 

In the event that a contingency 

landing action is required, there is the 

potential that the Falcon 9 First Stage 

would miss the barge entirely and land 

instead in the ocean. However, the 

likelihood of the First Stage missing the 

barge entirely and landing in the Pacific 

Ocean is considered so unlikely as to be 

discountable. This is supported by 

several previous attempts by SpaceX at 

Falcon 9 First Stage barge landings, 

none of which have missed the barge. 

Therefore, the likelihood of take of 

marine mammals associated with a 

Falcon 9 First Stage landing in the 

ocean is considered so low as to be 

discountable, and landing of the Falcon 

9 First Stage in the ocean is not 

considered further in this document. 

NMFS has previously issued 

regulations and Letters of Authorization 

(LOA) that authorize the take of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment, 

incidental to launches of up to 50 

rockets per year (including the Falcon 9) 

from VAFB (79 FR 10016, February 24, 

2014). The regulations, titled ‘‘Taking of 

Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Air 

Force Launches, Aircraft and Helicopter 

Operations, and Harbor Activities 

Related to Vehicles from Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, California,’’ published 

February 24, 2014, are effective from 

March 2014 to March 2019. The 

activities proposed by SpaceX are 

limited to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

events (Falcon 9 boost-back maneuvers 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49336 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

and landings); launches of the Falcon 9 

rocket are not part of the proposed 

activities, and incidental take (Level B 

harassment) resulting from Falcon 9 

rocket launches from VAFB is already 

authorized in the above referenced LOA. 

As such, NMFS does not propose to 

authorize take of marine mammals 

incidental to launches of the Falcon 9 

rocket; incidental take resulting from 

Falcon 9 rocket launches is therefore not 

analyzed further in this document. The 

LOA application (USAF 2013a), and 

links to the Federal Register notice of 

the final rule (79 FR 10016, February 24, 

2014) and the Federal Register notice of 

issuance of the LOA (79 FR 18528, April 

2, 2014), can be found on the NMFS 

Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental/research. 

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 

There are six marine mammal species 

with expected occurrence in the project 

area (including at VAFB, on the NCI, 

and in the waters surrounding VAFB, 

the NCI and the contingency landing 

location) that are expected to be affected 

by the specified activities. These 

include the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus), northern fur seal (Callorhinus 

ursinus), northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris), Guadalupe 

fur seal (Arctocephalus philippii 

townsendi), California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), and Pacific 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii). 

This section provides summary 

information regarding local occurrence 

of these species. We have reviewed 

SpaceX’s detailed species descriptions, 

including life history information, for 

accuracy and completeness and refer the 

reader to Section 3 of SpaceX’s IHA 

application, as well as to NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), rather 

than reprinting all of the information 

here. Additional general information 

about these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’s Web site 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

mammals/). 

There are an additional 28 species of 

cetaceans with expected or possible 

occurrence in the project area. However, 

we have determined that the only 

potential stressor associated with the 

activity that could result in take of 

marine mammals (sonic booms) only 

has the potential to result in harassment 

of marine mammals that are hauled out 

of the water. Therefore, we have 

concluded that the likelihood of the 

proposed activities resulting in the 

harassment of any cetacean to be so low 

as to be discountable. As we have 

concluded that the likelihood of any 

cetacean being taken incidentally as a 

result of SpaceX’s proposed activities to 

be so low as to be discountable, 

cetaceans are not considered further in 

this proposed authorization. Please see 

Table 3–1 in SpaceX’s IHA application 

for a complete list of species with 

expected or potential occurrence in the 

project area. 

Table 2 lists the marine mammal 

species with expected potential for 

occurrence in the vicinity of the project 

during the project timeframe that are 

likely to be affected by the specified 

activities, and summarizes information 

related to the population or stock, 

including PBR, where known. For 

taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016). For status of species, 

we provide information regarding U.S. 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA. Abundance estimates presented 

here represent the total number of 

individuals that make up a given stock 

or the total number estimated within a 

particular study 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. PBR, 

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, is 

considered in concert with known 

sources of ongoing anthropogenic 

mortality to assess the population-level 

effects of the anticipated mortality from 

a specific project (as described in 

NMFS’s SARs). While no mortality is 

anticipated or authorized here, PBR and 

annual serious injury and mortality are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species and other threats. 

All values presented in Table 2 are 

the most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in NMFS’s 

SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2017; Muto et 

al., 2017). Please see the SARs, available 

at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more 

detailed accounts of these stocks’ status 

and abundance. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most 

recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative occurrence 

in project area; 

season of 

occurrence 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion ..... U.S. ........................... -; N 296,750 (n/a; 

153,337; 2011).

9,200 389 Abundant; yearround. 

Northern fur seal ....... California .................. -; N 14,050 (n/a; 7,524; 

2013).

451 1.8 Abundant; yearround; peak occurrence during summer. 

Guadalupe fur seal .... n/a ............................. T/D; Y 20,000 (n/a; 15,830; 

2010).

542 3.2 Rare; slightly more 

common in summer. 

Steller sea lion .......... Eastern U.S. ............. -; N 71,562 (n/a; 41,638; 

2015).

2,498 108 Rare; year-round. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49337 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued 

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most 

recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR 3 Annual 

M/SI 4

Relative occurrence 

in project area; 

season of 

occurrence 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ................ California .................. -; N 30,968 (n/a; 27,348; 

2012).

1,641 43 Abundant; yearround. 

Northern elephant 

seal.

California breeding ... -; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 

2010).

4,882 8.8 Abundant; yearround; peak occurrence during winter. 

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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum 

estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3Potential biological removal, 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 size (OSP). 4These 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 mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as 

a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters and shoreline areas of 

the northern hemisphere from temperate 

to polar regions. The eastern North 

Pacific subspecies is found from Baja 

California north to the Aleutian Islands 

and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines 

of evidence support the existence of 

geographic structure among harbor seal 

populations from California to Alaska 

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

stock boundaries are difficult to 

meaningfully draw from a biological 

perspective, three separate harbor seal 

stocks are recognized for management 

purposes along the west coast of the 

continental United States: (1) 

Washington inland waters, (2) Oregon 

and Washington coast, and (3) 

California (Carretta et al., 2016). In 

addition, harbor seals may occur in 

Mexican waters, but these animals are 

not considered part of the California 

stock. Only the California stock is 

considered in this proposed 

authorization due to the distribution of 

the stock and the geographic scope of 

the proposed activities. Although the 

need for stock boundaries for 

management is real and is supported by 

biological information, it should be 

noted that the exact placement of a 

boundary between California and 

Oregon for stock delineation purposes 

was largely a political/jurisdictional 

convenience (Carretta et al. 2015). 

Pacific harbor seals are nonmigratory, 

with local movements associated with 

such factors as tides, weather, season, 

food availability, and reproduction 

(Scheffer and Slipp 1944, Fisher 1952, 

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

In California, over 500 harbor seal 

haulout sites are widely distributed 

along the mainland and offshore 

islands, and include rocky shores, 

beaches and intertidal sandbars (Lowry 

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

females give birth during the spring and 

summer, though the pupping season 

varies with latitude. Harbor seal 

pupping takes place at many locations 

and rookery size varies from a few pups 

to many hundreds of pups. 

Harbor seals are the most common 

marine mammal inhabiting VAFB, 

congregating on multiple rocky haulout 

sites along the VAFB coastline. They are 

local to the area, rarely traveling more 

than 50 km from haul-out sites. There 

are 12 harbor seal haulout sites on south 

VAFB; of these, 10 sites represent an 

almost continuous haulout area which 

is used by the same animals. Virtually 

all of the haulout sites at VAFB are used 

during low tides and are wave-washed 

or submerged during high tides. 

Additionally, the harbor seal is the only 

species that regularly hauls out near the 

VAFB harbor. The main harbor seal 

haulouts on VAFB are near Purisima 

Point and at Lion’s Head (approximately 

0.6 km south of Point Sal) on north 

VAFB and between the VAFB harbor 

north to South Rocky Point Beach on 

south VAFB (ManTech 2009). 

Pups are generally present in the 

region from March through July. Within 

the affected area on VAFB, a total of up 

to 332 adults and 34 pups have been 

recorded, at all haulouts combined, in 

monthly counts from 2013 to 2015 

(ManTech 2015). Harbor seals also haul 

out, breed, and pup in isolated beaches 

and coves throughout the coasts of San 

Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz 

Islands (Lowry 2002). During aerial 

surveys conducted by NMFS in May 

2002 and May and June of 2004, 

between 521 and 1,004 harbors seals 

were recorded at SMI, between 605 and 

972 at Santa Rosa Island, and between 

599 and 1,102 Santa Cruz Island (M. 

Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data). 

The harbor seal population at VAFB 

has undergone an apparent decline in 

recent years (USAF 2013b). This decline 

has been attributed to a series of natural 

landslides at south VAFB, resulting in 

the abandonment of many haulout sites. 

These slides have also resulted in 

extensive down-current sediment 

deposition, making these sites 

accessible to coyotes, which are now 

regularly seen in the area. Some of the 

displaced seals have moved to other 

sites at south VAFB, while others likely 

have moved to Point Conception, about 

6.5 km south of the southern boundary 

of VAFB. 

Pacific harbor seals frequently use 

haul-out sites on the NCI, including San 

Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz; and 

Anacapa. On SMI, they occur along the 

north coast at Tyler Bight and from 

Crook Point to Cardwell Point. 

Additionally, they regularly breed on 

SMI. On Santa Cruz Island, they inhabit 

small coves and rocky ledges along 

much of the coast. Harbor seals are 

scattered throughout Santa Rosa Island 

and also are observed in small numbers 

on Anacapa Island. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions range from the 

Gulf of California north to the Gulf of 

Alaska, with breeding areas located in 

the Gulf of California, western Baja 

California, and southern California. Five 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49338 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

genetically distinct geographic 

populations have been identified: (1) 

Pacific Temperate, (2) Pacific 

Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of 

California, (4) Central Gulf of California 

and (5) Northern Gulf of California 

(Schramm et al., 2009). Rookeries for 

the Pacific Temperate population are 

found within U.S. waters and just south 

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

belonging to this population may be 

found from the Gulf of Alaska to 

Mexican waters off Baja California. 

Animals belonging to other populations 

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

U.S. waters during non-breeding 

periods. For management purposes, a 

stock of California sea lions comprising 

those animals at rookeries within the 

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

stock of California sea lions) (Carretta et 

al., 2017). There are indications that the 

California sea lion may have reached or 

is approaching carrying capacity, 

although more data are needed to 

confirm that leveling in growth persists 

(Carretta et al., 2017). 

Beginning in January 2013, elevated 

strandings of California sea lion pups 

were observed in southern California, 

with live sea lion strandings nearly 

three times higher than the historical 

average. Findings to date indicate that a 

likely contributor to the large number of 

stranded, malnourished pups was a 

change in the availability of sea lion 

prey for nursing mothers, especially 

sardines. The Working Group on Marine 

Mammal Unusual Mortality Events 

determined that the ongoing stranding 

event meets the criteria for an Unusual 

Mortality Event (UME) and declared 

California sea lion strandings from 2013 

through 2017 to be one continuous 

UME. The causes and mechanisms of 

this event remain under investigation. 

For more information on the UME, see: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/ 

californiasealions2013.htm. 

Rookery sites in southern California 

are limited to SMI and the southerly 

Channel Islands of San Nicolas, Santa 

Barbara, and San Clemente (Carretta et 

al., 2015). Males establish breeding 

territories during May through July on 

both land and in the water. Females 

come ashore in mid-May and June 

where they give birth to a single pup 

approximately four to five days after 

arrival and will nurse pups for about a 

week before going on their first feeding 

trip. Adult and juvenile males will 

migrate as far north as British Columbia, 

Canada while females and pups remain 

in southern California waters in the 

non-breeding season. In warm water (El 

Nin ̃ o) years, some females are found as 

far north as Washington and Oregon, 

presumably following prey. 

California sea lions are common 

offshore of VAFB and haul out on rocks 

and beaches along the coastline of 

VAFB. At south VAFB, California sea 

lions haul out on north Rocky Point, 

with numbers often peaking in spring. 

They have been reported at Point 

Arguello and Point Pedernales (both on 

south VAFB) in the past, although none 

have been noted there over the past 

several years. Individual sea lions have 

been noted hauled out throughout the 

VAFB coast; these were transient or 

stranded specimens. They regularly 

haul out on Lion Rock, north of VAFB 

and immediately south of Point Sal, and 

occasionally haul out on Point 

Conception, south of VAFB. In 2014, 

counts of California sea lions at 

haulouts on VAFB increased 

substantially, ranging from 47 to 416 

during monthly counts. Despite their 

prevalence at haulout sites at VAFB, 

California sea lions rarely pup on the 

VAFB coastline (ManTech 2015); no 

pups were observed in 2013 or 2014 

(ManTech 2015) and 1 pup was 

observed in 2015 (VAFB, unpubl. data). 

Pupping occurs in large numbers on 

SMI at the rookeries found at Point 

Bennett on the west end of the island 

and at Cardwell Point on the east end 

of the island (Lowry 2002). Sea lions 

haul out at the west end of Santa Rosa 

Island at Ford Point and Carrington 

Point. A few California sea lions have 

been born on Santa Rosa Island, but no 

rookery has been established. On Santa 

Cruz Island, California sea lions haul 

out from Painted Cave almost to Fraser 

Point, on the west end. Fair numbers 

haul out at Gull Island, off the south 

shore near Punta Arena. Pupping 

appears to be increasing there. Sea lions 

also haul out near Potato Harbor, on the 

northeast end of Santa Cruz. California 

sea lions haul out by the hundreds on 

the south side of East Anacapa Island. 

During aerial surveys conducted by 

NMFS in February 2010 of the NCI, 

21,192 total California sea lions (14,802 

pups) were observed at haulouts on SMI 

and 8,237 total (5,712 pups) at Santa 

Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA 

Fisheries, unpubl. data). During aerial 

surveys in July 2012, 65,660 total 

California sea lions (28,289 pups) were 

recorded at haulouts on SMI, 1,584 total 

(3 pups) at Santa Rosa Island, and 1,571 

total (zero pups) at Santa Cruz Island 

(M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. 

data). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals range in the 

eastern and central North Pacific Ocean, 

from as far north as Alaska and as far 

south as Mexico. They spend much of 

the year, generally about nine months, 

in the ocean. They spend much of their 

lives underwater, diving to depths of 

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

20- to 30-minute intervals with only 

short breaks at the surface, and are 

rarely seen at sea for this reason. 

Northern elephant seals breed and give 

birth in California and Baja California 

(Mexico), primarily on offshore islands, 

from December to March (Stewart et al. 

1994). Adults return to land between 

March and August to molt, with males 

returning later than females. Adults 

return to their feeding areas again 

between their spring/summer molting 

and their winter breeding seasons. 

Populations of northern elephant 

seals in the U.S. and Mexico are derived 

from a few tens or hundreds of 

individuals surviving in Mexico after 

being nearly hunted to extinction 

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

derivation of most rookeries, no genetic 

differentiation would be expected. 

Although movement and genetic 

exchange continues between rookeries, 

most elephant seals return to their natal 

rookeries when they start breeding 

(Huber et al., 1991). The California 

breeding population is now 

demographically isolated from the Baja 

California population and is considered 

to be a separate stock. 

Northern elephant seals haul out 

sporadically on rocks and beaches along 

the coastline of VAFB; monthly counts 

in 2013 and 2014 recorded between 0 

and 191 elephant seals within the 

affected area (ManTech 2015) and 

northern elephant seal pupping at VAFB 

was documented for the first time in 

January 2017 (Pers. comm., R. Evans, 

United States Air Force, to J. Carduner, 

NMFS, February 1, 2017). The nearest 

regularly used haul-out site on the 

mainland coast is at Point Conception. 

Eleven northern elephant seals were 

observed during aerial surveys of the 

Point Conception area by NMFS in 

February of 2010 (M. Lowry, NOAA 

Fisheries, unpubl. data). 

Point Bennett on the west end of SMI 

is the primary northern elephant seal 

rookery in the NCI, with another 

rookery at Cardwell Point on the east 

end of SMI (Lowry 2002). They also pup 

and breed on Santa Rosa Island, mostly 

on the west end. Northern elephant 

seals are rarely seen on Santa Cruz and 

Anacapa Islands. During aerial surveys 

of the NCI conducted by NMFS in 

February 2010, 21,192 total northern 

elephant seals (14,802 pups) were 

recorded at haulouts on SMI and 8,237 

total (5,712 pups) were observed at 

Santa Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA 

Fisheries, unpubl. data). None were 

observed at Santa Cruz Island (M. 

Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49339 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lions are distributed 

mainly around the coasts to the outer 

continental shelf along the North Pacific 

rim from northern Hokkaido, Japan 

through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk 

Sea, Aleutian Islands and central Bering 

Sea, southern coast of Alaska and south 

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

species as a whole was ESA-listed as 

threatened in 1990 (55 FR 49204, 

November 26, 1990). In 1997, the 

species was divided into western and 

eastern distinct population segments 

(DPS), with the western DPS reclassified 

as endangered under the ESA and the 

eastern DPS retaining its threatened 

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

October 23, 2013, NMFS found that the 

eastern DPS has recovered; as a result of 

the finding, NMFS removed the eastern 

DPS from ESA listing. Only the eastern 

DPS is considered in this proposed 

authorization due to its distribution and 

the geographic scope of the action. 

Prior to 2012, there were no records 

of Steller sea lions observed at VAFB. In 

April and May 2012, Steller sea lions 

were observed hauled out at North 

Rocky Point on VAFB, representing the 

first time the species had been observed 

on VAFB during launch monitoring and 

monthly surveys conducted over the 

past two decades (Marine Mammal 

Consulting Group and Science 

Applications International Corporation 

2013). Since 2012, Steller sea lions have 

been observed frequently in routine 

monthly surveys, with as many as 16 

individuals recorded. In 2014, up to five 

Steller sea lions were observed in the 

affected area during monthly marine 

mammal counts (ManTech 2015) and a 

maximum of 12 individuals were 

observed during monthly counts in 2015 

(VAFB, unpublished data). However, up 

to 16 individuals were observed in 2012 

(SAIC 2012). Steller sea lions once had 

two small rookeries on SMI, but these 

were abandoned after the 1982–1983 El 

Nin ̃ o event (DeLong and Melin 2000; 

Lowry 2002); these rookeries were once 

the southernmost colonies of the eastern 

stock of this species. In recent years, 

between two to four juvenile and adult 

males have been observed on a 

somewhat regular basis on SMI (pers. 

comm. Sharon Melin, NMFS Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, to J. Carduner, 

NMFS, Feb 11, 2016). Steller sea lions 

are not observed on the other NCI. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Northern fur seals occur from 

southern California north to the Bering 

Sea and west to the Okhotsk Sea and 

Honshu Island, Japan. Due to differing 

requirements during the annual 

reproductive season, adult males and 

females typically occur ashore at 

different, though overlapping, times. 

Adult males occur ashore and defend 

reproductive territories during a three 

month period from June through 

August, though some may be present 

until November (well after giving up 

their territories). Adult females are 

found ashore for as long as six months 

(June-November). After their respective 

times ashore, fur seals of both sexes 

spend the next seven to eight months at 

sea (Roppel 1984). Peak pupping is in 

early July and pups are weaned at three 

to four months. Some juveniles are 

present year-round, but most juveniles 

and adults head for the open ocean and 

a pelagic existence until the next year. 

Northern fur seals exhibit high site 

fidelity to their natal rookeries. Two 

stocks of northern fur seals are 

recognized in U.S. waters: An eastern 

Pacific stock and a California stock 

(formerly referred to as the San Miguel 

Island stock). Only the California stock 

is considered in this proposed 

authorization due to its geographic 

distribution. 

Northern fur seals have rookeries on 

SMI at Point Bennett and on Castle 

Rock. Comprehensive count data for 

northern fur seals on SMI are not 

available. SMI is the only island in the 

NCI on which northern fur seals have 

been observed. Although the population 

at SMI was established by individuals 

from Alaska and Russian Islands during 

the late 1960s, most individuals 

currently found on San Miguel are 

considered resident to the island. No 

haulout or rookery sites exist for 

northern fur seals on the mainland 

coast. The only individuals that appear 

on mainland beaches are stranded 

animals. 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

Guadalupe fur seals are found along 

the west coast of the United States. They 

were abundant prior to seal 

exploitation, when they were likely the 

most abundant pinniped species on the 

Channel Islands, but are considered 

uncommon in Southern California. They 

are typically found on shores with 

abundant large rocks, often at the base 

of large cliffs (Belcher and Lee 2002). 

Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur 

seals started occurring along the entire 

coast of California in early 2015. This 

event was declared a marine mammal 

UME. Strandings were eight times 

higher than the historical average, 

peaking from April through June 2015, 

and have since lessened but continue at 

a rate that is well above average. Most 

stranded individuals have been weaned 

pups and juveniles (1–2 years old). For 

more information on this UME, see: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/ 

mmume/guadalupefurseals2015.html. 

Comprehensive survey data on 

Guadalupe fur seals in the NCI is not 

readily available. On SMI, one to several 

male Guadalupe fur seals had been 

observed annually between 1969 and 

2000 (DeLong and Melin 2000) and 

juvenile animals of both sexes have 

been seen occasionally over the years 

(Stewart et al. 1987). The first adult 

female at SMI was seen in 1997. In June 

1997, she gave birth to a pup in rocky 

habitat along the south side of the island 

and, over the next year, reared the pup 

to weaning age. This was apparently the 

first pup born in the Channel Islands in 

at least 150 years. Since 2008, 

individual adult females, subadult 

males, and between one and three pups 

have been observed annually on SMI. 

There are estimated to be approximately 

20–25 individuals that have fidelity to 

San Miguel, mostly inhabiting the 

southwest and northwest ends of the 

island. A total of 14 pups have been 

born on the island since 2009, with no 

more than 3 born in any single season 

(pers. comm., S. Melin, NMFS National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory, to J. 

Carduner, NMFS, Aug. 28, 2015). 

Thirteen individuals and two pups were 

observed in 2015 (NMFS 2016). No 

haulout or rookery sites exist for 

Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland 

coast, including VAFB. The only 

individuals that do appear on mainland 

beaches are stranded animals. 

Marine Mammal Hearing—Hearing is 

the most important sensory modality for 

marine mammals underwater, and 

exposure to anthropogenic sound can 

have deleterious effects. To 

appropriately assess the potential effects 

of exposure to sound, it is necessary to 

understand the frequency ranges marine 

mammals are able to hear. Current data 

indicate that not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into functional 

hearing groups based on directly 

measured or estimated hearing ranges 

on the basis of available behavioral 

response data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms. The relevant 

functional groups and the associated 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49340 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 

hertz (Hz) to 86 kilohertz (kHz), with 

best hearing between 1–50 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, 

with best hearing between 2–48 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

TABLE 3—RELEVANT MARINE MAMMAL

FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUPS AND

THEIR GENERALIZED HEARING

RANGES

Hearing group Generalized 

hearing range * 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) 

(underwater) (true 

seals).

50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) 

(underwater) (sea lions 

and fur seals).

60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range 

for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all 

species within the group), where individual 

species’ hearing ranges are typically not as 

broad. Generalized hearing range chosen 

based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized 

composite audiogram, with the exception for 

lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 

2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Of the six marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the proposed activities, four are 

classified as otariids and two are 

classified as phocids. 

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 by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

will consider the content of this section, 

the ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ 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. Potential effects of the 

proposed action include acoustic effects 

as well as visual stimuli. 

Acoustic Effects 

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 Hz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the dB. A 

sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is 

described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure and is a logarithmic unit that 

accounts for large variations in 

amplitude; therefore, a relatively small 

change in dB corresponds to large 

changes in sound pressure. The source 

level (SL) represents the SPL referenced 

at a distance of 1 m from the source 

while the received level is the SPL at 

the listener’s position. Note that all 

airborne sound levels in this document 

are referenced to a pressure of 20 mPa. 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so that they 

may be accounted for in the summation 

of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents 

the total energy contained within a 

pulse and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. Peak sound 

pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak 

sound pressure or 0-p) is the maximum 

instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source and is 

represented in the same units as the rms 

sound pressure. Another common 

metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure 

(pk-pk), which is the algebraic 

difference between the peak positive 

and peak negative sound pressures. 

Peak-to-peak pressure is typically 

approximately 6 dB higher than peak 

pressure (Southall et al., 2007). 

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

account for the relative loudness 

perceived by the human ear, as the ear 

is less sensitive to low audio 

frequencies, and is commonly used in 

measuring airborne noise. The relative 

sensitivity of pinnipeds listening in air 

to different frequencies is more-or-less 

similar to that of humans (Richardson et 

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

approximation, be relevant to pinnipeds 

listening to moderate-level sounds. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

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

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from a given activity 

may be a negligible addition to the local 

environment or could form a distinctive 

signal that may affect marine mammals. 

Details of source types are described in 

the following text. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: Pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49341 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 

1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems 

(such as those used by the U.S. Navy). 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

The effects of sounds on marine 

mammals are dependent on several 

factors, including the species, size, 

behavior (feeding, nursing, resting, etc.), 

and, if underwater, depth of the animal; 

the intensity and duration of the sound; 

and the sound propagation properties of 

the environment. Impacts to marine 

species can result from physiological 

and behavioral responses to both the 

type and strength of the acoustic 

signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type 

and severity of behavioral impacts are 

more difficult to define due to limited 

studies addressing the behavioral effects 

of sounds on marine mammals. 

Potential effects from impulsive sound 

sources can range in severity from 

effects such as behavioral disturbance or 

tactile perception to physical 

discomfort, slight injury of the internal 

organs and the auditory system, or 

mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). 

The effects of sounds from the 

proposed activities are expected to 

result in behavioral disturbance of 

marine mammals. Due to the expected 

sound levels of the activities proposed 

and the distance of the activity from 

marine mammal habitat, the effects of 

sounds from the proposed activities are 

not expected to result in temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment (TTS 

and PTS, respectively), non-auditory 

physical or physiological effects, or 

masking in marine mammals. Data from 

monitoring reports associated with IHAs 

issued previously for similar activities 

in the same location as the planned 

activities provides further support for 

the assertion that TTS, PTS, nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects, and masking are not likely to 

occur (USAF 2013b; SAIC 2012). 

Therefore, TTS, PTS, non-auditory 

physical or physiological effects, and 

masking are not discussed further in 

this section. 

Disturbance Reactions 

Disturbance includes a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior, more conspicuous changes in 

activities, and displacement. Behavioral 

responses to sound are highly variable 

and context-specific and reactions, if 

any, depend on species, state of 

maturity, experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 

time of day, and many other factors 

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

2003; Southall et al., 2007). 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

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

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. The opposite 

process is sensitization, when an 

unpleasant experience leads to 

subsequent responses, often in the form 

of avoidance, at a lower level of 

exposure. Behavioral state may affect 

the type of response as well. For 

example, animals that are resting may 

show greater behavioral change in 

response to disturbing sound levels than 

animals that are highly motivated to 

remain in an area for feeding 

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

Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have shown 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud underwater 

sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 

Finneran et al., 2003). Observed 

responses of wild marine mammals to 

loud pulsed sound sources (typically 

seismic guns or acoustic harassment 

devices) have been varied but often 

consist of avoidance behavior or other 

behavioral changes suggesting 

discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; 

Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also 

Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 

2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

The onset of noise can result in 

temporary, short term changes in an 

animal’s typical behavior and/or 

avoidance of the affected area. These 

behavioral changes may include: 

Reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas 

where sound sources are located; and/ 

or flight responses (Richardson et al., 

1995). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could potentially be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, or 

reproduction. The onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic sound 

depends on both external factors 

(characteristics of sound sources and 

their paths) and the specific 

characteristics of the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography) and is difficult to predict 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals that occur in the 

project area could be exposed to 

airborne sounds associated with Falcon 

9 boost-back and landing activities that 

have the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment, depending on an animal’s 

distance from the sound. Airborne 

sound could potentially affect 

pinnipeds that are hauled out. Most 

likely, airborne sound would cause 

behavioral responses similar to those 

discussed above in relation to 

underwater sound. For instance, 

anthropogenic sound could cause 

hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes 

in their normal behavior, such as 

reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon their 

habitat and move further from the 

source. Hauled out pinnipeds may flush 

from a haulout into the water. Though 

pup abandonment could theoretically 

result from these reactions, site-specific 

monitoring data (described below) 

indicate that pup abandonment is not 

likely to occur as a result of the 

specified activity. 

Description of Effects From the 

Specified Activity 

This section includes a discussion of 

the active acoustic sound sources 

associated with SpaceX’s proposed 

activity and the likelihood for these 

sources to result in harassment of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49342 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

marine mammals. Potential acoustic 

sources associated with SpaceX’s 

proposed activity include sonic booms, 

Falcon 9 First Stage landings, and 

potential explosions as a result of 

unsuccessful Falcon 9 First Stage 

landing attempts. Sounds produced by 

the proposed activities may be 

impulsive, due to sonic booms, and 

non-pulse (but short-duration) noise, 

due to combustion effects of the Falcon 

9 First Stage. As described above, 

sounds associated with Falcon 9 First 

Stage landings and potential explosions 

as a result of unsuccessful Falcon 9 First 

Stage landing attempts are not expected 

to result in take of marine mammals and 

are therefore not addressed here. 

Sonic Boom 

As described above, during descent 

when the First Stage is supersonic, a 

sonic boom would be generated. The 

USAF has monitored pinniped 

responses to rocket launches from VAFB 

for nearly 20 years. Though rocket 

launches are not part of the proposed 

activities (as described above), the 

acoustic stimuli (sonic booms) 

associated with launches is expected to 

be substantially similar to those 

expected to occur with Falcon 9 boostbacks and landings; therefore, we rely 

on observational data on responses of 

pinnipeds to sonic booms associated 

with rocket launches from VAFB in 

making assumptions about expected 

pinniped responses to sonic booms 

associated with Falcon 9 boost-backs 

and landings. 

Observed reactions of pinnipeds at 

the NCI to sonic booms have ranged 

from no response to heads-up alerts, 

from startle responses to some 

movements on land, and from some 

movements into the water to occasional 

stampedes (especially involving 

California sea lions on the NCI). We 

therefore assume sonic booms generated 

during the return flight of the Falcon 9 

First Stage may elicit an alerting or 

other short-term behavioral reaction, 

including flushing into the water if 

hauled out. 

Data from launch monitoring by the 

USAF on the NCI has shown that 

pinniped reactions to sonic booms are 

correlated with the level of the sonic 

boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0 

psf have resulted in little to no 

behavioral responses, including head 

raising and briefly alerting but returning 

to normal behavior shortly after the 

stimulus (Table 5). More powerful sonic 

booms have resulted in pinnipeds 

flushing from haulouts. No pinniped 

mortalities have been associated with 

sonic booms. No sustained decreases in 

numbers of animals observed at 

haulouts have been observed after the 

stimulus. Table 5 presents a summary of 

monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999 

to 2014. These data show that reactions 

to sonic booms tend to be insignificant 

below 1.0 psf and that, even above 1.0 

psf, only a portion of the animals 

present have reacted to the sonic boom. 

Time-lapse video photography during 

four launch events revealed that harbor 

seals that reacted to the rocket launch 

noise but did not leave the haul-out 

were all adults. 

Data from previous monitoring also 

suggests that for those pinnipeds that 

flush from haulouts in response to sonic 

booms, the amount of time it takes for 

those animals to begin returning to the 

haulout site, and for numbers of animals 

to return to pre-launch levels, is 

correlated with sonic boom sound 

levels. Pinnipeds may begin to return to 

the haul-out site within 2–55 min of the 

launch disturbance, and the haulout site 

usually returned to pre-launch levels 

within 45–120 min. Monitoring data 

from launches of the Athena IKONOS 

rocket from VAFB, with 107.3 and 107.8 

dB (A-weighted SEL) recorded at the 

closest haul-out site, showed seals that 

flushed to the water on exposure to the 

sonic boom began to return to the haulout approximately 16–55 minutes postlaunch (Thorson et al., 1999a; 1999b). In 

contrast, in the cases of Atlas rocket 

launches and several Titan II rocket 

launches with SELs (A-weighted) 

ranging from 86.7 to 95.7 dB recorded 

at the closest haul-out, seals began to 

return to the haul-out site within 2–8 

minutes post-launch (Thorson and 

Francine, 1997; Thorson et al., 2000). 

Monitoring data has consistently 

shown that reactions among pinnipeds 

vary between species, with harbor seals 

and California sea lions tending to be 

more sensitive to disturbance than 

northern elephant seals and northern fur 

seals (Table 5). Because Steller sea lions 

and Guadalupe fur seals occur in the 

project area relatively infrequently, no 

data has been recorded on their 

reactions to sonic booms). At VAFB, 

harbor seals generally alert to nearby 

launch noises, with some or all of the 

animals going into the water. Usually 

the animals haul out again from within 

minutes to two hours or so of the 

launch, provided rising tides or breakers 

have not submerged the haul-out sites. 

Post-launch surveys often indicate as 

many or more animals hauled out than 

were present at the time of the launch, 

unless rising tides, breakers or other 

disturbances are involved (SAIC 2012). 

When launches occurred during high 

tides at VAFB, no impacts have been 

recorded because virtually all haul-out 

sites were submerged. 

At the Channel Islands, California sea 

lions have been observed to react more 

strongly to sonic booms than other 

species present there. Pups sometimes 

react more than adults, either because 

they are more easily frightened or 

because their hearing is more acute. 

Harbor seals generally appear to be more 

sensitive to sonic booms than most 

other pinnipeds, often startling and 

fleeing into the water. Northern fur seals 

generally show little or no reaction. 

Northern elephant seals generally 

exhibit no reaction at all, except 

perhaps a heads-up response or some 

stirring, especially if sea lions in the 

same area or mingled with the elephant 

seals react strongly to the boom. Postlaunch monitoring generally reveals a 

return to normal patterns within 

minutes up to an hour or two of each 

launch, regardless of species (SAIC 

2012). 

Table 5 summarizes monitoring 

efforts at San Miguel Island during 

which acoustic measurements were 

successfully recorded and during which 

pinnipeds were observed. During more 

recent launches, night vision equipment 

was used. The table shows only 

launches during which sonic booms 

were heard and recorded. The table 

shows that little or no reaction from the 

four species usually occurs when 

overpressures are below 1.0 psf. In 

general, as described above, elephant 

seals do not react unless other animals 

around them react strongly or if the 

sonic boom is extremely loud, and 

northern fur seals seem to react 

similarly. Not enough data exist to draw 

conclusions about harbor seals, but 

considering their reactions to launch 

noise at VAFB, it is likely that they are 

also sensitive to sonic booms (SAIC 

2012). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49343 

TABLE 5—OBSERVED PINNIPED RESPONSES TO SONIC BOOMS AT SAN MIGUEL ISLAND

Launch event Sonic boom 

level (psf) 

Monitoring location Species and associated reactions 

Athena II (April 27, 1999) ............ 1.0 Adams Cove ...... California sea lion—866 alerted; 232 (27%) flushed into water, Northern elephant seal—alerted but did not flush, Northern fur seal—alerted but did not flush. 

Athena II (September 24, 1999) .. 0.95 Point Bennett ..... California sea lion—12 of 600 (2%) flushed into water, Northern elephant seal—alerted but did not flush, Northern fur seal—alerted but 

did not flush. 

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

group, Northern elephant seal—no reaction. 

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

sea lion (Group 2)—no reaction (247 animals), Northern elephant 

seal—no reaction, Harbor seal—2 of 4 flushed into water. 

Delta II (February 11, 2002) ........ 0.64 Point Bennett ..... California sea lion and northern fur seal—no reaction among 485 animals in 3 groups, Northern elephant seal—no reaction among 424 

animals in 2 groups. 

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

water (number unknown—night launch), Northern elephant seal—no 

reaction. 

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

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

Delta II (May 5, 2009) .................. 0.76 West of Judith 

Rock.

California sea lion—no reaction (784 animals). 

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

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

seal—no reaction (68 animals), Harbor seal—20 of 36 (56%) flushed 

into water. 

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

Atlas V (December 12, 2014) ...... 1.16 Point Bennett ...... Calif. sea lion—5 of ∼225 alerted; none flushed. 

Physiological Responses to Sonic Booms 

To determine if harbor seals 

experience changes in their hearing 

sensitivity as a result of sounds 

associated with rocket launches 

(including sonic booms), Auditory 

Brainstem Response (ABR) testing was 

conducted on 14 harbor seals following 

four launches of the Titan IV rocket, one 

launch of the Taurus rocket, and two 

launches of the Delta IV rocket from 

VAFB, in accordance with NMFS 

scientific research permits. ABR tests 

have not yet been performed following 

Falcon 9 rocket landings nor launches, 

however results of ABR tests that 

followed launches of other rockets from 

VAFB are nonetheless informative as 

the sound source (sonic boom) is 

expected to be the same as that 

associated with the activities proposed 

by SpaceX. 

Following standard ABR testing 

protocol, the ABR was measured from 

one ear of each seal using sterile, subdermal, stainless steel electrodes. A 

conventional electrode array was used, 

and low-level white noise was 

presented to the non-tested ear to 

reduce any electrical potentials 

generated by the non-tested ear. A 

computer was used to produce the click 

and an eight kHz tone burst stimuli, 

through standard audiometric 

headphones. Over 1,000 ABR 

waveforms were collected and averaged 

per trial. Initially the stimuli were 

presented at SPLs loud enough to obtain 

a clean reliable waveform, and then 

decreased in 10 dB steps until the 

response was no longer reliably 

observed. Once response was no longer 

reliably observed, the stimuli were then 

increased in 10 dB steps to the original 

SPL. By obtaining two ABR waveforms 

at each SPL, it was possible to quantify 

the variability in the measurements. 

Good replicable responses were 

measured from most of the seals, with 

waveforms following the expected 

pattern of an increase in latency and 

decrease in amplitude of the peaks, as 

the stimulus level was lowered. Detailed 

analysis of the changes in waveform 

latency and waveform replication of the 

ABR measurements for the 14 seals 

showed no detectable changes in the 

seals’ hearing sensitivity as a result of 

exposure to the launch noise. The 

delayed start (1.75 to 3.5 hours after the 

launches) for ABR testing allows for the 

possibility that the seals may have 

recovered from a TTS before testing 

began. However, it can be said with 

confidence that the post-launch tested 

animals did not have permanent hearing 

changes due to exposure to the launch 

noise from the sonic booms associated 

with launches of the rockets from VAFB 

(SAIC 2013). 

We also note that stress from longterm cumulative sound exposures can 

result in physiological effects on 

reproduction, metabolism, and general 

health, or on the animals’ resistance to 

disease. However, this is not likely to 

occur as a result of the proposed 

activities because of the infrequent 

nature and short duration of the noise 

(up to twelve sonic booms annually). 

Research indicates that population 

levels at these haul-out sites have 

remained constant in recent years (with 

decreases only noted in some areas 

because of the increased presence of 

coyotes), giving support to this 

conclusion. 

In conclusion, based on data from 

numerous years of monitoring of similar 

activities to the activities proposed by 

SpaceX, in the same geographic area as 

the geographic area of the SpaceX’s 

proposed activities, we expect that any 

behavioral responses by pinnipeds to 

sonic booms resulting from the 

proposed activities would range from no 

response to heads-up alerts, startle 

responses, some movements on land, 

and some movements into the water 

(flushing). 

Non-Acoustic Effects of the Proposed 

Activity 

This section includes a discussion of 

potential effects of SpaceX’s proposed 

activity other than those related to 

sound. 

Visual Stimuli 

Visual stimuli resulting from Falcon 9 

First Stage landings would have the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49344 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

potential to cause pinnipeds to lift their 

heads, move towards the water, or enter 

the water. However, SpaceX has 

determined that the trajectory of the 

return flight includes a nearly vertical 

descent to the SLC–4W landing pad (see 

Figure 1–7 and 1–8 in the IHA 

application) and the contingency 

landing location (see Figure 1–5 in the 

IHA application). As a result, the 

descending Falcon 9 First Stage would 

either be shielded by coastal bluffs (for 

a SLC–4W landing) or would be too far 

away from any pinniped haulouts to 

result in significant stimuli (in the case 

of a barge landing). Further, the visual 

stimulus of the Falcon 9 First Stage 

would not be coupled with the sonic 

boom, since the First Stage would be at 

significant altitude when the 

overpressure is produced, further 

decreasing the likelihood of a behavioral 

response. Therefore, the likelihood of 

takes of marine mammals resulting from 

visual stimuli associated with the 

proposed activity is so low as to be 

considered discountable. As such, 

visual stimuli associated with the 

proposed activity is not discussed 

further in this document. 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat 

We do not anticipate that the 

proposed activities would result in any 

temporary or permanent effects on the 

habitats used by the marine mammals in 

the proposed area, including the food 

sources they use (i.e. fish and 

invertebrates). Behavioral disturbance 

caused by in-air acoustic stimuli may 

result in marine mammals temporarily 

moving away from or avoiding the 

exposure area but are not expected to 

have long term impacts, as supported by 

over two decades of launch monitoring 

studies on the NCI by the U.S. Air Force 

(MMCG and SAIC 2012). 

The proposed activities would not 

result in in-water acoustic stimuli that 

would cause significant injury or 

mortality to prey species and would not 

create barriers to movement for marine 

mammal prey. As described above, in 

the event of an unsuccessful barge 

landing and a resulting explosion of the 

Falcon 9 First Stage, up to 25 pieces of 

debris would likely remain floating. 

SpaceX would recover all floating 

debris. Denser debris that would not 

float on the surface is anticipated to sink 

relatively quickly and would be 

composed of inert materials. The area of 

benthic habitat impacted by falling 

debris would be very small 

(approximately 0.000706 km2) 

(ManTech 2015) and all debris that 

would sink are composed of inert 

materials that would not affect water 

quality or bottom substrate potentially 

used by marine mammals. None of the 

debris would be so dense or large that 

benthic habitat would be degraded. As 

a result, debris from an unsuccessful 

barge landing that enters the ocean 

environment approximately 50 km 

offshore of VAFB would not have a 

significant effect on marine mammal 

habitat. 

In summary, since the acoustic 

impacts associated with the proposed 

activities are of short duration and 

infrequent (up to twelve events 

annually), the associated behavioral 

responses in marine mammals are 

expected to be temporary. Therefore, the 

proposed activities are unlikely to result 

in long term or permanent avoidance of 

the exposure areas or loss of habitat. 

The proposed activities are also not 

expected to result in any reduction in 

foraging habitat or adverse impacts to 

marine mammal prey. Thus, any 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

not expected to cause significant or 

long-term consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of whether the number of 

takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

All authorized takes would be by 

Level B harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to sounds associated 

with the planned activities. Based on 

the nature of the activity, Level A 

harassment, serious injury, and 

mortality are neither anticipated nor 

proposed to be authorized. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed; (2) the area that 

will be ensonified above these levels in 

a day; (3) the density or occurrence of 

marine mammals within these 

ensonified areas; and (4) and number of 

days of activities. Below, we describe 

these components in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of sound above which exposed 

marine mammals would be reasonably 

expected to be behaviorally harassed 

(equated to Level B harassment) or to 

incur PTS of some degree (equated to 

Level A harassment). As described 

above, Level A harassment is not 

expected to occur as a result of the 

proposed activities and we do not 

propose to authorize take by Level A 

harassment, thus criteria and thresholds 

for Level A harassment are not 

discussed further. Thresholds have been 

developed identifying the received level 

of in-air sound above which exposed 

pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally 

harassed. In this case, we are concerned 

only with in-air sound as the proposed 

activities are not expected to result in 

harassment of marine mammals that are 

underwater. Thus only in-air thresholds 

are discussed further. 

Level B Harassment for Non-Explosive 

Sources 

Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment, and the 

receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, behavioral 

context) and can be difficult to predict 

(Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 

2011). 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 typically uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

behavioral harassment. As described 

above, for in-air sounds, NMFS expects 

that harbor seals exposed to sound 

above received levels of 90 dB re 20 mPa 

(rms) will be behaviorally harassed, and 

all other species of pinnipeds exposed 

to sound above received levels of 100 

dB re 20 mPa (rms) will be behaviorally 

harassed (Table 1). 

Typically, NMFS relies on the 

acoustic criteria shown in Table 1 to 

estimate take as a result of exposure to 

airborne sound from a given activity. 

However, in this case we have the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49345 

benefit of more than 20 years of 

observational data on pinniped 

responses to the stimuli associated with 

the proposed activity that we expect to 

result in harassment (sonic booms) in 

the particular geographic area of the 

proposed activity (VAFB and the NCI). 

Therefore, we consider these data to be 

the best available information in regard 

to estimating take based on modeled 

exposures among pinnipeds to sounds 

associated with the proposed activities. 

These data suggest that pinniped 

reactions to sonic booms are dependent 

on the species and the intensity of the 

sonic boom (Table 5). 

As described above, data from launch 

monitoring by the USAF on the NCI and 

at VAFB have shown that pinniped 

reactions to sonic booms are correlated 

to the level of the sonic boom. Low 

energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) have 

typically resulted in little to no 

behavioral responses, including head 

raising and briefly alerting but returning 

to normal behavior shortly after the 

stimulus. More powerful sonic booms 

have flushed animals from haulouts (but 

not resulted in any mortality or 

sustained decreased in numbers after 

the stimulus). Table 5 presents a 

summary of monitoring efforts at the 

NCI from 1999 to 2014. These data show 

that reactions to sonic booms tend to be 

insignificant below 1.0 psf and that, 

even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the 

animals present react to the sonic boom. 

Therefore, for the purposes of estimating 

the extent of take that is likely to occur 

as a result of the proposed activities, we 

assume that Level B harassment occurs 

when a pinniped (on land) is exposed 

to a sonic boom at or above 1.0 psf. 

Therefore the number of expected takes 

by Level B harassment is based on 

estimates of the numbers of animals that 

would be within the areas exposed to 

sonic booms at levels at or above 1.0 psf. 

The data recorded by USAF at VAFB 

and the NCI over the past 20 years has 

also shown that pinniped reactions to 

sonic booms vary between species. As 

described above, little or no reaction has 

been observed in northern fur seals and 

northern elephant seals when 

overpressures were below 1.0 psf. At the 

NCI sea lions have reacted more 

strongly to sonic booms than most other 

species. Harbor seals also appear to be 

more sensitive to sonic booms than most 

other pinnipeds, often resulting in 

startling and fleeing into the water. 

Northern fur seals generally show little 

or no reaction, and northern elephant 

seals generally exhibit no reaction at all, 

except perhaps a heads-up response or 

some stirring, especially if sea lions in 

the same area mingled with the elephant 

seals react strongly to the boom. No data 

is available on Steller sea lion or 

Guadalupe fur seal responses to sonic 

booms. 

Ensonified Area 

As described above, modeling was 

performed to estimate overpressure 

levels that would be created during the 

return flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage. 

The predicted acoustic footprint of the 

sonic boom was computed using the 

computer program PCBoom (Plotkin and 

Grandi 2002; Page et al. 2010). As 

described above, the highest sound 

generated by a sonic boom would 

generally be focused on the area where 

the Falcon 9 ultimately lands. Based on 

model results, a boost-back and landing 

of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W 

would produce a sonic boom with 

overpressures as high as 8.5 psf at SLC– 

4W, which would attenuate to levels 

below 1.0 psf at approximately 15.90 

mi. (25.59 km) from the landing area 

(Figure 2–2 in the IHA application). 

This estimate is based, in part, on actual 

observations from Falcon 9 boost-back 

and landing activities at Cape 

Canaveral, Florida. A boost-back and 

landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at 

SLC–4W would produce a sonic boom 

with overpressures up to 3.1 psf on the 

NCI (San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa 

Island, and Santa Cruz Island) based on 

model results. 

During a contingency barge landing 

event, sonic boom overpressure would 

be directed at the ocean surface while 

the first-stage booster is supersonic. 

Model results indicate that sonic booms 

would not exceed 1.0 psf on any part of 

the NCI during a boost-back and landing 

of the Falcon 9 First Stage at the 

contingency landing location at least 27 

nm (50 km) offshore (Figure 2–6 and 

Figure 2–7 in the IHA application). 

Additionally, First Stage boost-backs 

and landings within the Iridium 

Landing Area would not likely produce 

measurable overpressures at any land 

surface (Figure 2–8 and Figure 2–9 in 

the IHA application). Therefore, take of 

marine mammals is not expected to 

occur as a result of boost-back and 

landing activities at the contingency 

landing location at least 27 nm (50 km) 

offshore, nor within the Iridium 

Landing Area. Estimated takes are 

therefore based on the possibility of 

boost-back and landing activities 

occurring at SLC–4W. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Data collected from marine mammal 

surveys, including monthly marine 

mammal surveys conducted by the 

USAF at VAFB as well as data collected 

by NMFS, represent the best available 

information on the occurrence of the six 

pinniped species expected to occur in 

the project area. The quality and amount 

of information available on pinnipeds in 

the project area varies depending on 

species; some species are surveyed 

regularly at VAFB and the NCI (e.g., 

California sea lion), while other species 

are surveyed less frequently (e.g., 

northern fur seals and Guadalupe fur 

seals). However, the best available data 

was used to estimate take numbers. 

Take estimates for all species are shown 

in Table 6. 

Harbor Seal—Pacific harbor seals are 

the most common marine mammal 

inhabiting VAFB, congregating on 

several rocky haulout sites along the 

VAFB coastline. They also haul out, 

breed, and pup in isolated beaches and 

coves throughout the coasts of the NCI. 

Harbor seals may be exposed to sonic 

booms above 1.0 psf on the mainland 

and the NCI. Take of harbor seals at 

VAFB was estimated based on the 

maximum count totals from monthly 

surveys of VAFB haulout sites from 

2013–2016 (ManTech SRS 

Technologies, Inc., 2014, 2015, 2016; 

VAFB, unpubl. data). Take of harbor 

seals at the NCI and at Point Conception 

was estimated based on the maximum 

count totals from aerial survey data 

collected from 2002 to 2012 by the 

NMFS SWFSC (M. Lowry, NMFS 

SWFSC, unpubl. data). 

California sea lion—California sea 

lions are common offshore of VAFB and 

haul out on rocks and beaches along the 

coastline of VAFB, though pupping 

rarely occurs on the VAFB coastline. 

They haul out in large numbers on the 

NCI and rookeries exist on San Miguel 

and Santa Cruz islands. California sea 

lions may be exposed to sonic booms 

above 1.0 psf on the mainland and the 

NCI. Take of California sea lions at 

VAFB was estimated based on the 

maximum count totals from monthly 

surveys of VAFB haulout sites from 

2013–2016 (ManTech SRS 

Technologies, Inc., 2014, 2015, 2016; 

VAFB, unpubl. data). Take of California 

sea lions at the NCI was estimated based 

on the maximum count totals from 

aerial survey data collected from 2002 to 

2012 by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center (SWFSC) (M. Lowry, 

NMFS SWFSC, unpubl. data). 

Steller Sea Lion—Steller sea lions 

occur in small numbers at VAFB and on 

San Miguel Island. They have not been 

observed on the Channel Islands other 

than at San Miguel Island and they do 

not currently have rookeries at VAFB or 

the NCI. Steller sea lions may be 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49346 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on 

the mainland and the NCI. Take of 

Steller sea lions at VAFB was estimated 

based on the largest count totals from 

monthly surveys of VAFB haulout sites 

from 2013–2016 (ManTech SRS 

Technologies, Inc., 2014, 2015, 2016; 

VAFB, unpubl. data). Steller sea lions 

haul out in very small numbers on the 

NCI, and comprehensive survey data for 

Steller sea lions in the NCI is not 

available. Take of Steller sea lions at the 

NCI was estimated based on subject 

matter expert input suggesting that as 

many as four Steller sea lions have been 

observed on San Miguel Island at a time 

(pers. comm., S. Melin, NMFS Marine 

Mammal Laboratory (MML), to J. 

Carduner, NMFS, Feb 11, 2016). 

Northern elephant seal—Northern 

elephant seals haul out sporadically on 

rocks and beaches along the coastline of 

VAFB and at Point Conception and have 

rookeries on San Miguel Island and 

Santa Rosa Island and at one location at 

VAFB. Northern elephant seals may be 

exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf on 

the mainland and the NCI. Take of 

northern elephant seals at VAFB was 

estimated based on the largest count 

totals from monthly surveys of VAFB 

haulout sites from 2013–2016 (ManTech 

SRS Technologies, Inc., 2014, 2015, 

2016; VAFB, unpubl. data). Take of 

northern elephant seals at the NCI and 

at Point Conception was estimated 

based on the maximum count totals 

from aerial survey data collected from 

2002 to 2012 by the NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) (M. 

Lowry, NMFS SWFSC, unpubl. data). 

Northern fur seal—Northern fur seals 

have rookeries on San Miguel Island, 

the only island in the NCI on which 

they have been observed. No haulouts or 

rookeries exist for northern fur seals on 

the mainland coast, including VAFB, 

thus they may be exposed to sonic 

booms above 1.0 psf at the NCI but not 

on the mainland. Comprehensive survey 

data for northern fur seals in the project 

area is not available. Estimated take of 

northern fur seals was based on subject 

matter expert input which suggested a 

maximum of approximately 6,000–8,000 

northern fur seals may be present on 

San Miguel Island at the height of 

breeding/pupping season (early July). 

After the height of the breeding/pupping 

season, numbers fluctuate but decrease 

as females go on foraging trips and 

males begin to migrate in late July/ 

August. Numbers continue to decrease 

until November when most of the 

population is absent from the island 

until the following breeding/pupping 

period (starting the following June) 

(pers. comm., T. Orr, NMFS NMML, to 

J. Carduner, NMFS OPR, February 27, 

2016). It was therefore conservatively 

estimated that numbers peak at 8,000 

animals hauled out at any given time in 

July and decrease to a minimum of 

2,000 animals hauled out at any given 

time in the winter, then increase again 

until the following July. This results in 

an average estimate of 5,000 northern 

fur seals hauled out at San Miguel 

Island at any given time over the course 

of the entire year. 

Guadalupe fur seal—There are 

estimated to be approximately 20–25 

individual Guadalupe fur seals that 

have fidelity to San Miguel Island (pers. 

comm. S. Mellin, NMFS NMML, to J. 

Carduner, NMFS OPR, February 11, 

2016). No haulouts or rookeries exist for 

Guadalupe fur seals on the mainland 

coast, including VAFB, thus they may 

be exposed to sonic booms above 1.0 psf 

at the NCI but not on the mainland. 

Comprehensive survey data on 

Guadalupe fur seals in the project area 

is not readily available. Estimated take 

of Guadalupe fur seals was based on the 

maximum number of Guadalupe fur 

seals observed at any one time on San 

Miguel Island (13) (pers. comm., J. 

LaBonte, ManTech SRS Technologies 

Inc., to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb. 29, 

2016); it was therefore conservatively 

assumed that 13 Guadalupe fur seals 

may be hauled out at San Miguel Island 

at any given time. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

NMFS currently uses a three-tiered 

scale to determine whether the response 

of a pinniped on land to acoustic or 

visual stimuli is considered an alert, a 

movement, or a flush. NMFS considers 

the behaviors that meet the definitions 

of both movements and flushes to 

qualify as behavioral harassment. Thus 

a pinniped on land is considered by 

NMFS to have been behaviorally 

harassed if it moves greater than two 

times its body length, or if the animal 

is already moving and changes direction 

and/or speed, or if the animal flushes 

from land into the water. Animals that 

become alert without such movements 

are not considered harassed. See Table 

4 for a summary of the pinniped 

disturbance scale. 

TABLE 4—LEVELS OF PINNIPED BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE ON LAND

Level Type of response Definition 

Characterized as 

behavioral 

harassment 

by NMFS 

1 ................ Alert ......................... Seal head orientation or brief movement in response to disturbance, which may include turning head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding 

the body rigid in a u-shaped position, changing from a lying to a sitting position, or 

brief movement of less than twice the animal’s body length.

No. 

2 ................ Movement ................ Movements away from the source of disturbance, ranging from short withdrawals at 

least twice the animal’s body length to longer retreats over the beach, or if already 

moving a change of direction of greater than 90 degrees.

Yes. 

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

As described above, the likelihood of 

pinnipeds exhibiting responses to sonic 

booms that would be considered 

behavioral harassment (based on the 

levels of pinniped disturbance as shown 

in Table 4) is dependent on both the 

species and on the intensity of the sonic 

boom. Data from rocket launch 

monitoring by the USAF at VAFB and 

the NCI show that pinniped reactions to 

sonic booms are correlated to the level 

of the sonic boom, with low energy 

sonic booms (<1.0 psf) typically 

resulting in little to no behavioral 

responses, and higher energy sonic 

booms resulting in responses ranging 

from no response to heads-up alerts, 

startle responses, some movements on 

land, and some movements into the 

water (flushing). Based on model 

results, a boost-back and landing of the 

Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W would 

produce a sonic boom with greater 

intensity at VAFB (overpressures 

potentially as high as 8.5 psf) than at the 

NCI (overpressures potentially as high 

as 3.1 psf). Responses of pinnipeds to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49347 

sonic booms are also highly dependent 

on species, with harbor seals, California 

sea lions and Steller sea lions generally 

displaying greater sensitivity to sonic 

booms than northern elephant seals and 

northern fur seals (Table 5). We are not 

aware of any data on Guadalupe fur seal 

responses to sonic booms, but we 

assume responses by Guadalupe fur seal 

responses to be similar to those 

observed in northern fur seals as the two 

species are physiologically and 

behaviorally very similar. 

Take estimates were calculated by 

overlaying the modeled acoustic 

footprints of sonic booms from boostback and landing events at SLC–4W 

with known pinniped haulouts on the 

mainland (including those at VAFB) and 

the NCI to determine the pinniped 

haulouts that would potentially be 

affected by sonic booms with 

overpressures of 1.0 psf and above. Only 

haulouts along northeastern San Miguel 

Island, northern and northwestern Santa 

Rosa Island, and northwestern Santa 

Cruz Island would be expected to 

experience overpressures greater than 

1.0 psf during a boost-back and landing 

at SLC–4W (Figure 2–3, 2–4, 2–5 and 2– 

6 in the IHA application). Take 

estimates also account for the likely 

intensity of the sonic boom as well as 

the relative sensitivity of the marine 

mammal species present, based on 

monitoring data as described above. 

A boost-back and landing of the 

Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC–4W that 

results in a sonic boom of 1.0 psf and 

above at VAFB was conservatively 

estimated to result in behavioral 

harassment of 100 percent of all species 

hauled out at or near VAFB and Point 

Conception (Table 6). A boost-back and 

landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at 

SLC–4W that results in a sonic boom of 

1.0 psf and above at the NCI was 

estimated to result in the behavioral 

harassment of 100 percent of California 

sea lions, harbor seals, and Steller sea 

lions that are hauled out at the NCI and 

of five percent of northern elephant 

seals, northern fur seals, and Guadalupe 

fur seals that are hauled out at the NCI. 

The five percent adjustment in the take 

estimates for these species at the NCI is 

also considered conservative, as launch 

monitoring data shows that elephant 

seals and fur seals sometimes alert to 

sonic booms but have never been 

observed flushing to the water or 

responding in a manner that would be 

classified as behavioral harassment even 

when sonic booms were measured at 

>1.0 psf (see Table 5 for a summary of 

launch monitoring data). 

The take calculations presented in 

Table 6 are based on the best available 

information on marine mammal 

populations in the project location and 

responses among marine mammals to 

the stimuli associated with the proposed 

activities. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS, AND PERCENTAGE OF MARINE MAMMAL POPULATIONS, 

POTENTIALLY TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

Species Geographic location 

Estimated 

number of 

Level B 

harassment 

exposures per 

event, by location 

Estimated 

combined 

number of 

Level B 

harassment 

exposures per 

event 

Total number of 

takes by Level B 

harassment 

proposed for 

authorization ∧

Takes by Level B 

harassment 

proposed for 

authorization as 

a percentage of 

population 

Pacific Harbor Seal ............... VAFB .................................... 366 1,384 1,384 4.4 

Pt. Conception ...................... 516 

San Miguel Island ................. 310 

Santa Rosa Island ................ 192 

Santa Cruz Island ................. 0 

California Sea Lion ............... VAFB .................................... 416 4,561 54,732 18.4 

Pt. Conception ...................... N/A 

San Miguel Island ................. 2,134 

Santa Rosa Island ................ 1,200 

Santa Cruz Island ................. 811 

Northern Elephant Seal ........ VAFB .................................... 190 227 2,724 1.5 

Pt. Conception ...................... 11 

San Miguel Island * ............... 18 

Santa Rosa Island * .............. 8 

Santa Cruz Island ................. 0 

Steller Sea Lion .................... VAFB .................................... 16 20 240 0.3 

Pt. Conception ...................... N/A 

San Miguel Island ................. 4 

Santa Rosa Island ................ N/A 

Santa Cruz Island ................. N/A 

Northern Fur Seal ................. VAFB .................................... N/A 250 3,000 21.4 

Pt. Conception ...................... N/A 

San Miguel Island * ............... 250 

Santa Rosa Island ................ N/A 

Santa Cruz Island ................. N/A 

Guadalupe Fur Seal ............. VAFB .................................... N/A 1 12 0.1 

Pt. Conception ...................... N/A 

San Miguel Island * ............... 1 

Santa Rosa Island ................ N/A 

Santa Cruz Island ................. N/A 

∧Based on twelve boost-back and landing events. 

* Number shown reflects five percent of total number of predicted potential exposures, i.e., five percent of animals exposed to sonic booms 

above 1.0 psf at these locations are assumed to experience Level B harassment. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49348 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

Take estimates are believed to be 

conservative based on the assumption 

that all twelve Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery actions would result in 

landings at SLC–4W, with no landings 

occurring at the contingency barge 

landing location. However, some or all 

actual landing events may ultimately 

occur at the contingency landing 

location or within the Iridium Landing 

Area; as described above, landings at the 

contingency landing location or within 

the Iridium Landing Area would be 

expected to result in no takes of marine 

mammals. However, the number of 

landings at each location is not known 

in advance, therefore we assume all 

landings would occur at SLC–4W. In 

addition, as described above, it is 

conservatively assumed that 100 percent 

of all any species of pinnipeds hauled 

out on the mainland (VAFB and Point 

Conception) and 100 percent of harbor 

seals, California sea lions and Steller sea 

lions hauled out at the NCI would be 

harassed (Level B harassment only) by 

a Falcon 9 boost-back and landing 

events at SLC–4W that result in a psf of 

<1.0. However, it is possible that less 

than this percentage of hauled out 

pinnipeds will be behaviorally harassed 

by a Falcon 9 boost-back and landing at 

SLC–4W. While there may be some 

limited behavioral harassment of 

pinnipeds that occurs at psf levels <1.0, 

we account for that in the overall 

conservativeness of the total take 

number, as described above. 

Given the many uncertainties in 

predicting the quantity and types of 

impacts of sound on marine mammals, 

it is common practice to estimate how 

many animals are likely to be present 

within a particular distance of a given 

activity, or exposed to a particular level 

of sound. In practice, depending on the 

amount of information available to 

characterize daily and seasonal 

movement and distribution of affected 

marine mammals, it can be difficult to 

distinguish between the number of 

individuals harassed and the instances 

of harassment and, when duration of the 

activity is considered, it can result in a 

take estimate that overestimates the 

number of individuals harassed. For 

instance, an individual animal may 

accrue a number of incidences of 

harassment over the duration of a 

project, as opposed to each incident of 

harassment accruing to a new 

individual. This is especially likely if 

individual animals display some degree 

of residency or site fidelity and the 

impetus to use the site is stronger than 

the deterrence presented by the 

harassing activity. 

Take estimates shown in Table 6 are 

considered reasonable estimates of the 

number of instances of marine mammal 

exposures to sound resulting in Level B 

harassment that are likely to occur as a 

result of the proposed activities, and not 

necessarily the number of individual 

animals exposed. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable impact on species or 

stocks and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses where applicable, we 

carefully balance 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—which 

considers the nature of the potential 

adverse impact being mitigated 

(likelihood, scope, range), as well as the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented; and the 

likelihood of effective implementation, 

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. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

1. Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

2. A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to activities 

expected to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing harassment takes 

only). 

3. A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to activities expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

4. A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to activities expected to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing the severity of harassment 

takes only). 

5. Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/ 

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

6. For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

SpaceX’s IHA application contains 

descriptions of the mitigation measures 

proposed to be implemented during the 

specified activities in order to effect the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitats. 

It should be noted that it would not 

be feasible to stop or divert an inbound 

Falcon 9 First Stage booster. Once the 

boost-back and landing sequence is 

underway, there would be no way for 

SpaceX to change the trajectory of the 

Falcon 9 First Stage to avoid potential 

impacts to marine mammals. The 

proposed mitigation measures include 

the following: 

• Unless constrained by other factors 

including human safety or national security 

concerns, launches would be scheduled to 

avoid boost-backs and landings during the 

harbor seal pupping season of March through 

June, when practicable. 

Based on our evaluation of SpaceX’s 

proposed mitigation measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means effecting the least practicable 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49349 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Proposed Monitoring 

SpaceX submitted a monitoring plan 

as part of their IHA application. 

SpaceX’s proposed marine mammal 

monitoring plan was created with input 

from NMFS and was based on similar 

plans that have been successfully 

implemented by other action 

proponents under previous 

authorizations for similar projects, 

specifically the USAF’s monitoring of 

rocket launches from VAFB. The plan 

may be modified or supplemented based 

on comments or new information 

received from the public during the 

public comment period. 

Marine Mammal Monitoring 

SpaceX would determine a 

monitoring location for each boost-back 

and landing activity, taking into 

consideration predictions of the areas 

likely to receive the greatest sonic boom 

intensity as well as current haulout 

locations and the distribution of 

pinniped species and their behavior. 

The selection of the monitoring location 

would also be based on what species (if 

any) have pups at haulouts and which 

of those species would be expected to be 

the most reactive to sonic booms. 

SpaceX prioritizes the selection of 

rookery locations if they are expected to 

be impacted by a sonic boom and 

prioritizes the most reactive species if 

there are multiple species that are 

expected to be hauled out in the 

modeled sonic boom impact area. For 

instance, if harbor seals were pupping, 

SpaceX would tend to select a harbor 

seal rookery for monitoring because they 

tend to be the most reactive species to 

sonic booms. There is also thought 

given to the geography and wind 

exposure of the specific beaches that are 

predicted to be impacted, to avoid 

inadvertently selecting a portion of a 

beach that tends to be abandoned by 

pinnipeds every afternoon as a result 

high winds. As VAFB is an active 

military base, the selection of 

appropriate monitoring locations must 

also take into account security 

restrictions and human safety as 

unexploded ordnance is present in some 

areas. 

Marine mammal monitoring protocols 

would vary based on modeled sonic 

boom intensity, the location and the 

season. As described above, sonic boom 

modeling would be performed prior to 

all boost-back and landing activities. 

Although the same rockets would be 

used, other parameters specific to each 

launch would be incorporated into each 

model. These include direction and 

trajectory, weight, length, engine thrust, 

engine plume drag, position versus time 

from initiating boost-back to additional 

engine burns, among other aspects. 

Various weather scenarios would be 

analyzed from NOAA weather records 

for the region, then run through the 

model. Among other factors, these 

would include the presence or absence 

of the jet stream, and if present, its 

direction, altitude and velocity. The 

type, altitude, and density of clouds 

would also be considered. From these 

data, the models would predict peak 

amplitudes and impact locations. As 

described above, impacts to pinnipeds 

on the NCI, including pups, have been 

shown through more than two decades 

of monitoring reports to be minimal and 

temporary (MMCG and SAIC 2012a). 

Therefore monitoring requirements at 

the NCI would be dependent on 

modeled sonic boom intensity and 

would be based on the harbor seal 

pupping season, such that monitoring 

requirements would be greater when 

pups would be expected to be present. 

At the height of the pupping season 

(between March 1 and June 30) 

monitoring is required if sonic boom 

model results indicate a peak 

overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is 

likely to impact one of the NCI. Between 

July 1 and September 30 monitoring is 

required if sonic boom model results 

indicate a peak overpressure of 1.5 psf 

or greater is likely to impact one of the 

NCI. Between October 1 and February 

28, monitoring is required if sonic boom 

model results indicate a peak 

overpressure of 2.0 psf or greater is 

likely to impact one of the NCI. 

Marine mammal monitoring 

procedures would consist of the 

following: 

• To conduct monitoring of Falcon 9 

First Stage boost-back and landing 

activities, SpaceX would designate 

qualified, on-site observers that would 

be approved in advance by NMFS; 

• If sonic boom model results 

indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf 

or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then 

acoustic and biological monitoring at 

VAFB would be implemented; 

• If sonic boom model results 

indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf 

or greater is likely to impact one of the 

NCI between March 1 and June 30; a 

peak overpressure of greater than 1.5 psf 

is likely to impact one of the NCI 

between July 1 and September 30, or a 

peak overpressure of greater than 2.0 psf 

is likely to impact one of the NCI 

between October 1 and February 28, 

then monitoring of haulout sites on the 

NCI would be implemented. 

• Monitoring would be conducted at 

the haulout site closest to the predicted 

sonic boom impact area; 

• Monitoring would commence at 

least 72 hours prior to the boost-back 

and continue until at least 48 hours after 

the event; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49350 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

• Monitoring would include multiple 

surveys each day that record the 

species; number of animals; general 

behavior; presence of pups; age class; 

gender; and reaction to noise associated 

with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

activities, sonic booms or other natural 

or human caused disturbances, in 

addition to recording environmental 

conditions such as tide, wind speed, air 

temperature, and swell; 

• If the boost-back and landing is 

scheduled during daylight, time lapse 

photography or video recording would 

be used to document the behavior of 

marine mammals during Falcon 9 First 

Stage recovery activities; 

• For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

activities scheduled during harbor seal 

pupping season (March through June), 

follow-up surveys would be conducted 

within two weeks of the boost-back and 

landing; 

• New northern elephant seal 

pupping location(s) at VAFB would be 

prioritized for monitoring when 

landings occur at SLC–4W during 

northern elephant seal pupping season 

(January through February) when 

practicable. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

Acoustic measurements of the sonic 

boom created during boost-back at the 

monitoring location would be recorded 

to determine the overpressure level. 

Typically this would entail use of a 

digital audio tape (DAT) recorder and a 

high quality microphone to monitor the 

sound environment and measure the 

sonic boom. This system would be 

specially tailored for recording the low 

frequency sound associated with rocket 

launches and sonic booms. The DAT 

system would record the launch noise 

and sonic boom digitally to tape, which 

would allow for detailed post-analysis 

of the frequency content, and the 

calculation of other acoustic metrics, 

and would record the ambient noise and 

sonic boom. The DAT recorder would 

be placed near the marine mammal 

monitoring site when practicable. 

Proposed Reporting 

SpaceX would report data collected 

during marine mammal monitoring and 

acoustic monitoring as described above. 

The monitoring report would include a 

description of project related activities, 

counts of marine mammals by species, 

sex and age class, a summary of marine 

mammal species/count data, and a 

summary of observed marine mammal 

responses to project-related activities. 

A launch monitoring report would be 

submitted by SpaceX to the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources and the 

NMFS West Coast Region within 60 

days after each Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery action. This report would 

contain information on the date(s) and 

time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery action, the design of the 

monitoring program; and results of the 

monitoring program, including, but not 

necessarily limited to the following: 

• Numbers of pinnipeds present on 

the monitored haulout prior to the 

Falcon 9 First Stage recovery; 

• Numbers of pinnipeds that may 

have been harassed (based on 

observations of pinniped responses and 

the pinniped disturbance scale as 

shown in Table 4); 

• The length of time pinnipeds 

remained off the haulout or rookery for 

pinnipeds estimated to have entered the 

water as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery noise; 

• Any other observed behavioral 

modifications by pinnipeds that were 

likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery activities, including sonic 

boom; and 

• Results of acoustic monitoring 

including comparisons of modeled 

sonic booms with actual acoustic 

recordings of sonic booms. 

In addition, a final monitoring report 

would be submitted by SpaceX to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources. A 

draft of the report would be submitted 

within 90 days of the expiration of the 

IHA, or, within 45 days of the requested 

renewal of the IHA (if applicable). A 

final version of the report would be 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report from NMFS. The report would 

summarize the information from the 60- 

day post-activity reports (as described 

above), including but not necessarily 

limited to the following: 

• Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 

First Stage recovery actions; 

• Design of the monitoring program; 

and 

• Results of the monitoring program, 

including the information components 

contained in the 60-day launch reports, 

as well as any documented cumulative 

impacts on marine mammals as a result 

of the activities, such as long term 

reductions in the number of pinnipeds 

at haulouts as a result of the activities. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner not 

authorized by the proposed IHA (if 

issued), such as a Level A harassment, 

or a take of a marine mammal species 

other than those proposed for 

authorization, SpaceX would 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources. The report would 

include the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery activities in the 48 hours 

preceding the incident; 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 48 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with SpaceX to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. SpaceX would not be able 

to resume their activities until notified 

by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that SpaceX discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 

than a moderate state of decomposition), 

SpaceX would immediately report the 

incident to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources and the NMFS 

West Coast Region Stranding 

Coordinator. The report would include 

the same information identified in the 

paragraph above. Authorized activities 

would be able to continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS would work with 

SpaceX to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

In the event that SpaceX discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead MMO determines the injury or 

death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

SpaceX would report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources and 

NMFS West Coast Region Stranding 

Coordinator, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. SpaceX would provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

If issued, this would be the second 

IHA issued to SpaceX for the proposed 

activity. SpaceX did not perform any 

Falcon 9 boost-back and landing 

activities that resulted in return flights 

to VAFB nor that generated sonic booms 

that impacted the NCI. SpaceX did 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49351 

perform boost-back and landing 

activities at a contingency landing 

location located offshore during the 

period of validity for the prior IHA, 

however the contingency landing 

location was located so far offshore that 

there were no impacts predicted to 

marine mammals by sonic boom 

modeling, thus marine mammal 

monitoring was not required. 

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 

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 2, given that the 

anticipated effects of this activity on 

these different marine mammal species 

are expected to be similar. Activities 

associated with the proposed Falcon 9 

First Stage recovery project, as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level B 

harassment (behavioral disturbance) 

only, from airborne sounds of sonic 

booms. Potential takes could occur if 

marine mammals are hauled out in areas 

where a sonic boom above 1.0 psf 

occurs, which is considered likely given 

the modeled sonic booms of the 

proposed activities and the occurrence 

of pinnipeds in the project area. Based 

on the best available information, 

including monitoring reports from 

similar activities that have been 

authorized by NMFS, behavioral 

responses will likely be limited to 

reactions such as alerting to the noise, 

with some animals possibly moving 

toward or entering the water, depending 

on the species and the intensity of the 

sonic boom. Repeated exposures of 

individuals to levels of sound that may 

cause Level B harassment are unlikely 

to result in hearing impairment or to 

significantly disrupt foraging behavior. 

Thus, even repeated Level B harassment 

of some small subset of an overall stock 

is unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in fitness to those 

individuals, and thus would not result 

in any adverse impact to the stock as a 

whole. Level B harassment would be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

impact through use of mitigation 

measures described above. 

If a marine mammal responds to a 

stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., 

through relatively minor changes in 

locomotion direction/speed), the 

response may or may not constitute 

taking at the individual level, and is 

unlikely to affect the stock or the 

species as a whole. However, if a sound 

source displaces marine mammals from 

an important feeding or breeding area 

for a prolonged period, impacts on 

animals or on the stock or species could 

potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau 

and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). 

Flushing of pinnipeds into the water has 

the potential to result in mother-pup 

separation, or could result in a 

stampede, either of which could 

potentially result in serious injury or 

mortality and thereby could potentially 

impact the stock or species. However, 

based on the best available information, 

including reports from over 20 years of 

launch monitoring at VAFB and the 

NCI, no serious injury or mortality of 

marine mammals is anticipated as a 

result of the proposed activities. 

Even in the instances of pinnipeds 

being behaviorally disturbed by sonic 

booms from rocket launches at VAFB, 

no evidence has been presented of 

abnormal behavior, injuries or 

mortalities, or pup abandonment as a 

result of sonic booms (SAIC 2013). 

These findings came as a result of more 

than two decades of surveys at VAFB 

and the NCI (MMCG and SAIC, 2012). 

Post-launch monitoring generally 

reveals a return to normal behavioral 

patterns within minutes up to an hour 

or two of each launch, regardless of 

species. For instance, a total of eight 

Delta II and Taurus space vehicle 

launches occurred from north VAFB, 

near the Spur Road and Purisima Point 

haulout sites, from February, 2009 

through February, 2014. Of these eight 

launches, three occurred during the 

harbor seal pupping season. The 

continued use by harbor seals of the 

Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout 

sites indicates that it is unlikely that 

these rocket launches (and associated 

sonic booms) resulted in long-term 

disturbances of pinnipeds using the 

haulout sites. San Miguel Island 

represents the most important pinniped 

rookery in the lower 48 states, and as 

such extensive research has been 

conducted there for decades. From this 

research, as well as stock assessment 

reports, it is clear that VAFB operations 

(including associated sonic booms) have 

not had any significant impacts on San 

Miguel Island rookeries and haulouts 

(SAIC 2012). 

In summary, this negligible impact 

analysis is founded on the following 

factors: 

• No injury, serious injury, or 

mortality are anticipated or authorized; 

• The anticipated incidences of Level 

B harassment are expected to consist of, 

at worst, temporary modifications in 

behavior (i.e., short distance movements 

and occasional flushing into the water 

with return to haulouts within at most 

two days), which are not expected to 

adversely affect the fitness of any 

individuals; 

• The proposed activities are 

expected to result in no long-term 

changes in the use by pinnipeds of 

rookeries and haulouts in the project 

area, based on over 20 years of 

monitoring data; and 

• The presumed efficacy of planned 

mitigation measures in reducing the 

effects of the specified activity to the 

level of least practicable impact. 

In combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activity will be short-term 

on individual animals. The specified 

activity is not expected to impact rates 

of recruitment or survival and will 

therefore not result in population-level 

impacts. Based on the analysis 

contained herein of the likely effects of 

the specified activity on marine 

mammals and their habitat, and taking 

into consideration the implementation 

of the proposed monitoring and 

mitigation measures, NMFS 

preliminarily finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the proposed activity 

will have a negligible impact on the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49352 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The numbers of proposed authorized 

takes would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks or 

populations (less than 22 percent for all 

species and stocks). It is important to 

note that the number of expected takes 

does not necessarily represent of the 

number of individual animals expected 

to be taken. Our small numbers analysis 

accounts for this fact. Multiple 

exposures to Level B harassment can 

accrue to the same individual animals 

over the course of an activity that occurs 

multiple times in the same area (such as 

SpaceX’s proposed activity). This is 

especially likely in the case of species 

that have limited ranges and that have 

site fidelity to a location within the 

project area, as is the case with Pacific 

harbor seals. 

As described above, harbor seals are 

non-migratory, rarely traveling more 

than 50 km from their haul-out sites. 

Thus, while the estimated abundance of 

the California stock of Pacific harbor 

seals is 30,968 (Carretta et al. 2017), a 

substantially smaller number of 

individual harbor seals is expected to 

occur within the project area. We expect 

that, because of harbor seals’ 

documented site fidelity to haulout 

locations at VAFB and the NCI, and 

because of their limited ranges, the same 

individuals are likely to be taken 

repeatedly over the course of the 

proposed activities (maximum of twelve 

Falcon 9 First Stage recovery actions). 

Therefore, the proposed number of 

instances of Level B harassment among 

harbor seals over the course of the 

proposed authorization (i.e., the total 

number of takes shown in Table 6) is 

expected to accrue to a much smaller 

number of individuals encompassing a 

small portion of the overall regional 

stock. Thus while we propose to 

authorize the instances of incidental 

take of harbor seals shown in Table 6, 

we believe that the number of 

individual harbor seals that would be 

incidentally taken by the proposed 

activities would, in fact, be substantially 

lower than this numbers. The maximum 

number of harbor seals expected to be 

taken by Level B harassment, per Falcon 

9 First Stage recovery action, is 1,384. 

As we believe the same individuals are 

likely to be taken repeatedly over the 

duration of the proposed activities, we 

use the estimate of 1,165 individual 

animals taken per Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery activity for the purposes of 

estimating the percentage of the stock 

abundance likely to be taken. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There is one marine mammal species 

(Guadalupe fur seal) listed under the 

ESA with confirmed occurrence in the 

area expected to be impacted by the 

proposed activities. The NMFS West 

Coast Region has determined that the 

NMFS OPR’s proposed authorization of 

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

activities is not likely to adversely affect 

the Guadalupe fur seal. Therefore, 

formal ESA section 7 consultation on 

this proposed authorization is not 

required. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to SpaceX, to conduct Falcon 9 

First Stage recovery activities at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, in the 

Pacific Ocean offshore Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, and at the Northern Channel 

Islands, California, from December 1, 

2017 through November 30, 2018, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. The 

proposed IHA language is provided 

next. 

This section contains a draft of the 

IHA itself. The wording contained in 

this section is proposed for inclusion in 

the IHA (if issued). 

1. This Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) is valid from 

December 1, 2017 through November 

30, 2018. 

(a) This IHA is valid only for Falcon 

9 First Stage recovery activities at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 

and at auxiliary landing sites offshore. 

2. General Conditions. 

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of SpaceX, its designees, and 

work crew personnel operating under 

the authority of this IHA. 

(b) The species authorized for taking 

are the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina richardii), California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), Steller sea 

lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern 

elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), 

northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), 

and Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus 

philippii townsendi). 

(c) The taking, by Level B harassment 

only, is limited to the species listed in 

condition 2(b). See Table 6 for numbers 

of take authorized. 

(d) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in condition 

2(b) of the Authorization or any taking 

of any other species of marine mammal 

is prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

3. Mitigation Measures. 

The holder of this Authorization must 

implement the following mitigation 

measure: Unless constrained by other 

factors including human safety or 

national security concerns, launches 

must be scheduled to avoid, whenever 

possible, boost-backs and landings 

during the harbor seal pupping season 

of March through June. 

4. Monitoring. 

The holder of this Authorization 

mustconduct marine mammal and 

acoustic monitoring as described below. 

(a) SpaceX must notify the 

Administrator, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, by letter or telephone, at least 

two weeks prior to activities possibly 

involving the taking of marine 

mammals; 

(b) To conduct monitoring of Falcon 

9 First Stage recovery activities, SpaceX 

must designate qualified, on-site 

individuals approved in advance by 

NMFS; 

(c) If sonic boom model results 

indicate that a peak overpressure of 1.0 

psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB, 

then acoustic and biological monitoring 

at VAFB must be implemented; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49353 

(d) If sonic boom model results 

indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf 

or greater is likely to impact VAFB 

during January and February, then 

acoustic and biological monitoring must 

be implemented at northern elephant 

seal rookeries at VAFB, when 

practicable; 

(e) If sonic boom model results 

indicate that a peak overpressure of 1.0 

psf or greater is predicted to impact the 

Channel Islands between March 1 and 

June 30, greater than 1.5 psf between 

July 1 and September 30, and greater 

than 2.0 psf between October 1 and 

February 28, monitoring of haulout sites 

on the Channel Islands must be 

implemented. Monitoring will be 

conducted at the haulout site closest to 

the predicted sonic boom impact area; 

(f) Monitoring will be conducted for at 

least 72 hours prior to any planned 

Falcon 9 First Stage recovery and 

continue until at least 48 hours after the 

event; 

(g) For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

activities that occur during March 

through June, follow-up surveys of 

harbor seal haulouts will be conducted 

within two weeks of the Falcon 9 First 

Stage recovery; 

(h) If Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

activities are scheduled during daylight, 

time-lapse photography or video 

recording must be used to document the 

behavior of marine mammals during 

Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities; 

(i) Monitoring will include multiple 

surveys each day that record the 

species, number of animals, general 

behavior, presence of pups, age class, 

gender and reaction to noise associated 

with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery, sonic 

booms or other natural or human caused 

disturbances, in addition to recording 

environmental conditions such as tide, 

wind speed, air temperature, and swell; 

and 

(j) Acoustic measurements of the 

sonic boom created during boost-back at 

the monitoring location must be 

recorded to determine the overpressure 

level. 

5. Reporting. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to: 

(a) Submit a report to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

West Coast Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, within 60 days after each Falcon 

9 First Stage recovery action. This report 

must contain the following information: 

(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 

9 First Stage recovery action; 

(2) Design of the monitoring program; 

and 

(3) Results of the monitoring program, 

including, but not necessarily limited 

to: 

(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on 

the haulout prior to the Falcon 9 First 

Stage recovery; 

(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may 

have been harassed as a result of Falcon 

9 First Stage recovery activities; 

(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have 

been harassed as a result of Falcon 9 

First Stage recovery noise, the length of 

time pinnipeds remained off the haulout 

or rookery; 

(iv) Any other observed behavioral 

modifications by pinnipeds that were 

likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery activities, including sonic 

boom; and 

(v) Results of acoustic monitoring 

including comparisons of modeled 

sonic booms with actual acoustic 

recordings of sonic booms. 

(b) Submit an annual report on all 

monitoring conducted under the IHA. A 

draft of the annual report must be 

submitted within 90 calendar days of 

the expiration of this IHA, or, within 45 

calendar days of the requested renewal 

of the IHA (if applicable). A final annual 

report must be prepared and submitted 

within 30 days following resolution of 

comments on the draft report from 

NMFS. The annual report will 

summarize the information from the 60- 

day post-activity reports, including but 

not necessarily limited to: 

(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 

9 First Stage recovery action; 

(2) Design of the monitoring program; 

and 

(3) Results of the monitoring program, 

including, but not necessarily limited 

to: 

(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on 

the haulout prior to the Falcon 9 First 

Stage recovery; 

(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds estimated 

to have been harassed as a result of 

Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities 

at the monitoring location; 

(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have 

been harassed as a result of Falcon 9 

First Stage recovery noise, the length of 

time pinnipeds remained off the haulout 

or rookery; 

(iv) Any other observed behavioral 

modifications by pinnipeds that were 

likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery activities, including sonic 

boom; 

(v) Any cumulative impacts on 

marine mammals as a result of the 

activities, such as long term reductions 

in the number of pinnipeds at haulouts 

as a result of the activities; and 

(vi) Results of acoustic monitoring 

including comparisons of modeled 

sonic booms with actual acoustic 

recordings of sonic booms. 

(c) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

(1) In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA (as determined 

by the lead marine mammal observer), 

such as an injury (Level A harassment), 

serious injury, or mortality, SpaceX will 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources and 

the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the following information: 

A. Time and date of the incident; 

B. Description of the incident; 

C. Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage 

recovery activities in the 48 hours 

preceding the incident; 

D. Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 48 hours preceding 

the incident; 

E. Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

F. Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

G. Fate of the animal(s); and 

H. Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Activities will not resume until NMFS 

is able to review the circumstances of 

the prohibited take. NMFS will work 

with SpaceX to determine what 

measures are necessary to minimize the 

likelihood of further prohibited take and 

ensure MMPA compliance. SpaceX may 

not resume their activities until notified 

by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

(2) In the event that SpaceX discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines that the 

cause of the injury or death is unknown 

and the death is relatively recent (e.g., 

in less than a moderate state of 

decomposition), SpaceX will 

immediately report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources and 

the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding 

Coordinator. The report must include 

the same information identified in 

5(c)(1) of this IHA. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident and 

makes a final determination on the 

cause of the reported injury or death. 

NMFS will work with SpaceX to 

determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

(3) In the event that SpaceX discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines that the 

injury or death is not associated with or 

related to the activities authorized in the 

IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, scavenger damage), 

SpaceX will report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49354 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

1See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e). 

2 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(A). Please note that States 

that choose to participate in the deployment of the 

NPSBN as proposed by FirstNet are not required to 

file a notice of such participation with NTIA. 

the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding 

Coordinator, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. SpaceX will provide 

photographs or video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS. The cause of injury 

or death may be subject to review and 

a final determination by NMFS. 

6. Modification and suspension. 

(a) This IHA may be modified, 

suspended or withdrawn if the holder 

fails to abide by the conditions 

prescribed herein, or if NMFS 

determines that the authorized taking is 

having more than a negligible impact on 

the species or stock of affected marine 

mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analysis, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA 

for SpaceX Falcon 9 First Stage recovery 

activities. Please include with your 

comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform our 

final decision on SpaceX’s request for 

an MMPA authorization. 

Dated: October 19, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23134 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF790 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (MAFMC); Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold a public webinar meeting. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Thursday November 9, 2017, from 10 

a.m. to 12 noon. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via webinar with a telephone-only 

connection option. The webinar can be 

accessed at http://

mafmc.adobeconnect.com/chub_hms_

diet/. Audio can be accessed through the 

webinar link or by dialing 1–800–832– 

0736 and entering meeting room 

number 5068871. 

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 800 N. State 

Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; 

telephone: (302) 674–2331; 

www.mafmc.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, telephone: (302) 

526–5255. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The goal 

of this webinar is to understand the 

importance of Atlantic chub mackerel 

(Scomber colias) to the diets of highly 

migratory species (HMS) predators in 

U.S. waters, with a focus on 

recreationally-important predators such 

as large tunas and billfish. The 

objectives of the meeting are to: (1) 

Convene a panel of scientific experts on 

HMS diets, (2) clarify what is known 

about the importance of chub mackerel 

to HMS diets based on currently 

available data, and (3) develop 

recommendations for future studies to 

quantify the role of chub mackerel in 

HMS diets. Meeting these objectives 

will help the Council analyze the 

potential impacts of chub mackerel 

management alternatives on HMS 

predators as well as on recreational 

fisheries for those predators. The 

Council is developing a chub mackerel 

amendment to the Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. 

More information on the amendment is 

available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ 

actions/chub-mackerel-amendment. To 

facilitate productive discussions among 

the invited experts, public participation 

during this webinar will be limited to 

designated question and answer and 

comment periods. Members of the 

public are invited to email questions for 

the invited experts to Council staff 

(jbeaty@mafmc.org) in advance of the 

meeting. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aid 

should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, 

(302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. 

Dated: October 20, 2017. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23191 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

Governor’s Opt-Out Notice To Conduct 

State Radio Access Network 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Middle Class Tax Relief 

and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act) 

requires a Governor of a State to notify 

the First Responder Network Authority 

(FirstNet), the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), and the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) of a 

State’s decision to opt-out of 

participation in the deployment of the 

nationwide public safety broadband 

network (NPSBN) as proposed by 

FirstNet and to conduct its own 

deployment of a Radio Access Network 

in the State. This Notice provides 

instructions for such ‘‘opt-out’’ notices 

to NTIA. 

DATES: Applicable on October 25, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: All opt-out notices must be 

filed via the dedicated email address: 

sapp@ntia.doc.gov, or via certified mail 

to the Office of Public Safety 

Communications, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, United States 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Ave NW., Washington, DC 

20230, ATTN: Marsha MacBride. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Dunn; Office of Public Safety 

Communications; National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration; U.S. Department of 

Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW; Washington, DC 20230; cdunn@

ntia.doc.gov; (202) 482–4103. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Under section 6302(e)(2) of the Act, 

the Governor of each State or Territory 

has 90 days from the receipt of notice 

by FirstNet under section 6302(e)(1) of 

the Act to decide whether to participate 

in the deployment of the NPSBN as 

proposed by FirstNet or whether to 

conduct its own deployment of a Radio 

Access Network in the State.1 Section 

6302(e)(3)(A) of the Act requires a 

Governor of a State or Territory to notify 

FirstNet, NTIA, and the FCC of a State’s 

decision to opt-out.2 This Notice 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES