[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64337-64342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30834]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 022296A]
Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Titan II and IV Launch Vehicles at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act
[[Page 64338]]
(MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of seals and sea
lions by harassment incidental to launches of Titan II and Titan IV
launch vehicles at Space Launch Complex 4 (SLC-4), Vandenberg Air Force
Base, CA (Vandenberg), has been issued to the U.S. Air Force.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This authorization is effective from November 27, 1996,
through November 26, 1997.
ADDRESSES: The application and authorization are available for review
in the following offices: Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and
the Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead, Marine Mammal
Division, Office of Protected Resources at 301-713-2055, or Irma
Lagomarsino, Southwest Regional Office at 301-980-4016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but
not intentional taking 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 regulations are
issued.
Permission may 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; and the permissible methods of taking
and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such
taking are set forth.
The MMPA Amendments of 1994 added a new subsection 101(a)(5)(D) to
the MMPA to establish an expedited process by which citizens of the
United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small
numbers of marine mammals by harassment for a period of up to 1 year.
The MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
* * *any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (a) has
the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild; or (b) 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.
New subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for
NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and
comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental
harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the
close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of
the authorization.
Summary of Request
On January 24, 1996, NMFS received an application from the U.S. Air
Force requesting an authorization for the harassment of small numbers
of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus
californianus), northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris),
northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and possibly Guadalupe fur
seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) in the vicinity of Vandenberg and on
the Northern Channel Islands (NCI). These harassment takes would result
from launchings of Titan II and Titan IV rockets. This authorization
would continue an authorization issued, for a 5-year period under
regulations, on August 22, 1991 (56 FR 41628) for Titan IV launches,
that expired on September 23, 1996. NMFS anticipates that this 1-year
authorization, along with others issued previously for Lockheed launch
vehicles (61 FR 38437, July 24, 1996) and McDonnell Douglas Delta II
launch vehicles (60 FR 52653, October 10, 1995), will be replaced by a
new set of regulations, under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA,
governing incidental takes of marine mammals by launches of all rocket
types from Vandenberg. An application for a small take authorization
under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA is under development by the Air
Force.
A notice of receipt of the Titan IV application and the proposed
authorization was published on March 15, 1996 (61 FR 10727) and a 30-
day public comment period was provided on the application and proposed
authorization.
Comments and Responses
During the 30-day comment period, two letters were received. The
comments contained in those letters are addressed below, however the
comment order has been modified for clarity. Other than information
necessary to respond to the comments, additional background information
on the activity and request can be found in the proposed authorization
notice and needs not be repeated here.
Comment 1: What are the standards regarding ``small numbers''
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA? A sonic boom of any kind that
impacts San Miguel Island (SMI) will harass between a couple of
thousand to tens of thousands of pinnipeds of several species. Every
launch at Vandenberg will harass between several dozen to several
hundred harbor seals along the Vandenberg coastline.
Response: In 50 CFR 216.103 (previously 50 CFR 228.3), NMFS defined
``small numbers'' to mean a portion of a marine mammal species or stock
whose taking would have a negligible impact on that species or stock.
Negligible impact is the 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. At this time, there is no scientific
evidence to indicate that either launch noises or sonic booms are
adversely affecting the species or stocks of marine mammals in southern
California waters.
Comment 2: The statement of policy on page 10730 appears to suggest
that a rule has been issued to distinguish between harassment on land
and harassment in the water. Is this correct, or is this a statement of
a rule being made by the present notice?
Response: NMFS is presently reviewing the issue of noise in marine
waters and its effect on marine mammals. Based upon that review, NMFS
expects to propose policy and guidance on what does and what does not
constitute a take by harassment and thereby subject to authorization
under the MMPA. Until new policy is implemented, NMFS' working
definition is that incidental harassment has not taken place
(sufficient to warrant an incidental small take authorization) if the
marine mammal indicates simple alert, startle, or dive reaction in
response to a single noise event. For airborne events, only if marine
mammals move away from the noise or other harassment source, either
towards the water if on land, or an obvious directional change seaward
if already in the surf zone, does NMFS consider a harassment event to
have taken place.
Comment 3: To my knowledge there were only 4 launches of Titan IV
from Vandenberg from 1990 through July 1995, not eight as stated in the
notice. A fifth occurred in December 1995.
Response: The statement should have read that the total number of
Titan II and Titan IV launches from 1990 through July 1995 was eight.
Comment 4: The statement on page 10728 does not correctly report
the information reported by Stewart et al.
[[Page 64339]]
(1993a, 1993b). Those reports found that the 70 dBA (re: 20
micropascals) threshold of the acoustic monitoring instruments
positioned at Rocky Point were exceeded about 49-60 seconds after
launch initiation. The launch noise impacting Rocky Point remained
above 70 dBA for 94 seconds in 1992 and 81 seconds in 1993. One hour
average sound levels prior to launch varied (in 1993) between 52 and 59
dBA.
Although no sonic boom was recorded at Pt. Bennett during the
launch on March 8, 1991, rocket noise was recorded at Pt. Bennett
beginning about 3.5 minutes after launch. The noise lasted 40 seconds;
the wide-band sound pressure level (SPL) was 78.2 dB in the frequency
range 1.2 to 100 Hz with greatest amplitude above ambient noise level
(+5 to 20 dB) at between 5 and 20 Hz. So the statement presented in the
notice was not entirely correct.
Response: Based upon the references cited, the noise event at
Vandenberg is expected to last between 1 1/2 minutes (Stewart et al.
1993a, 1993b) and 2 minutes, 11 seconds (Stewart et al. 1992) and not
the shorter time cited in the proposed authorization. Also, launch
event noise will reach SMI approximately 3.5 minutes following the
launch and may be detectable to pinnipeds on SMI for less than 1
minute. It should be noted, however, that launch noise reaching, and
being recorded on, SMI either did not result in recordable effects on
observed pinnipeds on the island (Stewart et al. 1991, 1993b) or
resulted in simple alert behavior (Eidson et al. 1996).
Comment 5: There is more than a potential for harassment, it is a
virtual certainty. Any harbor seals hauled out along the Vandenberg
coast during launch will startle and most, if not all, will likely flee
into the water.
Response: While harbor seals may be found at several locations
along the 35 mile Vandenberg coastline, the potential for a startle
response and water entry will depend upon the location of the harbor
seal haulout in relation to SLC-4 and whether the launch is for the
Titan II or Titan IV. It is presumed that all harbor seals at Rocky
Point and Purisima Point, the main haulouts closest to SLC-4, will
enter the water in response to launch noises from either launch
vehicle. In addition, it is presumed that harbor seals and other
pinniped species onshore between Purisima Point and Jalama Creek will
also enter the water.
Comment 6: The potential for harassment of pinnipeds on the NCI
appears to be understated. It appears that all but one launch
trajectory will result in sonic booms impacting one or several of the
NCIs.
Response: Based upon the four previously monitored launches (those
expected to produce a focused sonic boom over SMI), two of the launches
(March 8, 1991 (night launch), and November 28, 1992 (day launch),
apparently did not cause sonic booms over SMI, and there was no
response by pinniped species on the island to either launch (Stewart et
al. 1991, 1993a). The November 7, 1991, night launch produced a
relatively mild sonic boom (111.7 dBA) but no movement to water by any
pinnipeds. The August 2, 1993 launch (which exploded during flight)
produced an alert response due to a sonic boom-like noise event, but no
movement to the water until additional rumbling and popping noises were
received due to the explosion (Air Force 1996).
The May 12, 1996, Titan IV launch sonic boom was predicted to
intersect the eastern end of SMI with overpressures also impacting the
other NCI. Monitoring was conducted at strategic locations on SMI and
other islands. Cardwell Point beach was the predicted location of
greatest impact. Additional information on the impact assessment from
that launch is provided below.
As a result of this comment, the U.S. Air Force provided NMFS with
predicted sonic boom footprints for the two planned launches during the
time this authorization is to be in effect. These indicate that no
sonic boom would occur on SMI from either launch, and only an outside
chance of the sonic boom contacting the southern coast of Santa Rosa
Island if the planned July 1997 launch were delayed until September.
Comment 7: The discussion of haulout behavior of harbor seals is
largely speculative and parts are logically inconsistent; e.g., it is
stated that seals need to leave the water to avoid aquatic predators,
yet later that when disturbed by humans that seals will move into the
safety of the water. It is not clear what this narrative is intended to
accomplish. It could argue that any single disturbance either could or
could not have an effect on them.
Response: The statement in the proposed authorization contains the
best scientific evidence on why pinnipeds haul out of the water and why
they return to the sea when disturbed. The referenced statements were
provided to illustrate that flight is a natural reaction to limit
predation both onshore and in the water and are not necessarily limited
to anthropogenic noise and human intrusions. For example, Eidson et al.
(1996) reported that groups of 50-100 California sea lions on SMI
alerted and entered the water about 2-4 times daily due to
disturbances, including those caused by gull alarm calls.
Comment 8: The scope of studies cited was not sufficient to
determine conclusively whether mortality may have resulted from
physical or physiological impacts with delayed effects (i.e., auditory
trauma).
Response: NMFS agrees. The cited studies monitor for short-term
effects, such as pup mortality, caused by launch noise and sonic booms.
It must be recognized also that long-term effects of noise on marine
mammals will be difficult to study or to prove that the mortality was
caused in whole or part by launch noises or sonic booms from launches
of Titan IIs or Titan IVs from Vandenberg. However, as a result of
concerns, the U.S. Air Force is planning to conduct these long-term
effect studies (Air Force 1996b, Eidson et al. 1996).
Comment 9: The statements referenced to Bowles and Stewart (1980)
are wrong as stated. They were apparently taken out of context. The
reference ``tendency to flee'' referred to California sea lions, not
harbor seals. The reference to maternal-pup separations in crowded
rookeries referred only to northern elephant seals. The final
speculative statement is unfounded.
Response: The commenter is correct. There is no evidence that
harbor seals are less reactive during pupping season than at other
times (Bowles and Stewart 1980). However, while Bowles and Stewart
(1980, p. 132) were discussing harbor seals, they cited Johnson (1977)
and Le Beouf et al. (1972) as sources for their statements. While
Johnson (1977) does discuss harbor seals, Le Beouf et al. (1972)
references elephant seals. This was not made clear by Bowles and
Stewart.
Comment 10: The summary of the data from Heath et al. (1991) about
female foraging patterns is incorrect. After an 8-day post-partum
period of shore attendance, the attendance patterns are approximately 2
days at sea and 1-2 days ashore.
Response: Thank you for the clarification.
Comment 11: The statement about ``negligible short-term impact''
(under ``Potential Effects * * *on Marine Mammals'') evidently is in
reference only to considerations of behavior responses of seals to
launch noise. Depending on a seal's predisposure to auditory trauma,
the noise impacting Rocky Point could cause auditory damage, temporary
at least. The
[[Page 64340]]
potential for, and consequences of, such impact on individuals and
populations are as yet unstudied.
Response: While empirical data is still unavailable as the
commenter noted, theoretical calculations indicate that temporary
threshold shift (TTS) injury is unlikely at Rocky Point. The A-weighted
SPL at this pinniped haulout from a Titan IV launch was measured, on
May 12, 1996, at 96.2 db (re 20 Pa @ 1 m). This is
approximately equivalent to a freight train passing at 50 ft. This SPL
measurement is lower than previous launches (98.7-101.8 dBA). At this
time, based upon the best scientific information available, launch
noise at the measured SPL is considered below the level that would
cause long-term injury to pinnipeds.
Comment 12: Preliminary results of studies on the impacts of large
overpressures at (focused or superbooms) and near the leading edge of
the boom's impact on the auditory function of pinnipeds, indicate
short-term TTS in harbor seals exposed to simulated Titan IV booms of 2
to 7 psf and in California sea lions exposed to booms of 4 to 7 psf
(lasting about 2.5 hours). Studies on northern elephant seals are
underway and tests with a few animals should be completed by September.
The potential impacts of larger overpressures (7-30 psf) on pinniped
auditory function are still unknown. One possible means of determining
them would be to conduct hearing tests on animals at field sites during
launches when zones of impact can be predicted to include haulouts and
rookeries.
Response: NMFS agrees that hearing tests on marine mammals ashore
during launches would provide important empirical information on both
short-term and potential long-term impacts from launch noise and sonic
booms. Research, currently under development by the U.S. Air Force,
proposes to study auditory brainstem response on free-ranging pinnipeds
exposed to Vandenberg sonic booms. However, as such studies would
likely require capture and holding pinnipeds for testing, a scientific
research permit under section 104 of the MMPA will be necessary prior
to beginning these studies.
Comment 13: The potential consequences of subsurface propagation of
loud sonic booms on hearing abilities of marine mammals in general has
not been studied. Theoretical studies (e.g., Sparrow 1995) have shown
however, that substantial sonic boom energy can propagate to depths of
100 m or more. The potential for auditory damage to animals will depend
on the characteristics of that noise v. depth matched with the hearing
abilities of animals, their predisposition to trauma, and their
increased sensitivity to noise in water relative to in air.
This issue is one of continuing discussion among an ad hoc group of
physicists, acousticians and biologists. Therefore, some vigilance and
moderate documentation of behavioral, auditory, and population
responses to these sonic boom events will be able to resolve concerns
about their immediate and long-term population impacts.
Response: While theoretical studies (Sparrow 1995, Cook 1972)
indicate that sonic boom noise will penetrate ocean waters, these
studies and others have also confirmed that the sonic boom plane wave
must be less than 13.2o in order to have a portion of the energy
propagate into the water. This generally limits duration of sound
underwater, at least when compared to airborne noise. Furthermore, it
is unclear from the references, which refer to supersonic aircraft and
not to rocket launches, whether any sound energy will be propagated
into the ocean along the shockwave propagation path of an ascending
rocket. Since a sonic boom from a Titan is not expected to intersect
with the ocean surface until the vehicle changes its launch trajectory,
the area potentially vulnerable to the shockwave, if sound energy is
propagated through the seasurface interface, would be relatively small.
This location will always be well offshore, where marine mammal density
is significantly less than in nearshore waters. The issue of subsurface
propagation of airborne sonic booms is proposed for investigation by
the U.S. Air Force.
Comment 14: The effects of launch noise on auditory function
remains unstudied and unknown, although these levels do have the
potential for causing auditory threshold shift. Also, no studies of
auditory effects were done by Stewart (1981, 1982). Why not measure
launch noises to resolve any question of concern.
Response: NMFS agrees that effects on auditory function remains
unstudied. Such research is now in the early planning and funding stage
(Air Force 1996b). However, as reported above, launch noise was
measured during the May 12, 1996, and will be measured at future
launches when necessary to conduct planned pinniped research.
Comment 15: The frequency of disturbances reported were for 1978-
1979, more than 16 years ago and are of questionable relevance to
discussions today.
Response: While true, NMFS emphasizes that no comparable studies
are known by NMFS to have been conducted since that time. As NMFS has
used the best scientific information, and as no data is available to
show the magnitude of any increase in events that might cause
harassment, no changes are necessary to the statement.
Comment 16: It is impossible to consider the potential for impact
or non-impact of the theoretical calculation of ``147 dB'' without more
information on the standards of reference of pressure and weighting for
this metric. The level of worst case Titan IV boom was stated to be 147
dBA in the EA in 1990. That translates to an unweighted boom of 177 dB
(296 psf: SIC-29.6 psf). Which value is correct and why?
Response: As noted by Richardson et al. (1995), apparently
acoustical researchers are not uniformly conscientious about citing
their reference units. When this occurs, it can lead to a problem in
interpretation of results, as apparently happened in writing the EA in
1990. However, while theoretical calculations suggested that Titan IV
focused sonic booms may reach 10-18 psf (147-154 dB A-weighted) (Air
Force 1988, 1990), measured peak overpressures for the May 12, 1996,
Titan IV launch at Crook's Point, SMI was 8.4 psf (corrected value).
The maximum focused peak pressure of 9.5 psf was predicted to occur
over water 5 km east of SMI and 5 km north of SRI (Keegan 1996).
In 1990, the Air Force considered a ``worst case'' sonic boom
overpressure to be about 147 dBA and cited Chappell (1980) as
indicating that a sonic boom would need to have a peak overpressure in
the range of 138 to 169 dB to cause TTS in marine mammals, with TTS
lasting at most a few minutes. Because Chappell (1980), did not always
provide standards of reference, NMFS believes them to be A-weighted.
This assumption is supported by Richardson et al.'s (1995) wherein for
airborne noise, whenever references for low frequency noises are not
provided, it should be assumed that the levels are A-weighted.
Comment 17: The zone of focused or super-boom, although relatively
small compared to the entire zone of boom impact, it is nevertheless
large enough to encompass substantial haulouts and rookeries on the NCI
inhabited by thousands to tens of thousands of pinnipeds (both
behavioral and auditory responses are of concern; dose-response
relationships available today are not adequate to rule out substantial
impacts). Further the overpressures outside of this focusing area are
still large over a broad area.
Response: NMFS recognizes that, depending upon the launch
trajectory,
[[Page 64341]]
some haulouts and rookeries, containing substantial numbers of
pinnipeds, may be affected by a focused sonic boom. NMFS reiterates
that there is no scientific evidence to indicate that sonic booms from
Titan IV rockets are resulting in more than a TTS injury. However, as
mentioned previously, research is being designed that will provide
evidence to support (or refute) the hypothesis that pinnipeds can incur
serious injury from a focused sonic boom.
The area outside the zone of focused pressure was measured at 2 psf
to 0.9 psf during the May 1996 Titan IV launch. While loud, this is not
a substantial noise event that should result in injury to marine
mammals. It would be equivalent to the Space Shuttle landing at Edwards
Air Force Base.
Comment 18: What is the source and support for the belief that
marine mammals are less sensitive than humans to low-frequency sonic
booms. If any, it must be qualified by the characteristics of the sonic
boom other than frequency content (i.e., rise time, peak overpressure,
duration). The subsequent statements about humans are irrelevant
without qualification of the parameters of sonic booms produced by
various aircraft. The narrative suggests that humans have been adopted
as a standard for comparison to pinnipeds.
Response: References for these statements were provided in the
proposed authorization notice. However, until more empirical work on
the effects of sonic boom noise on pinnipeds becomes available,
information on the effects on surrogate species, such as humans,
becomes the best scientific information available. When the results
from research on impacts from sonic booms are published, NMFS presumes
that such research will provide the characteristics of the sonic boom
(i.e., frequency content, rise time, peak overpressure, duration). This
will then allow more accurate comparisons between different sonic boom
characteristics and a better assessment of impacts on pinnipeds and
other marine mammals.
Comment 19: The report by Chappel (1980) was a summary of
literature available until 1977. It has little relevance to
considerations of potential impacts now, particularly several studies
have demonstrated temporary and permanent auditory damage in mammals at
substantially lower amplitudes. Further, the metrics restated are of
limited use for evaluating impacts without reference to appropriate
standards (and without additional parameters). The statement needs some
documentation, particularly with respect to rapid rise time, peak
amplitude and duration; impulse noises created by large supersonic
rockets (and their large plumes) are characterized by combinations of
these metrics that create greater risk to auditory function than do
other kinds of impulse noise. Therefore, the conclusion that effects
will be temporary at most and the individual survival will not be
affected lacks scientific support.
Response: The paper by Chappell (1980), although dated, appears to
be the latest summarization of information that is available. A more
recent discussion can be found in Richardson et al. (1995). While
studies on pinniped TTS and permanent threshold shift injuries may have
been conducted, literature searches have failed to reveal them. In
addition, the commenter did not provide references for this data. As a
result, the information provided in the proposed authorization is
considered to be the best science available at this time.
Comment 20: The mild boom that impacted Pt. Bennett (during the
1991 Titan IV launches), where the behavioral observations were made
had a sound exposure level of 86.2 dB (MXFA). The peak values indicated
in the Notice were recorded over 5 miles away at the east end of SMI.
Pre-launch predictions had indicated that no sonic boom should impact
Pt. Bennett during the launch. The two impulse noises (sonic boom on
Nov. 7, 1991; explosion on Aug. 2, 1993) that were recorded at Pt.
Bennett during Titan IV launches were quite mild relative to the booms
that are expected to impact pinnipeds on the NCI in and near zones of
focusing. The behavioral observations reported in the Notice should be
considered in context of those differences.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 21: The discussion (on cumulative effects from noise)
appears to be confused in its treatment of sonic boom propagation and
impact compared to non-impulse characteristics. Attention should be
paid to the potential impact of sonic booms on animals at and below the
sea-surface, as highlighted by recent theoretical predictions of
subsurface propagation of impulse noise energy.
Response: The statements contained in the proposed authorization
notice appear supportable by the references. Marine mammals, at or near
the surface of the water, would be subject to potential harassment by
incurring a short-term TTS-injury, if they were within the relatively
small area of a focused sonic boom. New information (Dave Eidson, pers.
comm, November 6, 1996) however, appears to support a hypothesis that,
unlike aircraft sonic booms, which are the subject of most previous
research on subsurface propagation, sonic booms from launch vehicles
have, at most, a very small area of potential subsurface penetration.
If true, it would further limit the potential for injury or harassment
to subsurface marine mammals than was indicted in the previous Federal
Register notice.
Comment 22: Statements on sonic boom effects rely on literature
surveys and best guesses made in the late 1970s. Subsequent studies on
other mammals have shown cause for greater concern for exposure to
impulse noises of 2 psf and above depending on their characteristics,
particularly those typical of loud and focused sonic booms generated by
large supersonic space launch vehicles.
Response: NMFS is unaware of any recent studies on the effects of
low-intensity sonic booms on any mammals relevant to the concern here,
and the commenter did not provide references to support these
statements. As mentioned above, new research has been identified to
answer this concern.
Comment 23: My understanding was that the EA mentioned here was
for launching Titan IV/NUS or Titan IV/Centaur from a new launch
complex but that those plans were later cancelled. Although the issues
for a launch program from SLC-4 are similar to those addressed in that
EA, I believe the scope of the earlier EA does not match the scope of
the current program. The earlier EAs considered that only SMI might be
impacted by a sonic boom and that the odds of that happening were
slight and so the concerns centered on the impacts of a focused boom
should it occur. The current program appears to involve sonic boom
impacts to one or more of the islands during most of the launches. If
that is true then the previous EA would not seem applicable to the
Titan IV and Titan II programs being considered now.
Response: In 1988, the Air Force released a final environmental
impact statement for the Titan IV launch vehicle modifications and
launch operations program (Air Force 1988). Impacts to marine mammals
as a result of Titan II launches were evaluated in an EA published by
the Air Force in 1989 (Air Force 1989). On December 21, 1990, NMFS
published an EA (NMFS 1990) on an authorization to the Air Force to
incidentally take marine mammals during launches of the Titan IV space
vehicle from Vandenberg. The finding of that EA was that the issuance
of the authorization would not
[[Page 64342]]
significantly affect the quality of the human environment and therefore
an environmental impact statement on the issuance of regulations
authorizing an incidental take was not necessary. The incidental
harassment of marine mammals by the launch of the Titan IV on May 12,
1996, was authorized under NMFS regulations issued after the 1990 EA.
Because the scope of the applicant's activity has not been modified
significantly from that addressed in the earlier EA, and because the
Titan IV launches during this proposed 1-year authorization is not
expected to result in a sonic boom impacting NCI, a new EA is
unnecessary.
Comment 24: What consultation has been conducted regarding the
northern fur seal?
Response: Although the northern fur seal is listed as depleted
under the MMPA, the species is not listed as either threatened or
endangered under the ESA. As a result, consultation under section 7 of
the ESA is not necessary for this species. Consultation has been
completed for the Guadalupe fur seal, the only pinniped listed under
the ESA and inhabiting the NCI. Other listed species are either not
believed to be affected by launching Titan II and Titan IV rockets from
Vandenberg, or are not species under the jurisdiction of NMFS.
Conclusion
Based upon the information provided in the proposed authorization
and these comments, NMFS has determined that the short-term impact of
the launching of Titan II and Titan IV rockets is expected to result at
worst, in a temporary reduction in utilization of the haulout as seals,
sea lions or fur seals leave the beach for the safety of the water.
These launchings are not expected to result in any reduction in the
number of pinnipeds, and they are expected to continue to occupy the
same area. In addition, there will not be any impact on the habitat
itself. Based upon studies conducted for previous space vehicle
launches at Vandenberg, significant long-term impacts on pinnipeds at
Vandenberg and NCI are unlikely.
Therefore, since NMFS is assured that the taking will not result in
more than the harassment (as defined by the MMPA Amendments of 1994) of
a small number of harbor seals, northern elephant seals, California sea
lions, northern fur seals and possibly Guadalupe fur seals; would have
only a negligible impact on the species, and would result in the least
practicable impact on the stock, NMFS determined that the requirements
of section 101(a)(5)(D) had been met and the incidental harassment
authorization was issued.
Dated: November 27, 1996.
Patricia A. Montanio,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-30834 Filed 12-03-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
