41260 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XL89 

Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals 

During Specified Activities; Marine 

Geophysical Survey in Southeast Asia, 

March–July 2009 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance and 

modification of an incidental take 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulations, notification is 

hereby given that NMFS issued and 

modified an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to Lamont-Doherty 

Earth Observatory (L–DEO), a part of 

Columbia University, for the take small 

numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to conducting a 

marine seismic survey in Southeast (SE) 

Asia during March–July 2009. 

DATES: Effective March 31, 2009, 

through August 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and 

application are available by writing to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3235 or by telephoning the 

contact listed here. A copy of the 

application containing a list of the 

references used in this document may 

be obtained by writing to the address 

specified above, telephoning the contact 

listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or online at: 

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

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may be viewed, by appointment, 

during regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Ken Hollingshead, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–713–2289. 

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 marine mammals 

by United States (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. 

Authorization for incidental taking 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ‘‘ * * * an impact resulting 

from the specified activity that cannot 

be reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the U.S. can apply for 

an authorization to incidentally take 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

harassment. 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’’]. 

16 U.S.C. 1362(18) 

Section 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 October 27, 2008, NMFS received 

an application from L–DEO for the 

taking, by Level B harassment only, of 

small numbers of marine mammals 

incidental to conducting, under 

cooperative agreement with the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), a marine 

seismic survey in SE Asia. The funding 

for the Taiwan Integrated Geodynamics 

Research (TAIGER) survey is provided 

by the NSF. The proposed survey will 

encompass the area 17°30′–26°30′ N, 

113°30′–126° E within the Exclusive 

Economic Zones (EEZ) of Taiwan, 

Japan, and the Philippines, and on the 

high seas, and is scheduled to occur 

from March 31 to July 20, 2009. Some 

minor deviation from these dates is 

possible, depending on logistics and 

weather. 

Taiwan is one of only a few sites of 

arc-continent collision worldwide; and 

one of the primary tectonic 

environments for large scale mountain 

building. The primary purpose of the 

TAIGER project is to investigate the 

processes of mountain building, a 

fundamental set of processes which 

plays a major role in shaping the face of 

the Earth. The vicinity of Taiwan is 

particularly well-suited for this type of 

study, because the collision can be 

observed at different stages of its 

evolution, from incipient, to mature, 

and finally to post-collision. 

As a result of its location in an 

ongoing tectonic collision zone, Taiwan 

experiences a great number of 

earthquakes, most are small, but many 

are large and destructive. This project 

will provide a great deal of information 

about the nature of the earthquakes 

around Taiwan and will lead to a better 

assessment of the earthquake hazards in 

the area. The information obtained from 

this study will help the people and the 

earthquake hazards in the area. The 

information obtained from this study 

will help the people and government of 

Taiwan to better prepare for future 

seismic events and may thus mitigate 

some of the loss of life and economic 

disruptions that will inevitably occur. 

The action is planned to take place in 

the territorial seas and EEZ’s of foreign 

nations, and will be continuous with the 

activity that takes place on the high 

seas. NMFS does not authorize the 

incidental take of marine mammals in 

the territorial seas of foreign nations, as 

the MMPA does not apply in those 

waters. However, NMFS still needs to 

calculate the level of incidental take in 

territorial seas as part of the analysis 

supporting issuance of an IHA in order 

to determine the biological accuracy of 

the small numbers and negligible 

impact determination. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

The planned survey will involve one 

source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. 

Langseth (Langseth), which will occur 

in SE Asia. The Langseth will deploy an 

array of 36 airguns (6,600 in3) as an 

energy source at a tow depth of 6–9 m 

(20–30 ft). The receiving system will 

consist of a hydrophone streamer and 

approximately 100 ocean bottom 

seismometers (OBSs). The Langseth will 

deploy an 8 km (5 mi) long streamer for 

most transects requiring a streamer; 

however, a shorter streamer (500 m to 2 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41261 

km or 1,640 ft to 1.2 mi) will be used 

during surveys in Taiwan (Formosa) 

Strait. As the airgun array is towed 

along the survey lines, the hydrophone 

streamer will receive the returning 

acoustic signals and transfer the data to 

the on-board processing system. The 

OBSs record the returning acoustic 

signals internally for later analysis. The 

OBSs to be used for the TAIGER 

program will be deployed and retrieved 

numerous times by a combination of 4 

or 5 Taiwanese support vessels, as well 

as the Langseth. The Langseth will also 

retrieve 20 OBSs that were deployed in 

the study area during previous years to 

record earthquake activity. 

Approximately 100 OBSs will be 

deployed during the survey. OBSs will 

likely be deployed and retrieved by the 

Langseth as well as a combination of 4 

to 5 Taiwanese vessels. The Taiwanese 

vessels to be used include two 30 m 

(98.4 ft) vessels (the R/V Ocean 

Researcher 2 and the R/V Ocean 

Researcher 3) and two vessels greater 

than 60 m (196.8 ft) in length (R/V 

Fisheries Research I and the Navy ship 

Taquan). The R/V Ocean Research I 

may also be used if the Langseth is not 

used to deploy OBSs. The OBS 

deployment spacing will vary 

depending on the number of 

instruments available and shiptime. The 

nominal spacing is 15 km (9.3 mi), but 

this will vary from as little as 5 km (3.1 

mi) to perhaps as much as 25 km (15.5 

mi). The OBSs will be deployed and 

recovered several (2 to 4) times. 60 of 

the 100 OBSs may be deployed from the 

Langseth. All OBSs will be retrieved at 

the end of the study. 

Up to 3 different types of OBSs may 

be used during the 2009 program. The 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

(WHOI) ‘‘D2’’ OBS has a height of 

approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) and a 

maximum diameter of 50 cm. The 

anchor is made of hot-rolled steel and 

weighs 23 kg (50.7 lbs). The anchor 

dimensions are 2.5 x 30.5 x 38.1 cm. 

The LC4x4 OBS from the Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography (SIO) has a 

volume of approximately 1 m3 (3.3 ft2), 

with an anchor that consists of a large 

piece of steel grating (approximately 1 

m2 or 3.3 ft2). Taiwanese OBSs will also 

be used; their anchor is in the shape of 

an ‘x’ with dimensions of 51–76 cm2

(1.7–2.5 ft2). Once the OBS is ready to 

be retrieved an acoustic release 

transponder interrogates the OBS at a 

frequency of 9–11 kHz, and a response 

is received at a frequency of 9–13 kHz. 

The burn wire release assembly is then 

activated, and the instrument is released 

from the anchor to float to the surface. 

The seismic survey as described in 

the Federal Register notice (73 FR 

78294, December 22, 2008) for the 

proposed IHA was 15,902 km (9,881 mi) 

in length. After public comment, L–DEO 

revised the tracklines so that the seismic 

survey consists of approximately 14,515 

km (9,019 mi) of transect lines within 

the South and East China Seas as well 

as the Philippine Sea, with the majority 

of the survey effort occurring in the 

South China Sea. The total length of the 

revised tracklines is approximately 9 

percent less than the total length of the 

original tracklines. The survey will take 

place in water depths ranging from 

approximately 25 to 6,585 m (82–21,598 

ft), but most of the survey effort 

(approximately 84.4 percent) will take 

place in water greater than 1,000 m 

(3,280 ft), 11.4 percent will take place in 

intermediate depth waters (100–1,000 m 

or 328–3,280 ft), and 4.2 percent will 

occur in shallow depth water (less than 

100 m or 328 ft). 

All planned geophysical data 

acquisition activities will be conducted 

by L–DEO with onboard assistance by 

the scientists who have proposed the 

study. The scientific team consists of Dr. 

Francis Wu (State University of New 

York at Binghamton) and Dr. Kirk 

McIntosh (University of Texas at Austin, 

Institute of Geophysics). The vessel will 

be self-contained, and the crew will live 

aboard the vessel for the entire cruise. 

In addition to the operations of the 

airgun array, a 12 kHz Simrad EM 120 

multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a 

3.5 kHz sub-bottom profiler (SBP) will 

be operated from the Langseth 

continuously throughout the TAIGER 

cruise. 

Dates, Duration, and Region of Activity 

The survey will encompass the area 

from approximately 17°30′–26°30′ N, 

113°30′–126° E within the EEZs of 

Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines. The 

vessel will approach mainland Taiwan 

within 5.2 km (3.2 mi) and mainland 

China within 116 km (72 mi). The vessel 

will approach within 3.7 km (2.3 mi) 

and 105 km (65 mi) of islands off the 

coast of Taiwan and China, respectively. 

The closest approach to the Ryuku 

Islands and Okinawa Islands will be 

51.5 km (32 mi) and approximately 400 

km (249 mi), respectively. Although the 

survey will occur at least 32 km (29.9 

mi) from Luzon, Philippines, survey 

lines will take place approximately 28.6 

km (17.8 mi) and 8.8 km (5.5 mi) from 

the Babuyan and Batan islands, 

respectively. Water depths in the survey 

area range from approximately 25 to 

6,280 m (164–20,603 ft). There are not 

seismic lines in less than 50 m (164 ft) 

water depth. The closest seismic line to 

land is approximately 3.7 km (2.3 mi) 

from an island off the east coast of 

Taiwan. The TAIGER program consists 

of 4 legs, each starting and ending in 

Kao-hsiung, Taiwan. The first leg is 

expected to occur from approximately 

March 31 to April 28, 2009 and will 

include the survey lines in the South 

China Sea. The second leg is scheduled 

for May 3 to June 3, 2009 and will 

include survey lines around Taiwan. 

The third leg (approximately June 7–14, 

2009) will involve OBS recovery by the 

Langseth only; no seismic acquisition 

will occur during this leg. The fourth 

leg, consisting of the survey lines in the 

Luzon Strait and Philippine Sea, is 

scheduled to occur from June 18 to July 

20, 2009. The program will consist of 

approximately 103 days of seismic 

acquisition. The exact dates of the 

activities depend on logistics and 

weather conditions. 

Safety Radii 

L–DEO estimated the safety radii 

around their operations using a model 

and by adjusting the model results 

based on empirical data gathered in the 

Gulf of Mexico in 2003. Additional 

information regarding safety radii in 

general, how the safety radii were 

calculated, and how the empirical 

measurements were used to correct the 

modeled numbers may be found in 

NMFS’ proposed IHA notice (73 FR 

78294, December 22, 2008) and L–DEO’s 

application. Using the modeled 

distances and various correction factors, 

Table 1 outlines the distances at which 

three rms sound levels (190 dB, 180 dB, 

and 160 dB) are expected to be received 

from the various airgun configurations 

in shallow, intermediate, and deep 

water depths. 

Source and volume Tow depth (m) Water depth 

Predicted RMS Distances (m) 

190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 

Single Bolt airgun 40 in3 ................... *6–9 Deep ................................................. 12 40 385 

........................ Intermediate ..................................... 18 60 578 

........................ Shallow ............................................. 150 296 1,050 

4 strings 36 airguns 6600 in3 ........... 6–7 Deep ................................................. 220 710 4,670 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41262 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

Source and volume Tow depth (m) Water depth 

Predicted RMS Distances (m) 

190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 

........................ Intermediate ..................................... 330 1,065 5,189 

........................ Shallow ............................................. 1,600 2,761 6,227 

8–9 Deep ................................................. 300 950 6,000 

........................ Intermediate ..................................... 450 1,425 6,667 

........................ Shallow ............................................. 2,182 3,694 8,000 

Table 1. Predicted distances to which sound levels ≥190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa might be received in shallow (<100 m; 328 ft), intermediate (100–1,000 m; 328–3,280 ft), and deep (>1,000 m; 3,280 ft) water from the 36 airgun array, as well as a single airgun, used during the 

Central American SubFac and STEEP Gulf of Alaska survey, and planned during the TAIGER SE Asia survey. *The tow depth has minimal effect on the maximum near-field output and the shape of the frequency spectrum for the single 40 in3 airgun; thus, the predicted safety radii are 

essentially the same at each tow depth. The most precautionary distances (i.e., for the deepest tow depth, 9m) are shown. 

Because the predictions in Table 1 are 

based in part on empirical correction 

factors derived from acoustic calibration 

of airgun configurations different from 

those to be used on the Langseth (cf. 

Tolstoy et al., 2004a,b), L–DEO 

conducted an acoustic calibration study 

of the Langseth’s 36 airgun 

(approximately 6,600 in3) array in late 

2007/early 2008 in the Gulf of Mexico 

(LGL Ltd., 2006). Distances where sound 

levels (e.g., 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 

μPa rms) were received in deep, 

intermediate, and shallow water will be 

determined for various airgun 

configurations. Acoustic data analysis is 

ongoing and a scientific paper on the 

Langseth calibration study is currently 

in review for future publication 

(Tolstoy, pers. comm.). After analysis, 

the empirical data from the 2007/2008 

calibration study will be used to refine 

the exclusion zones (EZ) proposed 

above for use during the TAIGER cruise, 

if the data are appropriate and available 

for use at the time of the survey. 

A more detailed description of the 

authorized action, including vessel and 

acoustic source specifications, was 

included in the proposed IHA notice (73 

FR 78294, December 22, 2008). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of the L–DEO 

application and proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2008 (73 FR 78294). A 

notice extending the public comment 

period by 15 days, to February 5, 2009, 

due to several Federal holidays, was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 16, 2009 (74 FR 2995). During 

the comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission). NMFS also 

received comments from the Center for 

Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (on 

behalf of International Fund for Animal 

Welfare, Whale and Dolphin 

Conservation Society, Cetacean Society 

International [CSI], Animals Asia 

Foundation [AAF], New York Whale 

and Dolphin Action League, Ocean 

Futures Society, and Jean-Michel 

Cousteau), Wild at Heart Legal Defense 

Association (WaH) (on behalf of 

Changhua County Environmental 

Protection Union, Clymene Enterprises, 

Green Party Taiwan, Taiwan Friends of 

the Global Greens, Leviathan Sciences, 

Environment and Animal Society of 

Taiwan, Wild Bird Society of Yunlin, 

Matsu’s Fish Conservation Union, Blue 

Dolphin Alliance, Hong Kong Dolphin 

Conservation Society [HKDCS], Dr. 

Ellen Hines, Taiwan Sustainable Union, 

Jo Marie V. Acebes, APEX 

Environmental, Coral Triangle Oceanic 

Cetacean Program and IUCN Species 

Survival Commission—Cetacean 

Specialist Group, Kimberly Reihl, 

Changhua Coast Conservation Action, 

Ocean Park Corporation, Dr. Bradley 

White, Ketos Ecology, CSI, Dr. Wang 

Ding, Study Centre for Marine 

Conservation, AAF, International 

Laboratory for Dolphin Behaviour 

Research, Mary Speer, and American 

Cetacean Society), CSI, Linking 

Individuals for Nature Conservation 

(LINC), Humane Society International 

(HSI), Dr. John Wang, Eastern Taiwan 

Strait Sousa Technical Advisory 

Working Group (ETSSTAWG), AAF, 

HKDCS, Dr. Robert Brownell, Dr. LienSiang Chou, Dr. Linda Weilgart, Dr. Kirk 

McIntosh and Dr. Francis Wu (Dr. 

McIntosh and Dr. Wu), Dr. Lemnuel 

Aragones, Dr. Joseph Minor and Dr. 

Christine Wilson and James Minor and 

Susan Wilson (Minor and Wilson), and 

a private citizen. The public comments 

can be found online at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. 

The following are their comments, 

and NMFS’ responses. 

Extension Requests 

Comment 1: Numerous parties 

expressed concern regarding L–DEO’s 

IHA application under the MMPA to 

incidentally harass marine mammals 

during a proposed marine geophysical 

survey in SE Asia from March–July, 

2009, as published in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 78294, December 22, 

2008). Many interested persons and 

organizations requested an extension of 

the 30-day public comment period to 

allow for the adequate review of lengthy 

documents associated with the 

proposed IHA and prepare responses. 

Response: NMFS considered these 

requests during the 30-day public 

comment period and published a notice 

in the Federal Register (74 FR 2995, 

January 16, 2009) extending the public 

comment period for the proposed IHA 

from January 21 to February 5, 2009. 

The 15-day extension is due to the 

unique circumstances of the timing of 

the publication of the Federal Register 

notice (74 FR 2995, January 16, 2009) 

relative to several Federal holidays. The 

Federal Register notice (74 FR 2995, 

January 16, 2009) published three days 

before the Christmas holiday, which fell 

on Thursday, December 25, 2008. The 

following day, Friday, December 26, 

2008 was declared a Federal holiday for 

executive branch departments and 

agencies. New Year’s Day, a Federal 

holiday, was the following Thursday, 

January 1, 2009. The 15-day extension 

was given in recognition of the fact that 

the timing of these three holidays led 

many workers to be away for much of 

the two-week period and some nongovernment organizations closed their 

offices during that period. NMFS is also 

aware that the proposed action was for 

a new geographical area rather than a 

renewal of a prior action, where the 

associated documents are lengthy and 

would likely not be familiar to many 

interested parties. NMFS believes that a 

30-day comment period with a 15-day 

extension (for a total of 45 days) is more 

than an adequate time period for the 

public to address concerns and submit 

comments. 

General Comments 

Comment 2: The CRE objects to the 

statement in the proposed IHA (73 FR 

78303, December 22, 2008) on page 

78303, column one, paragraph three, 

that states: ‘‘However, controlled 

exposure experiments in the Gulf of 

Mexico indicate that foraging behavior 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41263 

was altered upon exposure to airgun 

sound (Jochens et al., 2006).’’ CRE states 

that this statement is misleading, and 

does not accurately reflect the 

underlying data, and it is not based on 

the most recent assessment of those 

data. NMFS’ statement cites a 2006 

Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS) in 

the Gulf of Mexico Report which 

discusses data on foraging behavior and 

avoidance movements of seven tagged 

sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico 

during exposure to airguns. The CRE 

requests that NMFS cite the final 2008 

Synthesis Report on SWSS which 

cautions that the ‘‘* * * sample size of 

seven animals that conducted foraging 

dives during exposure was too small to 

provide definitive results * * * the 

power of the test to detect small changes 

in foraging success was low, and no 

conclusions on the biological 

significance of these effects for an 

individual animal or for the populations 

can be made from the data sets 

available.’’ 

Response: As CRE points out in their 

letter, L–DEO acknowledges in their 

application (see Section VI, page 37) 

that seismic energy alters sperm whale 

foraging behavior. NMFS acknowledges 

the commentor’s interpretation of 2006 

SSWS. However, after reviewing the 

2008 Synthesis Report, NMFS believes 

that the following statement: ‘‘* * * 

sample size of 7 animals conducted 

foraging dives during exposure was too 

small to provide definitive results * * * 

the power of the test to detect small 

changes in foraging success was low and 

no conclusions on the biological 

significance of these effects for an 

individual animal or for the population 

can be made from the data sets 

available,’’ refers to having the 

statistical power to detect small changes 

in foraging success. Conversely, page 

264 of the 2008 Synthesis Report states 

the following: ‘‘* * * Our data seem to 

indicate that airgun exposure—even at 

low exposure levels observed in this 

experiment—can result in large 

reductions in foraging rate for some 

individual sperm whales.’’ Therefore, 

the proposed IHA notice statement that 

data indicated alterations in foraging 

behavior, is supported by one of the 

conclusions discussed in the 2008 

Synthesis Report. NSF and L–DEO 

presented this study as one of several 

pieces of information that relate to this 

topic. Though the commenter has 

presented an alternate interpretation of 

the data related to foraging behavior, 

NMFS finds that the EA provides 

sufficient analysis of the available data 

and the information is not such that 

NMFS’ findings. 

Comment 3: The Commission is 

concerned that most of the issues raised 

in its letter have been raised before and, 

to their knowledge, little is being done 

to resolve them. The Commission 

believes that the action agency and 

contractor should bear primary 

responsibility for carrying out the 

studies needed to reduce the existing 

uncertainty and that the authorizing and 

oversight agencies have a degree of 

responsibility as well. 

Response: NMFS has responded to the 

best of its ability regarding all of the 

Commission’s concerns on various 

issues during the public comment 

process. 

Comment 4: The Commission is 

concerned that the opportunity for 

scientists, conservationists, and other 

interested parties from other countries 

to comment on research activities to be 

conducted by U.S. organizations in 

foreign waters. Scientists, 

conservationists, and others are 

generally unfamiliar with the 

procedures for permit review and 

authorization in the U.S. but may have 

a good understanding of the natural 

history and vulnerability of potentially 

affected species. The Commission 

believes that they should be provided 

with opportunities to contribute to the 

evaluation of the potential effects of 

seismic studies in the context of all 

other factors that may be affecting these 

species. If U.S. scientists and 

institutions are to engage in research 

activities in the waters of other 

countries, it stands to reason that our 

system of review should include 

sufficient opportunities for foreign 

parties to comment on potential effects. 

This might be accomplished in any 

number of ways, such as extending the 

comment period to give them additional 

time to comment and promoting 

interaction between the research 

organization and concerned parties from 

other countries. The Commission 

believes such participation is 

appropriate and, in the long run, will 

facilitate international cooperation on 

conservation issues, more informed 

comments, and more risk-averse 

research methods and mitigation 

procedures. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission’s comments. NMFS 

extended the 30 day public comment for 

the proposed IHA by an additional 15 

days to accommodate requests from the 

public. See Extension Request above. 

Comment 5: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. Wu 

have provided some comments about 

the nature and significance of our 

project and also try to allay some of the 

expressed concerns. As an introductory 

statement, the research Dr. McIntosh 

and Dr. Wu plan targets fundamental 

Earth processes that remain 

inadequately understood; this includes 

topics such as the growth and 

composition of continents and the 

fundamental processes of building 

mountains. Dr. McIntosh and Dr. Wu 

choose to do this research in the Taiwan 

region because it is the best location, of 

only a few places globally, where we 

can study the collision of an oceanic 

island chain with a continent. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges Dr. 

McIntosh and Dr. Wu’s comments. 

Comment 6: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. Wu 

state that as for marine mammal safety, 

the community of marine mammal 

biologists can be assured that their 

project is not a reckless intrusion into 

the marine habitat of endangered 

species. In fact, detailed studies have 

been conducted regarding the possible 

impacts of this project on marine 

mammal populations. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges Dr. 

McIntosh and Dr. Wu’s comments. 

NMFS expects the principal scientists to 

abide by the requirements described in 

the IHA issued to L–DEO. After issuance 

of the proposed IHA, L–DEO negotiated 

with the project’s principal scientists to 

modify the cruise plan and adopt more 

precautionary mitigation measures for 

purposes of marine mammal safety in 

the study area. 

Comment 7: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. Wu 

state that they expect to produce the 

most comprehensive subsurface images 

of the rapidly rising Taiwan mountains 

with their data. These images, along 

with seismicity recorded by L–DEO’s 

arrays, will form a greatly enhanced 

basis for evaluating earthquake and 

tsunami potentials of Taiwan and can 

thus be used to improve the safety and 

security of the human population at risk 

to these phenomena. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges Dr. 

McIntosh and Dr. Wu’s comments. 

Comment 8: CSI states that the IHA 

application and EA are similar in many 

respects to previous L–DEO EA’s. The 

response, however, is not. The response 

to this authorization request will prove 

to be unique, a potential watershed in 

the manner all future seismic surveys 

should be critiqued by the scientific 

community. To be helpful, CSI has 

attached some relevant expert reviews 

to their comments, even if they are 

duplicated by others, to ensure that 

NMFS has the opportunity to include 

them in the deliberative process. The 

expert level of opinion and proof 

stimulated by the IHA application and 

EA challenges previous assumption and, 

CSI hopes, will stimulate adequate, 

directed research to enable appropriate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41264 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

mitigations to satisfy various laws, 

including the MMPA. 

Response: NMFS received numerous 

comments from interested parties on L– 

DEO’s proposed IHA for a marine 

geophysical survey in SE Asia, March to 

July 2009. NMFS acknowledges CSI’s 

and other interested parties’ comments 

on the proposed IHA and EA during the 

public comment period. After the 

issuance of the proposed IHA, L–DEO 

modified the cruise plan and adopted 

more precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the monitoring 

and mitigation measures described in 

the IHA will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. 

L–DEO and NSF have formally 

consulted with NMFS’ Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division 

under the MMPA regarding the IHA and 

NMFS’ Endangered Species Division 

regarding a Biological Opinion under 

Section 7 of the ESA for the marine 

geophysical survey in SE Asia. NMFS 

believes L–DEO and NSF have satisfied 

their responsibilities under the laws of 

the MMPA and ESA. 

Comment 9: CSI states that the MMPA 

only authorizes the lethal taking of 

marine mammals under extraordinary 

circumstances that do not apply to the 

scientific research proposed by this 

project. In the opinion of experts, as 

expressed in the attachments, 

mortalities are likely. How can NMFS 

believe that all these experts are wrong, 

or that associated mortalities would not 

violate the MMPA? CSI urges NMFS to 

apply these experts comments to the EA 

and IHA application deficiencies and to 

require that the L–DEO proposal address 

them in the only legal format available 

to them, an application for a LOA under 

MMPA Section 101(a)(5)(A–C). 

Because the L–DEO’s geophysical 

research will have an incidental impact 

on marine mammals that experts predict 

will include mortalities and even 

extirpation it must apply for a letter of 

authorization under MMPA section 

101(a)(5)(A–C). 

Response: While an authorization for 

taking marine mammals by mortality 

cannot be authorized under Section 

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

paragraphs do authorize taking by Level 

A harassment. Level A harassment 

means any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or a marine 

mammal stock in the wild. While it is 

true that an injury can be so severe that 

it later may result in mortality, the 

MMPA does not preclude issuance of an 

authorization under Section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the MMPA for activities that have the 

potential to cause injury. However, as 

NMFS shows in this document morality 

and serious injury are not anticipated to 

occur during this seismic survey cruise 

due to implementation of mitigation 

measures (e.g., ramp-up, power-down, 

shut-down, temporal and spatial 

avoidance, procedures for species of 

particular concern, passive acoustic and 

visual monitoring, and quiet acoustic 

periods). Nor is take by injury, serious 

injury, or mortality authorized. 

Therefore, issuance of an IHA is 

appropriate. Monitoring and mitigation 

measures are discussed later in this 

document. 

Comment 10: CSI states it is a relief 

to find so many experts willing to 

contribute their knowledge and 

experience to this process. They do a far 

better job than CSI or any NGO could of 

addressing the specific flaws found in 

this L–DEO IHA request. While some of 

these same flaws in previous L–DEO 

requests have been addressed, they may 

have been more easily dismissed by 

NMFS because very few were from 

world authorities and scientific experts. 

This time the experts have participated 

directly, and cannot be dismissed. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges CSI’s 

comments and considers all relevant 

public comments before making a 

determination on the issuance of the 

IHA. After issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures in 

the study area. NMFS believes that L– 

DEO’s revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation described in 

the IHA will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures in 

the study area. NMFS believes that L– 

DEO’s revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the monitoring and 

mitigation measures described in the 

IHA will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. 

Comment 11: CSI states that the intent 

of LGL’s comment is to manipulate 

NMFS into a fast and uncritical 

decision. By law, the schedules, as well 

as the scientific and economic values of 

this project, remain irrelevant to the 

scope of NMFS’ deliberations on the 

fitness of the proposal. 

Response: Section 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. NMFS received an IHA 

application from L–DEO on October 27, 

2008. NMFS published a notice for the 

proposed IHA in the Federal Register 

on December 22, 2008 (73 FR 78294). A 

notice on the 15-day extension of the 

comment period for the proposed IHA 

was published on January 16, 2009. 

NMFS issued an IHA to L–DEO on 

March 31, 2009 and amended the IHA 

on May 1, 2009. 

After issuance of the proposed IHA, 

L–DEO modified the cruise plan and 

adopted more precautionary monitoring 

and mitigation measures in the study 

area. NMFS believes that L–DEO’s 

revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation described in 

the IHA will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. See L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 12: CSI states that it is well 

aware that the L–DEO, NSF, and other 

project supporters represent powerful 

influences that NMFS must respect. 

However, CSI trusts that these rational 

influences also recognize the 

overwhelming need to define and 

mitigate anthropogenic affects on the 

marine environment, with their rapidly 

accelerating influences on the planet 

and eventually human societies. Is it 

necessary to do significant, irrevocable 

damage to marine life in order to 

understand geophysical processes? 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures in the study area. 

NMFS believes that L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

On March 31, 2009, NMFS prepared 

a Finding of No Significant Impact for 

L–DEO’s marine geophysical survey in 

SE Asia. NMFS determined that the 

issuance of an IHA for the take, by 

harassment, of small numbers of marine 

mammals incidental to L–DEO’s March– 

July, 2009, seismic survey in SE Asia 

will not significantly impact the quality 

of the human environment. 

Comment 13: CSI states that in lieu of 

such loft concerns economic efficiency 

is an excellent rationale for increased 

support of appropriate science to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41265 

determine adequate mitigations. 

Without better science this and future 

proposals will face further challenges 

that will cause delays in the L–DEO 

schedule that are likely to have 

economic consequence. The time and 

financial loss is neither the fault of the 

process or the responsibility of NMFS. 

Why not do the job responsibly? 

Response: NMFS acknowledges CSI’s 

comments. An authorization for 

incidental taking of marine mammals 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will 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. 

After issuance of the proposed IHA, 

L–DEO modified the cruise plan and 

adopted more precautionary monitoring 

and mitigation measures in the study 

area. NMFS believes that L–DEO’s 

revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation described in 

the IHA will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. NMFS and 

the applicant (L–DEO) have fulfilled 

their responsibilities under the MMPA 

and ESA for the issuance of the subject 

IHA. 

Comment 14: CSI states that the 

fundamental point of CSI’s comment 

and many others, is that this L–DEO 

project does not qualify for an IHA, 

according to the criteria at 

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

incidental.htm. The fact that previous 

L–DEO projects received IHAs does not 

provide a precedent under which this 

proposal also should receive an IHA, 

because no matter how NMFS 

rationalized those past IHAs this 

proposal is different, different in scale, 

scope, and expertise represented by the 

formal comments and less public 

complaints it has generated from 

scientific world authorities and regional 

and species experts. If these people had 

been consulted by LGL, the inadequate 

EA and request would never have been 

submitted for an IHA. The original 

intent of the IHA process was to 

expedite some requests, not all requests. 

Not this request. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with CSI’s 

comments. L–DEO’s marine geophysical 

survey in SE Asia, March to July 2009, 

qualifies for an IHA according to the 

criteria on the NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources Incidental Take 

Authorizations Web site. Portions of L– 

DEO’s project occurs on the high seas, 

which is applicable to the MMPA and 

ESA. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the U.S. can apply for 

an authorization to incidentally take 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

harassment. 

After issuance of the proposed IHA, 

L–DEO modified the cruise plan and 

adopted more precautionary monitoring 

and mitigation measures in the study 

area. NMFS believes that L–DEO’s 

revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation described in 

the IHA will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. 

Comment 15: CSI states that there is 

little knowledge available for most of 

the species that inhabit the waters of SE 

Asia. Even the most basic knowledge 

about the presence/absence of species is 

incomplete. Only a small proportion of 

the large expanse of sea in the region 

(and mostly coastal waters) has been 

surveyed systematically for marine 

mammals. Few estimates of abundance 

or distribution exists for SE Asian 

marine mammals an in most cases, this 

information is for a limited region, often 

bounded by political rather than 

biological borders. What little is known 

clearly shows the region to be an area 

with a high diversity of marine mammal 

(and other marine) species. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the SE 

Asia region is likely to have a high 

diversity of marine mammal species and 

that impacts on marine mammals 

should be assessed on the population or 

stock unit level whenever possible. L– 

DEO’s IHA application provides 

information on stock abundance in SE 

Asia (when available), larger water 

bodies (such as the North Pacific 

Ocean), and the Eastern Tropical Pacific 

Ocean (if data was unavailable). NMFS 

believes that these data are the best 

scientific information available for 

estimating impacts on marine mammal 

species and stocks. However, Congress 

recognized that information on marine 

mammal stock abundance may not 

always be satisfactory. When 

information is lacking to define a 

particular population or stock of marine 

mammals then impacts are to be 

assessed with respect to the species as 

a whole (54 FR 40338, September 29, 

1989). See relevant discussions 

throughout this document and L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 16: CSI states that the study 

area is a region where marine mammals 

are facing a myriad of serious threats 

that have made the continued existence 

of several marine mammal populations 

and possibly some species uncertain 

(note: some of the same threats and 

activities have resulted in the recent 

‘functional extinction’ of the baiji 

(Turvey et al. 2007), which is endemic 

to the Yangtze River of China). 

Response: L–DEO’s EA acknowledges 

that there are numerous threats to 

cetaceans in SE Asia including vessel 

traffic, habitat loss, oil and gas industry, 

pollution, fisheries, and hunting. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. See L–DEO’s EA and 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 17: CSI states that all small 

cetaceans in Taiwanese waters are 

threatened by fishermen using handharpoons, bycatch in fishing gear, and 

noise. Those that inhabit coastal waters 

of western Taiwan also face habitat 

degradation, pollution, and possibly 

prey reduction. 

Response: NMFS does not regulate 

activities (including fishing) in 

Taiwanese waters. L–DEO’s EA 

discusses direct and indirect effects on 

marine mammals. The numerous threats 

to cetaceans in SE Asia include vessel 

traffic, habitat loss, oil and gas industry, 

pollution, fisheries, and hunting. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. 

Comment 18: CSI states that some 

marine mammals have been reduced to 

numbers so low that even minimal 

‘takes’ will have a large impact on the 

remaining population. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

Comment 19: CSI states that a number 

of marine mammals are discussed in 

their comments to NMFS based on what 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41266 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

is known about their biology, 

conservation status and threats in the 

region. This does not imply other 

marine mammals that are not 

specifically discussed in detail are 

‘‘safer’’ from the seismic surveys, in 

most cases, too little information is 

available to understand the impacts, 

which may be as great as or greater than 

the marine mammals discussed in detail 

in their comments to NMFS. 

Response: NSF’s and L–DEO’s IHA 

application, EA, and Supplemental EA 

sufficiently discusses the marine 

mammals species and the possible 

impacts from seismic surveys in the SE 

Asia region. After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

will result in a negligible impact on 

affected species and stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. 

Comment 20: ETSSTAWG states that 

it should be noted that many seismic 

surveys are conducted in the Taiwan 

region every year without requesting 

IHAs. The actions of private oil and gas 

companies within the EEZ’s of other 

countries is beyond the jurisdiction of 

the MMPA, thus they need no such U.S. 

authorizations. However, this means 

that L–DEO could become a scapegoat 

for all survey operation in the region, 

purely because they have to apply for 

authorization, as they will clearly be 

operating partly on the high seas (and 

thus fall under MMPA jurisdiction) and 

as they have government funding. This 

is acknowledged, but until such time as 

NMFS enforcement confirms the 

locations and tracks of every survey 

undertaken globally this situation is 

unlikely to change. 

Response: NMFS is aware of seismic 

surveys and other activities undertaken 

worldwide that occur (that may result in 

incidental takes of marine mammals) 

without requesting IHAs or LOAs. 

NMFS may grant IHAs upon request by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region. 

L–DEO and NSF are considered U.S. 

citizens under the MMPA. The MMPA 

applies to U.S. citizens in U.S. waters, 

and the high seas, but does not apply or 

authorize the incidental take of marine 

mammals in the territorial seas of 

foreign nations. The MMPA does not 

apply to non-U.S. citizens, unless they 

are conducting a specified activity 

(other than commercial fishing) that 

may result in incidental takes of marine 

mammals in U.S. waters. NMFS can 

refer reports of possible violations of the 

MMPA and this subject IHA issued to 

L–DEO to NOAA Enforcement for 

investigation. 

The IHA is valid only for the 

Langseth’s activities associated with 

seismic survey operations that are 

specified in L–DEO’s EA, Supplemental 

EA, and IHA application. L–DEO is 

required to comply with the IHA and 

the terms and conditions of the 

Incidental Take Statement 

corresponding to NMFS’ Biological 

Opinion. L–DEO and NSF will be 

required to reinitiate consultation with 

NMFS if the identified action is 

subsequently modified in a manner that 

causes an effect that was not considered 

during the analysis for making the 

necessary determinations for the 

issuance of the IHA. L–DEO is required 

to submit a draft report on all activities 

and monitoring results to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 

days of the completion of the Langseth’s 

cruise in SE Asia. The report must 

contain and summarize information 

stated in the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 21: WaH is aware that this 

L–DEO survey proposal is one of a very 

small number of requests for 

authorization for geophysical surveys 

while other user groups, including the 

oil and gas industry, are not carrying out 

such EAs or are not subjected to public 

scrutiny in this way. Rather than 

allowing the focus to be limited to 

geological surveys such as L–DEO’s, 

WaH recommends that measures be 

taken to ensure that all future marine 

seismic surveys (whether of an 

academic or commercial nature) are 

made subject to the same level of 

scrutiny and transparency, such as by 

requiring EAs or EISs to be submitted 

for professional and public review and 

with all relevant documents (including 

post-survey reports and relevant local 

permits, authorizations and licenses) 

being made publicly available. 

Response: All applications submitted 

to NMFS are subject to public comment 

periods. During the public comment 

period, their NEPA documents and 

incidental take authorization 

applications are available on the NMFS 

Web site (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental.htm) and are 

reviewed by the Commission. NMFS 

does not force an agency or other 

organization to apply for and consult on 

an incidental take authorization under 

the MMPA. 

General Opposition 

Comment 22: A private citizen 

questioned why this research was being 

conducted in SE Asia. The commenter 

also believes the U.S. should not be 

doing work in the region. 

Response: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. Wu, 

the principal investigators on the 

seismic survey, state the primary 

purpose of the TAIGER project is to 

investigate the fundamental processes of 

mountain building, which plays a major 

role in shaping the face of the Earth. 

Oceanic island chains, or arcs, along 

convergent tectonic plate boundaries 

result from a process known as 

subduction where one of Earth’s 

tectonic plates slides beneath another as 

they move toward each other. As the 

lower plate slides beneath the upper 

plate, its trajectory usually steepens 

with depth and eventually reaches 

depths of several hundred (to greater 

than 700) km. The arc is made up of a 

chain of volcanoes on the upper plate, 

and is typically situated above the point 

where the lower plate is at about 100 km 

(62 mi) depth. As this process of 

subduction and volcanism continues 

through time (millions of years) the 

crust of the upper plate becomes 

thicker, and develops properties more 

like continental crust, which is much 

thicker and less dense than ocean crust 

and allows for land surface above sea 

level. The results of many studies 

indicates that much of the crust that 

forms Earth’s continents was 

accumulated through time by island 

arcs colliding with continents leaving 

remnants of the arcs attached to the 

edge of the continents. Despite this 

general interpretation, the actual 

processes of how this happens, 

including growth of collisional 

mountain belts and deformation of arc 

and continental crust, is poorly 

understood and poorly documented. 

Ancient collision zones have been 

studied, but they have typically 

undergone many stages of deformation 

and erosion, leaving them difficult to 

interpret. Currently active arc-continent 

collision zones include Taiwan, Papua 

New Guinea, and Timor. Of these active 

collisions, Taiwan is currently the most 

active. Taiwan is also the most favorable 

of these to examine the full spectrum of 

processes as a plate boundary changes 

from oceanic subduction to arccontinent collision. This transition is a 

major target of the TAIGER project 

requiring that L–DEO obtain a series of 

crustal-scale seismic transects from 

south of Taiwan, where subduction is 

active, to northern Taiwan, where the 

collision has reached mature steady 

state. 

One of the by-products of the 

collision in Taiwan is the generation of 

frequent small earthquakes and less 

frequent, large, destructive earthquakes. 

By using the relatively small signals 

from the Langseth source array 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41267 

(compared to those generated by nature) 

scientists can topographically image the 

mountains and thereby localize the 

major breaks or faults underneath the 

mountains and assess their seismic 

potential. In addition to linear arrays of 

seismographs, the Langseth signals will 

also be recorded, as an integrated 

TAIGER acquisition program, on over 

200 land seismographs across the island 

and 20 OBSs, all of which have been 

recording earthquakes. Scientists expect 

to produce the most comprehensive 

subsurface images of the rapidly rising 

Taiwan mountains with L–DEO’s data. 

These images, along with seismicity 

recorded by L–DEO’s arrays, will form 

a greatly enhanced basis for evaluating 

earthquake and tsunami potentials of 

Taiwan and can thus be used to improve 

the safety and security of the human 

population at risk to these phenomena. 

A previous U.S.-Taiwan project (the 

1995 TAICRUST project) demonstrated 

the feasibility of the approach to be used 

in the TAIGER project, but this project 

did not include significant seismic data 

acquisition in the Taiwan Strait. 

Subsequent analysis showed that 

seismic profiles across the Taiwan, 

recorded by seismographs in the strait 

and on land in Taiwan, are necessary to 

determine the crustal structure of the 

Taiwan collisional mountain belt. Thus, 

the principal scientist’s plans in the 

Taiwan Strait are one of the key 

elements required for the success of the 

TAIGER project. 

Comment 23: LINC objects to the IHA 

application and states that other local 

NGOs have not had time to respond due 

to the lack of sufficient notice. LINC is 

concerned that NMFS is eager to 

approve the L–DEO application and 

authorize destructive activities in the SE 

Asia region without verifying that L– 

DEO has complied with relevant local 

conservation laws and regulations. LINC 

strongly urges the NMFS to reject the 

application of L–DEO until it can be 

proven that they have (1) complied with 

local laws and regulations, and (2) have 

completed a comprehensive 

consultation with local governments, 

scientists, researchers, and NGOs based 

in this region. LINC states that the 

approval of the current L–DEO 

application, as is, would demonstrate a 

clear lack of concern for the 

conservation laws, threats, and 

environmental protection efforts in this 

region. 

Response: NMFS believes local NGOs 

have had sufficient time to respond to 

the proposed IHA published in the 

Federal Register. A 30-day comment 

period with a 15-day extension (for a 

total of 45 days) is more than an 

adequate time period for the public to 

address concerns and submit comments. 

The NMFS has received numerous 

comments from persons and 

organizations located nationally and 

worldwide. Generally, under the 

MMPA, NMFS may authorize the 

harassment of small numbers of marine 

mammals incidental to an otherwise 

lawful activity, provided 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 to achieve the least practicable 

adverse impact. L–DEO and NSF have 

consulted with the various governments 

in the action area. To date, L–DEO and 

NSF have received foreign clearance 

notices from the governments of the 

Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan. See 

International Legal Compliance below. 

Comment 24: Given the large volume 

of evidence for the association between 

anthropogenic noise and disturbance in 

cetaceans and other marine mammal, a 

precautionary approach is surely 

required (as recommended by Gordon et 

al., 2004). AAF urges NMFS to consider 

the application from L–DEO with 

information provided, and the findings 

and recommendations of the 

independent reviews of the Eastern 

Taiwan Strait Sousa Technical Advisory 

Working Group (ETSSTAWG) and 

others, in mind. 

Response: NMFS has developed 

conservative monitoring, mitigation, 

and reporting requirements in order to 

reduce the potential effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals. L–DEO and NSF have 

considered the numerous public 

comments and revised the seismic 

survey described in its IHA application. 

L–DEO’s Supplemental EA is in 

response to the comments received by 

NMFS through the public comment 

period associated with the IHA process. 

L–DEO considered the 

recommendations from several 

independent reviewers including 

ETSSTAWG. NSF received no direct 

public comments on the draft EA during 

(or after) the open comment period 

November 14, 2008 through December 

15, 2008. Included in L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA are a number of 

changes to the survey design that were 

made by L–DEO to address specific 

comments, some received by a number 

of individuals and agencies, and to 

enhance measures already included in 

the original documents to mitigate 

effects of the proposed survey on marine 

mammals. NMFS has made its necessary 

determinations based on L–DEO’s 

revised seismic survey and 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 25: Several commenters 

requested that NMFS deny issuing the 

IHA to L–DEO. They questioned: (1) The 

adequacy of L–DEO’s scientific research 

and lack of consultation with local 

experts; (2) the survey’s potential to 

expose ETS humpback dolphins to 

received levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

which they believed could cause 

permanent physiological damage, thus 

constituting at a minimum Level A 

harassment; (3) the number of ETS 

humpback dolphins that L–DEO 

proposed to harass, stating that the 

requested take of ETS humpback 

dolphins to be harassed was likely to 

exceed a sustainable level of take for the 

population; (4) the adequacy of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures for 

endangered or cryptic species that may 

be vulnerable to noise impacts (e.g., ETS 

humpback dolphin and finless 

porpoise); (5) the timing of the surveys 

and their impacts on migration routes; 

(6) biased and non-precautionary 

assumptions; and (7) the cumulative 

effects analyses in the EA. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenters’ argument that NMFS 

should have denied L–DEO’s 

application for an IHA. 

(1) NMFS is charged with issuing 

IHAs for otherwise lawfully activity. L– 

DEO’s research is otherwise lawful. 

NMFS opened the proposed IHA to 

public comment. L–DEO plans to 

conduct the seismic survey along the 

Taiwan arc-continental collision in the 

China and Philippine Seas. Taiwan is 

one of only a few sites of arc-continent 

collision worldwide—one of the 

primary tectonic environments for largescale mountain building. The primary 

purpose for the TAIGER project is to 

investigate the processes of mountain 

building, a fundamental set of processes 

which plays a major role in shaping the 

face of the Earth. The vicinity of Taiwan 

is particularly well-suited for this type 

of study, because the collision can be 

observed at different stages of its 

evolution, from incipient, to mature, 

and finally to post-collision. As a result 

of its location in an ongoing tectonic 

collision zone, Taiwan experiences a 

great number of earthquakes; most are 

small, but many are large and 

destructive. This project will provide a 

great deal of information about the 

nature of the earthquakes around 

Taiwan and will lead to a better 

assessment of earthquake hazards in the 

area. The information obtained from this 

study will help the people and 

government of Taiwan to better prepare 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41268 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

for future seismic events and may thus 

mitigate some of the loss of life and 

economic disruptions that will 

inevitably occur. 

(2) NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s characterization of the 

potential risk to the ETS sub-population 

of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. 

After the issuance of the proposed IHA, 

L–DEO negotiated with the project’s 

principal scientists to modify the cruise 

plan and adopt more precautionary 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to take place at 

least 20 km from the west coast of 

Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). Thus, the precautionary 

buffer recommended by ETSSTAWG in 

their comments to NMFS will be 

maintained, ‘‘at least 13 km and perhaps 

a more precautionary 15 km of the ETS 

Sousa population—meaning up to 

around 20 km from shore.’’ L–DEO will 

also shut-down the airgun array if an 

ETS Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin is 

visually sighted regardless of the 

distance of the animal(s) to the sound 

source. The array will not resume firing 

until 15 minutes after the last 

documented whale visual sighting. 

(3) NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that the 

requested take of ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins by harassment is 

likely to exceed a sustainable level of 

take for the population. L–DEO’s 

seismic survey was modified after the 

issuance of the proposed IHA to include 

more precautionary mitigation 

measures. The incorporation of 

precautionary measures reduced the 

estimated number of ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins expected to be 

harassed to zero, which is clearly a 

sustainable level of take for the subpopulation. 

(4) and (5) NMFS believes that the 

mitigation and monitoring measures in 

the IHA are adequate to protect species 

of concern that may be vulnerable to 

noise impacts. After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary mitigation measures, 

especially for species that are of 

particular concern and have cryptic 

behaviors that may be vulnerable to 

noise impacts as well as to address 

concerns on the timing of the surveys 

and their impacts on migration routes. 

See Monitoring, Mitigation, Species of 

Particular Concern, and Temporal and 

Spatial Avoidance sections below and 

L–DEO’s Supplemental EA for more 

information. NMFS has included 

requirements to these effects in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO. 

(6) After issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

mitigation measures to address concerns 

of potential impacts of the seismic 

survey on affected species and stocks of 

marine mammals in the study area. 

NMFS believes that L–DEO’s IHA 

application, EA, and Supplemental EA 

are not biased as they adequately 

consider alternatives, and provides 

analysis on the affected environment 

and environmental consequences of the 

study area. 

(7) The EA adequately addresses the 

cumulative impacts of a relatively shortterm seismic airgun survey in relation to 

long-term noise and events, such as 

vessel traffic, habitat loss, oil and gas 

industry, pollution, fishing, hunting, 

and other human activities. These other 

activities are long-term activities which 

are unaffected by NMFS’ action here. 

Nor does this action, when considered 

in light of the other activities, become 

significant. 

For more information, see further 

relevant discussions in this notice, L– 

DEO’s IHA application, EA, and 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 26: HSI states that while 

they appreciate L–DEO’s efforts to 

comply with the MMPA and the NEPA, 

HSI is concerned that this request for an 

incidental harassment authorization is 

premature and that in fact a letter of 

authorization for incidental take may be 

required. HSUS/HSI strongly urges the 

NMFS to deny this request as submitted 

and at a minimum to require L–DEO to 

resubmit its request with an updated 

review of the region’s marine mammals, 

a more complete review of relevant 

literature, modified survey track lines 

and schedules, and additional 

mitigation measures. 

Response: NMFS does not agree that 

a Letter of Authorization for incidental 

take is necessary in this case. Due to the 

incorporation of monitoring and 

mitigation measures, including L–DEO’s 

revision of tracklines after the issuance 

of the proposed IHA and in response to 

public comments, NMFS does not 

anticipated a potential for injury, 

serious injury, or mortality to any 

marine mammals under the jurisdiction 

of the MMPA. Based on numerous 

concerns regarding the proposed IHA, 

L–DEO has revised its seismic survey 

and adopted more precautionary 

mitigation measures. L–DEO has 

prepared a Supplemental EA in 

response to the comments received. NSF 

received no direct public comments on 

the draft EA during (or after) the open 

comment period of November 14, 2008 

through December 15, 2008. Included 

are a number of changes to the survey 

design that were made by L–DEO to 

address specific comments, some 

received by a number of individuals and 

agencies, and to enhance precautionary 

measures already included in the 

original documents to mitigate potential 

effects of the survey on marine 

mammals. 

Comment 27: ETTSTAWG states the 

L–DEO project, as presently described 

in the U.S. Federal Register, poses an 

unacceptable risk to the ‘critically 

endangered’ population of ETS IndoPacific humpback dolphins. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with 

ETSSTAWG’s characterization of the 

risk to the sub-population of ETS IndoPacific humpback dolphins. After 

issuance of the proposed IHA, L–DEO 

modified the cruise plan and adopted 

more precautionary mitigation 

measures, especially considering the 

‘critically endangered’ ETS subpopulation of Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins. See ‘‘Species of Particular 

Concern’’ section below and other 

discussions presented in this document. 

Comment 28: Dr. Linda Weilgart urges 

NMFS to reject this application for an 

IHA and states that L–DEO’s powerful 

array of airguns, and argues that the 

permit application does not seriously 

consider the possibility of irreversible 

harm to marine mammals and the 

marine environment. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with Dr. 

Weilgart’s comments. After issuance of 

the proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes L–DEO’s planned 

seismic survey, as revised, will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

and stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

Comment 29: The strong bias in the 

Federal Register notice is disturbing. 

The notice should be an objective 

discussion that leaves open whether the 

agency should issue the authorization or 

not. As published, however, the notice’s 

language leads inevitably to a decision 

to issue the authorization, despite the 

applicant’s failure to argue 

convincingly, as required by law, that 

the surveys will not result in serious 

injury or death or even, in this case, 

Level A harassment. In fact, there is an 

insufficient scientific basis for 

concluding that no serious injury, death, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41269 

or Level A harassment of any marine 

mammal species will occur. 

Accordingly, the NMFS must deny this 

request as submitted and at a minimum 

request the applicant to submit a revised 

application with a more realistic and 

conservative analysis of potential 

impacts. If a compelling argument to 

support the conclusion that only 

harassment (Level B or Level A) will 

occur is not forthcoming, then the 

NMFS must deny the request outright 

and require the applicant to seek a letter 

of authorization for incidental take 

under Section 101(a)(5)(A–C) of the 

MMPA. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s characterization of the 

Notice of Proposed Issuance. 

Furthermore, as NMFS shows in this 

document mortality and serious injury 

are not expected to occur during this 

seismic survey cruise due to 

implementation of monitoring and 

mitigation measures (e.g., ramp-up, 

power-down, shut-down, passive 

acoustic and visual monitoring, and 

quiet acoustic periods) as well as L– 

DEO’s revision of tracklines in the 

cruise plan. Nor is incidental take by 

injury, serious injury, or mortality 

authorized. Therefore, issuance of an 

IHA is appropriate. The revised survey 

and monitoring and mitigation measures 

are discussed further in this document. 

Comment 30: Minor and Wilson, as 

scientists, are greatly saddened to see 

government funding being used to cause 

the ‘‘Level B harassment’’ of 71,669 

cetaceans. Minor and Wilson also doubt 

that the data that might be gained from 

the proposed ‘‘taking’’ is worth the harm 

that it will do. Minor and Wilson are 

concerned about what the proposed 

undertaking will do to the reputation of 

U.S. science. Recently, one species of 

cetacean was declared extinct in this 

region, and several more endangered 

species are in the proposed study area. 

To have a U.S. flagged ship, owned by 

the NSF, cruising around in the critical 

habitat of multiple endangered species 

conducting seismic testing is clearly 

poor public relations. If another of these 

species goes extinct soon, the NSF will 

find itself trying to ‘‘sell’’ the notion that 

its contribution to the extinction was 

insignificant. The NMFS could make a 

positive contribution to the long term 

reputation of U.S. science if it could 

show some backbone and talk the NSF 

out of this idiocy. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the monitoring 

and mitigation measures described in 

the IHA will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. See relevant 

discussions in this document as well as 

L–DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Thresholds 

Thresholds—Acoustic Thresholds for 

Behavior 

Comment 31: The proposed IHA 

notice also draws conclusions that are 

heavily biased in favor of a finding of 

‘‘no impact.’’ For example, the notice 

states that ‘‘many cetaceans * * * are 

likely to show some avoidance of the 

area with high received levels of airgun 

sound * * * [and] the avoidance 

responses of the animals themselves 

will reduce or (most likely) avoid any 

possibility of hearing impairment’’ 

(emphasis added, p. 78303). Setting 

aside the lack of scientific 

substantiation for the degree of certainty 

displayed by this claim, there is no 

presentation or discussion of the 

opposing (and equally likely) possibility 

that many cetaceans might not show 

avoidance of an area ensonified by 

airguns because it is important habitat. 

Response: NMFS refers the 

commenter to L–DEO’s EA (Chapter 4 

and Appendix B) which summarized 

avoidance response levels to seismic 

pulses for a number of cetaceans. L– 

DEO provided ample evidence of 

avoidance behavior in marine mammals 

in response to seismic surveys from 

several peer-reviewed studies including 

data on gray, bowhead, and humpback 

whales (Richardson et al., 1995); 

Gordon et al. (2004); humpback whale 

(McCauley et al., 1998 and 2000a); 

bowhead whales (Miller et al., 1999; 

Richardson et al., 1999); and eastern 

Pacific gray whales (Malme et al., 1986, 

1988). 

Conversely, the EA discussed the 

possibility that cetaceans might not 

exhibit avoidance behavior or may not 

be as sensitive to seismic sources. L– 

DEO presents data from peer-reviewed 

focusing on humpback whales (Malme 

et al., 1985); bowhead whales (Miller et 

al., 2005; Harris et al., 2007); and fin 

and sei whales (Stone, 2003; Stone and 

Tasker, 2006). For marine mammals that 

do not avoid the vessel and sound 

source, L–DEO will implement 

mitigation measures such as powerdowns and shut-downs for animals that 

enter the respective safety zones to 

prevent Temporary Threshold Shift 

(TTS)/Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) 

for those respective species. 

With the respect to the ETS 

population of humpback dolphins, 

NMFS has instituted precautionary 

mitigation measures to protect these 

species within their habitat in 

Taiwanese waters. L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to take place at 

least 20 km from the west coast of 

Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

μPa (rms). 

Comment 32: The proposed IHA 

notice states that ‘‘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’’ (p. 78301). It does not, 

however, consider the reverse; that the 

failure of a sound source to displace 

animals from important feeding or 

breeding habitat may indicate that the 

area is so important that the animals are 

willing/forced to tolerate a level of noise 

exposure that is in fact harmful (see, 

e.g., the discussion of this concept in 

Richardson et al. 1995). The failure to 

consider the possibility of an animal not 

reacting because leaving a prime feeding 

spot is more costly than moving 

laterally along a migration pathway is 

an example of the bias permeating the 

entire analysis and has contributed to an 

unacceptably incomplete level of 

evaluation and discussion regarding 

impacts and mitigation. 

Response: NMFS refers the 

commenter to page 78302 of the 

proposed IHA notice, Chapter 4 and 

Appendix B of the EA for L–DEO’s 

presentation of cetaceans not exhibiting 

avoidance behavior when exposed to 

seismic pulses. L–DEO has 

acknowledged the public’s concern for 

coastal dwelling species in Taiwan, has 

modified their cruise plan, and has 

adopted more precautionary monitoring 

and mitigation measures, especially for 

species of particular concern. See 

responses to comments regarding 

mitigation measures such as the 

implementation of power-downs and 

shut-downs for animals discussed 

within this document as well as within 

L–DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 33: The EA noted that 

‘‘captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga 

whales exhibited changes in behavior 

when exposed to strong pulsed sounds 

similar in duration to those typically 

used in seismic surveys (Finneran et al. 

2000, 2002). However, the animals 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41270 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

tolerated high received levels of sound 

before exhibiting aversive behaviors.’’ It 

should be noted, however, that the 

animals in the abovementioned Navy 

studies were reported by Nowacek et al. 

(2007) to be generally ‘‘tested in a 

context where they were being rewarded 

for tolerating high levels of noise’’ and 

were ‘‘usually ‘punished’ in some way 

* * * for failing to return to the 

experimental station for additional 

exposures.’’ This was not a problem for 

their main results as the focus of the 

work was on to TTS, but the setup does 

invalidate any conclusions based on the 

behavioral responses reported in the 

same studies. For further discussion of 

the need for precaution in the use of 

captive studies to set exposure criteria 

for wild animals, see Parsons et al. 

(2008) and Wright et al. (in press). 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

commenter’s interpretation of captive 

studies and have taken them into 

consideration. Thresholds for behavioral 

response are not based upon captive 

studies. The 160 dB re 1 μPa threshold 

was derived from data for mother-calf 

pairs of migrating gray whales (Malme 

et al., 1983, 1984) and bowhead whales 

(Richardson et al., 1985, 1986) 

responding when exposed to seismic 

airguns (impulsive sound source). 

Comment 34: The idea that behavioral 

tolerance is a proxy for no impact has 

no scientific merit. In fact, some fairly 

sizable impacts have been reported in 

various species despite a lack of 

behavioral response. A recent panel of 

experts also noted that an apparently 

unresponsive animal may still be 

undergoing a chronic and/or severe 

acute stress response, with associated 

physiological and psychological 

consequences. These can result from 

exposure directly, or through masking 

and other phenomenon indirectly. Thus, 

taking is entirely possible without 

observable behavioral disturbance 

reactions and this needs to be accounted 

for. 

Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA allows citizens of the United 

States to take by harassment, small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental 

to a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if NMFS is able to 

make certain findings. NMFS must issue 

an incidental harassment authorization 

if 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 if the 

permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. 

The mitigation measures set forth in 

the IHA ensure that there will be 

negligible impacts on the marine 

mammals. Cetaceans are expected, at 

most, to show an avoidance response to 

the seismic pulses. Mitigation measures 

such as visual marine mammal 

monitoring, and shut-downs when 

marine mammals are detected within 

the defined ranges should further 

reduce short-term reactions to 

disturbance, and minimize any effects 

on hearing sensitivity. Due to these 

mitigation measures, and other reasons 

discussed in the Conclusions section of 

this document, NMFS believes the 

impacts will be negligible. 

Comment 35: Mortality (by human 

causes) of even a single individual per 

year from this population may not be 

sustainable, and unless effective 

mitigation measures are taken 

immediately to reduce the threats to this 

population, it is unlikely that the 

population will continue to exist (Wang 

et al., 2004, 2007b). Any single threat 

has the potential to be the final cause of 

extinction for this small population of 

dolphins. 

Response: Please note that in response 

to public comments received on the 

application and EA, L–DEO has 

modified the survey design (see L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA) and adopted 

more precautionary mitigation measures 

to protect the critically endangered ETS 

population, as well as ease potential 

pressure on other coastal species. 

Comment 36: One commenter was 

concerned about the masking of the 

noises made by threats, hindering 

detection of the threats and increasing 

the impact of the existing threats (e.g., 

water rushing past a gillnet, commercial 

shipping) and the chances of mortality. 

Response: NMFS expects the masking 

effects of pulsed sounds on natural 

sounds or other anthropogenic sounds 

to be limited. Because of the 

intermittent nature and low duty cycle 

of seismic pulses, animals can emit and 

receive sounds in the relatively quiet 

intervals between pulses. Further, 

masking effects of seismic pulses are 

expected to be negligible in the case of 

the smaller odontocetes, given the 

intermittent nature of seismic pulses 

plus the fact that sounds important to 

these species are predominantly found 

at much higher frequencies than are the 

dominant components of airgun sounds. 

Marine mammal communications will 

not be masked appreciably by the 

multibeam echosounder signals given 

the low duty cycle of the echosounder 

and the brief period when an individual 

mammal is likely to be within its beam. 

The majority of energy should be 

concentrated in the beam (Kremser et 

al., 2005). Furthermore, in the case of 

baleen whales, the MBES signals (12 

kHz) do not overlap with the 

predominant frequencies in the calls, 

which would avoid any significant 

masking. Masking effects on marine 

mammals are discussed further in 

Appendix B(4) of L–DEO’s EA. 

Comment 37: Another commenter was 

concerned about the impacts on 

cetaceans due to displacement into 

other waters. He noted that for 

populations with low numbers, 

restricted distributions, displacement 

may increase energy expenditures by 

the species already compromised 

energetically (such as mothers with 

calves) and increase exposure to other 

threats (e.g., changes in migration routes 

may result in animals using waters with 

higher densities of fishing nets or lines 

and thus increase their risk of mortality 

due to entanglement). 

Response: The incidental harassment 

authorization includes mitigation and 

monitoring measures to reduce potential 

effects on populations with low 

numbers and restricted distributions. L– 

DEO and TAIGER’s principal 

investigators have modified the cruise 

plan and survey design to protect 

displacing populations with low 

numbers and restricted distributions. 

First, L–DEO will shut down the airgun 

array immediately if there is a sighting 

at any distance of the Indo-Pacific 

humpbacked dolphin or finless 

porpoise. Second, L–DEO has re-routed 

the cruise’s tracklines offshore Taiwan’s 

west coast by approximately 20 km 

(10.8 nautical mi) to protect the 

critically endangered Sousa population 

and the finless porpoise (except for in 

the passage between the Penghu Islands 

and the Waishanding Jhou (Wau-santing Chou) sandbar, where the survey 

will pass through the 17.1 km (9.2 

nautical mi) mid-line distance between 

the two possibly sensitive areas). 

Finally, L–DEO is restricted to 

conducting seismic surveys in water 

depths greater than 200 m (656 ft) in the 

South China Sea, and as far east as 

possible from the mainland China side 

of the Taiwan Strait, to reduce potential 

for effects on eastern Pacific gray 

whales, Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins, and finless porpoises. 

Comment 38: Given the serious 

conservation status of the ETS subpopulation and the small population 

size of the JRE provisional population, 

there must be a higher level of 

precaution to avoid negative impacts of 

additional threats on these dolphins. 

Because even low level noise may 

increase risks to these dolphins by 

altering dolphin behavior, increasing 

ambient noise levels that can ‘mask’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41271 

biologically important sounds as well as 

‘mask’ sounds that allow the detection 

of other threats (e.g., the sound of water 

flowing past gillnets, approaching boats, 

etc.) should be avoided. 

Response: Please see NMFS’ 

responses to comments under the 

Species of Particular Concern section. 

Thresholds—Acoustic Thresholds for 

TTS and PTS 

Comment 39: The notice states that 

‘‘There is no specific evidence that 

exposure to pulses of airgun sound can 

cause PTS in any marine mammal, even 

with large arrays of airguns’’ (p. 78304). 

Such a statement is misleading on many 

levels. For one, marine mammal science 

has yet to develop ways to measure or 

identify PTS (permanent threshold shift 

or permanent hearing loss) in the field. 

For another, it is known that exposure 

to loud impulsive sounds such as are 

produced by airguns can deafen 

terrestrial species, including people. To 

state that no specific evidence exists of 

PTS in marine mammals exposed to 

airguns when science cannot yet 

identify such evidence is both specious 

and disingenuous. 

Response: First, mitigation and 

monitoring requirements under the IHA 

are expected to prevent TTS, thus 

preventing PTS. NMFS acknowledges 

the limitations of current data on the 

measurement or identification of PTS in 

marine mammals, let along free-ranging 

animals. 

Recent scientific research on marine 

mammals and noise, include: estimating 

hearing capabilities using various 

behavioral and anatomical techniques; 

measuring sub-injurious impacts on 

hearing (temporary threshold shift, or 

TTS); and estimating lethal and 

injurious effects of acoustic exposure. 

Richardson et al. (1995) noted, based on 

terrestrial mammal data, that the 

magnitude of TTS in marine mammals 

was expected to depend on the level 

and duration of noise exposure, among 

other considerations. Southall et al., 

(2005) showed that long-term (four to 

seven years) noise exposure on three 

experimental pinniped species 

(northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris), harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina), and California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus) had caused no 

change on their underwater hearing 

thresholds at frequencies of 0.2 to 6.4 

kHz. 

Finally, NMFS believes that the 180- 

dB re: 1 μPascal (rms) criteria is a 

reasonable and precautionary 

interpretation of the current data at this 

time. The precautionary nature of these 

criteria is discussed in Appendix B(6) of 

L–DEO’s application and in previous 

Federal Register notices (e.g., 67 FR 

46711, July 16, 2002). The current safety 

zones of 180 dB re: 1 μPa (rms) for 

cetaceans is conservative and will 

protect marine mammals from injury 

(Level A harassment). 

Comment 40: Recent research 

examining the propagation of airgun 

noise has shown that, contrary to 

predictions, received levels can 

decrease between 5 km and 9 km, but 

then increase at distances between 9 km 

and 13 km (Madsen et al. 2006). The 

researchers stated that received levels 

‘‘can be just as high * * * at 12 km as 

at a range of 2 km from the array’’ 

(Madsen et al. 2006, p. 2374), ‘‘beyond 

where visual observers on the source 

vessel can monitor effectively’’ (Madsen 

et al. 2006, p. 2376). Arguably, this 

suggests that if the goal is to avoid 

subjecting animals to Level A 

harassment or worse, seismic surveys 

should be conducted at a minimum 

greater than 12 km from the offshore 

boundary of a coastal species’ home 

range. 

Response: With regards to the 

Langseth’s survey offshore of Taiwan’s 

west coast, L–DEO has re-routed the 

survey by approximately 20 km (10.8 

nautical mi) to reduce potential effects 

for marine mammals. For the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou (Wau-san-ting Chou) 

sandbar, the survey will pass through 

the 17.1 km (9.2 nautical mi) mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas. Please see the 

Mitigation—Tracklines section for 

additional information. 

Comment 41: HSI notes that the 

Federal Register notice states (p. 

78306): NMFS believes that to avoid the 

potential for permanent physiological 

damage (Level A harassment), cetaceans 

and pinnipeds should not be exposed to 

pulsed underwater noise at received 

levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 

190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The 

precautionary nature of these criteria is 

discussed in Appendix B (6) of L–DEO’s 

application, including the fact that the 

minimum sound level necessary to 

cause permanent hearing impairment is 

higher, by a variable and generally 

unknown amount, than the level that 

induces barely-detectable TTS and the 

level associated with the onset of TTS 

is often considered to be a level below 

which there is no danger of permanent 

damage [emphasis added]. The language 

(see emphasis) functionally defining 

Level A harassment is not found in the 

MMPA or in its implementing 

regulations. We advise the NMFS 

against inserting ‘‘unofficial’’ definitions 

of harassment into notices, regardless of 

the context (here, it could be argued 

only hearing impairment was in 

question, but these words could be 

taken out of context). This wording 

could be seen to encompass a broad 

range of ‘‘damage’’—from a wound that 

heals into a scar (clearly minor) to a 

crippling injury that leads to death (so 

clearly not Level A harassment but 

rather serious injury). It also could be 

seen to exclude reversible injuries that 

should be categorized as Level A, not 

Level B harassment (such as, for 

example, broken bones that, until 

healed, could result in lost mating 

opportunities). We strongly recommend 

that this language be expunged from any 

subsequent rule on this application and 

not used again in any future notices. 

Response: NMFS concurs with HSI 

and offers the following amendment to 

the language contained in the proposed 

rule: ‘‘NMFS believes that to avoid the 

potential for Level A harassment from 

exposure to pulsed underwater noise, 

cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be 

exposed to received levels exceeding, 

respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms). The precautionary nature of these 

criteria is discussed in Appendix B(6) of 

L–DEO’s application, including the fact 

that the minimum sound level necessary 

to cause permanent hearing impairment 

is higher, by a variable and generally 

unknown amount, than the level that 

induces barely detectable TTS and the 

level associated with the onset of TTS 

is often considered to be a level below 

which there is no danger of permanent 

damage [emphasis added].’’ 

However, while not redefining the 

statutory definition, it is necessary for 

NMFS to include functional definitions 

of effects that fall into the category of 

Level A (or B) harassment in order to 

meet our statutory responsibility to 

quantify take. For example, for acoustic 

effects, because the tissues of the ear 

appear to be the most susceptible to the 

physiological effects of sound, and 

because threshold shifts tend to occur at 

lower exposures than other more serious 

auditory effects, NMFS has determined 

that PTS is the best indicator for the 

smallest degree of injury that can be 

measured. Therefore, the acoustic 

exposure associated with onset PTS is 

used to define the lower limit of the 

Level A harassment for acoustic effects. 

Comment 42: L–DEO should use the 

more precautionary 15 dB difference 

being employed in converting the SELbased safety zones to SPL-based safety 

zones. (From the EA: ‘‘At the distances 

where rms levels are 160–190 dB re 1 

μ Pa, the difference between the SEL and 

SPL values for the same pulse measured 

at the same location usually average 

approximately 10–15 dB, depending on 

the propagation characteristics of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41272 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

location (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al., 

1998, 2000a; Appendix B). In this EA, 

we assume that rms pressure levels of 

received seismic pulses will be 10 dB 

higher than the SEL values predicted by 

L–DEO’s model. Thus, we assume that 

170 dB SEL ∼ 180 dB re 1 μPa rms.’’). 

Thus 180 dB rms SPL would be reached 

with a SEL of 165 dB. 

Response: L–DEO’s results indicate 

(for shallow water, at least) the 

difference between rms and SEL varies 

between 8 and 13 dB. This result is 

more or less in line with that found by 

Madsen et al. (2006). The difference is 

higher at offsets, where the more 

impulsive direct arrival dominates the 

sound field, and lower at larger offsets, 

where the signal is more reverbatory. 

The range at which the decrease occurs 

depends a lot on water depth, but it’s 

obvious that to use a 15 dB correction 

elsewhere would nearly double the 

numbers as far as offsets. The length of 

the signal is an important factor as well 

since there are greater differences 

between SEL and SPL, which means the 

signal is shorter, since it stretches as it 

travels further. 

Comment 43: The EA notes that 

Southall et al. (2007) stated that TTS is 

not injury. However I believe that they 

have overstated their conclusions. It is 

true that Southall et al. (2007) state: 

‘‘[impacts resulting in] * * * TTS rather 

than a permanent change in hearing 

sensitivity * * * are within the nominal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and do not represent physical 

injury (Ward, 1997).’’ However, they 

also note that ‘‘at present, however, 

there are insufficient data to allow 

formulation of quantitative criteria for 

non-auditory injuries’’ and later 

acknowledge that, while they believe 

that ‘‘strong behavioral responses to 

single pulses * * * are expected to 

dissipate rapidly enough as to have 

limited long-term consequence’’ there 

are occasions where such responses may 

‘‘secondarily result in injury or death 

(e.g., stampeding)’’ (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Response: In its 2002 Final Rule for 

SURTASS LFA sonar, NMFS stated that 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) is not 

an injury. The required power-down 

and shut-down zones, if properly 

implemented, will avoid exposing 

marine mammals to levels associated 

with injury and minimize the number of 

marine mammals exposed to levels 

associated with TTS (See Mitigation 

section). 

With regards to non-auditory injuries, 

the conclusion that the potential effects 

on the stocks of marine mammals from 

non-auditory injuries would be minimal 

is discussed in the L–DEO’s EA. NMFS 

believes that L–DEO’s seismic survey 

has met all of these requirements and 

has been operating since 2003 without 

any known physical injuries to marine 

animals. 

Comment 44: ‘‘Southall et al. (2007) 

also add the following caveat with 

regards to their report: Finally, we 

emphasize that exposure criteria for 

single individuals and relatively shortterm (not chronic) exposure events, as 

discussed here, are insufficient to 

describe the cumulative and ecosystemlevel effects likely to result from 

repeated and/or sustained human input 

of sound into the marine environment 

and from potential interactions with 

other stressors. Also, the injury criteria 

proposed here do not predict what may 

have been indirect injury from acoustic 

exposure in several cases where 

cetaceans of mass stranded following 

exposure to mid-frequency military 

sonar. Thus, since they did not attempt 

to consider all possible methods of 

injury in their deliberations and thus 

their final figures, they should not be 

directly applied to management 

decisions that must, by law, consider 

the full suite of potential impacts. Direct 

application of their criteria would thus 

not be precautionary enough to meet the 

required legal standards.’’ 

Response: NMFS currently uses the 

existing thresholds for Level A 

harassment (sound pressure level of 180 

dB re 1 μ Pa [rms]) (dB SPL), and Level 

B harassment (160 dB SPL for impulse 

noise and 120 dB SPL for continuous 

sound). The science in the field of 

marine mammals and underwater sound 

is evolving relatively rapidly. NMFS is 

in the process of revisiting our acoustic 

criteria with the goal of developing a 

framework (Acoustic Guidelines) that 

allows for the regular and scientificallyvalid incorporation of new data into our 

acoustic criteria. We acknowledge that 

this model has limitations; however, the 

limitations are primarily based on the 

lack of applicable quantitative data. We 

believe that the best available science 

has been used in the development of the 

criteria used in this IHA. We appreciate 

the input from the public and intend to 

consider it further as we move forward 

and develop the Acoustic Guidelines. 

Comment 45: It should be noted that 

repeated TTS can lead eventually to 

PTS, which would not be classed as 

injury under these criteria. Other 

potentially injurious impacts have also 

been shown to occur below levels that 

would cause TTS in humans. For 

example, impaired reading 

comprehension and recognition memory 

in children is linked to aircraft noise at 

exposure levels considerably less than 

75 dB (Stansfeld et al., 2005), which, 

according to the U.S. National Institute 

on Deafness and Other Communication 

Disorders (NIDCD, 2007), are unlikely to 

cause hearing loss (temporary or 

otherwise) even after long exposure 

(NIDCD, 2007). 

Response: Mitigation and monitoring 

requirements under the IHA should 

prevent TTS. While there have been 

debates among scientists regarding 

whether a permanent shift in hearing 

threshold (PTS) can occur with repeated 

exposures of TTS, at least one study 

showed that long-term (four to seven 

years) noise exposure on three 

experimental pinniped species had 

caused no change on their underwater 

hearing thresholds at frequencies of 0.2– 

6.4 kHz (Southall et al., 2005). 

TTS may be considered to be an 

adaptive process (analogous to the dark 

adaptation in visual systems) wherein 

sensory cells change their response 

patterns to sound. Tissues are not 

irreparably damaged with the onset of 

TTS, the effects are temporary 

(particularly for onset-TTS), and NMFS 

does not believe that this effect qualifies 

as an injury. 

Comment 46: It is strange that an 

entire special issue devoted to noiserelated stress responses in marine 

mammals resulting from a multidisciplinary panel of experts does not 

get a single mention in this section, 

even though a discussion of likely 

impacts is offered in Wright et al. 

(2007a, b) and the other papers within 

(all of which are cited therein). The 

papers are cited in Southall et al. (2007), 

which the authors have obviously read. 

I will not repeat the conclusions here, 

but suggest they are included within the 

EA (or more likely an EIS) before this 

survey begins. 

Response: NSF/L–DEO presented the 

Southall et al. (2007) study as one of 

several pieces of information that relate 

to this topic. However, NMFS does not 

solely rely upon NSF’s EA to arrive at 

its determinations. NMFS is aware of 

Wright et al. (2007a, b) paper as well as 

others published in the International 

Journal of Comparative Psychology. 

However, NMFS finds that the 

information is not such that it will affect 

NMFS’ findings. 

Comment 47: There is a high 

likelihood that many individuals will be 

exposed to sound levels that qualify as 

Level A harassment. Any additional 

threats (especially those where many 

uncertainties exist about their impacts 

and that have the potential to cause 

serious harm or even death) to cetaceans 

on the brink of extinction are not 

‘‘negligible’’ for the affected species or 

stocks. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41273 

Response: The mitigation and 

monitoring requirements under the IHA 

are expected to prevent TTS (Level B 

harassment), thus preventing PTS (Level 

A harassment). NMFS believes that it is 

very unlikely that Level A harassment 

will result and, therefore, NMFS has not 

authorized Level A harassment in this 

IHA. 

The IHA includes mitigation and 

monitoring measures to reduce the 

potential for injury or mortality, as well 

as instituting immediate shutdown 

protocols for the North Pacific right 

whale, Western Pacific gray whale, 

Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin, or 

finless porpoise. 

The mitigation measures (e.g., rampup, passive acoustic and visual 

monitoring, and quiet acoustic periods) 

set forth in the IHA ensure that there 

will be negligible impacts on the marine 

mammals by reducing short-term 

reactions to disturbance and minimizing 

any effects on hearing sensitivity. Due to 

these measures, and other reasons 

discussed in the Conclusions of this 

document, NMFS believes the impacts 

will be negligible. 

Comment 48: Until the effects of 

seismic surveys on these shallow water 

dolphins and the combined and 

cumulative impacts of all threats can be 

better understood, a ‘‘safe’’ exposure 

level cannot be determined. 

Response: The temporary nature of 

the activity and the implementation of 

the new shut-down criteria and 

mitigation measures as described in the 

Species of Particular Concern and the 

Mitigation sections, leads NMFS to 

believe the activity will have a 

negligible impact on shallow water 

populations of the Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin and finless porpoise. 

Comment 49: Variability and 

uncertainty in TTS threshold values. 

Furthermore the TTS threshold is based 

on limited information from only a few 

species of cetaceans. Most of the species 

of concern (e.g., baleen whales, beaked 

whales, humpback dolphin, finless 

porpoise, etc.) have not been examined 

and there appears to be great variability 

amongst individual cetaceans tested so 

interspecific extrapolations need to be 

considered cautiously (for a review, see 

Weilgart, 2007). 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the test-animals may not fully represent 

the range of hearing responses across 

multiple taxa. However, NMFS has used 

the best science available to develop 

these thresholds which have been in 

effect for almost a decade. The current 

safety zone of 180 dB rms for cetaceans 

is conservative and will protect marine 

mammals from injury (Level A 

harassment). 

Comment 50: The difficulty in 

predicting sound levels underwater 

must be taken into account. Madsen et 

al. (2006) reported that seismic sounds 

did not always attenuate predictably 

and sound levels can be the same at 2 

km as well as at 12km. The same 

unpredictability was found for sounds 

from acoustic harassment and deterrent 

devices, where increasing distance from 

the sound source did not always result 

in a reduction of exposure levels 

(Shapiro et al., 2009). Even within a 

fraction of a meter, sound level 

differences may be several orders of 

magnitude (Wahlberg, 2006 as cited in 

Shapiro et al., 2009). These studies are 

inconsistent with classic ideas of sound 

propagation and attenuation (see 

Richardson et al., 1995) and are very 

concerning because the very dynamic 

nature of the waters of western Taiwan 

and the concrete walls lining the 

shoreline may result in the sounds the 

airguns to reach unexpectedly 

dangerous exposure levels within the 

distribution of the ETS population. 

Response: Please see NMFS’ response 

to Comment # in this section. 

Comment 51: The survey will bring 

the Langseth to waters within 1 km from 

the shores of Taiwan and right through 

the middle of almost the entire linear 

coastal distribution of the eastern 

Taiwan Strait population. At this 

distance from shore, the Langseth will 

inevitably subject the entire population 

to noise levels greater than 180 dB. Even 

staying at least 2 km from the coastline 

does absolutely nothing to reduce the 

noise exposure for these critically 

endangered (IUCN Red List) dolphins. 

And based on the values in Table 1 of 

the Federal Register notice, even at 8– 

10 km from shore, all dolphins will still 

be exposed to at least 160 dB with an 

unknown number that may be exposed 

to > 180 dB. 

Response: Please see the Species of 

Particular Concern section. 

Comment 52: Given the threat of noise 

on the health of the ETS dolphins, the 

ETSSTAWG recommended a buffer for 

noise threats out to at least 5 km from 

shore (note: for an area with an 

expansive littoral zone such as western 

Taiwan, ‘‘shore’’ can vary greatly with 

tides; for clarity, ‘‘shore’’ is defined here 

to include the littoral zone at the lowest 

tide of the year). Calculations of how far 

out the Langseth should be to prevent 

exposure of ETS dolphins to received 

levels greater than 160 dB should be 

based on at least the recommended 5 km 

buffer boundary (i.e., the waters from 

shore, as defined above, to 5 km 

offshore should not be exposed to levels 

>160dB). Based on the values presented 

in Table 1 (of the Federal Register) the 

source should not be closer than 13 km 

from shore. However, given the 

population’s critical status and the 

underestimated predicted distances for 

each exposure threshold level 

(especially for shallow water; see 

above), greater precaution is needed 

(i.e., the airguns should be even further 

from shore). 

Response: Please see the Mitigation 

section in this notice. 

Comment 53: For whales that are 

using the shallow waters (e.g., Taiwan 

Strait), the predicted distance for 

exposure levels to be greater than 160 

dB was 6,227 to 8,000 m and for 180 dB 

the distances were 2,761 to 3,694 m. At 

these distances, detection of whales by 

observers can be difficult to impossible 

depending on sighting conditions. 

Therefore, some whales may be exposed 

to greater than 180 dB without being 

detected by observers. 

Response: A key factor in estimating 

the number of undetected mammals that 

might occur within the 180 dB radius is 

the fact that many marine mammals 

move away from an approaching 

seismic vessel (e.g., Richardson et al., 

1995; Stone, 2003). The conventional 

estimates of the proportions present but 

missed by visual observations, as 

described in 73 FR 78294, December 22, 

2008, will overestimate (sometimes by 

very large factors) the numbers of 

mammals that might be exposed to high 

levels of sound near the ship. This is an 

important consideration in assessing 

possible exposures to high-level sound, 

especially for the more responsive 

species, notably some if not all baleen 

whales, beaked whales, and harbor 

porpoises. There is also some degree of 

avoidance by a variety of other 

odontocetes (Stone, 2003). In order to 

derive unbiased estimates of numbers 

that might be exposed to greater than 

180 dB, density-based estimates that 

include allowance for g(0) and f(0) 

would need further adjustment to allow 

for an ‘‘avoidance probability’’ factor. 

Such factors are not generally available. 

They would depend on species and 

circumstances, and for some species 

would, if applied, result in a large 

decrease the estimates of the numbers 

that would be exposed to high-level 

sound. 

Detectability is a measure of the 

probability of detecting a marine 

mammal that is present on a vessel’s 

trackline (i.e., g(0)). L–DEO uses the 

most applicable detectability values as 

provided in Koski et al. (1998) 

whenever estimates of marine mammal 

detectability have not already been 

calculated. They have compiled 

previously reported detectability 

information for various species and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

used data on surfacing/dive cycles to 

estimate detectability values for species 

or species groups of marine mammals 

for which there are no published 

detectability values. Thus the estimates 

of incidental take in L–DEO’s IHA 

application and the associated NSF EA 

are either the same (if detectability had 

already been taken into account) or 

higher than would be obtained by direct 

application of previously reported 

density data. 

NMFS acknowledges these 

limitations. However, acoustic detection 

has been demonstrated to augment 

visual detection of marine mammal in 

population estimates in a number of 

studies (e.g., Moore et al., 1999; Swartz 

et al., 2002). The use of PAM will 

improve the detection of marine 

mammals by indicating to the MMVOs 

when a vocalizing animal is potentially 

near and prompting a shut-down when 

necessary. 

Comment 54: Statements such as 

‘‘However, there has been no specific 

documentation of TTS let alone 

permanent hearing damage, i.e., PTS, in 

free-ranging marine mammals exposed 

to sequences of airgun pulses during 

realistic field conditions’’ are stupid. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

commenter’s opinion. However, at the 

time of publication, the statement that 

‘‘there has been no specific 

documentation of TTS let alone 

permanent hearing damage, i.e., 

permanent threshold shift (PTS), in freeranging marine mammals exposed to 

sequences of airgun pulses during 

realistic field conditions,’’ was correct. 

Lucke et al., (2009) recent auditory 

study on documenting threshold shift in 

harbor porpoises was published after L– 

DEO submitted their application. 

Monitoring 

Comment 55: ETSSTAWG states that 

a minimum of two MMOs should be 

used at all times, with one of those 

having considerable prior experience as 

a MMO (preferably within the area of 

Taiwan). 

Response: Three MMOs are typically 

on watch at a time, two MMVOs on the 

observation tower conducting visual 

observations and the third monitoring 

the PAM equipment. On the observation 

tower, two MMOs are on watch during 

all daylight hours except during meal 

times. At least one MMO and one 

MMVO will be on watch during meal 

times. The MMOs onboard the Langseth 

are experienced and qualified, and 

additional regional experts have been 

brought onboard for this survey. 

Comment 56: The Commission 

recommends that, before issuing the 

requested authorization, the NMFS 

provide additional justification for its 

preliminary determination that the 

planned monitoring program will be 

sufficient to detect, with a high level of 

confidence, all marine mammals within 

or entering the identified safety zones. 

At a minimum, such justification should 

(1) identify those species that it believes 

can be detected with a high degree of 

confidence using visual monitoring 

only, (2) describe detection probability 

as a function of distance from the 

observer, (3) describe changes in 

detection probability at night, and (4) 

explain how close to the vessel marine 

mammals must be for observers to 

achieve the anticipated high nighttime 

detection rate. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

planned monitoring program will be 

sufficient to detect (using visual 

detection and passive acoustic 

monitoring [PAM]), with reasonable 

certainty, most marine mammals within 

or entering identified safety zones. This 

monitoring, along with the required 

mitigation measures (see below), will 

result in the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and will result in a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks. 

The Langseth is utilizing a team of 

trained marine mammal observers 

(MMOs) to both visually monitor from 

the high observation tower of the 

Langseth and to conduct PAM. 

However, there are limitations on 

marine mammal detection, and rampups are required as mitigation measures 

due to these limitations. This 

monitoring, along with the required 

mitigation measures (see below), will 

result in the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species and/or 

stocks and will result in a negligible 

impact on the affected species and/or 

stocks. 

When stationed on the observation 

platform of the Langseth, the eye level 

will be approximately 17.8 m (58.4 ft) 

above sea level, so the visible distance 

(in good weather) to the horizon is 16.5 

km (10.3 mi; the largest safety radii is 

approximately 3.7 km, 2.3 mi). Big eyes 

are most effective at scanning the 

horizon (for blows), while 7x50 reticle 

binoculars are more effective closer in 

(MMOs also use a naked eye scan). 

Night vision devices (NVDs) will be 

used in low light situations. 

Additionally, MMOs will have a good 

view in all directions around the entire 

vessel. Also, nearly 93 percent of the 

survey lines are in intermediate or deep 

water depths, where the safety radii are 

all less than 1.4 km (0.87 mi). 

Theoretical distance of this PAM 

system is tens of kilometers. The PAM 

is operated both during the day and at 

night. Though it depends on the lights 

on the ship, the sea state, and thermal 

factors, MMOs estimated that visual 

detection is effective out to between 150 

and 250 m (492 and 820 ft) using NVDs 

and about 30 m (98.4 ft) with the naked 

eye. However, the PAM operates equally 

as effectively at night as during the day, 

especially for sperm whales and 

dolphins. 

The PAM has reliable detection rates 

out to 3 km (1.9 mi) and more limited 

ability out to 10s of km. The largest 180- 

dB safety radii (3.7 km, 2.3 mi), which 

is the radii within which the Langseth 

is required to shut down if a marine 

mammal enters, are found when the 36 

airgun array is operating in shallow 

water at a 9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth. Only 

approximately seven percent of the total 

15,902 km survey lines of the planned 

seismic survey (excluding contingency) 

will take place in water less than 100 m 

deep (shallow water). The species most 

likely to be encountered in the waters 

off of SE Asia are pantropical spotted, 

Fraser’s, and spinner dolphins, which 

have relatively larger group sizes (10s to 

100s to 1,000s of animals for these 

various dolphin species), are not cryptic 

at the surface, and have relatively short 

dive times (approximately 6 min for 

some dolphin species), all which 

generally make them easier to visually 

detect. Other species that are likely to be 

encountered during the seismic survey 

include Bryde’s whales and humpback 

whales, which have relatively long dive 

times; however they are not cryptic at 

the surface, have large blows and 

distinct physical features, all which 

generally make them easier to visually 

detect. Furthermore, the vocalizations of 

most of these species are easily detected 

by the PAM. During the Ewing cruise in 

the GOM in 2003, MMOs detected 

marine mammals at a distance of 

approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) from the 

vessel and identified them to species 

level at approximately 2.7 km (1.7 mi) 

from the vessel, though the bridge of 

that vessel was only 11 m (36 ft) above 

the water (vs. the Langseth which is 

more than 17 m (55.8 ft) above sea 

level). All of the 180-dB safety radii for 

other water depths and tow depths and 

for the single 40 in3 airgun to be used 

during ramp-ups and power-downs (see 

below) are less than 2 km (1.2 mi). 

The likelihood of visual detection at 

night is significantly lower than during 

the day, though the PAM remains just 

as effective at night as during the day. 

However, the Langseth will not be 

starting up the airguns unless the safety 

zone is visible for the entire 30 min 

prior (i.e., not at night), and therefore in 

all cases at night, the airguns will 

already be operating, which NMFS 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41275 

believes will cause many cetaceans to 

avoid the vessel, which therefore will 

reduce the number likely to come 

within the safety radii. Additionally all 

of the safety radii in intermediate and 

deep water depths are smaller than 3 km 

(1.9 mi) and fall easily with the reliable 

detection capabilities of PAM. 

Comment 57: The Commission 

recommends that, before issuing the 

requested authorization, the NMFS 

clarify the qualifiers ‘‘when practical’’ 

and ‘‘when feasible’’ with respect to (1) 

using two MMOs to monitor the 

exclusion zone for marine mammals 

during daytime operations and 

nighttime start-ups of the airguns, and 

(2) using MMOs during daytime periods 

to compare sighting rates and animal 

behavior when the seismic airguns are 

operating and when they are not. 

Dr. John Wang states that the 

inadequacy of MMVO coverage in this 

respect would be wholly inadequate 

even for small-scale marine mammal 

surveys where the consequence of 

failing to detect animals are much less 

serious. 

Response: The Langseth carries five 

trained, NMFS-qualified and 

experienced MMOs for every seismic 

study involving use of an airgun system 

comparable to that planned for the 

TAIGER project. MMOs are appointed 

by L–DEO with NMFS concurrence. L– 

DEO plans to employ a regional expert 

as one of the MMOs, and negotiations 

were currently underway with experts 

from National Taiwan University, 

Academia Sinica, and National Taiwan 

Ocean University during the preparation 

of this notice. L–DEO will have a sixth 

MMO and regional expert during the 

second leg of the cruise as well. L–DEO 

will utilize two (except during meal 

times), NMFS-qualified, vessel-based 

MMVOs to watch for and monitor 

marine mammals near the seismic 

source vessel during all daytime airgun 

operations and before and during startups of airguns day or night. MMVOs 

will have access to reticle binoculars 

(7×50 Fujinon), big-eye binoculars 

(25x150), and night vision devices to 

scan the area around the vessel. MMOs 

will alternate between binoculars and 

the naked eye to avoid eye fatigue. 

During all daytime periods, two 

MMVOs will be on effort from the 

observation town to monitor greater 

than 90 percent of the time. During 

mealtimes it is sometimes difficult to 

have two MMOs on effort, but at least 

one MMVO will be on watch during 

those brief scheduled times. Three 

MMOs are typically on watch at a time, 

and typically observe for one to three 

hours. Two MMVOs will also be on 

watch during all nighttime start-ups of 

the seismic airguns. A third MMO will 

be monitoring the PAM equipment 24 

hours a day to detect vocalizing marine 

mammals present in the action area. 

Comment 58: Dr. John Wang states 

that in shallow waters (Taiwan Strait), 

the predicted distance for exposure 

levels of 180dB and 190dB was 

estimated by L–DEO to be 2,761 to 

3,694m and 1,600 to 2,182 m, 

respectively. At these distances (which 

are underestimated) and under ideal 

sighting conditions, detection of finless 

porpoises by observers is of limited 

ineffectiveness at the closest range and 

very ineffective at the greater distances. 

Sighting effectiveness will drop 

dramatically even for highly 

experienced observers in slight seas. 

Under conditions where white caps are 

present, sightings of finless porpoises 

are rarely made and researchers 

generally stop observations. At several 

kilometers distance in shallow water, 

PAM would not be able to detect finless 

porpoises adequately because finless 

porpoises are not always actively 

vocalizing and the very high frequency 

sounds emitted by porpoises (Akamatsu 

et al., 1998) attenuate quickly so the 

PAM’s detection range will be limited. 

Therefore, finless porpoises can and 

will likely be exposed to >>180dB 

without being detected especially if 

sighting conditions are not ideal. For 

finless porpoises, L–DEO’s airguns have 

the potential to inflict serious 

permanent injuries or even cause death, 

directly or indirectly. 

Response: There is a scientific 

methodology to estimate the probability 

of detection marine mammal on the 

surface, as explained in detail in 

Buckland et al. (1993). This includes 

several components, including the 

probability that the mammal will be at 

the surface and potentially sightable 

while within visible range of the 

observers, the probability that an animal 

at the surface will in fact be detected, 

and the relationship between sighting 

probability and lateral distance from the 

trackline. 

A certain portion of the population is 

presumed to be submerged at any given 

time and is therefore unavailable for 

detection. However, if the ship speed is 

slow, many of these animals would 

surface at some point while within 

visual range of MMVO’s aboard the 

approaching vessel. The speed of the 

Langseth, and other seismic vessels 

while operating airguns, will generally 

be four to five knots of vessels 

conducting marine mammal line 

transect surveys. 

All L–DEO estimates of potential 

numbers of animals take account of all 

these factors to the extent that available 

data allow. Detectability is a measure of 

the probability of detecting a marine 

mammal that is present on a vessel’s 

trackline. L–DEO uses the most 

applicable detectability values as 

provided in Koski et al. (1998) 

whenever estimates of marine mammal 

detectability have not already been 

calculated. They compiled previously 

reported detectability information on 

various species and used data on 

surfacing/dive cycles to estimate 

detectability values for species or 

species groups of marine mammals for 

which there is no published 

detectability values. Thus the estimates 

of incidental take in L–DEO’s IHA 

application and Supplemental EA are 

either the same (if detectability had 

already been taken into account) or 

higher than would be obtained by direct 

application of previously reported 

density data. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. See Effects Analysis, 

Species of Particular Concern, and L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Monitoring—PAM 

Comment 59: ETSSTAWG asks about 

the frequency range of the PAM system, 

and if it is suitable for detecting signals 

produced by all the marine mammals 

within the area. 

Response: L–DEO’s PAM system is 

suitable for detecting frequencies up to 

96 kHz (192 sampling rate). The virtual 

bandwidth of the new digital array and 

sound analysis workstation is 96 kHz 

(the real bandwidth is around 90 kHz), 

which is at least double when compared 

to some of the best PAM systems 

normally available and four times that 

of most of the basic systems. L–DEO has 

the potential for expanding the PAM 

system to a bandwidth of 160 kHz, but 

a new hydrophone array will need to be 

designed to add the required special 

additional sensors. The array is capable 

of detecting porpoises, but not harbor 

porpoises (Phocena phocena), which 

have clicks at 140 kHz. 

The low frequency sensor end of the 

PAM system can detect mysticetes, 

however there is a problem with low 

frequency noise and vibration induced 

in the array by movements in towing the 

acoustic array system, in particular if a 

short cable and a depressor are used. To 

allow detection of low frequency waves, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

it is necessary to have a long cable 

towed with a good vibration damping 

system and the array should be deep 

and far from the ship. In the past, Right 

Wave’s PAM system has been able to 

detect frequencies as low as 10 Hz for 

fin whales (on the NATO Alliance), but 

due to towing conditions on the 

Langseth the current configuration can 

detect a minimum low frequency of 100 

Hz. 

The digital array is suitable for 

detecting beaked whales, as it can 

monitor and record at 48 kHz to get 

their clicks. The PAM’s sound analysis 

and display system has been proven 

effective for detecting Cuvier’s beaked 

whale clicks (Sirena 2008 cruise in the 

Alboran Sea). It is important to note 

here that in order to detect very diverse 

sound categories, it is necessary to set 

up a very powerful computer that is able 

to signal process to produce and display 

different real-time views, each view 

well-tailored on that particular signals’ 

characteristics. 

The PAM system has been improved 

and now has a shot blanking system. A 

new piece of hardware compresses the 

shots without blanking them. It works 

on the PAM operator’s headphone 

output and doesn’t affect the recording 

system. This allows the PAM operator to 

hear faint signals along with the 

(volume compressed) ‘‘shots’’ so that 

they are always aware of what is 

occurring underwater. 

Comment 60: ETSSTAWG states the 

MMO operating the PAM system (which 

should be in addition to the other two 

at all times) should have considerable 

experience working with the acoustic 

signals of many of the marine mammal 

taxa that are likely to be encountered in 

the survey. 

Response: The MMO operating the 

PAM system will be on watch in 

addition to the two MMVOs watching 

from the observation tower. Right 

Waves, an Italian bioacoustics company, 

is providing L–DEO with state-of-the-art 

underwater acoustic equipment and 

skilled operators. Right Waves started 

their studies on underwater acoustics 

more than 15 years ago at the 

Interdisciplinary Center for Bioacoustics 

and Environmental Research (CIBRA) 

Institute, which is part of the University 

of Pavia in Italy. They have organized 

and conducted several research cruises 

in order to develop their software, 

hardware, and data collection protocols. 

The PAM operators have applied 

acoustic monitoring and mitigation 

worldwide for both civil and military 

institutions. Right Waves is currently 

working with organizations such as 

WHOI and NATO to provide their 

expertise in underwater acoustics. They 

are also involved in writing mitigation 

policies for the Italian Navy, NATO, and 

other European organizations. Part of 

their activities is described and can 

be found on the CIBRA Web site at 

http://www.unipv.it/cibra. The Right 

Waves Web site will be available online 

soon. NMFS considers the operators of 

L–DEO’s PAM system to be qualified 

and experienced. 

Comment 61: The Commission 

recommends that, before issuing the 

requested authorization, the NMFS 

consult with the applicant to clarify and 

describe the potential conditions that 

would render the use of PAM 

impracticable for complementing the 

visual monitoring program. 

Response: Before the issuance of the 

requested authorization, NMFS 

consulted with L–DEO to clarify and 

describe the potential conditions that 

would render the use of PAM 

impracticable for complementing the 

visual monitoring program. L–DEO’s 

lead bioacoustician has stated that there 

are difficulties with towing the PAM 

array because the space off the stern of 

the Langseth is mostly filled by the 

airgun array and streamers. L–DEO tried 

to tow the PAM from the paravane 

boom, paravane tow cable, and with 

floats. Using these methods was not 

acceptable because the quality of 

acoustics was considered poor due to 

tow depth and it also posed a higher 

risk of totally losing the array. During L– 

DEO’s recent seismic survey near Tonga, 

PAM operators have found a more 

successful solution to towing the PAM 

array by using a depressor (intended to 

sink fishing gear) that can withstand 

rough weather and sea conditions. The 

depressor sinks the PAM array’s lead-in 

cable so that it does not get too close to 

the airgun array cables. This technique, 

while it works, can still be improved for 

a series of reasons. Potential problems 

that the current PAM set up could 

experience on the Langseth include 

operations in very shallow waters (20 m 

or less) and operations in areas with 

large amounts of fishing gear (longlines, 

driftnets, etc.) that could lead to 

entanglement. L–DEO has been 

provided two new PAM hydrophone 

arrays that are state-of-the-art, one is a 

unique digital PAM array. 

Comment 62: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address the 

effectiveness of PAM for detecting very 

high frequency vocalizations of small 

cetaceans in shallow waters several 

kilometers away (due to rapid 

attenuation of high frequency sounds). 

Response: Currently, the detection of 

high-frequency marine mammals signals 

in shallow water using PAM has 

limitations in terms of physics, and 

perhaps even more limitations in terms 

of the deployment of hydrophone 

arrays. The size of the cetacean is not 

likely to be a factor. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

including temporal and spatial 

avoidance of species of particular 

concern, which includes some small 

cetacean species (e.g., Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins and finless 

porpoises). See NMFS’ responses to 

comments above and L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 63: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address the 

ineffectiveness of PAM at determining 

the location and direction of travel of 

cetaceans. 

Response: One of the major reasons 

PAM is not a self standing mitigation 

tool is the limitations of determining 

range and bearing. For a seismic vessel 

on a fixed tract, the signal processing to 

determine a range has not yet arrived. 

Bearing is useful, but range is the 

critical measure for purposes of 

implementing mitigation measures for 

the safety radii. In a research vessel 

situation, free to change course, and 

with highly trained visual and acoustic 

teams, PAM can be quite effective to 

track and stay with vocal marine 

mammals. The potential to improve 

PAM technology certainly exists. See 

NMFS’ responses to comments above. 

Comment 64: CSI states that in 

shallow water, PAM is unlikely to be 

effective in detecting finless porpoises. 

Finless porpoises are not always 

vocalizing and the high frequency 

sounds produced by finless porpoises 

attenuate quickly. 

Response: L–DEO’s PAM system is 

capable of detecting the high frequency 

vocalizations of finless porpoises. See 

responses to comments regarding finless 

porpoises in Species of Particular 

Concern section below. See L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA for information. After 

issuance of the proposed IHA, L–DEO 

modified the cruise plan and adopted 

additional monitoring and mitigation 

measures to reduce potential impacts on 

finless porpoises. NMFS has not 

authorized any takes of finless porpoises 

in the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 65: Dr. John Wang states 

that in shallow water, PAM would be 

almost completely ineffective at 

detecting (never mind locating or 

tracking) cetaceans especially at the 

predicted rms distances for the different 

exposure levels. Furthermore, PAM is 

only capable of detecting cetaceans 

when they are vocalizing. Some species 

have been known to reduce 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41277 

vocalizations during seismic surveys 

while other species do not vocalize 

much at or near the surface (e.g., beaked 

whales). 

Response: MFS believes that visual 

observers and PAM are effective tools 

for monitoring marine mammals in the 

affected area during the seismic survey. 

PAM is required for monitoring on the 

Langseth (when practicable), but not for 

the implementation of mitigation 

measures. PAM is used by MMOs and 

the lead bioacoustician aboard the 

Langseth for the detection of vocalizing 

marine mammals. Any confirmed 

marine mammal vocalization detections 

using PAM are communicated to the 

MMVOs on watch on the observation 

tower to help alert the MMVOs to the 

presence of vocalizing marine mammals 

in the survey area (not necessarily the 

safety radii). The use of PAM is 

therefore used in aid of visual observers, 

who monitor the applicable safety radii 

for presence of marine mammals. The 

detection of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the array in turn triggers 

mitigation requirements specified in the 

IHA issued to L–DEO. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that the L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. 

Monitoring—Visual 

Comment 66: ETSSTAWG states L– 

DEO’s ability to monitor the exclusion 

zone (‘‘EZ’’) proposed by NMFS cannot 

be properly evaluated because the EZ 

has not yet been established and awaits 

further data from L–DEO’s 2007/2008 

calibration study. See 73 FR 78297, 

December 22, 2008. 

Response: Acoustic data analysis for 

L–DEO’s 2007/2008 calibration study is 

ongoing. Results from the 2007/2008 

calibration study in the Gulf of Mexico 

are in review and a scientific paper on 

the Langseth’s airgun sound source will 

be published on a future date (Tolstoy, 

pers. comm.). After the analysis is 

complete and published, the empirical 

data from the 2007/2008 calibration 

study will be used to refine the EZ’s for 

future proposed cruises as appropriate. 

NMFS considers the results from the 

2004 calibration study to be the best 

scientific data available for L–DEO’s 

purposes of monitoring the EZ’s 

described in Table 1 (above). 

Comment 67: Dr. John Wang states 

that although large pink/white animals 

(i.e., Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins) 

are highly visible within 1 km in calm 

conditions, younger grey and spotted 

animals can be easily missed. However, 

beyond 1 km, high atmospheric 

humidity and smog that is often present 

along the west coast of Taiwan can 

reduce visibility of these animals by a 

considerable but unquantified amount 

(personal observation) even with optical 

aids. Furthermore, because these 

dolphins are often swimming along the 

shoreline next to the surf, even pink/ 

white dolphins can be easily missed by 

offshore observers looking inshore 

towards the surf. Jefferson (2000) 

showed that humpback dolphin 

sightings dropped off considerably 

beyond a perpendicular distance of 

about 400 to 500 m and none were 

observed beyond about 1,500 m. Within 

the predicted (but underestimated) 

distances for exposure to >180 dB, many 

dolphins can go undetected by MMVOs. 

Response: NMFS agrees that some 

species of marine mammals can be 

difficult to visually detect in certain 

environmental conditions. In order to 

reduce potential impacts on the ETS 

sub-population of Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins, L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to take place at 

least 20 km from the west coast of 

Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou (Wau-san-ting Chou) 

sandbar, where the survey will pass 

through the approximately 17.1 km midline distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins to 

SPLs >=160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

Comment 68: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address the 

ineffectiveness of MMVOs at detecting 

cetaceans, especially small cetaceans, 

under non-ideal sighting conditions 

(low light, rough seas, rain) and the 

ineffectiveness of MMVOs at detecting 

cetaceans, especially small cetaceans, at 

distances beyond about 1 km but well 

within the waters ensonified by levels 

>180 dB in shallow waters (potentially 

farther than 3.7km). 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will be 

avoiding areas where some species of 

small cetaceans that are difficult to 

visually detect (e.g., Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins and finless 

porpoises) are likely to occur. A sixth 

MMO and regional expert will be 

onboard the Langseth for the duration of 

the survey in order to improve visual 

detection capabilities. L–DEO will also 

be using a PAM system in order to 

detect any vocalizing marine mammals. 

See L–DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 69: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address the 

ineffectiveness of MMVOs at detecting 

finless porpoise at distances beyond 1 

km under any conditions, but well 

within the waters ensonified by levels 

>180dB (possibly >190 dB) in shallow 

waters (potentially farther than 3.7km). 

Response: The monitoring methods 

for detection of marine mammals on the 

Langseth are relatively standard 

methods used onboard vessels for 

conducting marine mammal abundance 

surveys and under IHA’s. The PAM 

system onboard the vessel is capable of 

detecting the vocalizations of finless 

porpoises. A description of the 

monitoring methods can be found below 

(see Monitoring and Mitigation). In 

response to concerns about marine 

mammal species of particular concern, 

L–DEO will be avoiding the potential 

habitat of finless porpoises. L–DEO will 

shut-down the airgun array immediately 

if there is a sighting at any distance of 

finless porpoises in order to prevent 

exposure of animals to received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB and 

especially 180 dB. No incidental take of 

finless porpoises are anticipated or 

authorized in the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 70: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address the 

ineffectiveness of MMVOs with little 

experience with local marine mammal 

species and conditions (species 

identification can be problematic even 

for experienced researchers in this 

region due to the large number of 

species). MMVOs that are highly 

experienced with the fauna and 

conditions of the region need to be 

involved. 

Response: The Langseth normally 

carries five qualified and experienced 

MMOs for every seismic study involving 

use of an airgun system comparable to 

the array used for this project. L–DEO 

will also employ a sixth MMO and 

regional expert for the duration of the 

survey. MMOs are appointed by L–DEO 

with NMFS concurrence. 

Comment 71: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address MMVO 

fatigue and lack of vigilance during 

search (on-duty search times of up to 

four hours is far too long; should be 

reduced to rotations of between 30 and 

60 minutes at most). 

Response: MMO’s typically observe 

for one to three hours. Because there are 

usually two MMVO’s on visual watch at 

a time, they alternate between visually 

observing with reticle binoculars (7x50 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41278 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25x150), 

and the naked eye to avoid eye fatigue. 

Comment 72: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address the 

ineffectiveness of night vision 

equipment for small cetaceans, 

especially at distances beyond about 1 

km but well within the waters 

ensonified by levels >180dB in shallow 

waters (potentially farther than 3.7km). 

Response: Though it depends on the 

lights on the ship, the sea state, and 

thermal factors, MMVOs estimated that 

visual detection is effective out to 

between 150 and 250 m using NVDs and 

about 30 m with the naked eye. 

However, the PAM operates equally as 

effectively at night as during the day, 

especially for sperm whales and 

dolphins (dolphins and porpoises are 

the only species likely to be detected in 

the ‘‘shallow’’ depths, where the safety 

zones are the largest). 

Marine geophysical surveys may 

continue into night and low-light hours 

is such segment(s) of the survey is 

initiated when the entire relevant safety 

zones are visible and can be effectively 

monitored. No initiation of airgun array 

operations is permitted from a shutdown position at night or during lowlight hours (such as in dense fog or 

heavy rain) when the entire relevant 

safety zone cannot be effectively 

monitored by the MMVOs on duty. 

NMFS has included a requirement to 

this effect in the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 73: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address the 

ineffectiveness of MMVOs at detecting 

beaked whales, especially when they are 

very quiet near the surface (detection is 

known to be very low even for 

experienced observers in good 

conditions). 

Response: NMFS agrees that beaked 

whales are difficult to detect at the 

surface. Three MMOs are typically on 

watch at a time, two on the observation 

tower conducting visual observations 

and the third monitoring the PAM 

equipment. The MMVOs will alternate 

between surveying with reticle 

binoculars (7x50 Fujinon), Big-eye 

binoculars (25x150), and the naked eye 

to avoid eye fatigue. The PAM system is 

capable of detecting beaked whale clicks 

as well. 

Statements have been made in the 

past that little information is available 

on beaked whales because they avoid 

survey vessels. One can presume 

therefore, that MMOs onboard a vessel 

conducting seismic operations are 

unlikely to see beaked whales not only 

because they are cryptic, but also 

because beaked whales are likely to 

avoid an approaching sound source and 

leave the area. 

When operating the sound source(s), 

L–DEO will minimize approaches to 

slopes, submarine canyons, seamounts, 

and other underwater geologic features, 

if possible, because of sensitivity of 

beaked whales and possible beaked 

whale habitat. If concentrations or 

groups of beaked whales are observed 

(by visual or passive acoustic detection) 

at a site such as on the continental 

slope, submarine canyon, seamount, or 

other underwater geologic feature just 

prior to or during the airgun operations, 

those operations will be powered/shutdown and/or moved to another location 

along the site, if possible, based on 

recommendations by the on-duty MMO 

aboard the Langseth. NMFS has 

included requirements to this effect in 

the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 74: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO should address the 

ineffectiveness of MMVOs at detecting, 

tracking and following animals entering 

and exiting the area being ensonified by 

sounds greater than the thresholds 

stated (in shallow waters >180dB can be 

farther than 3.7km). 

Response: There are significant 

limitations to PAM as PAM technology 

is presently immature, yet constantly 

improving. PAM is a useful 

enhancement tool to visual observer 

efforts and every effort is made to use 

it when practicable. NMFS believes that 

visual observers and PAM are effective 

tools for monitoring marine mammals in 

the affected area during the seismic 

survey. PAM is required for monitoring 

on the Langseth (when practicable), but 

not for the implementation of mitigation 

measures. PAM is used by MMOs and 

the lead bioacoustician aboard the 

Langseth for the detection of vocalizing 

marine mammals. Any confirmed 

marine mammal vocalization detections 

using PAM are communicated to the 

MMVOs on watch on the observation 

tower to help alert the MMVOs to the 

presence of vocalizing marine mammals 

in the survey area (not necessarily the 

safety radii). The use of PAM is 

therefore used in aid of visual observers, 

who monitor the applicable safety radii 

for presence of marine mammals. The 

detection of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the array in turn triggers 

mitigation requirements specified in the 

IHA issued to L–DEO. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

Comment 75: Dr. John Wang states 

that it is unclear how it can be visually 

observed that an animal has left the EZ 

if the EZ is more distant than 1 km and 

during poor sighting conditions. Not 

detecting an animal within the EZ 

boundary may be determined 

erroneously as the animal having left 

the area rather than observers failing to 

see the animal. Such situations are 

likely to occur very frequently when 

sightings conditions are not ideal and 

the EZ’s distance from source extends 

beyond 1km. Obviously, this can have 

serious consequences. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will alter 

speed or course during seismic 

operations if a marine mammal, based 

on its position and relative motion, 

appears likely to enter the relevant 

safety zone. If speed or course alteration 

is not safe or practicably, or if after 

alteration the marine mammal still 

appears likely to enter the safety zone, 

further mitigation measures, such as a 

power-down or shut-down, will be 

taken. Following a power-down, if the 

marine mammal approaches the smaller 

designated safety radius, the airguns 

must then be completely shut-down. 

Airgun activity will not resume until the 

MMVO has visually observed the 

marine mammal(s) exiting the safety 

radius and is not likely to return, or has 

not been seen within the radius for 15 

min (species with shorter dive 

durations—smaller odontocetes) or 30 

min (species with longer dive 

durations—mysticetes and large 

odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy 

sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked 

whales). Following a power-down or 

shut-down and subsequent animal 

departure, airgun operations may 

resume following ramp-up procedures 

described in the IHA. NMFS has 

included requirements to these effects 

in the IHA issued to L–DEO. NMFS 

believes that L–DEO’s revised survey as 

well as the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. 

Comment 76: Dr. John Wang states 

that secondary support vessels should 

be used to search for cetaceans with 

MMVOs to cover a sufficient amount of 

water to reduce the number of marine 

mammals being exposed to >160 dB. 

Response: Prior to issuing this IHA, 

NMFS thoroughly investigated all 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41279 

measures that might reduce the 

incidental taking of marine mammals to 

the lowest level practicable. Monitoring 

and mitigation measures are discussed 

later in this document. Mitigation 

measures, such as aerial overflights or 

support vessels to look for marine 

mammals prior to an animal entering a 

safety zone, may be given consideration 

if the safety zone cannot be adequately 

monitored from the source vessel. 

Consideration also must be given to 

aircraft/vessel availability, access to 

nearby airfields, distance from an 

airfield to the survey area, and the 

aircraft’s flight duration. These are 

serious safety issues regarding aircraft 

flights over water that must be 

considered prior to requiring aerial 

overflights. Additional consideration 

must be give to the potential for aircraft 

to also result in Level B harassment 

since a plane or helicopter would need 

to fly at low altitudes to be effective. 

Even if aircraft or a second vessel are 

not necessary or feasible to monitor a 

safety zone, they might be appropriate 

to monitor shorelines (presumably for 

strandings related to the activity). For 

this survey, the most appropriate 

monitoring is for the MMOs onboard the 

Langseth to observe visually and using 

the PAM system. 

Comment 77: CSI states that based on 

the table of predicted rms distances for 

different received levels, MMVOs may 

be completely ineffective for detecting 

small cetaceans in shallow coastal 

waters because the distance from source 

will be great even for 190 dB received 

level (1,600 to 2,182 m); for 180 dB, the 

distances can be 2,761 to 3,694 m from 

source and for 160 dB, the distances are 

6,227 to 8,000 m. Again, these distances 

must be considered underestimates 

because the coastal waters of western 

Taiwan in which some cetaceans 

inhabit are much shallower than 100 m 

(e.g., the critically endangered ETS subpopulation of Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphin are in waters from 1.5 to 15 m 

deep; finless porpoises and Indo-Pacific 

bottlenose dolphins are often commonly 

observed in waters shallower than about 

50 m). Finless porpoises are difficult to 

detect even if they are within several 

hundred meters and sighting is during 

excellent conditions and by experienced 

observers (note: excellent weather 

conditions for sighting cetaceans in the 

waters around most of Taiwan, 

especially western Taiwan, are very 

limited). Nighttime visual detection of 

these coastal species is impossible at the 

distances shown above even with nightvision equipment. MMVOs have limited 

effectiveness in detecting many deepdiving species such as beaked whales 

and Kogia sp. These are all difficult 

species to observe and study by 

experienced researchers. Barlow (1999) 

reported that very few beaked whales 

are detected even in prime sighting 

conditions by cetacean researchers, 

Barlow and Gisiner (2006) estimated 

that less than 2% of the beaked whales 

are likely to be observed by typical 

mitigation monitoring (this estimation 

did not account for observer experience, 

which will greatly affect detection). 

With such a low detection rate, other 

mitigation measures dependent upon 

detection and tracking will be 

compromised. None of the mitigation 

measures takes into account sighting 

conditions. This is important as several 

of the mitigation measures are 

dependent upon observers sighting 

marine mammals. 

Response: NMFS agrees that some 

deep-diving species (such as beaked 

whales and Kogia sp.), which may be 

found in the study area, are cryptic at 

the surface and difficult to observe. The 

Langseth carried five qualified and 

experienced MMOs for every seismic 

study involving use of an airgun system 

comparable to that used for this project. 

MMOs are appointed by L–DEO with 

NMFS concurrence. L–DEO is also 

employing a regional expert as a sixth 

MMO. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that the L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. See Species of Particular 

Concern and L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 78: CSI states that L–DEO 

claims that ‘‘marine mammal detection 

by MMVOs is high at short distances 

from the source.’’ With the possible 

exception of 180 dB at 950 m for deep 

water, the distances mentioned above 

(especially for operations in shallow 

waters) are not short for sighting 

cetaceans (small or large). Detection of 

most species drops off beyond 1 km 

from a ship. Even 25x150 (Big-eye) 

binoculars may have limited use in a 

region with high humidity and smog in 

coastal regions (e.g., western Taiwan), 

which can reduce the clarity of high 

power optical aids. The detection of 

finless porpoises at distances beyond 1 

km is poor. At 3,694 m, detection for 

small cetaceans is limited and maybe 

questionable (especially for finless 

porpoises) when sighting conditions are 

sub-optimal. In no way can the 

detection of small cetaceans in shallow 

water at distances of several kilometers 

be considered high. For beaked whales, 

only a small proportion of the animals 

are detected by experienced observers in 

good sighting conditions (Barlow, 1999). 

As such, beaked whale detection cannot 

be considered to be high either. Because 

detection of both shallow water small 

cetaceans and beaked whales were 

wrongly concluded to be high, take by 

injury or death cannot be dismissed and 

the potential for temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment is not 

low and (as discussed above) cannot be 

avoided by implementing the 

inadequate mitigation measures 

proposed. 

Response: The Langseth travels at a 

much slower operation speed (four to 

five kts) than vessels conducting 

cetacean surveys (typically 10 kts). 

Statements have been made in the past 

that little information is available on 

beaked whales because they avoid 

survey vessels. One can presume 

therefore, that MMVO’s onboard a 

vessel conducting seismic operations 

are unlikely to see beaked whales not 

only because they are cryptic, but also 

because the animals would see or hear 

the slowly approaching vessel and leave 

the area. NMFS presumes that beaked 

whales will similarly avoid sources of 

anthropogenic noise, provided they are 

afforded sufficient notice of the activity 

through a gradual increase in noise 

levels rather than receiving a sudden, 

loud sound that might inflict a panic 

reaction or perhaps serious injury. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that the L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. See Species of Particular 

Concern and L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 79: Seismic surveys should 

not be conducted in poor cetacean 

sighting conditions (low light, SS>4, 

rain, heavy fog or haze) until a proven 

(acceptable to most marine mammal 

scientists) method for detecting 

cetaceans is developed for such 

conditions. Low light and night time 

seismic surveys should not be permitted 

at this time. 

Dr. John Wang states that detection of 

marine mammals as part of a mitigation 

measure has to be at least as effective, 

but preferably better, at detecting 

cetaceans as cetacean survey projects 

because the consequences are more 

serious if cetaceans are not detected. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41280 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

Response: MMO’s effectively conduct 

systematic surveys for detecting 

cetaceans during the seismic cruise 

onboard the Langseth. In addition to 

visual observations using reticle 

binoculars, big-eye binoculars, night 

vision devices, and the naked eye, PAM 

is used day and night (as practical), 

which can detect vocalizing marine 

mammals present in the area. Many 

dedicated cetacean survey projects use 

the same or similar equipment as the 

MMO’s onboard the Langseth. The 

Langseth’s crew will also assist in 

detecting marine mammal, when 

practicable. 

During ramp-ups of the airgun array, 

if for any reason the entire radius cannot 

be seen for the entire 30 min (i.e., rough 

seas, fog, darkness), or if marine 

mammals are near, approaching, or in 

the safety radius, the airguns may not be 

started up. Marine seismic surveys may 

continue into night and low-light hours 

if such segment(s) of the survey is 

initiated when the entire relevant safety 

zones are visible and can be effectively 

monitored. No initiation of airgun array 

operations is permitted from a shutdown position at night or during lowlight hours (such as dense fog or heavy 

rain) when the entire relevant safety 

zone cannot be effectively monitored by 

the MMVOs on duty. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that the L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. 

Comment 80: The Commission 

recommends that, before issuing the 

requested authorization, the NMFS 

extend the monitoring period to at least 

one hour before initiation of seismic 

activities and at least one hour before 

the resumption of airgun activities after 

a power-down because of a marine 

mammal sighting within the safety zone. 

Response: As the Commission points 

out, several species of deep-diving 

cetaceans are capable of remaining 

underwater for more than 30 minutes, 

however, for the following reasons 

NMFS believes that 30 minutes is an 

adequate length for the monitoring 

period prior to the start-up of airguns: 

(1) Because the Langseth is required to 

ramp-up the time of monitoring prior to 

start-up of any but the smallest array is 

effectively longer than 30 minutes 

(ramp-up will begin with the smallest 

gun in the array and airguns will be 

added in sequence such that the source 

level of the array will increase in steps 

not exceeding approximately 6 dB per 5 

min period over a total duration of 20– 

30 min), (2) in many cases MMOs are 

making observations during times when 

seismic is not being operated and will 

actually be observing prior to the 30 min 

observation period anyway, (3) the 

majority of the species that may be 

exposed do not stay underwater more 

than 30 minutes, and (4) all else being 

equal and if deep diving individuals 

happened to be in the area in the short 

time immediately prior to the pre-startup monitoring, if an animal’s maximum 

underwater time is 45 min, there is only 

a one in three chance that the last 

random surfacing would be prior to the 

beginning of the required 30 min 

monitoring period. 

Also, seismic vessels are moving 

continuously (because of the long, 

towed array) and NMFS believes that 

unless the animal submerges and 

follows at the speed of the vessel (highly 

unlikely, especially when considering 

that a significant part of their 

movements is vertical [deep-diving]), 

the vessel will be far beyond the length 

of the safety radii within 30 min, and 

therefore it will be safe to start the 

airguns again. 

Mitigation 

Comment 81: Dr. John Wang states 

that the effectiveness of the mitigation 

measures proposed by L–DEO for 

reducing threats range between having 

questionable effectiveness and being 

entirely inadequate. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

Comment 82: NRDC is concerned that 

L–DEO’s EA and NMFS’ proposed IHA 

do not meet the rigorous standards of 

environmental review required by the 

NEPA and the MMPA. For example, L– 

DEO’s EA does not properly analyze 

impacts or adopt adequate mitigation 

measures. Although the EA notes the 

lack of scientific information regarding 

species distribution and acoustic 

impacts of seismic activities, it 

nonetheless and without basis 

concludes that the proposed surveys 

will have only ‘‘minor’’ effects on 

marine mammal species. NMFS’ 

proposed IHA also notes the lack of 

density data yet nevertheless concludes, 

again without basis, that the proposed 

seismic surveys will have only 

negligible impacts on marine mammals. 

And, like L–DEO, NMFS does not 

propose meaningful mitigation 

measures. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. NMFS and NSF have 

satisfied all requirements of NEPA and 

the MMPA. 

Comment 83: WaH states that while it 

may be true that some of the planned 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

‘‘would reduce the possibility of 

injurious effects,’’ the proposed 

monitoring and mitigation measures are 

inadequate and cannot be argued to 

prevent the possibility of injurious 

effects to cetaceans, which are highly 

likely to occur. The claim in the EA that 

‘‘no long-term or significant effects are 

expected on individual marine 

mammals * * * the populations to 

which they belong, or their habitats’’ is 

ill-founded and should be reconsidered 

in light of the above concerns. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA issued to L–DEO 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. See L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 84: WaH states that there is 

a lack of understanding of the 

distribution and status of the species 

and populations mentioned in their 

comments highlights the need for 

greater precaution and investigation 

prior to carrying out seismic surveys in 

this region. However several proposed 

monitoring and mitigation measures do 

not reflect the need for precaution, for 

example: (1) The proposed number of 

MMOs is insufficient (a minimum of 

only one observer working during 

daytime operations, except for 30 

minutes before and after ramp-up when 

this will be increased to two observers); 

(2) nighttime seismic survey could be 

(but are not) prohibited, meaning 

impaired effectiveness of MMVOs and 

greater reliance on PAM, which 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41281 

provides no certainty of detection of 

animals that are not vocalizing. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. The Langseth 

carries five qualified and experience 

MMOs for every seismic study involving 

the use of an airgun system comparable 

to that planned for this project. L–DEO 

is employing a regional expert as a sixth 

MMO. Three MMOs are typically on 

watch at a time, two on the observation 

tower conducting visual watch and the 

third MMO monitoring the PAM 

equipment. On the tower, two MMVOs 

are on watch during all daylight hours 

except during meal times. The scientists 

conducting the survey have considered 

the recommendation for no nighttime 

seismic operations, and have decided 

that it is not feasible, as limiting the 

surveys to daytime only would either 

result in the loss of half of the data or 

would necessitate doubling the duration 

of the project. Doubling the duration of 

the surveys is not possible because the 

Langseth has other research 

commitments after this cruise, and 

because of weather conditions 

associated with the typhoon season. 

However, the seismic source will not be 

started if the observers cannot view the 

entire safety radius for any reason 

(darkness, for, or rough seas). In 

addition, PAM is being used day and 

night as practical, which can detect 

vocalizing marine mammals present in 

the study area. NMFS believes that L– 

DEO’s revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

Comment 85: Minor and Wilson are 

greatly saddened to see the high 

proportion of cetaceans that are 

endangered in the proposed study area. 

Some of the species have population 

levels that are so low that the loss of a 

single individual could significantly 

increase the chances of extinction. 

Minor and Wilson do not feel that 

chasing these animals around with a 

boat that produces seismic ‘‘bangs’’ that 

are still 170 dB at a distance of 7,808 m 

from the boat will be anything other 

than harmful to these endangered 

animals. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the monitoring 

and mitigation measures described in 

the IHA will have a negligible impact on 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. 

The principal investigator’s intended 

work in the Taiwan Strait is designed so 

that seismic energy from the Langseth 

can be recorded by OBSs in the Taiwan 

Strait and by land instruments. By using 

both seismic reflections from various 

rock layers and refracted seismic energy 

they can determine the thickness of the 

crust and get an idea of the type of rocks 

in the crust. If they record data on a long 

profile they can compare the crustal 

structure, and, in the case of Taiwan, 

identify what the structure is before and 

after deformation caused by the 

collision with the Luzon volcanic arc. In 

Taiwan, the affects of collision increase 

from south to north and also from west 

to east. 

Comment 86: Dr. Linda Weilgart 

states that the treatment of possible 

impact is very superficial, and does not 

take into account that ecological and 

population-level consequences may 

result. Especially where many depleted 

species in the area are faced with a 

myriad of threats and stressors already, 

the addition of noise may prove to be 

the final straw. In nature, cumulative 

stressors often interact synergistically, 

particularly if there are several stressors. 

Noise impacts should not be reduced to 

merely hearing impairment, though that 

is certainly possible and serious. Even 

TTS can compromise an animal’s 

survival, in that its feeding, predator 

avoidance, and social behavior are 

impacted. Other behavioral responses 

such as permanent avoidance of an area 

that is associated with a frightening, 

loud noise are also possible. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures in the study area. 

NMFS believes that L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. 

Comment 87: HSI states that the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA and IHA application have failed to 

consider some key papers in the recent 

acoustics literature, at least one of 

which is a significant and telling 

omission. Madsen et al. (2006) is not 

cited by L–DEO in its application and 

although it is cited in the EA, the 

discussion there about its implications 

for marine mammals with high 

frequency hearing and the propagation 

of seismic airgun sounds is shallow. 

This is unacceptable. Clearly seismic 

airguns have the capacity to propagate 

well beyond the exclusion zones 

proposed by L–DEO and to affect marine 

mammals with higher frequency 

hearing, yet the mitigation measures 

discussed do not address this at all. 

Response: A number of comments 

pointed out shortcomings in the EA and 

proposed IHA that do not alter the 

overall conclusions (e.g., particular 

publications that were not cited); NSF 

and NMFS are grateful for those 

comments and have taken note of them 

for future reference. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes L–DEO’s revised survey 

as well as the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. 

Comment 88: CSI states that the 

current EA is deficient, but its critique 

will provide stakeholders with 

resources to define what truly adequate 

mitigations are possible, while meeting 

the project’s goals. Not only that, but by 

example, the world’s increasingly 

active, but unregulated seismic industry 

will benefit from learning what 

mitigations are most effective. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with CSI’s 

comment. NMFS reviewed the EA and 

determined that it contains an adequate 

description of the proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives, the affected 

environment, the effects of the action, 

and appropriate monitoring and 

mitigation measures. 

After issuance of the proposed IHA, 

L–DEO modified the cruise plan and 

adopted more precautionary monitoring 

and mitigation measures. NMFS 

believes that L–DEO’s revised survey as 

well as the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. 

Comment 89: CSI states that previous 

L–DEO authorizations have proceeded 

on the assumption that there was no 

proof of significant impact, without 

supporting adequate, directed research 

to validate that claim. The attached 

expert reviews declare several 

significant research questions that need 

to be answered to judge the potential 

impacts from this proposal. Will L– 

DEO, the NSF, and other supporters 

work with the experts to enable 

adequately mitigated seismic research? 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41282 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. NMFS prepared a Finding of 

No Significant Impact and determined 

that the issuance of an IHA for the take, 

by harassment, of small numbers of 

marine mammals incidental to L–DEO’s 

March to July, 2009, seismic survey in 

SE Asia will not significantly impact the 

quality of the human environment, as 

described in the EA. 

Comment 90: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. 

Wu state that a mitigation plan has been 

developed that will insure the safety of 

marine mammals that may be present in 

the survey areas. With this mitigation 

plan and lack of documented historical 

impacts, they deem that injury to 

marine mammals is exceedingly 

unlikely and disturbance, if any, would 

be minimal, local, and short-term. In 

contrast, the impact of this research on 

our understanding of fundamental Earth 

processes is likely to be significant. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

principal investigators’ comments and 

expects L–DEO to comply with all the 

requirements stipulated in the IHA. 

After issuance of the proposed IHA, L– 

DEO negotiated with the project’s 

principal scientists (Dr. McIntosh and 

Dr. Wu) and modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that L–DEO’s revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. 

Comment 91: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. 

Wu state the Langseth is operated in 

strict compliance with requirements 

mandated by NMFS. The underlying 

guidelines are based on requirements of 

the ESA and the MMPA. The Langseth 

will have on board five marine mammal 

observers for visual and acoustic 

monitoring during all seismic 

operations. These operations will be 

ramped-down or shut down if marine 

mammals or sea turtles enter into the 

NMFS-approved safety zone. This 

mitigation plan is similar to those used 

during previous Langseth projects and 

previous seismic projects on the Ewing, 

the Langseth’s predecessor. Based on 

past post-cruise reports, this plan has 

successfully avoided takes of marine 

mammals during numerous seismic 

projects. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

principal investigators’ comments and 

expects L–DEO to comply with all the 

requirements stipulated in the IHA. 

Comment 92: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. 

Wu state, as noted above, their seismic 

operations will be in strict compliance 

with the mitigation practices developed 

by the NMFS, and we will avoid the 

sensitive near-coastal habitat. This type 

of seismic project has been undertaken 

many times in the past, with marine 

biological observers present, and has not 

resulted in any observed impacts. 

Unlike many sources of marine noise, 

which emit continuous sound, seismic 

work involves a short pulse of acoustic 

energy followed by a significant period 

of quiet. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

information and comments provided by 

the principal investigators of L–DEO’s 

TAIGER seismic survey. NMFS fully 

expects L–DEO to comply with all the 

requirements stipulated in the IHA. 

Comment 93: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. 

Wu state that the seismic program will 

pass through any one area at a speed of 

about 8 km/hr, so any impact will be 

very limited in time, generally much 

less than one hour. Furthermore, the 

planned transects are very widely 

spaced, so most parts of the Taiwan 

Strait will be completely unaffected by 

the project. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

information and comments provided by 

the principal investigators of L–DEO’s 

TAIGER survey. This information was 

used by NMFS in making its necessary 

negligible impact determinations. 

Comment 94: ETSSTAWG states that 

the proposed mitigation practices are 

inadequate to prevent injury to 

cetaceans. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with 

ETSSTAWG’s comment. After issuance 

of the proposed IHA, L–DEO modified 

its cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. The combination 

of all the mitigation and monitoring 

measures, along with the avoidance 

responses of many marine mammals, 

ensure that takings, incidental to this 

activity, will result in no more than a 

negligible impact on affected species 

and stocks of marine mammals and will 

result in the least practicable impact on 

these affected species or stocks in the 

study area. See L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 95: ETSSTAWG 

recommends that two cetacean 

observers, not just one, should be on 

watch at the same time. The duration of 

watch times should be reduced from 4 

to 2 hours to prevent compromised 

efficiency as a result of fatigue. Also, 

observers should be familiar with the 

cetaceans expected in the area, the 

nature of the local environment (i.e., a 

locally trained person), operation of the 

PAM system, and the observation 

methods required. 

Response: The Langseth carries five 

qualified and experienced MMOs for 

every seismic study involving use of an 

airgun system comparable to that 

planned for this project. MMOs are 

appointed by L–DEO with NMFS 

concurrence. L–DEO has employed a 

regional expert as one of the MMOs for 

the duration of the survey. Three MMOs 

are typically on watch at a time, two on 

the observation tower conducting visual 

observations and the third monitoring 

the PAM equipment. On the tower, two 

observers are on watch during all 

daylight hours except during meal 

times. MMOs typically observe for one 

to three hours. Because there are usually 

two MMOs on the visual watch at a 

time, they alternate between observing 

with reticle binoculars (7x50 Fujinon), 

big-eye binoculars (25x150), and the 

naked eye to avoid eye fatigue. 

Comment 96: Dr. Robert Brownell and 

Dr. Lien-Siang Chou from National 

Taiwan University’s Institute of Ecology 

and Evolutionary Biology state that the 

permit application is only requesting 

permission for the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals (Level 

B) while conducting the proposed 

marine geophysical survey in SE Asia. 

The survey area includes the west coast 

of Taiwan, which is a hot spot for small 

cetacean mass stranding events (MSEs) 

or near mass stranding events (NMSEs). 

Since 1990, at least 16 MSEs or NMSEs 

involving six species of small cetaceans 

(pygmy killer whales, rough toothed 

dolphins, striped dolphins, pantropical 

spotted dolphins, melon-headed whales, 

and ginkgo-toothed beaked whales) have 

occurred during all months of the year 

except May, August, October, and 

December. Taiwan has the highest 

number of pygmy killer whales MSE 

compared to any other location in the 

world (Brownell et al., 2009). It is 

possible that at least some of these 

MSEs may be related to anthropogenic 

noise. While ‘‘NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the impact of 

conducting the seismic survey in SE 

Asia may result, at worst, in temporary 

modification in behavior (Level B 

harassment) of small numbers of marine 

mammals,’’ there is no conclusive 

evidence that the proposed seismic 

survey will not cause some small 

cetaceans to strand. Therefore, some 

mitigation and monitoring plans need to 

be developed in case any strandings or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41283 

NMSEs occur. In addition to the above 

noted MSEs for Taiwan, one unusual 

cetacean mortality event occurred in 

Taiwan between July 19 and August 13, 

2005 that involved 23 small cetaceans of 

seven species. Most of the strandings 

(74 percent) were beaked and dwarf 

sperm whales (Yang et al., 2008). 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. No injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated or authorized. NMFS 

believes that the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

and stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

Comment 97: Minor and Wilson state 

that the EA and IHA documents also fail 

to deal with the reality of the strandings 

that have been associated with previous 

airgun operations (including one 

stranding associated with a previous 

survey conducted by the proponent, L– 

DEO). Minor and Wilson think that 

these strandings clearly constitute 

something greater than ‘‘Level B 

harassment.’’ 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. No injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, and 

mortality is anticipated or authorized. 

See NMFS’ responses to relevant 

discussions in this document. 

Comment 98: The Commission 

recommends that, before issuing the 

requested authorization, the NMFS 

require that observations be made 

during all ramp-up procedures to gather 

the data needed to analyze and provide 

a report on their effectiveness as a 

mitigation measure. CSI states that there 

are uncertainties about the effectiveness 

of ramp-up procedures and no data was 

presented to show that this was indeed 

useful in reducing impacts. 

Response: The IHA requires that 

MMOs on the Langseth make 

observations for 30 minutes prior to 

ramp-up, during all ramp-ups, and 

during all daytime seismic operations 

and record the following information 

when a marine mammal is sighted: 

(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 

approach, paralleling, etc., and 

including responses to ramp-up), and 

behavioral pace; and 

(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel (including number 

of airguns operating and whether in 

state of ramp-up or power-down), sea 

state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun 

glare. 

NMFS has asked NSF and L–DEO to 

gather all data that could potentially 

provide information regarding 

effectiveness of ramp-ups as a 

mitigation measure. However, 

considering the low numbers of marine 

mammal sightings and low numbers of 

ramp-ups, it is unlikely that the 

information will result in any 

statistically robust conclusions for this 

particular seismic survey. Over the long 

term, these requirements may provide 

information regarding the effectiveness 

of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, 

provided animals are detected during 

ramp-up. 

Comment 99: Dr. John Wang states 

that L–DEO did not provide any 

supporting evidence that ramp-up 

procedures are effective in reducing 

impacts on cetaceans. Given that it 

appears to be an important proposed 

mitigation measure, effectiveness of 

such a procedure should be convincing. 

Response: As discussed in detail 

elsewhere in this document, NMFS 

believes that ramp-up of the seismic 

airgun array in combination with the 

slow vessel speed, use of trained and 

qualified MMOs, PAM, shut-down and 

power-down procedures, and the 

behavioral response of marine mammals 

to avoid areas of high anthropogenic 

noise all provide protection to marine 

mammals from injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or 

mortality. NMFS believes that L–DEO’s 

revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks in the study area. 

Comment 100: CSI states that a shutdown of 30 minutes was proposed. This 

is clearly not sufficient as several 

species of concern can stay submerged 

for more than an hour and remain 

undetected. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with CSI’s 

comment. A shut-down of 30 minutes is 

a sufficient amount of time. For species 

with longer dive durations (e.g., 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, killer, and beaked whales), a 

significant portion of their travel is 

spent diving vertically, while the 

Langseth will be traveling horizontally 

at an operational speed of 7.4 to 9.3 km/ 

hour during seismic acquisition. The 

Langseth is also equipped with a PAM 

system to detect vocalizing marine 

mammals. 

Comment 101: Dr. John Wang states 

that the resumption of airgun operations 

after not observing a small odontocete 

and ‘‘large’’ (following FR) odontocetes 

(i.e., sperm, dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales and beaked whales) for 15 and 

30 minutes is baseless. These periods 

are far too short for species that can stay 

submerged for greater than 60 minutes. 

For many species in the region, 

submergence maximum time is not 

known. To be precautionary, this shutdown and search time needs to be at 

least 60 minutes for small cetaceans 

with no information on submergence 

time and at least 90 minutes for the 

‘‘large’’ odontocetes (listed above) to 

ensure animals have at least one chance 

of surfacing before power-up. 

Response: Several species of deepdiving cetaceans are capable of 

remaining underwater for more than 30 

minutes. However, NMFS believes that 

30 minutes is an adequate length for the 

monitoring period prior to the start-up 

of airguns (1) because of ramp-up 

operations, (2) MMOs are usually 

visually observing and using the PAM 

system during non-seismic operations, 

(3) the majority of the marine mammal 

species in the study area that may be 

exposed do not stay underwater for 

more than 30 minutes, and (4) if deep 

diving animals happened to be in the 

operation area in the short time 

immediately prior to the pre-start-up 

monitoring, if an animal’s maximum 

underwater time is 45 min, there is only 

a one in three chance that the last 

random surfacing would be prior to the 

beginning of the required 30 min 

monitoring period. 

Seismic vessels are moving 

continuously (because of the long towed 

array) and NMFS believes that unless 

the animals submerge and follow at the 

speed of the vessel (highly unlikely, 

especially when considering that a 

significant part of their movements is 

vertical), the vessel will be far beyond 

the length of the safety radii within 30 

min, and therefore it will be safe to start 

the airguns again. 

The time periods determined for the 

resumption of airgun operations is 

based on the dive duration of certain 

marine mammal species, not necessarily 

the animal’s physical size. Small 

odontocete and pinniped species are 

likely to have shorter dive durations 

than mysticetes and large odontocetes 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41284 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

(including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, killer, and beaked whales), 

which may have longer dive durations. 

See NMFS’ responses in Monitoring. 

Comment 102: Dr. John Wang states 

that the effectiveness of any shut-downs 

would depend on: the ability to detect 

cetaceans, communication of the 

detection, amount of time for a decision 

to shut down, and how quickly a shutdown can be executed. No time frame as 

to how long such a procedure would 

take after a cetacean is detected was 

given. Clearly, timing is important for 

determining the effectiveness of this 

mitigation measure. 

Response: The timing of the 

implementation of a shut-down or other 

mitigation measure is dependent on the 

judgment, recommendation, and 

communication of the on-duty MMOs 

aboard the Langseth to the airgun 

personnel. If a marine mammal is 

detected near, approaching, or in the 

safety radius, then the on-duty MMO 

communicates the appropriate 

mitigation measure via radio and/or 

phone to the science lab and airgun 

technicians for immediate action. 

MMVO’s alternate between observing 

with reticle binoculars, big-eye 

binoculars, and the naked eye for visual 

detection and to avoid eye fatigue. PAM 

is used day and night as practical, 

which can detect vocalizing marine 

mammals present in the study area. 

Comment 103: Dr. John Wang states 

that seismic surveys should not be 

conducted within at least 10 km from 

areas where a steep shelf wall exists 

(e.g., east coast of Taiwan) until the 

effects of reflection and constructive 

interference on sound levels are better 

understood. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. The seismic survey 

line paralleling the east coast of Taiwan 

will be moved offshore at least 20 km 

to decrease potential impacts on species 

that occur in coastal waters and over the 

continental slope. NMFS believes that 

L–DEO’s revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. See L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 104: HSUS/HSI is 

concerned about other aspects of the 

proposed mitigation measures, 

including the use of only one MMVO 

(two will be used only ‘‘when 

practical’’— p. 78314); visual detection 

as the primary mitigation measure, 

when several vulnerable species are 

extremely difficult to see even under the 

best of circumstances (e.g., beaked 

whales); the use of any mitigation 

measure(s) at night (there has yet to be 

designed any suite of nighttime 

mitigation measures that is even 

remotely as effective as daytime 

mitigation measures when it comes to 

detecting and avoiding marine 

mammals); the heavy reliance on rampup of the airgun arrays (even though 

there is little if any independent field 

testing of the assumption that ramp-up 

causes animals to move away from a 

sound source); and the failure to 

consider alternate schedules to avoid 

the overlap of the surveys with the 

calving season for several cetacean 

species in the region. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. See relevant discussions 

regarding nighttime, ramp-up, temporal 

and spatial avoidance, and species of 

particular concern in NMFS’ responses 

to comments here in this document. 

Comment 105: ETSSTAWG states that 

the EA states that ‘‘the current 

procedures are based on best practices 

noted by Pierson et al. (1998) and Weir 

and Dolman (2007)’’. However, this is 

clearly not the case since Weir and 

Dolman (2007) call for, among other 

things the avoidance of sensitive areas— 

e.g., the western Taiwan coastline; 

suspension of airgun use at night; and 

additional restrictions in adverse 

weather conditions. For example, the 

EA states that ‘‘when at all possible, 

seismic surveying will only take place at 

least 8–10 km from the Taiwanese coast, 

particularly the central western coast 

(∼from Taixi to Tongshiao), to minimize 

the potential of exposing these 

threatened dolphins to SPLs >160 dB’’. 

The use of the term ‘‘when at all 

possible’’ is not reassuring. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. See NMFS’ responses to 

relevant discussions regarding temporal 

and spatial avoidance, species of 

particular concern, nighttime 

operations, and others in this document. 

Comment 106: ETTSTAWG states that 

the predicted protection ranges (i.e., 

safety zones) should be confirmed in the 

field at each point in the survey that the 

bottom geography changes substantially. 

The results should be reported to NMFS 

immediately and safety zone sizes 

should be adjusted accordingly. 

Response: NMFS believes that a 

sound source verification field test is 

not necessary for this project. L–DEO 

conducted an acoustic calibration study 

of the Langseth’s airgun array in late 

2007/early 2008 in the Gulf of Mexico 

(LGL Ltd., 2006). Distances where sound 

levels were received in deep, 

intermediate, and shallow waters will 

be determined for various airgun 

configurations. Acoustic analysis is 

ongoing and a scientific paper on the 

Langseth calibration study is currently 

in review for future publication 

(Tolstoy, pers. comm.). After analysis, 

the empirical data from the 2007/2008 

study will be used in future NEPA 

documents and IHA applications. NMFS 

believes the distances predicted in 

Table 1 (above) are the best science 

available. 

Comment 107: ETTSTAWG states that 

the mitigation procedures offered 

(especially the use of visual detection at 

night) are known to be insufficient and 

ineffective. To make the most of the 

limited effectiveness, and thus offer the 

greatest protection, I recommend that L– 

DEO’s surveys in the Taiwan Strait (and 

throughout the operation) shut down at 

night. 

Response: A number of public 

comments concerned the inability to 

detect marine mammals from the 

Langseth at night and recommended no 

nighttime operations. The scientists 

conducting the survey have considered 

this recommendation, and have decided 

that it is not feasible, as limiting the 

surveys to daytime only would either 

result in the loss of half of the data or 

would necessitate doubling the duration 

of the project. Doubling the duration of 

the surveys is not possible because the 

Langseth has other research 

commitments after the TAIGER cruise, 

and because of weather conditions 

associated with the typhoon season. It 

would also incur other potential 

environmental effects. However, the 

seismic source will not be started if the 

MMVOs cannot view the entire safety 

radius for any reason (darkness, fog, or 

rough seas). In addition, PAM will be 

used day and night as practical, which 

can detect vocalizing marine mammals 

present in the area. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41285 

If a seismic survey vessel is limited to 

daylight seismic operations, efficiency 

would be much reduced. For seismic 

operators in general, a daylight-only 

requirement would be expected to result 

in one or more of the following 

outcomes: cancellation of potentially 

valuable seismic surveys, reduction in 

the total number of seismic cruises 

annually due to longer cruise durations, 

a need for additional vessels to conduct 

the seismic operations, or work 

conducted by non-U.S. operators or 

non-U.S. vessels when in waters not 

subject to U.S. law. 

MMVOs using NVDs will be on watch 

during periods prior to and during a 

ramp-up at night. At other times during 

the night MMOs will be available, but 

it is not necessary or very effective for 

them to be on watch constantly. The use 

of PAM will improve the detection of 

marine mammals by indicating to the 

MMVOs when an animal is potentially 

near and prompting a power-down or 

shut-down when necessary. Marine 

mammals are unlikely to be injured, 

seriously injured or killed by the noise 

from approaching seismic arrays nor is 

it authorized. Thus, limiting seismic 

shooting to only daylight hours is 

unnecessary and unlikely to result in 

less Level B harassment to marine 

mammals than would conducting 24 

hour survey operations. 

Because of the need to keep a vessel 

at-speed in order to successfully tow the 

hydrophone streamers, the vessel would 

need to be underway throughout the 

night whether or not the airguns are 

fired at night. Additional down-time 

could be anticipated each day as the 

vessel maneuvers all night to come back 

to the shut-down location 30 minutes 

after daylight. This is unlikely to be 

successful very often and will likely 

result in additional time needed for 

surveys to be completed. 

L–DEO completed two tests of the 

effectiveness of using NVDs (Smultea 

and Holst, 2003; Holst, 2004). Results of 

those tests indicated that the NVDs are 

effective at least to 150 to 200 m (492 

to 656 ft) away from certain conditions. 

That type of NVD is not effective at the 

much larger 180 dB radii applicable 

when a large array of airguns is in use. 

However, it is the smaller zone where 

the received levels are well above 180 

dB where detection of any marine 

mammals that are present would be of 

particular importance. The 205 dB zone, 

within which TTS might occur, is likely 

to approximately 100 m (328 ft) in 

radius. That is sufficiently within the 

range of the NVDs to allow some chance 

of detecting marine mammals visually 

within the area of potential TTS during 

ramp-up. Furthermore, a substantial 

proportion of the marine mammals that 

might be within that distance is 

expected to move away either during 

ramp-up or, if the airguns were already 

operating, as the vessel approaches. 

Taking into consideration the 

additional costs of prohibiting nighttime 

operations and the likely low impact of 

the activity (given the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures), 

NMFS has determined that the IHA’s 

requirements will ensure that the 

activity will have the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

for the following reasons. Marine 

mammals will have sufficient notice of 

a vessel approaching with operating 

seismic airguns, thereby giving them an 

opportunity to avoid the approaching 

array. 

Comment 108: ETSSTAWG 

recommends that L–DEO must better 

incorporate changes in bottom 

topography during the survey into the 

designation of ‘safety zones’, and adapt 

the cruise accordingly. 

Response: NMFS is unsure of what 

ETSSTAWG is stating in its 

recommendation. After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO has modified its 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO has rerouted survey tracklines and will 

implement temporal and spatial 

restrictions to avoid certain areas that 

they may be considered significant or 

core habitat for certain species of 

particular concern (see L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA). Also, the predicted 

safety radii for the various sound 

isopleths from the Langseth’s airgun 

array are related to water depth (see 

Table 1 above). Water depths have been 

categorized as deep (greater than 1,000 

m), intermediate (100 to 1,000 m), and 

shallow (less than 100 m). 

Comment 109: ETSSTAWG 

recommends that the survey effort 

should be suspended at night as nighttime observations are of insufficient 

acuity to detect cetaceans and that the 

survey effort should be suspended when 

adverse weather conditions prevail that 

would preclude effective spotting (e.g. 

in fog, rain, heavy seas > Beaufort 3). 

Response: NMFS and L–DEO have 

considered these recommendations, and 

have decided it is not feasible to include 

such restrictions, as limiting the surveys 

to daytime only would either result in 

the loss of half of the data or would 

necessitate doubling the duration of the 

project. Doubling the duration of the 

surveys is not possible because the 

Langseth has other research 

commitments after the TAIGER cruise, 

and because of weather conditions 

associated with the typhoon season. It 

would also incur other potential 

environmental effects. However, the 

seismic source will not be started if the 

MMVOs cannot view the entire safety 

radius for any reason (darkness, fog, or 

rough seas). In addition, PAM will be 

used day and night as practical, which 

can detect vocalizing marine mammals 

present in the area (see L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA). 

Comment 110: HSI states that L–DEO 

has ignored the mitigation measure to 

avoid species temporally and must offer 

a strong rationale for doing so in any 

application resubmission. The rationale 

that resources have already been 

committed to conducting these surveys 

during this time period is of course not 

only unacceptable as a justification; it is 

also illegal under the NEPA. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with HSI’s 

comment. After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. The time for the 

cruise is the most suitable time 

logistically for the Langseth and the 

participating scientists. Given the 

limited weather window for the 

operations and the fact that marine 

mammals are widespread in the survey 

area throughout the year, altering the 

timing of the proposed project likely 

would result in no net benefits. Issuing 

the IHA for another period could result 

in significant delays and disruptions to 

the cruise as well as subsequent 

geophysical studies that are planned by 

L–DEO for 2009 and beyond. NMFS has 

fully complied with its obligations 

under NEPA. See Temporal and Spatial 

Avoidance section below in this 

document. See L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA for more information. 

Comment 111: CSI is concerned with 

the timing of the proposed seismic 

surveys, especially regarding dates, 

locations, and species. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures, which addressed 

concerns regarding certain locations and 

species of marine mammals. The time 

for the cruise is the most suitable time 

logistically for the Langseth and the 

participating scientists. Given the 

limited weather window for the 

operations and the fact that marine 

mammals are widespread in the survey 

area throughout the year, altering the 

timing of the proposed project likely 

would result in no net benefits. NMFS 

believes that L–DEO’s revised survey as 

well as the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41286 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. See Temporal and 

Spatial Avoidance, Species of Particular 

Concern, and L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 112: HSI states that it is 

unclear why the surveys must take place 

during the proposed time period (March 

21 to July 14, 2009). The applicant 

acknowledges that the best available 

science shows the ‘‘highest number of 

marine mammal sightings and species 

occur during April and June’’ (p. 78298) 

in the region—the overlap with the 

survey dates is obvious. This also 

happens to be the calving season for 

many species in the region. The NMFS 

should require at a minimum that L– 

DEO provide clear and substantive 

justification for the proposed survey 

schedule. The most effective mitigation 

measure known is to avoid species 

spatially and/or temporally. 

Response: The seismic survey will 

provide data integral to advancing 

scientific understanding of the process 

of large-scale mountain building. The 

study is designed to characterize the 

birth and evolution of a mountain belt, 

which in turn can provide information 

on locations and source properties of 

regional earthquakes. The information is 

vital to understanding plate tectonic 

processes and their effects on 

earthquake occurrence and distribution. 

The time for the cruise is the most 

suitable time logistically for the 

Langseth and the participating 

scientists. Given the limited weather 

window for the operations and the fact 

that marine mammals are widespread in 

the survey area throughout the year, 

altering the timing of the proposed 

project likely would result in no net 

benefits. Issuing the IHA for another 

period could result in significant delays 

and disruptions to the cruise as well as 

subsequent geophysical studies that are 

planned by L–DEO for 2009 and 

beyond. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures, of 

which include temporal and spatial 

avoidance of species of particular 

concern (see Temporal and Spatial 

Avoidance and Species of Particular 

Concern below). NMFS has included 

requirements to these effects in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO. See L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 113: Dr. John Wang states 

that the period of the proposed survey 

also overlaps greatly with the presence 

of the most vulnerable members of 

marine mammal population (females 

with young calves) some of which may 

be found in aggregations or following 

certain migration routes during this 

time. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures, which addressed 

concerns regarding certain locations and 

species of marine mammals. The time 

for the cruise is the most suitable time 

logistically for the Langseth and the 

participating scientists. Given the 

limited weather window for the 

operations and the fact that marine 

mammals are widespread in the survey 

area throughout the year, altering the 

timing of the proposed project likely 

would result in no net benefits. Issuing 

the IHA for another period could result 

in significant delays and disruptions to 

the cruise as well as subsequent 

geophysical studies that are planned by 

L–DEO for 2009 and beyond. NMFS 

believes that L–DEO’s revised survey as 

well as the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. See Temporal and 

Spatial Avoidance, Species of Particular 

Concern, and L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 114: NRDC states that 

NMFS’ proposed IHA does not impose 

meaningful mitigation measures. For 

instance, it imposes only voluntary 

spatial and temporal restrictions, 

introducing caveats such as avoiding 

humpback winter concentration areas 

‘‘if practicable’’ and limiting seismic 

operations to 8–10 km from the 

Taiwanese coast ‘‘when possible’’ to 

reduce harm to ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins, effectively leaving 

decisions on habitat avoidance to the 

project proponent. 73 FR 78315; see also 

NRDC v. Gutierrez, 2008 WL 360852 

(N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2008) (noting that it 

is improper for NMFS, as the agency 

tasked with implementing the MMPA, 

to shift its burden). Nor, given the 

distribution of species and the 

propagation of airgun pulses, would the 

proposed 2 km coastal avoidance do 

much to mitigate the harm to the ETS 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin 

population, whose entire distribution 

falls within the proposed survey areas. 

See comment letter submitted by Dr. 

John Wang. Such measures neither meet 

the agency’s statutory burden nor satisfy 

the strong interest in marine mammal 

protection that is embodied in the 

MMPA. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to take place at 

least 20 km from the west coast of 

Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). NMFS believes that L– 

DEO’s revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. See Temporal and Spatial 

Avoidance, Species of Particular 

Concern, and L–DEO’s Supplemental 

IHA. 

Comment 115: CSI states that calving 

for most cetacean species in this region 

is likely in the spring to early summer 

as evidenced by sightings of many 

females with young calves during 

cetacean surveys that have been 

conducted in Taiwan and the 

examination of hundreds of carcasses. 

The proposed survey schedule overlaps 

greatly with the calving seasons of many 

species or will occur as females are 

accompanied by and nursing young 

calves. This proposed period for the 

seismic surveys is probably the worst 

choice of seasons if minimizing the 

impacts of this activity on marine 

mammals in this region is a sincere goal. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

In the EA and Supplemental EA, L– 

DEO and NSF addressed potential 

impacts of the proposed seismic survey 

on marine mammals, as well as other 

species of concern near the survey area, 

including sea turtles, fish, and 

invertebrates. The EA evaluates three 

alternatives: (1) The proposed seismic 

survey and the issuance of an associated 

IHA; (2) a corresponding seismic survey 

at an alternative time, along with 

issuance of an associated IHA; and (3) 

a no action alternative, with no IHA and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41287 

no seismic survey. The EA assessed 

impacts to marine mammals, including 

consideration of impacts to prey species 

and to marine mammal habitats. A 

number of monitoring and mitigation 

measures were proposed as part of the 

action evaluated in the EA. In 

consideration of public comments 

received the Supplemental EA 

particularly considered adjustments to 

the preferred alternative and additional 

mitigation measures. Taking into 

account the mitigation measures that are 

planned, the potential effects on marine 

mammals from the preferred alternative 

are generally expected to be limited to 

avoidance of the area around the 

seismic operation and short-term 

behavioral changes, falling within the 

MMPA definition of Level B 

harassment. No injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated or authorized. Numbers of 

individuals of all species taken are 

expected to be small (relative to species 

abundance). 

Comment 116: NRDC states that the 

additional review of the region’s marine 

mammal population should be 

undertaken before authorizing 

incidental takes. Furthermore, 

meaningful spatial and temporal 

restrictions on seismic activities must be 

adopted, as described in further detail at 

Appendix A. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO reviewed 

information on the region’s marine 

mammal populations, modified the 

cruise plan, and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. See Temporal and Spatial 

Avoidance below and L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 117: The Commission 

recommends that, before issuing the 

requested authorization, the NMFS 

require the applicant to take all 

measures necessary to ensure that the 

proposed activities are not conducted 

near the Ryukyu Islands and Babuyan 

Islands during peak occurrence of the 

humpback whales in those areas (i.e., 

February through April). 

Response: To mitigate against the 

potential effects of the seismic survey 

on humpback whales, particularly 

mother and calves on the breeding 

grounds or during the beginning of 

migration to summer feeding grounds, 

the surveys that approach the Babuyan 

Islands have been rescheduled as late as 

possible to Leg 4 (June 18 to July 20, 

2009) (see L–DEO’s Supplemental EA). 

The humpback whales that winter and 

calve in the Ryuku Islands are near 

Okinawa (Nishiwaki, 1959; Rice, 1989; 

Darling and Mori, 1993), which is 

approximately 400 km (249 mi) north of 

the most northerly survey lines. The 

Langseth’s closest approach to the 

Ryuku Islands is 51.5 km (32 mi), and 

26.6 km (16.5 mi) and 8.8 km (5.5 mi) 

to the Babuyan and Batan Islands, 

respectively. 

L–DEO will avoid the areas 

(Ogasawara and Ryuku Islands in 

southern Japan and the Batan and 

Babuyan Islands in Luzon Strait in the 

northern Philippines) at the time of 

peak occurrence (February to April), 

where concentrations of humpback 

whales are known to winter, calve, and 

nurse. Seismic survey lines will be 

scheduled for as late as possible (June 

to July) to avoid potential effects of the 

surveys on humpback whales, 

particularly mothers and calves on 

breeding grounds or during the 

beginning of migration to summer 

feeding grounds. If concentrations or 

groups of humpback whales are 

observed (by visual or passive acoustic 

detection) prior to or during the airgun 

operations, those operations will be 

powered/shut-down and/or moved to 

another location, if possible, based on 

recommendations by the on-duty MMO 

aboard the Langseth. Also, if humpback 

whale mother/calf pairs are visually 

sighted, the airgun array will be shutdown regardless of the distance of the 

animal(s) to the sound source. The array 

will not resume firing until 30 min after 

the last documented whale visual 

sighting. 

NMFS concurs with the Commissions 

recommendation and has included a 

requirement to this effect in the IHA. 

Comment 118: WaH states that the 

potential impacts on western North 

Pacific humpback whales in the waters 

of the Babuyan Islands (believed to be 

calving and nursing grounds for a small 

population of humpback whales) and 

Taiwan (e.g., along the east coast and in 

the Taiwan Strait) and the fact that 

surveys will occur during the northward 

migration of mothers and calves is 

worrying. Mothers and calves may be 

more sensitive to acoustic disturbance 

and are probably more susceptible to the 

impacts of stress responses to 

disturbance of any kind. 

CSI states that the timing of the L– 

DEO surveys overlaps greatly in space 

and time with the whales wintering in 

the Babuyan Islands and coincides 

spatially and temporally with the 

northward migration of mothers and 

neonatal and other young calves from 

the calving/nursing grounds in the 

Babuyan waters. 

NRDC urges NMFS to restrict L– 

DEO’s access to the Ryuku Islands: 

exclusion to 200 m depth from 

December through May and year-round 

coastal exclusion to 20 km (this is 

important breeding ground for North 

Pacific humpback whale, particularly 

December through May). 

Response: Many concerns were raised 

in public comments about the proposed 

survey lines scheduled for Leg 2 (April 

20 to June 7, 2009) approaching 

humpback whale breeding areas in the 

Babuyan and Ryuku Islands. In fact, the 

humpback whales that winter and calve 

in the Ryuku Islands are near Okinawa 

(Nishiwaki, 1959; Rice, 1989; Darling 

and Mori, 1993), some 400 km north of 

the most northerly survey. However, a 

small population of humpbacks does 

winter and calve in the Babuyan Islands 

in Luzon Strait (Acebes and Lesaca, 

2003; Acebes et al., 2007). The whales 

may arrive in the area as early as 

November and leave in May or even 

June, with peak occurrence during 

February through March or April 

(Acebes et al., 2007). 

To mitigate against the potential 

effects of the surveys on humpbacks, 

particularly mothers and calves on the 

breeding grounds or during the 

beginning of migration to summer 

feeding grounds, the surveys that 

approach the Babuyan Islands have 

been rescheduled as late as possible, to 

Leg 4 (June 18 to July 20, 2009). The 

Langseth’s closest approach to the 

Ryuku and Okinawa Islands are 

approximately 51.5 and 400 km, 

respectively. 

L–DEO will avoid the areas 

(Ogasawara and Ryuku Islands in 

southern Japan and the Batan and 

Babuyan Islands in Luzon Strait in the 

northern Philippines) at the time of 

peak occurrence (February to April), 

where concentrations of humpback 

whales are known to winter, calve, and 

nurse. Seismic survey lines will be 

scheduled for as late as possible (June 

to July) to avoid potential effects of the 

surveys on humpback whales, 

particularly mothers and calves on 

breeding grounds or during the 

beginning of migration to summer 

feeding grounds. If concentrations or 

groups of humpback whales are 

observed (by visual or passive acoustic 

detection) prior to or during the airgun 

operations, those operations will be 

powered-down, shut-down, and/or 

moved to another location, if possible, 

based on recommendations by the onduty MMO aboard the Langseth. If 

humpback whale mother/calf pair is 

visually sighted, the airgun array will be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41288 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

shut-down regardless of the distance of 

the animal(s) to the sound source. The 

array will not resume firing until 30 min 

after the last documented whale visual 

sighting. NMFS has included 

requirements to these effects in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 119: CSI has concerns 

regarding particular mitigation 

measures. The mitigation measures 

proposed by L–DEO would be 

ineffective or have limited effectiveness 

at best. The claim is that surveys will be 

delayed as late as possible to avoid 

humpback whales, but the timing of the 

surveys overlap the presence of 

humpback whales greatly and during a 

time when newborn calves will be 

accompanying mothers. The surveys 

will also occur during or near the 

calving season for most species in the 

region; this is when females and calves 

are the most vulnerable. Given the 

entire period of the proposed survey 

overlaps with humpback whale 

concentrations in the Babuyan island 

sand during the migration period, there 

is no attempt to avoid this area, and 

surveying the lines near the Ryuku and 

Babuyan islands as late as possible 

within the scheduled period of the 

surveys does nothing but delay the 

impact on the animals to a slightly later 

period because the whales will still be 

in the area. As such, this measure does 

not mitigate anything. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures, which addressed 

concerns regarding certain locations and 

species of marine mammals. The time 

for the cruise is the most suitable time 

logistically for the Langseth and the 

participating scientists. Given the 

limited weather window for the 

operations and the fact that marine 

mammals are widespread in the survey 

area throughout the year, altering the 

timing of the proposed project likely 

would result in no net benefits. Issuing 

the IHA for another period could result 

in significant delays and disruptions to 

the cruise as well as subsequent 

geophysical studies that are planned by 

L–DEO for 2009 and beyond. NMFS 

believes that L–DEO’s revised survey as 

well as the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals in 

the study area. See NMFS responses 

above, Species of Particular Concern, 

and L–DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 120: CSI states that the 

schedule for surveying the Luzon Strait 

and the Philippine Sea overlaps 

completely with the period when 

humpback whales are still in the area 

(and includes the latter portion of the 

peak period (April) for humpback whale 

concentrations in the Babuyan Islands). 

Therefore it is unclear how the timing 

of the surveys reduces the impacts on 

humpback whales as claimed by L– 

DEO. A large proportion of this 

population of humpback whales will 

also be migrating through the Philippine 

Sea to northern waters at the same time 

as the proposed surveys. Although the 

exact migratory routes of most 

humpback whales are unknown, it is 

clear that at least some will follow a 

path that is parallel and fairly close to 

the shores of eastern Taiwan. One of the 

proposed survey tracklines of the 

Langseth also follows this course. Many 

females undertaking the migration at 

this time will also be accompanied by 

neonatal calves and these are the most 

sensitive individuals of the population 

(McCauley et al., 2000). 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. Additionally, L– 

DEO will avoid the areas (Ogasawara 

and Ryuku Islands in southern Japan 

and the Batan and Babuyan Islands in 

Luzon Strait in the northern 

Philippines) at the time of peak 

occurrence (February to April), where 

concentrations of humpback whales are 

known to winter, calve, and nurse. 

Seismic survey lines will be scheduled 

for as late as possible (June to July) to 

avoid potential effects of the surveys on 

humpback whales, particularly mothers 

and calves on breeding grounds or 

during the beginning of migration to 

summer feeding grounds. 

If concentrations or groups of 

humpback whales are observed (by 

visual or passive acoustic detection) 

prior to or during the airgun operations, 

those operations will be powered-down, 

shut-down, and/or moved to another 

location, if possible, based on 

recommendations by the on-duty MMO 

aboard the Langseth. See Species of 

Particular Concern and L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 121: NRDC urges NMFS to 

restrict L–DEO’s access to the Ryukyu 

Islands: exclusion to 200 m depth from 

December through May and year-round 

coastal exclusion to 20 km (this is 

important breeding ground for North 

Pacific humpback whale, particularly 

December through May, as well as yearround habitat for Indo-Pacific bottlenose 

dolphin). 

NRDC also states that mitigation 

measures should restrict access to the 

islands between northern Luzon and 

Taiwan including Babuyan, Batanes, 

Calayan Islands: exclusion to 200 m 

depth from December through May, as 

well as year-round coastal exclusion to 

20 km (these are humpback whale 

breeding grounds, particularly 

December through May, and reflect high 

cetacean diversity year-round). 

Response: L–DEO will avoid the areas 

(Ogasawara and Ryuku Islands in 

southern Japan and the Batan and 

Babuyan Islands in Luzon Strait in the 

northern Philippines) at the time of 

peak occurrence (February to April), 

where concentrations of humpback 

whales are known to winter, calve, and 

nurse. Seismic survey lines will be 

scheduled for as late as possible (June 

to July) to avoid potential effects of the 

surveys on humpback whales, 

particularly mothers and calves on 

breeding grounds or during the 

beginning of migration to summer 

feeding grounds. If Indo-Pacific 

bottlenose dolphins are visually sighted, 

the airgun array will be shut-down 

regardless of the distance of the 

animal(s) to the sound source. The array 

will not resume firing until 15 min after 

the last documented dolphin sighting. 

NMFS has included requirements to this 

effect in the IHA issued to L–DEO. See 

Species of Particular Concern and L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 122: CSI states that the 

routes and months when Western 

Pacific gray whales may undertake their 

migration from suspected wintering 

grounds in the South China Sea are 

unknown. However, it is likely that the 

period for the migration is in the spring. 

Scheduling the seismic surveys in the 

South China Sea to be conducted in 

March and April will likely coincide 

with at least some migrating gray 

whales. L–DEO did not address this 

possibility and have not proposed any 

mitigation measures to avoid this likely 

overlap of seismic surveys and 

migrating gray whales. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will avoid 

shallow water areas near the mainland 

China coast and western part of the 

Taiwan Strait during the Western 

Pacific gray whale wintering period and 

migration (December to April). L–DEO 

will avoid shallow, coastal waters of the 

South China Sea, and limit seismic 

survey lines to water depths greater than 

200 m in the South China Sea, and as 

far east as possible from the mainland 

China side of the Taiwan Strait to 

reduce potential for effects on Western 

Pacific gray whales. If a Western Pacific 

gray whale is visually sighted, L–DEO 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41289 

will also shut-down the airgun array 

regardless of the distance of the 

animal(s) to the sound source. The array 

will not resume firing until 30 min after 

the last documented whale visual 

sighting. NMFS believes that L–DEO’s 

revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. See L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 123: NRDC states that 

mitigation measures should restrict 

access to the Strait of Taiwan from 

October through May (due to gray whale 

migration, as well as high cetacean 

density including endangered 

population of Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins). 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will avoid 

shallow water areas near the mainland 

China coast and western part of the 

Taiwan Strait during Western Pacific 

gray whale wintering period and 

migration (December to April). L–DEO 

will limit seismic survey lines to water 

depths greater than 200 m in the South 

China Sea, and as far east as possible 

from the mainland China side of the 

Taiwan Strait, to reduce potential for 

effects on Western Pacific gray whales, 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, and 

finless porpoises. NMFS believes that 

L–DEO’s revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. See Species of Particular 

Concern, Temporal and Spatial 

Avoidance, and L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 124: NRDC urges NMFS to 

restrict L–DEO’s access to all South 

China Sea from December through May 

(due to gray whale migration). 

Response: L–DEO will avoid shallow 

water area near the mainland China 

coast and western part of the Taiwan 

Strait during the Western Pacific gray 

whale wintering period and migration 

(December to April). L–DEO will also 

avoid shallow, coastal waters of the 

South China Sea. L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to water depths 

greater than 200 m in the South China 

Sea, and as far east as possible from the 

mainland China side of the Taiwan 

Strait, to reduce potential for effects on 

Western Pacific gray whales. NMFS has 

included requirements to this effect in 

the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 125: CSI states that the 

critically endangered ETS subpopulation of Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins will be subjected to greater 

than 180 dB received levels even if 

mitigation measures are taken (i.e., to 

remain offshore of 2 km from shore). 

Even if the mitigation measures 

proposed by L–DEO are fully 

implemented, there will likely be ‘‘Level 

A harassment’’ to the ETS population 

that could have serious and likely 

irreversible impacts on this population. 

Based on the tabled predicted RMS 

distances for different received levels 

and accepting the recommendations of 

the ETSSTAWG for this population that 

for noise issues an additional (i.e., 

additional to the 3 km from shore 

distribution that is known presently for 

the ETS sub-population) 2 km buffer 

should be considered, the Langseth 

should not be within 13 km of western 

coast of Taiwan to avoid exposing 

dolphins to >160 dB levels. However, 

the model underestimates the actual 

levels at different distances. Further 

compounding the underestimation of 

levels is the fact that shallow water 

category is less than 100 m but the ETS 

population lives in waters less than 25 

m. Much better predicted RMS 

distances for different received levels 

are needed for very shallow waters. 

Being 2 km from shore puts the 

Langseth in the middle of the 

distribution of the ETS population and 

does absolutely nothing to reduce the 

exposure level to any dolphin. The only 

reduction of noise is possibly with the 

statement that surveying will only take 

place 8 to10 km from shore but the 

condition of when possible is not 

acceptable because this can be a 

subjective determination by someone 

not concerned about the impacts on 

critically endangered populations of 

cetaceans. Furthermore, as discussed 

above, 8 to 10 km from shore still may 

not be sufficient to reduce exposure of 

the animals to greater than 160 dB and 

the distribution for the ETS population 

is further south than Taixi (Wang et al., 

2007b). Chou (2006) also believes that 

some of the waters south of Taixi are an 

important breeding/nursing area for the 

ETS population. These mitigation 

measures are not effective and still pose 

unacceptable risks to the dolphins of 

being exposed to greater than 180 dB. 

The proposed seismic surveys will 

exposure almost the entire ETS 

population of humpback dolphins to 

levels greater than 180 dB. As such, all 

or almost all ETS dolphins will be 

exposed to greater than 160 dB levels 

even if the Langseth remains 8 to 10 km 

from shore. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to take place at 

least 20 km from the west coast of 

Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). See Species of Particular 

Concern and L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 126: The Commission 

recommends that, before issuing the 

requested authorization, the NMFS 

describe the reasons why and the 

conditions under which the application 

would need to conduct surveys closer 

than 8 to 10 km off the coast of Taiwan 

where threatened Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins are more likely to 

be exposed to sound pressure levels 

greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The 

Commission also notes that it makes 

more sense to use a single distance, 

rather than a range, to prevent the 

survey from approaching the Taiwan 

coast too closely. 

Response: The critically endangered 

ETS sub-population of the Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin is considered a 

foreign species and is not listed under 

the ESA. Foreign species are those that 

occur entirely outside of U.S. territory. 

NMFS does not, and is not obligated to, 

designate critical habitat or develop 

recovery plans for foreign species. NSF 

and L–DEO’s action is planned to take 

place in the territorial seas and EEZ’s of 

foreign nations, and will be continuous 

with the activity that takes place on the 

high seas. NMFS does not authorize the 

incidental take of marine mammals in 

the territorial seas of foreign nations, as 

the MMPA does not apply in those 

waters. However, NMFS still needs to 

calculate the level of incidental take in 

territorial seas as part of the proposed 

issuance of an IHA in regards to NMFS’ 

analysis of small numbers and 

negligible impact determination. 

After the issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan 

and adopted more precautionary 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

especially for the ETS sub-population of 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Off 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41290 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

Taiwan’s west coast, the cruise tracks 

have been re-routed offshore by 

approximately 20 km (12.4 mi) to 

protect the critically endangered ETS 

subpopulation of Indo-Pacific dolphins 

and finless porpoises, as well as ease 

potential pressure on other coastal 

species. Thus, L–DEO now plans to 

maintain the precautionary buffer 

recommended by ETSSTAWG in their 

comments to NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 km (8.1 

mi) and perhaps a more precautionary 

15 km (9.3 mi) of the ETS Sousa 

population—meaning up to 20 km from 

shore.’’ 

L–DEO will limit seismic survey lines 

to take place at least 20 km from the 

west coast of Taiwan, except for in the 

passage between the Penghu Islands and 

the Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where 

the survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

μPa (rms). NMFS concurs with the 

recommendations made by interested 

parties and has included a requirement 

to this effect in the IHA issued to L– 

DEO. 

Comment 127: CSI states that if the 

Langseth approaches to within 10 km 

from shore, dolphins using waters east 

of the Chinmen Islands may be exposed 

to levels greater than 160 dB and some 

may be exposed to 180 dB or more 

depending on where the dolphins are 

found in their distribution and how 

close the Langseth is to the 25–30 m 

isobath. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. The Chinmen 

Islands are located in the western 

portion of the Taiwan Strait, 

approximately 15 km from the coast of 

mainland China. L–DEO will avoid 

shallow water areas near the mainland 

China coast and western part of the 

Taiwan Strait during December to April. 

L–DEO will also limit seismic survey 

lines to water depths greater than 200 m 

in the South China Sea, and as far east 

as possible from the mainland China 

side of the Taiwan Strait, to reduce 

potential for effects on Western Pacific 

gray whales, Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins, and finless porpoises. L–DEO 

has been denied access to the waters of 

China as well. See L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 128: HSI states that 

although the Federal Register notice 

and the application note that the rms 

received level distances are potentially 

very large for shallow water, there is no 

effort to address the shortcomings of the 

proposed mitigation measures under 

those circumstances. As an example, the 

most vulnerable cetacean population to 

be affected by these surveys (i.e., ETS 

Sousa) could be routinely exposed to 

sound pressure levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) or greater (the level beyond which 

Level A harassment might occur), given 

the track lines proposed. Individual 

Sousa could be at risk of Level A 

harassment (or worse) at a distance as 

far from the Langseth as 4 km (see Table 

1, p. 78297). This is well beyond visual 

(and probably acoustic) detection range, 

yet there is little effort in the application 

(or the Federal Register notice) to 

address this shortcoming. The proposal 

to come no nearer to the west coast of 

Taiwan than 2 km (and to remain 

‘‘when possible’’—p. 78315—at least 8 

to 10 km offshore) is not sufficient. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to take place at 

least 20 km from the west coast of 

Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). 

Comment 129: NRDC states that 

mitigation measures should include a 

year-round coastal exclusion in the 

waters surrounding Taiwan to 20 km 

(because of Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphin and finless porpoise habitat). 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to take place at 

least 20 km from the west coast of 

Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). The seismic survey line 

paralleling the east coast of Taiwan will 

be moved offshore at least 20 km to 

decrease potential impacts on species 

that occur in coastal waters and over the 

continental slope. If an Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin or finless porpoise is 

visually sighted, the airgun array will be 

shut-down regardless of the distance of 

the animal(s) to the sound source. The 

array will not resume firing until 15 min 

after the last documented dolphin/ 

porpoise sighting. NMFS has included 

requirements to these effects in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO. See L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 130: ETSSTAWG states that 

the lack of separate consideration of the 

genetically distinct ETS population of 

Sousa is, of course, a concern. One of 

the most effective ways to protect 

cetaceans and their habitat from the 

impacts of noise (and the cumulative 

and synergistic impacts in combination 

with other stressors) is through spatiotemporal restrictions, including marine 

protected areas (Weilgart, 2006). 

Response: NMFS, NSF, and L–DEO 

have considered the genetically distinct 

ETS sub-population on Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins in L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA and issuance of the 

IHA to L–DEO. Several temporal and 

spatial restrictions for several cetacean 

species have been incorporated in the 

revision of the proposed survey and 

have been incorporated in NMFS’ IHA 

issued to L–DEO. See Temporal and 

Spatial Avoidance section of this 

document and L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 131: WaH states that 

abundance and other data in SE Asia for 

sperm whales, which are known to 

‘startle’ in response to seismic surveys 

and to face numerous threats in the SE 

Asia region (including acoustic), are 

unknown, justifying precautionary 

measures. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO is expected 

to implement any and all monitoring 

and mitigation measures described in 

the IHA that are applicable to sperm 

whale visual and acoustic detections. If 

concentrations or groups of sperm 

whales are observed (by visual or 

passive acoustic detection) prior to or 

during the airgun operations, those 

operations will be powered/shut-down 

and/or moved to another location, if 

possible, based on recommendations by 

the on-duty MMO aboard the Langseth. 

NMFS has included a requirement to 

this effect in the IHA issued to L–DEO, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41291 

as well as additional monitoring and 

mitigation measures for marine 

mammals. 

Comment 132: Dr. John Wang states 

that recognizing the sensitivity of 

beaked whales, L–DEO proposed that as 

a ‘special mitigation procedure’ for 

beaked whales, ‘‘approach to slopes and 

submarine canyons, if possible, during 

the proposed survey.’’ It is unclear what 

is meant by ‘if possible’. With this 

condition it is not convincing that the 

procedure will actually be 

implemented. 

Response: When operating the sound 

source(s), L–DEO will minimize 

approaches to slopes, submarine 

canyons, seamounts, and other 

underwater geologic features, whenever 

possible, because of sensitivity of 

beaked whales and to avoid possible 

beaked whale habitat. If concentrations 

or groups of beaked whales are observed 

(by visual or passive acoustic detection) 

at a site such as on the continental 

slope, submarine canyon, seamount, or 

other underwater geologic feature just 

prior to or during the airgun operations 

will be powered-down, shut-down, and/ 

or moved to another location, if 

possible, based on recommendations by 

the on-duty MMO aboard the Langseth. 

NMFS has included requirements to this 

effect in the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

After issuance of the proposed IHA, 

L–DEO modified the cruise plan and 

adopted more precautionary monitoring 

and mitigation measures. NMFS 

believes that the revised survey as well 

as the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. 

Comment 133: NRDC states that 

NMFS’ proposed mitigation measures 

focus primarily on visual monitoring. 

However, research has cast doubt on the 

ability of shipboard observers to detect 

whales or for vessels to avoid collisions 

through visual monitoring, particularly 

as the size of the vessel increases or 

visibility decreases (Clyne and Leaper, 

1999). Notably, detection rates for 

marine mammals generally approach 

only 5 percent. It has been estimated 

that in anything stronger than a light 

breeze, only one in fifty beaked whales 

surfacing in the direct track line of a 

ship would be sighted; as the distance 

approaches 1 km, that number drops to 

zero (Barlow and Gisiner, 2006). 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s visual monitoring efforts 

is successful for detecting marine 

mammals. In addition to extra MMOs 

and high-powered binoculars, L–DEO 

will be using a PAM system for 

acoustically detecting marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the Langseth. NMFS 

expects that the impacts of the seismic 

survey action on marine mammals will 

be temporary in nature and not result in 

substantial impact to marine mammals 

or to their role in the ecosystem. The 

IHA anticipates, and would authorize, 

Level B harassment only, in the form of 

temporary behavioral disturbance, of 

species of cetaceans. Neither Level A 

harassment (injury), serious injury, nor 

mortality is anticipated or authorized, 

and the Level B harassment is not 

expected to affect biodiversity or 

ecosystem function. NMFS believes that 

L–DEO’s revised survey as well as the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. See Monitoring, Mitigation, 

and L–DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 134: NRDC urges NMFS to 

restrict L–DEO’s access to submarine 

canyons off of southwest Taiwan (due to 

probable sperm and beaked whale 

habitat); and marine protected areas. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures in the study area. If 

concentrations of groups of sperm 

whales and/or beaked whales are 

observed (by visual or passive acoustic 

detection) at a site such as on the 

continental slope, submarine canyon, 

seamount, or other underwater geologic 

feature just prior or during the airgun 

operations, those operations will be 

powered/shut-down and/or moved to 

another location, if possible based on 

recommendations by the on-duty MMO 

aboard the Langseth. When operating 

the sound source(s), minimize 

approaches to slopes, submarine 

canyons, seamounts, and other 

underwater geologic features, if 

possible, because of sensitivity of 

beaked whales. NMFS expects NSF and 

L–DEO to adhere to local conservation 

laws and regulations of nations while in 

foreign waters, and known rules and 

boundaries of Marine Protected Areas. 

In the absence of local conservation 

laws and regulations or Marine 

Protected Area rules, L–DEO will 

continue to use the monitoring and 

mitigation measures identified in the 

IHA. NMFS has included requirements 

to these effects in the IHA issued to L– 

DEO. See Species of Particular Concern 

below. 

Comment 135: NRDC urges NMFS to 

restrict L–DEO’s access to the coastal 

waters of the South China Sea out to 200 

m depth, >20 km including islands from 

April through June (because of the 

presence of beaked whales and potential 

gray whale breeding sites). 

Response: L–DEO will limit seismic 

survey lines to water depths greater than 

200 m in the South China Sea, and as 

far east as possible from the mainland 

China side of the Taiwan Strait, to 

reduce potential for effects on Western 

Pacific gray whales, Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins, and finless 

porpoises. L–DEO will avoid shallow 

water areas near the mainland China 

coast and western part of the Taiwan 

Strait during the Western Pacific gray 

wintering period and migration 

(December to April). L–DEO will avoid 

shallow, coastal waters of the South 

China Sea to avoid populations of 

finless porpoises. NMFS has included 

requirements to these effects in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO. 

Mitigation—Tracklines 

Comment 136: Several interested 

parties state that with tracklines 

overlapping known and suspected 

important habitat for beaked whales, 

which are known to be particularly 

sensitive to acoustic impacts, extremely 

difficult to detect visually, and already 

facing numerous threats (including 

acoustic) within their habitat at least in 

Taiwanese waters, and with almost no 

data on abundance for beaked whales in 

SE Asia (as reflected by the IUCN Red 

List status of three species in the region 

as ‘‘Data Deficient’’), there is a clear 

potential for significant impacts on 

beaked whales, and hence a need for 

great precaution. 

Waters along the edge of the 

continental shelf (especially where the 

strong, warm, and oligotrophic Kuroshio 

Current meets the shelf edge and 

nutrient input from terrestrial sources) 

are particularly productive and appear 

to attract cetaceans, including beaked 

whales. Tracklines that run near and 

parallel to the edge of the continental 

shelf around Taiwan will have the 

greatest impact on cetaceans, being 

possibly most damaging to beaked 

whales. However, without more 

cetacean survey information it is 

uncertain if just moving tracklines 

offshore from the shelf edge would be 

effective in reducing impacts on beaked 

whales or if the relocation of tracklines 

would harm different species or other 

populations offshore. 

Response: During the public comment 

period, concerns were expressed about 

the survey line that was parallel to and 

within a few km of the east coast of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41292 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

Taiwan because of potential effects on 

coastal species and those that frequent 

the narrow continental shelf break and 

steep slopes (e.g., beaked whales and 

sperm whales). After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO has moved the 

survey line further offshore by more 

than 20 km to decrease potential 

impacts on species that occur in coastal 

water and over the continental slope, 

such as beaked whales. When operating 

the sound source(s), L–DEO will 

minimize approaches to slopes, 

submarine canyons, seamounts, and 

other underwater geologic features, if 

possible, because of sensitivity of 

beaked whales. Also, if concentrations 

of groups of beaked whales are observed 

(by visual or passive acoustic detection) 

prior to or during airgun operations, 

those operations will be powered-down 

or shut-down and/or moved to another 

location along the site, if possible, based 

on recommendations by the on-duty 

MMO aboard the Langseth. NMFS has 

included requirements to this effect in 

the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 137: Dr. John Wang states 

that many of the proposed tracklines 

appear to maximize risk to cetacean 

populations in the waters of Taiwan, 

some of which are critically endangered 

under the 2008 IUCN Red List. 

Response: NMFS does not authorize 

the incidental take of marine mammals 

in the territorial sea of foreign nations, 

as the MMPA does not apply in those 

waters. However, NMFS still calculates 

the level of incidental take in territorial 

seas as part of the analysis supporting 

issuance of an IHA in order to 

determine the biological accuracy of the 

small numbers and negligible impact 

determinations for species which cross 

boundaries. In this case, after the 

issuance of the proposed IHA, L–DEO 

modified the cruise plan and adopted 

more precautionary mitigation 

measures, especially for species of 

particular concern. See responses to 

comments discussed within this 

document as well as L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 138: Dr. John Wang states 

that several tracklines of the proposed 

seismic survey immediately standout as 

being very likely to cause great risk to 

marine mammals in the region. Some of 

the problematic tracklines include: (1) 

Coastal waters of western Taiwan; (2) 

approaches to the mainland of China; 

(3) the shelf edge along eastern Taiwan 

and oceanic islands off eastern and 

northern Taiwan, northern Philippines 

and the Ryuku archipelago; (4) the shelf 

edge along the eastern side of the 

Penghu Channel; and (5) all waters of 

the Taiwan Strait. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures to reduce potential 

effects to marine mammals in the 

region. NMFS has included 

requirements to these effects in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO. See responses to 

comments in this document for further 

information, as well as L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Comment 139: Dr. John Wang states 

L–DEO claimed that when conducting 

the Luzon Strait/Philippine sea leg of 

their survey, they will ‘‘attempt to avoid 

these [for humpback whale] wintering 

areas at the time of peak occurrence by 

surveying a * * * slate as possible 

during each leg of the cruise’’. However, 

the proposed survey schedule overlaps 

with the peak period of humpback 

whales in the Babuyan waters (the latter 

portion of the peak period being April) 

and a considerable number of 

humpback whales will still be in the 

survey area throughout the survey 

period (many will also be migrating 

through the waters at the same time the 

seismic surveys are planned). 

Although the exact migratory routes 

of most humpback whales are unknown, 

it is clear that at least some will follow 

a path that is parallel and fairly close to 

the shores of eastern Taiwan, which is 

the same path of one of the proposed 

survey tracklines of the Langseth. Some 

females undertaking the migration at 

this time will be accompanied by 

neonatal calves, which are the most 

sensitive individuals of the population 

(McCauley et al., 2000). Such a frivolous 

and empty statement by L–DEO 

attempting to mitigate its impact is 

concerning and raises questions about 

the sincerity of its mitigation measure 

proposed. 

Response: Concerns were raised in 

several comments about survey lines 

scheduled for Leg 2 (April 20 to June 7, 

2009) approaching humpback whale 

breeding areas in the Babuyan and 

Ryukyu Islands. In fact, the humpback 

whales that winter and calve in the 

Ryukyu Islands are near Okinawa 

(Nishiwaki, 1959; Rice, 1989; Darling 

and Mori, 1993), some 400 km north of 

the most northerly survey. However, a 

small population of humpbacks does 

winter and calve in the Babuyan Islands 

in Luzon Strait (Acebes and Lesaca, 

2003; Acebes et al., 2007). The whales 

may arrive in the area as early as 

November and leave in May or even 

June, with peak occurrence during 

February through March or April 

(Acebes et al., 2007). 

To mitigate against the potential 

effects of the surveys on humpbacks, 

particularly mothers and calves on the 

breeding grounds or during the 

beginning of migration to summer 

feeding grounds, the surveys that 

approach the Babuyan Islands have 

been rescheduled as late as possible, to 

Leg 4 (June 18 to July 20, 2009). L–DEO 

will avoid areas (Ogasawara and Ryuku 

Islands in southern Japan and the Batan 

and Babuyan Islands in Luzon Strait in 

the northern Philippines) at the time of 

peak occurrence (February to April), 

where concentrations of humpback 

whales are known to winter, calve, and 

nurse. Seismic survey lines will be 

scheduled for as late as possible (June 

to July) to avoid potential effects of the 

surveys on humpback whales, 

particularly mothers and calves on 

breeding grounds or during the 

beginning of migration to summer 

feeding grounds. Also, if concentrations 

or groups of humpback whales are 

observed (by visual or passive acoustic 

detection) prior to or during the airgun 

operations, those operations will be 

powered/shut-down and/or moved to 

another location, if possible, based on 

recommendations by the on-duty MMO 

aboard the Langseth. If humpback whale 

mother/calf pairs are visually sighted, 

the airgun array will be shut-down 

regardless of the distance of the 

animal(s) to the sound source. The array 

will not resume firing until 30 min after 

the last documented whale visual 

sighting. NMFS has included 

requirements to these effects in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 140: Dr. John Wang states 

that there is a need for cetacean surveys 

before seismic surveys. Clearly, all 

tracklines over or near the shelf edge 

will likely impact many cetaceans. 

However, without more cetacean survey 

information, it is uncertain if (a) just 

moving tracklines away from the shelf 

edge would be effective in reducing 

impacts on beaked whales; or (b) if the 

relocation of tracklines would harm 

different species in waters further 

offshore. Recent multiple sightings of 

ginkgo-toothed beaked whales during 

dedicated cetaceans surveys of waters 

off southeast Taiwan demonstrate the 

importance of such studies. Cetacean 

surveys in the waters off southwest 

Taiwan where the important deep 

Penghu Channel exists are limited. This 

channel has a steep eastern wall that 

borders against the southwest shores of 

Taiwan and helps to funnel a branch of 

the Kuroshio Current or the South China 

Sea current to the northern tip of the 

channel ending in an important area of 

complex seasonal mixing with the cold 

China Coastal current (Jan et al., 2002). 

Response: L–DEO has moved the 

seismic survey line paralleling the east 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41293 

coat of Taiwan offshore at least 20 km 

to decrease potential impacts on species 

that occur in coastal waters and over the 

continental slope. To the maximum 

extent practicable, L–DEO will schedule 

seismic operations in inshore and 

shallow waters during daylight hours 

and OBS operations to nighttime hours. 

To the maximum extent practicable, 

seismic surveys (especially inshore) will 

be conducted from the coast (inshore) 

and proceed towards the sea (offshore) 

in order to avoid trapping marine 

mammals in shallow water. When 

operating the sound source(s), L–DEO 

will minimize approaches to slopes, 

submarine canyons, seamounts, or other 

geologic features, if possible, because of 

sensitivity of beaked whales. If 

concentrations or groups of beaked 

whales are observed (by visual or 

passive acoustic detection) at a site such 

as on the continental slope, submarine 

canyon, seamount, or other underwater 

geologic feature just prior to or during 

the airgun operations, those operations 

will be powered-down/shut-down and/ 

or moved to another location, if 

possible, based on recommendations by 

the on-duty MMO aboard the Langseth. 

NMFS has included requirements to this 

effect in the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 141: ETSSTAWG 

recommends that the section of Leg # 4 

running along the western coast of 

Taiwan should be removed from the L– 

DEO survey as this represents core 

habitat for the critically endangered 

population of ETS Sousa. 

Response: L–DEO will limit seismic 

survey lines to take place at least 20 km 

from the west coast of Taiwan, except 

for in the passage between the Penghu 

Islands and the Waishanding Jhou 

(Wau-san-ting Chou) sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

μPa (rms). NMFS has included a 

requirement to this effect in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 142: Based on the map of 

the proposed survey track lines found in 

the L–DEO application (see Figure 1, p. 

3 of the application), the survey vessel 

Langseth will be operating in the known 

and suspected habitat of at least two 

critically endangered cetacean species, 

the Western Pacific gray whale and the 

ETS Sousa. L–DEO must provide better 

justification for the track lines—if these 

are the only tracklines that will 

accomplish the goals of the research, 

then L–DEO must explain why and offer 

a rationale that justifies exposing 

critically endangered marine mammal 

populations to Level B harassment and, 

despite the applicant’s assurances to the 

contrary, potentially Level A 

harassment and serious injury. 

Response: During the public comment 

period, many concerns were expressed 

about the potential effects of the 

proposed survey on Western Pacific 

gray whales and Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins. After issuance of the proposed 

IHA, L–DEO modified the cruise plan in 

a number of ways: (1) L–DEO re-routed 

the survey lines in the South China Sea 

south of the Taiwan Strait so that they 

are now located in water depths >200 

m; (2) L–DEO dropped the seismic lines 

in western Taiwan Strait, and (3) L–DEO 

adopted more precautionary monitoring 

and mitigation measures. For example, 

L–DEO will also shut-down the airgun 

array if a Western Pacific gray whale is 

visually sighted at any distance from the 

vessel. NMFS has included 

requirements to this effect in the IHA. 

See NMFS’ responses to comments for 

more information regarding the ETS 

sub-population of Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins, as well as L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. NMFS has not 

authorized the incidental take of 

Western Pacific gray whales or IndoPacific humpback dolphins. 

Comment 143: CSI states that with the 

exception of a very small area where the 

proposed tracklines take the Langseth to 

the mainland Chinese coast and back to 

western Taiwan, the Langseth will 

operate in waters within 1 km from the 

shore of Taiwan and right through the 

middle (longitudinally) of almost the 

entire linear coastal distribution of the 

ETS sub-population, i.e., the proposed 

trackline almost completely overlaps 

with the entire distribution of the ETS 

sub-population. At this distance from 

shore, the Langseth will subject the 

entire ETS sub-population to noise 

levels much greater than 180 dB. 

CSI also states that even staying 

greater than or equal to 2 km from the 

coastline (a proposed mitigation 

measure to reduce the impact on the 

ETS sub-population) does absolutely 

nothing to reduce the noise exposure to 

these critically endangered dolphins. 

Even at 8 to 10 km from shore, the 

survey will still expose all animals to 

greater than 160 dB and an unknown 

number would still be exposed to 

greater than 180 dB. The above 

statements are conservative because 

they are based on the predicted rms 

distances for different levels of exposure 

(Table 1 in the proposed IHA Federal 

Register notice), which a) 

underestimates actual exposure levels in 

shallow waters and b) does not consider 

reverberations that are likely to occur as 

a result of the solid concrete walls that 

are found along much of the central 

western coast of Taiwan, the very 

shallow water depths of western Taiwan 

(also, tidal fluctuation is up to about 5 

to 6 m and can affect the depth in which 

the dolphins are found during 

exposure), or many sandbars that may 

force animals to be further offshore from 

the solid shoreline during lower tides. 

The grouping of exposures into the very 

broad category of ‘shallow’ water (being 

less than 100 m) is not sufficient to 

understand the exposure level for a 

species that occupies water depths at 

the lowest end of the ‘shallow’ water 

category. It is expected that the 

exposure levels will be much higher at 

the any given distance from source than 

the predicted values in the tables. The 

distance to reduce exposure to noise 

levels of 160 dB or greater is unknown 

for dolphins in water depths less than 

25 m and could be much greater. 

HSI states that the only way to avoid 

exposing these critically endangered 

dolphins to Level A harassment (or 

serious injury)—and also to avoid Level 

B harassment, to which this fragile 

population should arguably not be 

exposed either—is to move the 

proposed trackline considerably farther 

offshore than 10 km. There is no way to 

avoid them on the proposed trackline 

seasonally, as they are year-round 

residents. It is unacceptable that L–DEO 

proposes to run the Langseth directly 

through the only known habitat for this 

critically endangered population, 

employing mitigation measures that will 

clearly be ineffective at preventing Level 

A harassment and serious injury, let 

alone Level B harassment. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will limit 

seismic survey lines to take place at 

least 20 km from the west coast of 

Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Island and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). Thus, L–DEO is 

maintaining the precautionary buffer 

recommended by ETSSTAWG in their 

comments to NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 km and 

perhaps a more precautionary 15 km of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41294 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

the ETS Sousa population—meaning up 

to around 20 km from shore.’’ NMFS has 

included requirements to this effect in 

the IHA issued to L–DEO. 

Comment 144: CSI states that 

calculations of how far the Langseth 

should be to prevent the ETS population 

from being exposed to levels greater 

than 160 dB should be based on at least 

the recommended 5 km buffer boundary 

(i.e., the waters from shore to 5 km 

offshore should not be exposed to levels 

greater than 160 dB). However, given 

the population’s critical status and the 

fact that Table 1 underestimates the 

actual exposure levels in shallow water, 

the recommended distance should be 

even more precautionary, i.e., greater 

than 13 km from shore based on the 

values presented in Table 1 of the 

Federal Register notice. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO negotiated with 

the project’s principal scientists to 

modify the cruise plan and adopt more 

precautionary mitigation measures. Off 

Taiwan’s west coast the cruise tracks 

have been re-routed by approximately 

20 km, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

of foreign nations, to protect the 

critically endangered ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin sub-population and 

the finless porpoise as well as ease 

potential pressure on other coastal 

species. Thus, L–DEO is maintaining the 

precautionary buffer recommended by 

ETSSTAWG in their public comments 

to NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 km and perhaps 

a more precautionary 15 km of the ETS 

Sousa population—meaning up to 

around 20 km from shore.’’ 

Comment 145: Dr. John Wang states 

the predicted rms distances for different 

levels of exposure (Table 1 of the 

proposed IHA’s Federal Register 

notice), underestimates actual exposure 

levels in shallow waters and does not 

consider the issues with: reflection, 

reverberation, rarefaction, superposition 

and constructive interference (see 

Shapiro et al., 2009) of sound waves in 

waters that abut concrete sea walls 

found along much of the central western 

coast of Taiwan; the very shallow water 

depths of western Taiwan (with a tidal 

fluctuation up to about 5–6 m that can 

affect the depth in which the dolphins 

are found during exposure); and the 

many sandbars and some extensive 

mudflats that can force animals to be 

further ‘offshore’ during lower tides. 

Response: NMFS believes that while 

oceanographic conditions may alter 

sound levels, for purposes of this 

seismic survey, the model used for 

predicting received levels in L–DEO’s 

IHA application and EA is the best 

science available. After the issuance of 

the proposed IHA, L–DEO has modified 

the cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures to reduce impacts 

on species and stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. See NMFS’ 

responses to comments in this 

document for relevant information. 

Comment 146: Dr. John Wang states 

the water depths in the very broad 

category of ‘‘shallow’’ water (being <100 

m in the proposed IHA’s Federal 

Register notice) are not sufficient to 

understand the exposure level for a 

species (e.g., ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins) that occupies 

water depths at the lowest end of the 

‘‘shallow’’ water category. It is expected 

that the exposure levels will be much 

higher at any given distance from the 

source than the predicted values 

suggested. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. The revised survey 

will maintain the precautionary buffer 

recommended by ETSSTAWG in their 

comments to NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 km and 

perhaps a more precautionary 15 km of 

the ETS Sousa population—meaning up 

to around 20 km from shore.’’ See L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA for more 

information. 

Comment 147: Dr. John Wang states 

the waters of western Taiwan are highly 

dynamic with seasonal, monthly, daily 

and diel changes in water salinity, tidal 

fluctuations, water temperature and 

surface conditions that can not be 

explained by the simple model for 

predicting levels that was used in the L– 

DEO proposal. Given that a critically 

endangered population (the ETS subpopulation of Sousa chinensis), two 

vulnerable and very difficult species to 

detect (i.e., finless porpoises) and the 

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin are 

found in very shallow waters it is 

crucial that sound levels under differing 

conditions in shallow waters be better 

understood before impacts to cetaceans 

are trivialized. 

Response: NMFS believes that while 

oceanographic conditions may alter 

sound levels, for purposes of this 

seismic survey, the model used for 

predicting received levels in L–DEO’s 

IHA application and EA is the best 

science available. After the issuance of 

the proposed IHA, L–DEO has modified 

the cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures to reduce impacts 

on species and stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. See NMFS’ 

responses to comments in this 

document for more relevant 

information. 

MMPA Concerns 

Comment 148: Dr. Robert Brownell 

states that the possible numbers of 

marine mammals exposed to sound 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB, 

during the proposed L–DEO seismic 

survey in SE Asia, should be considered 

erroneous based on regional population 

estimates from two main sources. Of the 

37 cetacean populations listed in Table 

2 of the Federal Register notice (78 FR 

78294, December 22, 2008), 22 are from 

the ETP and have no relationship at all 

to the region to be surveyed in the 

western North Pacific. Humpback 

whales are correct. The minke whale 

and Bryde’s whale estimates are 

generally correct. Omura’s whale may 

be common in some parts of the survey 

area. Sei, fin, and blue whales are likely 

to be rare at best in the survey area. For 

the small cetacean, 15 of the 28 

population estimates are from the ETP 

and these should not be used for the 

proposed survey area. Sperm whales 

may be common as opposed to 

‘‘uncommon’’ in deeper waters off the 

eastern side of Taiwan and in some 

parts of the Philippines. The estimate 

for Pacific white-sided dolphins is for 

the entire North Pacific and this species 

as noted is rare or does not occur in 

most of the proposed survey area. Most 

of the estimated 5,220 to 10,220 finless 

porpoise occur in the coastal waters of 

Japan, not in Taiwan or along the coast 

of China. In the case of Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins, the estimate of 

1,680 animals includes about 100 from 

Taiwan. The IUCN has listed the 

subpopulation of these dolphins along 

the limited part of the western coast of 

Taiwan as ‘‘critically endangered’’ and 

the subpopulation is estimated at 100 

individuals. Based on the problems of 

the population estimates noted above, 

the estimates of the possible number of 

cetaceans exposed in Table 3 of the 

Federal Register notice (78 FR 78294, 

December 22, 2008) are unrealistic 

either as the best estimate or maximum. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges Dr. 

Robert Brownell’s comment and the 

information provided. The information 

included in the proposed IHA has been 

updated in this Federal Register notice 

based on comments from the public. As 

noted previously, when information is 

unavailable on a local population size, 

NMFS uses either stock or species 

information on abundance. Since 

NMFS, uses the best information that is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41295 

available, estimating impacts on marine 

mammals in this manner is appropriate. 

See responses to comments below. 

Comment 149: Dr. Robert Brownell 

states the NMFS Permit Office appears 

to have preliminarily determined that 

the proposed seismic surveys will not 

cause any death or serious injury to 

cetaceans in the survey area. This is not 

a precautionary approach and some 

consideration should be given to the 

possibility that some beaked whales or 

schools of other small cetaceans may 

mass strand in response to the surveys. 

Brownell et al. (2008) reviewed the 

numerous fisheries that have used 

sounds to hunt cetaceans. The success 

of these fisheries shows that numerous 

species of small cetaceans avoid and 

move away from a wide variety of 

anthropogenic sounds, some as simple 

as hitting two rocks together 

underwater. Therefore, some advanced 

plan must be made to respond to any 

stranding of live animals during the 

proposed seismic surveys. 

Response: The preliminary 

determination made by NMFS in L– 

DEO’s proposed IHA was not a final 

determination. NMFS requested 

comments on its proposal to authorize 

L–DEO to incidentally take, by Level B 

harassment only, small numbers of 

marine mammals during the marine 

seismic survey in SE Asia during 

March–July 2009. Based on comments 

received from the public, L–DEO 

revised the proposed seismic survey in 

SE Asia. Conservative monitoring and 

mitigation measures were enhanced, as 

compared to those described in the 

proposed IHA notice. The mitigation 

and monitoring measures ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammals in the SE Asia study 

area. L–DEO is not using sound for 

purposes of creating a drive fishery 

targeted at hunting or capturing 

cetaceans as discussed in Brownell et al. 

(2008). Any takes of marine mammals 

incidental to L–DEO’s seismic activities 

would be Level B harassment due to the 

implementation of the monitoring and 

mitigation measures described in the 

IHA and no injury, serious injury, or 

mortality is authorized. L–DEO, to the 

maximum extent practicable, will 

schedule seismic operations in inshore 

and shallow waters during daylight 

hours and OBS operations in nighttime 

hours; as well as conduct seismic 

surveys (especially inshore) from the 

coast (inshore) and proceed towards the 

sea (offshore) in order to avoid trapping 

marine mammals in shallow water. 

Requirements to these effects have been 

included in the NMFS-issued IHA. 

NMFS believes L–DEO’s revised seismic 

survey and the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures will have a negligible impact 

on affected species and stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. 

Comment 150: NRDC states that there 

are two types of general exemptions 

available through the MMPA for 

activities that incidentally ‘‘take’’ 

marine mammals: permits and 

incidental harassment authorizations. 

Until 1994, the only exemptions 

available under the MMPA were 

permits, which require the wildlife 

agencies to promulgate regulations 

specifying permissible methods of 

taking. In 1994, however, the MMPA 

was amended to provide a streamlined 

mechanism by which proponents can 

obtain authorization for projects whose 

takings are by incidental harassment 

only. 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D). Regardless 

of which process is used, NMFS must 

prescribe ‘‘methods’’ and ‘‘means of 

effecting the least practicable impact’’ 

on protected species as well as 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(ii), 

(D)(vi). 

Response: The mitigation measures 

described in the proposed IHA notice 

have been enhanced subsequently by 

increased observer personnel, temporal 

and spatial avoidance of areas, as well 

as for species of particular concern. 

NMFS believes that the mitigation and 

monitoring measures that were imposed 

under the IHA are complete to the 

fullest extent practicable, and ensure 

that the takings will be limited to Level 

B harassment and will result in a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals in the 

study area. The mitigation measures 

described in the proposed IHA notice 

have been enhanced subsequently by 

increased observer personnel, temporal 

and spatial avoidance of areas, as well 

as for species of particular concern. 

Comment 151: Dr. John Wang and CSI 

state that it has been suggested that 

recent mass strandings of melon-headed 

whales were related to the use of naval 

sonar (in Hawaiian waters—Southall et 

al., 2006) and seismic surveys (in 

Madagascan waters) so there is growing 

concern about the potential impact of 

such activities on this species. Melonheaded whales, although not a 

commonly-observed species have been 

sighted on several occasions in the 

waters of eastern Taiwan and southwest 

Taiwan, respectively (Wang et al., 

2001a). Seismic surveys along the shelf 

edge of eastern Taiwan during the 

daytime will likely have an impact. 

Response: NMFS is also concerned 

about potential impacts on this species 

due to these recent events. The behavior 

of melon-headed whales near oceanic 

islands was recently described in 

Brownell et al. (2009). Due to concerns, 

the survey line paralleling the east coast 

of Taiwan was moved offshore by more 

than 20 km after issuance of the 

proposed IHA to decrease potential 

impacts on species that occur in coastal 

waters and over the continental slope. 

L–DEO will also, to the maximum 

extent practicable, schedule seismic 

operations in inshore and shallow 

waters during daylight hours and OBS 

operations during nighttime hours. 

Requirements to these effects have been 

included in the NMFS-issued IHA. L– 

DEO’s revised seismic survey 

incorporating the implementation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures are expected to have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species and stocks in the study 

area. 

Comment 152: Dr. John Wang states 

that seismic surveys should not be 

conducted in the spring (when many 

species give birth). The survey period 

(from 21 March to 14 July) proposed by 

L–DEO is probably the worst choice of 

seasons if minimizing impacts to marine 

mammals is sought. The above 

scheduling overlaps almost entirely 

with the confirmed presence of 

humpback whales, likely presence of 

gray whales and possible presence of 

right whales in the region. Calving for 

most cetacean species (including those 

that are critically endangered—see 

above) in this region appear to be in the 

spring to early summer as evidenced by 

sightings of many females with neonates 

and other young calves during cetacean 

surveys and the examination of 

hundreds of carcasses (J.Y. Wang, 

unpublished data). Seismic surveys 

should not be conducted in the autumn 

and winter until more information about 

marine mammals in these waters during 

these seasons is available. 

Response: Conducting the seismic 

survey during a different time of year is 

not feasible, as the Langseth has other 

research commitments after the TAIGER 

cruise. Also there are concerns with 

weather conditions associated with the 

typhoon season. Due to concerns 

regarding humpback whales, Western 

Pacific gray whales, and other species, 

L–DEO has revised their planned 

survey, after issuance of the proposed 

IHA, to avoid breeding and feeding 

areas as well as migration routes. See L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA and relevant 

discussions in this document. NMFS 

has included temporal and spatial 

avoidance restrictions to these effects in 

the IHA. NMFS believes that the revised 

survey as well as the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41296 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

measures will protect species of 

particular concern in the study area. 

Comment 153: CSI states that there is 

an inappropriate use of data from other 

areas. The use of data from the Eastern 

Tropical Pacific for estimating the 

densities and number of individuals 

impacted by the proposed seismic 

survey is completely inappropriate as 

there is no evidence that the two sites 

of the Pacific Ocean are comparable. 

Such extrapolation would not be 

acceptable to most cetacean scientists. 

This should be re-examined carefully. 

Response: NMFS agrees that impacts 

should be assessed on the population or 

stock unit whenever possible. L–DEO’s 

application provides information on 

stock abundance of some species in SE 

Asia and larger water bodies (such as 

the North Pacific Ocean). The data 

source for each stock estimate is 

provided. NMFS believes that these data 

are the best scientific information 

available for estimating impacts on 

marine mammal species and stocks. 

However, information on marine 

mammal stock abundance may not 

always be satisfactory. When 

information is lacking to define a 

particular population or stock of marine 

mammals then impacts are assessed 

with respect to the species as a whole 

(54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989). 

MMPA Concerns—Small Numbers 

Comment 154: Minor and Wilson 

state the summary in the Federal 

Register listing says the proposal is to 

take ‘‘small’’ numbers of marine 

mammals. However, the actual 

proposed ‘‘take authorization’’ by L– 

DEO is for 71,669 cetaceans. Minor and 

Wilson propose that a reasonable upper 

bound for a small number is what can 

be counted on their fingers and toes. 

The Federal Register summary that 

twice used the word ‘‘small’’ to describe 

the number 71,669, while failing to 

mention the actual number, so 

misinformed the public that the 

resulting public consultation process is 

clearly invalid. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with 

Minor and Wilson’s comment. The 

number stated by Minor and Wilson is 

the total number of individuals 

requested in the proposed IHA and must 

be considered in the appropriate 

context. An activity affects ‘‘small 

numbers’’ of a species or stock when it 

is determined that the total taking will 

be small relative to the estimated 

population size and relevant to the 

behavior, physiology, and life history of 

the species or stock. Furthermore, after 

issuance of the proposed IHA, L–DEO 

has revised its seismic tracklines and 

reduced the estimates of the possible 

number of marine mammals exposed to 

certain sound levels during the TAIGER 

seismic survey. NMFS believes L–DEO’s 

revised seismic survey and the 

implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

will have a negligible impact on affected 

species and stocks of marine mammals 

in the study area. 

Comment 155: Dr. John Wang 

disagrees that the proposed survey will 

have a negligible impact on local 

species of stocks of marine mammals. 

The estimated number of individuals 

affected (>50,000 and with 68.7% of one 

critically endangered population of 

dolphins being affected) cannot be 

considered ‘‘small.’’ 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

revised seismic survey described in L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA incorporating 

the implementation of the monitoring 

and mitigation measures required in the 

IHA will have a negligible impact on 

affected local species and stocks of 

marine mammals in the TAIGER study 

area. NMFS believes that the monitoring 

and mitigation measures described 

below, which have been enhanced when 

compared to the proposed IHA notice, 

ensure the least practicable adverse 

impact on marine mammals in the SE 

Asia study area. See response to 

comment above. 

Comment 156: Several interested 

parties are concerned about impacts of 

any level of take on small or vulnerable 

populations. Several cetaceans are in 

such critically low numbers that even 

minimal ‘takes’ can contribute greatly to 

the demise of these populations. Most of 

the values in Table 3 do not make any 

sense to those who have experience 

with local marine mammal populations 

in the region (e.g., the take of 64 

Cuvier’s beaked whales compared with 

168 Blainville’s beaked whales; a take of 

189 killer whales compared with only 

68 finless porpoises). These numbers are 

little better than random guesses. The 

statement from the Federal Register 

notice is incorrect. L–DEO estimated 

that 68.7% of the critically endangered 

ETS population of humpback dolphins 

will be impacted. Although this is a 

serious underestimate (explained 

earlier), it is already a very high 

proportion of this distinct population 

and the mitigation measures proposed 

do not minimize the exposure level to 

these dolphins. The taking is also 

expected to include Level A harassment 

rather than just Level B as claimed by 

L–DEO. The taking (both Level A and B) 

of such a large proportion of the ETS 

dolphins could have an irreversible 

impact on the continued survival of the 

population. 

Response: Since the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO has revised their 

seismic survey and will implement 

additional mitigation measures to 

address concerns regarding several 

species of cetaceans in the study area. 

NMFS has included these as 

requirements in the IHA. There have 

been few, if any, systematic aircraft- or 

ship-based surveys conducted for 

marine mammals in waters near 

Taiwan, and the species of marine 

mammals that occur there is not well 

known. In the absence of any other 

density data, L–DEO used the survey 

effort and sightings in Yang et al. (1999) 

and Wang et al. (2001a) to estimate 

densities of marine mammals in the 

TAIGER study area. For other areas with 

an absence of density data, density data 

from the Eastern Tropical Pacific was 

used. There is some uncertainty about 

the representativeness of the density 

data and the assumptions used in the 

calculations. Furthermore, NMFS 

believes that the data provided is the 

best available information and likely 

overestimates the potential number of 

animals affected. NMFS believes that L– 

DEO’s revised seismic survey 

incorporating the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described in the IHA will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species and stocks in the study 

area. 

Comment 157: Several interested 

parties have stated that the number of 

ETS Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins 

potentially affected by sound levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB in L– 

DEO’s proposed IHA is an unacceptably 

high proportion (68.7 percent of the subpopulation). This is by far the largest 

proportion of any cetacean in the region 

to be affected. This high proportion in 

itself is a severe underestimation of the 

population being impacted, as the 

Langseth will transect the entire 

distribution of the ETS sub-population. 

The dolphins, which have no acoustic 

shelters in these waters, are not capable 

of escaping to quieter waters and will be 

completely exposed for the duration of 

the seismic survey. Over two-thirds 

cannot be reasonably argued to 

constitute a ‘‘small number’’ of dolphins 

in any context, let alone the context of 

there being less than 100 individuals in 

existence, therefore, the requested level 

of impacts of this survey exceeds the 

coverage provided by IHAs. Also, given 

the proposed tracklines, a likely large 

but unknown number of ETS IndoPacific humpback dolphins will be 

exposed to levels >180 dB, which may 

result not only in Level A harassment, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41297 

but also permanent injuries or even 

death. 

Response: Since the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO negotiated with 

the project’s principal scientists to 

modify the cruise plan and adopt more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. Off Taiwan’s west 

coast, the cruise tracks have been rerouted offshore by approximately 20 km 

to protect critically endangered ETS 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins as well 

as other coastal species. Thus, it is now 

planned to maintain the precautionary 

buffer recommended by ETSSTAWG in 

their comments to NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 

km and perhaps a more precautionary 

15 km of the ETS Sousa population— 

meaning up to around 20 km from 

shore’’ (see L–DEO’s Supplemental EA). 

L–DEO will also shut-down 

immediately if there is a sighting of an 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin sighted 

at any distance from the vessel. Based 

on the re-routed tracklines, has revised 

estimates of the possible numbers of 

ETS Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins 

exposed to sound levels that would 

constitute Level B harassment to zero (0 

percent of the ETS sub-population). 

NMFS considers zero to be a ‘‘small 

number’’ and considered the revision in 

its determinations towards the issuance 

of the IHA. 

L–DEO’s action is planned to take 

place in the territorial seas and EEZ’s of 

foreign nations, and will be continuous 

with the activity that takes place on the 

high seas. NMFS does not authorize the 

incidental take of marine mammals in 

the territorial seas of foreign nations, as 

the MMPA does not apply in those 

waters. However, NMFS still needs to 

calculate the level of incidental take in 

territorial seas as part of the analysis 

supporting issuance of an IHA in order 

to determine the biological accuracy of 

the small numbers and negligible 

impact determinations. 

NEPA 

Comment 158: WaH states the EA 

contains several erroneous claims, 

omissions, and unacceptable proposals 

with regards to the critically endangered 

ETS population of Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis). 

Response: NMFS acknowledges 

WaH’s concerns with the EA’s analysis 

of the ETS population of Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins. Because WaH did 

not offer specific details, NMFS cannot 

respond directly to this comment. 

Please note that in response to public 

comments received on the application 

and EA, L–DEO has modified the survey 

design (see L–DEO’s Supplemental EA) 

and adopted more precautionary 

mitigation measures to protect the 

critically endangered ETS population, 

as well as ease potential pressure on 

other coastal species. 

Comment 159: Several commenters 

believed that NSF violated the tenets of 

the NEPA by committing resources for 

the seismic survey before completing 

the EA, which they described as predecisional, biased, and falling short of 

the high standard of environmental 

analysis prescribed by NEPA. 

Response: In accordance with NEPA, 

an irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources refers to 

impacts on or losses to resources that 

cannot be recovered or reversed, i.e., 

losses are permanent or effects to uses 

of resources (e.g., mineral resources, 

natural productivity) that are renewable 

only over long periods of time. The 

referenced discussion in the EA is 

specific to the scheduling of the 

Langseth to make the best use of the 

vessel to support the NSF science 

mission. Advance vessel scheduling 

does not constitute an irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources 

as that term is intended under NEPA. 

Comment 160: The most 

comprehensive study undertaken on the 

impacts of seismic surveys on the 

fishing industry in Norway in 1996 

showed that fishing catches were 

impacted to as far as 33 km from seismic 

testing. I can only assume this is also 

not good for marine mammals who have 

a limited range, such as Sousa. The 

paper can be found in Norwegian at 

http://www.fiskeribladetfiskaren.no/ 

filarkiv/vedlegg/96.pdf. 

Response: NMFS thanks the 

commenter for providing the link to the 

article. As the study is in Norwegian, it 

is not appropriate to compare the size of 

the airgun array, water depth, and zones 

of influence between the two activities, 

for marine mammals until NMFS is able 

to obtain a translation of the article. 

Engas et al. (1996) studied on the 

effects of seismic shooting on local 

abundance and catch rates of cod 

(Gadus morhua) and haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in the 

Barents Sea (near Norway). Although 

the authors reported that trawl catches 

of cod and haddock and longline 

catches of haddock declined on average 

by about 50% (by mass) after seismic 

operations commenced, they observed 

that abundance and catch rates returned 

to pre-shooting levels five days after the 

cessation of seismic operations. 

Finally, NMFS has reviewed L–DEO’s 

EA and supplemental EA and has 

determined that no more than Level B 

harassment of marine mammals would 

occur. Any marine mammal that could 

be exposed to the seismic survey would 

likely experience short-term disturbance 

as supported by prior studies. Marine 

mammals are expected, at most, to show 

an avoidance response to the seismic 

pulses. Further, mitigation measures 

such as controlled speed, course 

alteration, visual and passive acoustic 

marine mammal monitoring, and shutdowns when marine mammals are 

detected within the defined ranges 

should further reduce short-term 

reactions to disturbance, and minimize 

any effects on hearing sensitivity. 

Comment 161: NSF’s EA and L–DEO’s 

Assessment Report did not fully analyze 

impacts on marine mammals; lacked 

abundance and distribution data for 

marine mammal species in the proposed 

waters; failed to assess cumulative 

impacts, reasonable alternatives, or 

mitigation measures; and provided no 

evidence of consultation with local 

marine mammal experts. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertions. Please see 

NMFS’ response to comments in the 

Effects Analysis and Species of 

Particular Concern sections. 

Comment 162: NEPA requires 

decision-makers to consider alternatives 

to their proposed actions. Thus, L–DEO 

must evaluate reasonable alternatives 

that would avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts to the proposed seismic 

surveys. See, e.g., CFR 1502.1. Yet L– 

DEO’s alternatives analysis analyzes 

only the specified dates and does not 

even consider conducting the proposed 

study during an alternate season, such 

as winter and fall, which would avoid 

breeding, calving and migration for 

many marine mammal species in the 

proposed survey areas. As discussed in 

Section II and Appendix A, temporal 

and spatial avoidance is necessary in 

order to minimize impacts on marine 

mammals and therefore must be 

considered by NMFS and L–DEO. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion. NMFS has 

reviewed NSF’s EA, and determined 

that it contains an adequate description 

of NMFS’ proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives, including a No 

Action and Another Time Alternative 

Action (See pages 16 to 17 of the EA). 

The impacts of the seismic survey 

action on marine mammals are 

specifically related to acoustic activities, 

and these are expected to be temporary 

in nature and not result in substantial 

impact to marine mammals. The IHA 

anticipates, and would authorize, Level 

B harassment only, in the form of 

temporary behavioral disturbance, of 

several species of cetaceans. Neither 

Level A harassment (injury), serious 

injury, nor mortality is anticipated nor 

authorized. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41298 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

For the purposes of NMFS’ Federal 

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

authorization) the alternatives are 

adequate. Thus, for the reasons stated 

throughout the text of this notice, NMFS 

believes that the agency is in 

compliance with both the MMPA and 

NEPA. 

Comment 163: Several commenters 

disagreed with the EA’s conclusion that 

the TAIGER seismic survey would add 

little to the cumulative impacts of 

anthropogenic noise in the survey area. 

As such, they alleged that L–DEO: (1) 

Did not assess the cumulative impacts 

of multiple sources of noise; (2) failed 

to consider the synergistic effects of 

noise with other stressors in producing 

or magnifying a stress-response; and (3) 

presented an invalid argument that 

impacts on marine mammals were 

expected to be no more than minor and 

short-term. 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

the EA adequately addressed the 

cumulative impacts of a short-term, lowintensity seismic airgun survey in 

relation to long-term noise and taking 

events, such as vessel traffic, habitat 

loss, oil and gas industry, pollution, 

fisheries, and hunting. 

NMFS endangered species scientists 

have conducted a thorough review of 

the best available information on the 

cumulative effects of the proposed 

project. As a result, NMFS issued a 

BiOp on the proposed action on March 

31, 2009 (NMFS, 2009), which stated 

that the survey was not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed marine mammals in the survey 

area. 

L–DEO discusses cumulative effects 

of noise in the EA (see pages 71–79) and 

drew comparisons between TAIGER and 

other sources of anthropogenic noise 

(i.e., vessel traffic, habitat loss, oil and 

gas industry, pollution, fisheries, and 

hunting) in the proposed survey areas. 

These multiple sources of 

anthropogenic noise are considered to 

be long-term, continuous activities 

which are unaffected by NMFS’ 

issuance of an incidental take 

authorization for Level B harassment 

only, in the form of temporary 

behavioral disturbance. 

In regards to stating that the impacts 

of seismic surveys are small compared 

to other activities, NMFS believes that 

the signals do not add appreciably to the 

ambient noise levels, and therefore do 

not accumulate, or collect, to greater 

effects. The conclusion reached in the 

EA that even when considered in 

combination with other underwater 

sounds, seismic sound does not add 

appreciably to the underwater sounds 

that fish, sea turtles and marine 

mammals are exposed to, remains valid. 

Precautionary Approach 

Comment 164: WaH states the 

proposed mitigation measures are 

inadequate, do not sufficiently allow for 

local marine mammal observation 

conditions, and are weaknesses which 

augment the risk of impacts in a region 

where cetacean status and distribution 

are relatively poorly understood. 

According to WaH, the lack of reliable 

information from systematic surveys in 

the relatively poorly-studied SE Asian 

region, as in other regions, necessitates 

the highest levels of precaution in 

estimating and attempting to mitigate 

potential impacts. WaH states that even 

best practice marine mammal visual 

observation, shut down, and other 

measures can provide no guarantee 

against significant impacts on 

populations in these regions (citing 

inherently low observation sighting 

rates for species such as beaked whales 

and evidence that some species decrease 

or cease vocalizing in response to 

seismic surveys). WaH states that L– 

DEO has not attempted to adopt all 

available precautionary measures that 

may help to reduce impacts. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with 

WaH’s comments. NMFS believes that 

the monitoring and mitigation measures 

ensure the least practicable impacts and 

ensure that any incidental takings will 

be limited to Level B harassment and 

will result in a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. As 

discussed elsewhere in this document, 

after issuance of the proposed IHA, L– 

DEO has modified the cruise plan and 

adopted more precautionary monitoring 

and mitigation measures to reduce 

potential impacts on marine mammals. 

NMFS believes that the implementation 

of these monitoring and mitigation 

measures described in the IHA issued to 

L–DEO will ensure that the seismic 

survey will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species and stocks of 

marine mammals in the study area. See 

L–DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 165: HSI states the agency 

and the applicant focus in great detail 

on specific results from the limited 

number of scientific studies on acoustic 

impacts on marine mammals (when, for 

example, results show some marine 

mammal species do not avoid vessels 

conducting seismic surveys) in order to 

support their conclusion that impacts 

from the proposed surveys will be 

negligible. When specific study results 

do not support their conclusion of 

negligible impacts (when, for example, 

results show that some marine mammal 

species cease vocalizing when exposed 

to seismic airguns), they pass over them 

quickly with little discussion. Similarly, 

the Federal Register notice frequently 

emphasizes the lack of evidence for 

impacts, in what seems to be an effort 

to make the classic (and inappropriate) 

argument that absence of evidence is 

evidence of absence of impacts. At no 

time does the Federal Register notice 

take the position that a lack of 

information should be treated as 

grounds for a precautionary approach. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with this 

characterization of the Federal Register 

notice. NMFS relies on the best 

scientific information available. NMFS 

believes that the mitigation and 

monitoring measures that have been 

imposed under the IHA issued to L– 

DEO are conservative and ensure the 

least practicable adverse impacts. 

Mitigation measures such as powerdowns, shut-downs, speed and course 

alterations, and the use of MMVO’s and 

PAM for visual and acoustic detection 

will ensure that marine mammals that 

do not avoid the Langseth while 

operating seismic sound sources will 

not be potentially impacted during the 

survey. The monitoring and mitigation 

measures also ensure that the takings 

will be limited to Level B harassment 

and will result in a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. After 

issuance of the proposed IHA, L–DEO 

modified the cruise plan and adopted 

more precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO has also 

subsequently increased observer 

personnel and re-routed survey 

tracklines. See L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA. 

Comment 166: ETTSTAWG states that 

the project description must adopt a 

‘precautionary approach’ when 

extrapolating from the literature to the 

particular acoustic environment of the 

study area, and when considering 

‘unknowns’ (‘absence of evidence is not 

evidence of absence’). 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes 

that L–DEO’s revised survey as well as 

the implementation of the monitoring 

and mitigation measures described in 

the IHA will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. See NMFS’ 

responses to comments in Precautionary 

Approach above and other relevant 

discussions throughout this document. 

Comment 167: ETTSTAWG states that 

since empirical data is not available for 

L–DEO operations (and what is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41299 

available at deep and shallow was from 

shorter arrays) in intermediate 

distances, the extrapolation in the EA 

(‘‘On the expectation that results would 

be intermediate between those from 

shallow and deep water, a correction 

factor of 1.1 to 1.5x was applied to the 

estimates provided by the model for 

deep-water situations to obtain 

estimates for intermediate-depth sites.’’) 

should be much more precautionary. 

Perhaps L–DEO should use a mean 

between the shallow and deep water 

ranges, rather than one adjusted by the 

apparently arbitrary correction factor. 

See Table 1. 

Response: L–DEO acknowledges in 

their application the shortcomings of 

the models for predicted sound levels in 

shallow water. Regarding the model, L– 

DEO conducted an acoustic calibration 

study of the Ewing’s 20 airgun, 8600 in3 

array in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003 

(Tolstoy et al. 2004a,b). During the 

study, researchers conducted calibration 

measurements for a 6, 10, 12, and 20 

airgun array configurations at a depth of 

approximately 30 m (98 ft) to gather 

empirical data on the measured values 

(i.e., received sound level) for the 160 to 

190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) radii. In the 2003 

study, Tolstoy et al. (2004b) reported 

that for the 20 airgun array, the 160-dB 

radius in shallow water was 33% higher 

than predicted (Predicted = 9 km [5.5 

mi]; Measured = 12 km [7.4 mi]). 

According to Tolstoy et al. (2004b), the 

results indicated that reverberations 

played a significant role in received 

levels of sound in shallow water and 

that previously estimated radii for 160 

and 180 dB had not accounted for 

bottom reverberations. Thus, the 

predicted radii were underestimates of 

the actual distances where the 160 and 

180 dB levels occurred in shallow 

water. The authors recommended that 

L–DEO extend the radii by an 

appropriate factor to account for this 

underestimation. As a result, L–DEO 

developed correction factors for water 

depths 100 to 1,000 m (328–3,281 ft) 

and less than 100 m (328 ft). 

For the TAIGER cruise, L–DEO has 

applied conservative correction factors 

to develop appropriate shallow water 

exclusion zones (see Table 1 in 72 FR 

78294, December 22, 2008) to mitigate 

for potential effects on marine 

mammals. At this time, NMFS believes 

that this is the best available scientific 

data for estimating seismic sound 

propagation and establishing isopleths 

for the Langseth’s airgun configuration. 

L–DEO has measured the Langseth’s 

seismic source array, and initial results, 

which do not significantly vary from 

those stated here, will be published in 

the future. 

Comment 168: Dr. John Wang states 

the applicant has not attempted to 

minimize the impacts of its survey; has 

not taken a precautionary approach in 

addressing potential impacts, and has 

not adopted mitigation measures that 

are effective. Wherever uncertainties in 

impacts and knowledge exist, the 

applicant consistently interpreted the 

uncertainties as supporting its position 

of little or no impact. Not only are such 

interpretations biased, misleading and 

contradictory, but they are scientifically 

incorrect. Absence of evidence is not 

evidence of absence of impacts. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO revised its 

seismic survey and adopted more 

precautionary mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that the monitoring and 

mitigation measures that have been 

imposed under the IHA issued to L– 

DEO ensure that the takings will be 

limited to Level B harassment and will 

result in a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the study area. See L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Effects Analysis 

Comment 169: The concern over 

anthropogenic noise and its potential 

effect on cetaceans has led to repeated 

resolutions by multinational groups and 

organizations including the Agreement 

on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans 

of the Baltic and North Seas 

(ASCOBANS, 2006), the Agreement on 

the Conservation of Cetaceans of the 

Black and Mediterranean Seas 

(ACCOBAMS, 2004), and the European 

Commission (2004), for member 

countries to take precautionary 

mitigating measures, although to date 

there has been a continuing failure of 

most countries to do so (Parsons et al., 

2008). 

Response: The MMPA requires NMFS 

to prescribe mitigation measures to 

achieve the least practicable adverse 

impact whenever NMFS authorizes take 

of marine mammals. In this IHA, NMFS 

prescribed mitigation measures that 

achieve the least practicable adverse 

impact, such as: re-routing the cruises 

tracklines further offshore by 

approximately 20 km to protect the 

critically endangered ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins and the finless 

porpoise; visual marine mammal 

monitoring, and shut-downs when 

marine mammals are detected within 

the defined ranges should further 

reduce short-term reactions to 

disturbance, and minimize any effects 

on hearing sensitivity. The best 

available scientific information 

demonstrates that shut-down at 180 dB 

is conservative. (Southall et al., 2007). 

Comment 170: WAHLDA states that 

even the high number of dolphins 

estimated in the EA to be potentially 

harassed does not accurately reflect the 

potential impact, as the entire ETS 

humpback dolphin habitat could be 

ensonified at received levels of >160 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms), with some dolphins 

being exposed to received levels of 

>180dB (rms), with some dolphins 

being exposed to received levels of >180 

dB (rms), given that the survey 

tracklines pass within 1 km of shore (or 

2 km if proposed mitigation measures 

are applied) [as described in 73 FR 

78294, December 22, 2008]; and 

therefore directly through the shallow, 

narrow, linear coastal ETS humpback 

dolphin habitat which extends to 5 km 

from shore. 

Response: The exposure estimates 

produced by the EA model: (1) Do not 

take into consideration the 

implementation of mitigation measures 

to avoid incidentally harassing marine 

mammals; (2) assume that the animals 

do not move away from the Langseth 

before ensonification at received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB; and (3) 

are based on overestimated densities of 

several species of marine mammals. As 

a result, NMFS believes that the 

exposure estimates are conservative and 

that the seismic survey may actually 

affect far fewer marine animals that 

predicted. 

In response to comments received 

from the public, L–DEO has completed 

a Supplemental EA for the TAIGER 

survey. As a result of changes made to 

the location and timing of survey lines 

made after the publication of the 

proposed IHA and Federal Register 

notice, L–DEO has revised take 

estimates of the possible numbers of 

marine mammals exposed to different 

sound levels during L–DEO’s proposed 

TAIGER seismic survey. 

L–DEO and TAIGER’s principal 

investigators have modified the cruise 

plan and survey design, adopted more 

precautionary mitigation measures to 

protect the critically endangered ETS 

population, as well as ease potential 

pressure on other coastal species. They 

have re-routed the cruise’s tracklines 

offshore Taiwan’s west coast by 

approximately 20 km (10.8 nautical mi) 

to protect the critically endangered 

Sousa population and the finless 

porpoise (except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou (Wau-san-ting Chou) 

sandbar, where the survey will pass 

through the 17.1 km (9.2 nautical mi) 

mid-line distance between the two 

possibly sensitive areas); and are 

restricted to conducting seismic surveys 

in water depths greater than 200 m (656 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41300 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

ft) in the South China Sea, and as far 

east as possible from the mainland 

China side of the Taiwan Strait, to 

reduce potential for effects on western 

Pacific gray whales, Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins, and finless 

porpoises. In response to concerns about 

marine mammal species of special 

concern because of their low population 

sizes, L–DEO will shut down the airgun 

array immediately if there is a sighting 

at any distance of the Indo-Pacific 

humpbacked dolphin or finless 

porpoise. Correspondingly, take 

estimates of most of the other species 

will be lower because of the reduction 

in the ensonified area. 

Comment 171: Many of the 

commenters expressed concern on the 

possible effects of the seismic surveys 

on the small population of Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins. They believed that 

the proposed survey: would cause 

minor impacts to individuals which 

may lead to threats to the existence of 

the ETS population; would expose 

individuals to noise levels greater than 

180 dB leading to serious injury or 

death; and expose individual to noise 

levels that may increase the likelihood 

of negative interactions with boats and 

gillnets. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

outpouring of concern for the well-being 

of the marine mammals in and around 

the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. 

For reasons discussed in the Federal 

Register notice of receipt of the 

application (73 FR 78294, December 22, 

2009), L–DEO only requested Level B 

harassment (behavioral harassment) of 

small numbers of marine mammals, not 

Level A (injury). 

NMFS does not believe that there is 

any potential for marine mammal 

mortality to occur incidental to 

conducting the TAIGER seismic surveys 

in 2009. NMFS does not expect, nor did 

it authorize take by mortality or for this 

proposed activity. Incidental taking will 

be limited to a temporary and localized 

disturbance of animals from elevated 

sound levels from seismic airguns only. 

The incidental harassment authorization 

includes mitigation and monitoring 

measures to reduce the potential for 

injury or mortality, as well as instituting 

immediate shutdown protocols for the 

North Pacific right whale, Western 

Pacific gray whale, Indo-Pacific 

humpbacked dolphin, or finless 

porpoise. 

The 160 dB isopleth is currently used 

for estimating the onset of Level B 

behavioral harassment for impulse noise 

sounds. However, as NMFS shows in 

this document, mortality and serious 

injury are not expected to occur during 

this seismic survey cruise due to 

implementation of mitigation measures 

(e.g., ramp-up, passive acoustic and 

visual monitoring, and quiet acoustic 

periods). NMFS believes that it is highly 

unlikely that a marine mammal will be 

exposed to levels of sound likely to 

result in Level A harassment or 

mortality given the mitigation measures. 

Cetaceans are expected, at most, to show 

an avoidance response to the seismic 

pulses. Mitigation measures such as 

visual marine mammal monitoring, and 

shut-downs when marine mammals are 

detected within the defined ranges 

should further reduce short-term 

reactions to disturbance, and minimize 

any effects on hearing sensitivity. 

Finally, detecting and scientifically 

validating a change in a marine mammal 

population (e.g., trend, demographics) is 

extremely difficult. It is also unrealistic 

to expect a single factor to explain 

population changes. To date, there is no 

evidence that seismic sound has an 

effect on individual survival or 

reproductive success, or population 

trends or demographics. However, 

because research on the appropriate 

temporal and spatial scales has not been 

conducted, questions concerning the 

level of impact at such scales remain. 

NMFS relies on the best available 

scientific information in determining 

whether to issue incidental take 

authorizations and in developing 

appropriate mitigation and monitoring 

measures. 

Comment 172: Seismic airgun noise 

has been shown to impact a variety of 

species from cetaceans, to fish species, 

to squid, to even invertebrates. The fact 

that this noise covers a large area at high 

levels makes this survey potentially 

dangerous to marine life. There are 

indications that similar surveys have 

caused fatal giant squid and beaked 

whale strandings. While I understand 

that the Langseth probably has a better 

airgun configuration (safer for marine 

life) than its predecessor, the Ewing, it 

appears very little was learned from past 

experience. 

Response: The IHA issued to L–DEO, 

under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA, provides mitigation and 

monitoring requirements that will 

protect marine mammals from any 

injury or mortality. L–DEO is required 

to comply with the IHA’s requirements. 

Detailed analyses of underwater noise, 

especially those from airguns, and 

impacts to cetaceans, fish, and 

invertebrates are provided in various 

documents related to the proposed 

project. These include: (1) The Federal 

Register notice for the receipt of L– 

DEO’s application (73 FR 78294, 

December 22, 2008); (2) the EA and SEA 

for the TAIGER seismic; (3) and the 

BiOp and ITS. These analyses are 

supported by extensive scientific 

research and data. These reviews have 

led NMFS to conclude that the proposed 

seismic surveys would have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals and are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any ESA listed species. 

The evidence linking giant squid 

(Architeuthis dux) strandings and 

seismic surveys remains inconclusive at 

best. Most of the information on 

acoustic effects on squid is derived from 

non-peer reviewed sources such as 

industry reports, government reports, 

conference proceedings, and news 

articles. NMFS is aware of two sources 

that attempted to link giant squid 

strandings and seismic surveys. The 

first is a presentation given at the 

International Council for Exploration of 

the Sea (ICES) Annual Science 

Conference in 2004 (Geurra et al., 2004). 

The authors reported that a total of nine 

squid stranded or surfaced in the Bay of 

Biscay in 2001 and 2003 and conducted 

necropsies on seven of the specimens 

which were previously frozen and then 

thawed for examination. In that 

presentation, Guerra et al. (2004) 

speculated that the mortalities were the 

result of geologists conducting marine 

geophysical surveys in the vicinity. 

However, the authors failed to describe 

the seismic sources, locations, and 

durations of the surveys which resulted 

in a lack of knowledge regarding the 

spatial and temporal correlation 

between the squid and the sound 

source. In addition, there were no 

controls and the examined animals had 

been dead long enough for 

commencement of tissue degradation. 

The second source, an article in New 

Scientist magazine (MacKenzie, 2004), 

only summarizes and repeats Guerra et 

al. (2004) claims without additional 

empirical evidence. Thus, it cannot be 

used as the best available information 

for assessing impacts of airgun sounds 

on marine invertebrates. 

As in the case of the giant squid, the 

scientific evidence linking beaked 

strandings and seismic surveys still 

remains inconclusive. However, the 

association of mass strandings of beaked 

whales with naval exercises (Malakoff, 

2002), has raised the possibility that 

beaked whales exposed to strong 

‘‘pulsed’’ sounds may be susceptible to 

injury and/or behavioral reactions that 

can lead to stranding (e.g., Hildebrand, 

2005; Southall et al., 2007). Suggestions 

that there was a link between seismic 

surveys and strandings of humpback 

whales in Brazil (Engel et al., 2004) 

were not well founded (IAGC, 2004; 

IWC, 2007). In September, 2002, two 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41301 

Cuvier’s beaked whales stranded in the 

Gulf of California, Mexico. The Ewing 

had been operating a 20 airgun, 8,490- 

in 3 airgun array 22 km offshore the 

general area at the time that strandings 

occurred. The link between the 

stranding and the seismic surveys was 

inconclusive and not based on any 

physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; 

Yoder, 2002) as some vacationing 

marine mammal researchers who 

happened upon the stranding were illequipped to perform an adequate 

necropsy. Furthermore, the small 

numbers of animals involved and the 

lack of knowledge regarding the spatial 

and temporal correlation between the 

beaked whales and the sound source 

underlies the uncertainty regarding the 

linkage between seismic sound sources 

and beaked whale strandings (Cox et al., 

2006). 

No injuries of beaked whales are 

anticipated during the proposed study 

because of: (1) The high likelihood that 

any beaked whales nearby would avoid 

the approaching vessel before being 

exposed to high sound levels; (2) the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures; and (3) differences between 

the sound sources operated by the 

Langseth and the Ewing, as the 

Langseth’s source arrays have a smaller 

airgun volume than the Ewing’s. 

Comment 173: The possibility of 

trophic cascades was also unaddressed. 

Most marine animals are acoustically 

sensitive. Since components in the 

marine ecosystem are particularly 

interlinked, such effects cannot be 

discounted. It is time serious 

consideration be given to (possibly) 

subtle, long-term impacts at the level of 

the population and ecosystem. These 

are the effects we should be most 

concerned about, yet they barely receive 

any attention in this application. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

public’s concern about the effects of 

seismic sound on prey items of marine 

mammals. However, NMFS would refer 

the commenter to Chapter 4 section 5 of 

the final EA titled ‘‘Direct Effects on 

Fish and Their Significance’’; section 6 

titled ‘‘Direct Effects on Invertebrates 

and Their Significance’’; Appendix D: 

Review Of Potential Impacts Of Airgun 

Sounds On Fish; and Appendix E: 

Review Of Potential Impacts Of Airgun 

Sounds on Marine Invertebrates to see 

the applicant’s analysis and 

consideration of potentially affected 

trophic species. NMFS believes that L– 

DEO sufficiently analyzed the current 

research on the effects of seismic sound 

sources on fish and invertebrates. 

Comment 174: Minor and Wilson 

have read the IHA request and are 

disappointed about the lack of balance 

in its presentation. The numerous 

graphs and tables that describe the 

activity and levels of take are not well 

supported with data. ‘‘Little is known 

about’’ is a common refrain concerning 

biological effects, and the document 

notes that models used underestimate 

the actual sound levels by as much as 

15x (which is a 1,500 percent modeling 

error). 

Response: The L–DEO application, 

the NSF’s EA and SEA, and the BiOp 

and ITS provided the necessary 

information and analyses needed for 

NMFS to determine whether the 

proposed incidental harassment takings 

would be of small numbers of marine 

mammals and would have no more than 

a negligible impact on marine mammals 

pursuant to the MMPA. Because Minor 

and Wilson did not offer specific details 

on the specific graphs and tables in 

question, NMFS cannot respond directly 

to their concerns on the lack of 

supported data. 

NMFS disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertions about the lack of 

balance in the application. NMFS 

published the proposed regulations on 

December 22, 2008 (72 FR 78294) and 

on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 2995), 

providing required notice and 

opportunity for the public to address 

concerns and submit comments on the 

application and EA. By its very nature, 

the process of public review ensures 

that NMFS’ analyses will be balanced 

and would incorporate the best 

available scientific information. In 

response to the public comments 

received during the public comment 

period, L–DEO has modified the survey 

design (see L–DEO’s Supplemental EA) 

and enhanced mitigation measures 

included in the proposed IHA. Finally, 

NMFS has incorporated additional 

mitigation measures to the IHA. 

As Minor and Wilson point out in 

their letter, L–DEO acknowledges in 

their application the shortcomings of 

the models for predicted sound levels in 

shallow water. Regarding the model, L– 

DEO conducted an acoustic calibration 

study of the Ewing’s 20 airgun 8,600-in- 3 array in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003 

(Tolstoy et al., 2004a,b). During the 

study, researchers conducted calibration 

measurements for a 6-, 10-, and 12-, and 

20-airgun array configurations at a 

depth of approximately 30 m (98 ft) to 

gather empirical data on the measured 

values (i.e., received sound level) for the 

160–190-dB re 1 μPa (rms) radii. In the 

2003 study, Tolstoy et al. (2004b) 

reported that for the 20 airgun array, the 

160 dB radius in shallow water was 33 

percent higher than predicted (predicted 

= 9 km (5.5 mi); measured = 12 km (7.4 

mi)). According to Tolstoy et al. (2004b), 

the results indicated that reverberations 

played a significant role in received 

levels of sound in shallow water and 

that previously estimated radii for 160 

and 180 dB had not accounted for 

bottom reverberations. Thus, the 

predicted radii were underestimates of 

the actual distances where the 160 and 

180 dB levels occurred in shallow 

water. The authors recommended that 

L–DEO extend the radii by an 

appropriate factor to account for this 

underestimation. As a result, L–DEO 

developed correction factors for water 

depths 100 to1,000 m (328 to 3,281 ft) 

and less than 100 m (328 ft). 

For the TAIGER cruise, L–DEO has 

applied conservative correction factors 

to develop appropriate shallow-water 

exclusion zones (see Table 1 in 72 FR 

78294, December 22, 2008) to mitigate 

effects on marine mammals. At this 

time, this is the best available scientific 

data for estimating seismic sound 

propagation for the Langseth’s airgun 

configuration. L–DEO has measured the 

Langseth’s seismic source array, and has 

stated that initial results, which do not 

significantly vary from those stated 

here, will be published in the future. 

Comment 175: The problem that 

permeates the EA and IHA documents 

(and the Federal Register listing) is the 

silly assumption that since nobody has 

done this (impossible) task that there is 

no reason to suspect that sending 170 

dB pulses out for 7,808 m either side of 

a boat traveling for 1,113 km through 

the shallow water critical habitat of 

several endangered species is wrong. 

Response: To clarify, NMFS has 

determined that safety zones should be 

established at 180 dB (rms) for cetaceans 

not, 170 dB (rms). The commenter is 

referring to L–DEO’s predicted root 

mean square (rms) distance for the 

safety radius/exclusion zone at 170 dB 

shown in Table 1 of the application (see 

also Table 1 in 72 FR 78294, December 

22, 2008). The predicted rms distance of 

7,808 m (4.8 mi) is the most 

precautionary distance which the 170 

dB sound level is expected to be 

received from the 36-airgun array in 

shallow water. 

L–DEO establishes and closely 

monitors safety zones to ensure, to the 

greatest extent practicable, that no 

marine mammals would be injured by 

the proposed activity. NMFS recognizes 

that absence of evidence is not the same 

as having no effect or impact on the 

marine mammal species. However, 

NMFS is not relying solely on absence 

of evidence. All parties involved have 

used the best information currently 

available to analyze the impacts to 

marine mammals as shown in: (1) The 

Federal Register notice for the receipt of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41302 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

L–DEO’s application (73 FR 78294, 

December 22, 2008); (2) the EA and SEA 

for the TAIGER seismic; (3) the BiOp 

and ITS; and (4) numerous and salient 

public comments received by NMFS 

during the public comment period. 

Some of the new information used by 

NMFS to make its determinations under 

the MMPA are discussed and 

summarized in this Federal Register 

notice. Based on the evidence cited, 

NMFS concludes that the proposed 

seismic surveys would have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals and are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any ESA-listed species. 

Comment 176: The notice in the 

Federal Register states in several places 

that scientific information on marine 

mammal species in the SE Asia survey 

area is minimal or even non-existent. It 

also notes that data on the impacts of 

seismic airgun sounds on marine 

mammals are minimal or lacking. 

Nevertheless, the NMFS and L–DEO 

inexplicably and without basis or 

precaution conclude that the surveys 

will have negligible impacts on marine 

mammals. This is unacceptable. 

Response: The NMFS recognizes that 

absence of evidence is not the same as 

having no effect or impact on the marine 

mammal species. However, NMFS is not 

relying solely on absence of evidence to 

support its determinations. All parties 

involved have used the best information 

currently available to analyze the 

impacts to marine mammals as shown 

in: (1) The Federal Register notice for 

the receipt of L–DEO’s application (73 

FR 78294, December 22, 2008); (2) the 

EA and SEA for the TAIGER seismic; (3) 

the BiOp and ITS; and (4) numerous and 

salient public comments received by 

NMFS during the public comment 

period. NMFS has incorporated new 

information to make its determinations 

under the MMPA are discussed and 

summarized in this Federal Register 

notice. Based on the evidence cited, 

NMFS concludes that the proposed 

seismic surveys would have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals and are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any ESA-listed species. 

Comment 177: The discussion of the 

critically endangered Western Pacific 

gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) is 

similarly problematic and does not 

adequately consider that the surveys 

will occur in waters presumed to 

include the population’s breeding 

grounds and migration pathways (which 

are currently unknown but are placed 

by expert opinion in the South China 

Sea). Any resubmission of this 

application must do a far better job of 

evaluating the region’s marine mammal 

populations, especially those that are 

critically endangered. 

Response: Please see NMFS’ 

responses to comments under the 

Species of Particular Concern section. 

Because of concerns about effects of the 

proposed survey lines on Western 

Pacific gray whales, L–DEO has rerouted the survey lines in the South 

China Sea, south of the Taiwan Strait. 

The survey lines are now located in 

water depths greater than 200 m. 

Comment 178: The NMFS and L–DEO 

also ignore the growing body of 

literature addressing the possible 

infliction of stress on animals, including 

marine mammals, due to exposure to 

noise and how this stress can have 

significant impacts on individuals and 

populations (e.g., Wright and Kuczaj, 

2007). The discussion in the notice and 

application (and no doubt the EA) still 

relies overmuch on observable 

behavioral reactions, when in fact 

research (also not cited in the L–DEO 

documentation) is available that 

suggests already stressed animals or 

animals in poor condition may not 

observably react in the face of human 

disturbance when more robust animals 

will (e.g., Beale and Monaghan, 2004). 

Any resubmission of this request for 

authorization must expand and improve 

its discussion of the relevant scientific 

literature. 

Response: The Beale and Monaghan 

study investigated the effects of 

disturbance on cliff-dwelling birds. 

NMFS is aware of only two studies that 

directly address the physiological stress 

responses of marine mammals when 

exposed to sound. Thomas et al. (1990) 

examined behavioral responses of four 

captive belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) 

to playbacks of noise from SEDCO 708, 

a semi-submersible drilling platform. 

Results indicated no elevation in blood 

epinephrine and norepinephrine levels 

immediately after the playback. The 

authors observed no differences in swim 

patterns, social groupings, and 

respiration/dive rates before and during 

playbacks. In the second study, Romano 

et al. (2004) investigated nervous system 

activation and immune function in two 

species of captive marine mammals after 

exposure to a seismic water gun and/or 

single pure tones and observed that 

norepinephrine, epinephrine, and 

dopamine levels increased with 

increasing sound levels. However, 

Wright et al. (2007) noted that 

extrapolating these results to wild 

species should proceed with caution 

due to the study’s small sample sizes, 

use of captive animals, and other 

technical limitations with the baseline 

measurements. 

L–DEO’s EA (see Chapter 3) provided 

information on non-auditory 

physiological effects (including stress) 

in relation to seismic survey sounds in 

the EA. However, few studies exist on 

the quantification of a specific exposure 

level above which non-auditory effects 

can be expected. At present, NMFS is 

unaware of quantitative predictions of 

the numbers of marine mammals that 

might exhibit stress when exposed to 

seismic sounds. NMFS believes that 

these data presented in the EA were the 

best scientific information available for 

estimating impacts on marine mammal 

species and stocks. [Romano, T. A., 

Keogh, M. J., Kelly, C., Feng, P., Berk, 

L., Schlundt, C. E., Carder, D. A. & 

Finneran, J. J. (2004). Anthropogenic 

sound and marine mammal health: 

Measures of the nervous and immune 

systems before and after intense sound 

exposure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences, 61, 1,124 to 

1,134]. 

Comment 179: The assumption 

(repeated several times in the Federal 

Register notice) that animals will move 

away from the approaching Langseth is 

simply wishful thinking—there is no 

evidence that this will occur for most 

species and in some cases (again, e.g., 

ETS Sousa), this is not even an option, 

as there is essentially nowhere for the 

animals to move to that will allow them 

to escape exposure to high levels of 

seismic sound. These issues are all 

discussed at greater length by other 

parties submitting comments and we 

urge the NMFS to require L–DEO to 

address these concerns in any 

resubmission of the application. 

Response: Several studies have 

reported observations of marine 

mammals exhibiting localized 

avoidance from areas with operating 

seismic airgun arrays. L–DEO provides 

this information in the Chapter 4 and 

Appendix B of the EA. In the case of 

critically endangered ETS population 

and other coastal species, L–DEO and 

TAIGER’s principal investigators have 

modified the cruise plan and survey 

design by re-routing the cruise’s 

tracklines offshore Taiwan’s west coast 

by approximately 20 km to protect the 

ETS and the finless porpoise 

populations (except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou (Wau-san-ting Chou) 

sandbar, where the survey will pass 

through the approximately 17.1 km (9.2 

nautical mi) mid-line distance between 

the two possibly sensitive areas); rerouting the proposed survey lines in the 

South China Sea south of the Taiwan 

Strait to water depths greater than 200 

m; and eliminating survey tracklines in 

the western Taiwan Strait. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41303 

Comment 180: The applicant and the 

agency must improve their consultation 

with regional experts on the protected 

species in the region(s) of interest. Many 

of the omissions and inaccuracies of the 

application (and, quite frankly, much of 

the local resistance to this proposed 

research) could have been avoided if the 

applicants had sought out and consulted 

with regional scientific experts and 

regional non-governmental 

organizations (NGO) with relevant 

expertise. 

Response: The conditions of the IHA 

encourage NSF and L–DEO to 

coordinate with the Taiwanese 

government regarding the proposed 

seismic activity. In December 2008, 

NMFS published notice of the proposed 

IHA in the Federal Register. During the 

public comment period, regional 

scientific experts and regional NGOs 

with relevant expertise were free to 

provide comments on the survey. NMFS 

considered these requests during the 30 

day public comment period and 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 2995, January 16, 2009) 

extending the public comment period 

for the proposed IHA to facilitate 

additional review by regional scientific 

experts. If a regional expert or regional 

NGO representative requests to consult 

on the effects of the seismic survey on 

protected species in the region, NMFS 

encourages them to discuss this directly 

with a representative from L–DEO or 

NSF. 

Finally, based on comments received 

from the public, including regional 

experts, L–DEO completed a 

Supplemental EA for the TAIGER 

survey. NMFS believes that the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

which have been enhanced when 

compared to the proposed IHA notice, 

ensure the least practicable adverse 

impact on marine mammals in the SE 

Asia study area. 

Comment 181: According to the tables 

within the EA, more Sousa will be 

impacted than there actually are Sousa 

in the area. I am unclear on how this 

meets the ‘‘small number’’ criteria. This 

number would, of course, go up further 

if the distances reported by Madsen et 

al. (2006—noted above) were taken into 

account. Of course, these distances 

would increase the take numbers for all 

animals in the area. 

Response: Since the issuance of the 

proposed IHA notice, L–DEO negotiated 

with the project’s principal scientists to 

modify the cruise plan and adopt more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. Based on the rerouted tracklines, L–DEO has revised 

estimates of the possible numbers of 

ETS Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins 

exposed to sound levels that would 

constitute Level B harassment to zero 

(zero percent of the ETS subpopulation). NMFS took the revised 

tracklines into account when making 

the necessary MMPA determinations, 

including small numbers, towards the 

issuance of the IHA. 

Comment 182: The Langseth will 

deploy an 8 km long streamer for most 

transects requiring a streamer; however, 

a shorter streamer (500 m to 2 km) will 

be used during surveys in Taiwan 

(Formosa) Strait (EA2). Do the effective 

source levels offered in the EA pertain 

to the longer or shorted streamers? 

Response: The effective source level 

output from the Langseth’s airgun array 

pertains to both the longer and shorter 

streamers. Streamer lengths generally 

relate to hydrophones, not airguns, and 

changes are often due to convenience, 

particularly to improve 

maneuverability. 

Comment 183: According to the EA, 

the Multibeam Echosounder and Subbottom Profiler have outputs up to 204 

dB re 1 μPa m, at the dominant 

frequency of 3.5 kHz. This is perilously 

close to the US Navy’s AN/SQS–53C 

tactical mid-frequency sonar system 

implicated in many of the mass 

strandings of beaked whales and other 

cetaceans, which produces ‘pings’ 

primarily in the 2.6 to 3.3 kHz range. 

Another LDEO survey has been 

associated with a stranding (as 

acknowledged in the EA: ‘‘* * * 

association of mass strandings of beaked 

whales with naval exercises and, in one 

case, an L–DEO seismic survey 

(Malakoff, 2002)’’). There may thus also 

be concern for beaked whales and other 

animals, because, while ‘‘[t]here is no 

conclusive evidence of cetacean 

strandings or deaths at sea as a result of 

exposure to seismic surveys’’ (EA), there 

is also no conclusive evidence that 

seismic surveys do not lead to 

strandings or death either. 

Response: The evidence linking 

beaked whale strandings and seismic 

surveys remains inconclusive at best. In 

September, 2002, two Cuvier’s beaked 

whales stranded in the Gulf of 

California, Mexico. The Ewing had been 

operating a 20-airgun, 8,490-in3 airgun 

array 22 km offshore the general area at 

the time that strandings occurred. 

However, the link between the stranding 

and the seismic surveys was 

inconclusive and not based on any 

physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; 

Yoder, 2002) as some vacationing 

marine mammal researchers who 

happened upon the stranding were illequipped to perform an adequate 

necropsy. In addition, Cox et al. (2006) 

noted the ‘‘lack of knowledge regarding 

the temporal and spatial correlation 

between the [stranding] and the sound 

source.’’ Finally, Hildebrand (2005) 

illustrated the approximate temporalspatial relationships between the 

stranding and the Ewing’s tracks, but 

noted that the time of the stranding was 

not known with sufficient precision for 

accurate determination of the closest 

point of approach (CPA) distance of the 

whales to the Ewing. 

The MBES and SBP have anticipated 

radii of influence significantly less than 

that for the airgun array. For reasons 

noted in the EA, the 160 dB and 180 dB 

isopleths of the MBES and SBP are 

either too small or the acoustic beams 

are very narrow, making the duration of 

the exposure and the potential for taking 

marine mammals by harassment small 

to non-existent. NMFS believes that it is 

unlikely that marine mammals would be 

affected by sub-bottom profiler signals 

whether operating alone or in 

conjunction with other acoustic devices 

since the animals would need to be 

swimming immediately adjacent to the 

vessel or directly under the vessel. 

Additionally, NMFS believes that the 

MBES and SBP are not likely to be 

capable of causing marine mammal 

strandings because of their short 

duration and brief pings 

Comment 184: Several commenters 

expressed that the impacts of masking 

(including the physiological and 

psychological consequences potentially 

resulting from masking) were likely to 

be greatest for baleen whales throughout 

the survey area and requested that the 

Langseth should avoid calving grounds 

at breeding season, and feeding and 

migratory habitat for several species of 

threatened and endangered marine 

mammals. Several expressed concern 

for the range of the critically endangered 

Eastern Taiwan Strait (ETS) population 

of Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin; 

the partial range of Jiulong River Estuary 

(JRE) population of Indo-Pacific 

humpbacked dolphin; calving and 

migratory habitat for western Pacific 

humpback whales; a migratory pathway 

for the critically endangered western 

Pacific gray whale; and beaked and 

sperm whale habitat in southeastern and 

southwestern Taiwan. 

Response: Please see NMFS’ 

responses to comments under the 

Species of Particular Concern section 

and the response to Comment EA2 

under this section. The IHA contains 

measures to mitigate against the 

potential effects of the surveys on 

mother/calf pairs, ETS and JRE 

humpbacked dolphins, and western 

Pacific gray whales. 

Comment 185: NMFS has determined 

that the proposed activity ‘‘may result, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41304 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

at worst, in a temporary modification in 

behavior (Level B harassment) of small 

numbers of marine mammals’’ and 

proposes to issue an IHA, which 

demonstrates that either the reviewers 

of the proposal lacked knowledge of SE 

Asian marine mammals or chose to 

ignore the potential damage such 

seismic surveys can have on small and 

critically endangered populations of 

marine mammals in the region. With a 

lack of knowledge about even the most 

basic biology of marine mammals in the 

region, any determination of the level of 

impact of the seismic surveys would be 

little more than a random guess. 

Response: Please see NMFS response 

to Comment EA2 (above) in this section. 

Comment 186: The principal 

investigators responded that the bulk of 

the energy produced by the Langseth 

sound source is below a frequency of 

200 Hz. They also noted that 

odontocetes communicate in a much 

higher band of frequencies, typically in 

the range of 10,000 Hz to several 

100,000 Hz. Thus there is very little, if 

any, overlap in the frequency bands of 

acoustic energy used by these marine 

mammals and that of the seismic 

system. In summary, the investigators 

agreed with the EA that the surveys 

were not likely to result in any 

significant impact on marine life in the 

area. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comments from the principal 

investigators. 

Comment 187: NMFS is charged with 

implementing the MMPA and, to that 

end, must prescribe methods and means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on marine mammals. NMFS’ 

proposed IHA falls short of the mark. 

Response: Please see NMFS’ response 

to comments (above) under this section. 

In this IHA, NMFS prescribed 

mitigation measures that achieve the 

least practicable adverse impact, such 

as: re-routing the cruises tracklines 

further offshore by approximately 20 km 

(10.8 nautical mi) to protect the 

critically endangered Sousa population 

and the finless porpoise (except for in 

the passage between the Penghu Islands 

and the Waishanding Jhou (Wau-santing Chou) sandbar, where the survey 

will pass through the 17.1 km (9.2 

nautical mi) mid-line distance between 

the two possibly sensitive areas); visual 

marine mammal monitoring, and shutdowns when marine mammals are 

detected within the defined ranges 

should further reduce short-term 

reactions to disturbance, and minimize 

any effects on hearing sensitivity. The 

IHA includes mitigation and monitoring 

measures to reduce the potential for 

injury or mortality, as well as instituting 

immediate shutdown protocols for the 

North Pacific right whale, western gray 

whale, Indo-Pacific humpbacked 

dolphin, or finless porpoise. No injury, 

serious injury, or mortality of any 

marine mammal is anticipated nor is 

authorized. 

Comment 188: Several other baleen 

whales have been recorded from 

Taiwanese waters. However, due to 

almost no survey effort in the waters 

beyond about 20 km from shore and 

surveys being most in summer months, 

little is known about these species, 

which include: fin, sei, minke, Bryde’s 

and Omura’s whales. There are reports 

of several distinct stocks of some of 

these species. As a minimum, the 

impact on each stock of each species 

should be assessed rather than just at 

the species level and more work is 

needed on understanding stock 

structure before impacts can be 

understood. 

Response: Please see NMFS’ response 

to comments above. Detailed analyses of 

underwater noise, especially those from 

airguns, and impacts to cetaceans, fish, 

and invertebrates are provided in 

various documents related to the 

proposed project. NMFS’ review of 

these documents have led to the 

determination that the proposed seismic 

surveys would have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks of 

marine mammals and are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any ESA listed species. 

Comment 189: Consideration of 

cumulative noise impacts. The exposure 

of these dolphins to total cumulative 

noise has not been considered. The ETS 

dolphins live in an environment which 

is already very noisy (e.g., pile driving 

and other noise-generating activities 

during coastal construction, shipping, 

other seismic surveys (oil and gas, local 

researchers, etc.). The cumulative 

impact of all noise sources needs to be 

examined in context of the 

contributions by the intense sounds 

source of the airguns. 

Response: Please NMFS’ response to 

NEPA comments. NMFS has determined 

that the EA adequately addressed the 

cumulative impacts of a short-term, lowintensity seismic airgun survey in 

relation to long-term noise and taking 

events, such as vessel traffic, habitat 

loss, oil and gas industry, pollution, 

fisheries, and hunting. NMFS’ 

endangered species scientists have 

conducted a thorough review of the best 

available information on the cumulative 

effects of the proposed project. As a 

result, NMFS issued a BiOp on the 

proposed action on March 31, 2009 

(NMFS, 2009), which stated that the 

survey was not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of ESA-listed 

marine mammals in the survey area. 

Comment 190: The blue whale is 

given the highest level of legislative 

protection by the Wildlife Conservation 

Act of Taiwan. If small numbers of 

western North Pacific blue whales still 

exist, seismic surveys can have a large 

impact on the few remaining 

individuals. 

Response: Please see NMFS’ response 

to comments under the Species of 

Particular Concern section. L–DEO’s 

revised seismic survey is expected to 

have a negligible impact on populations 

of blue whales in the study area. Blue 

whales can be easily detected visually 

so that L–DEO may implement 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

Comment 191: The project description 

does not adequately consider the 

relevant scientific literature on risks of 

seismic activities to cetaceans. Also, L– 

DEO completely overlooked 

physiological impacts on cetaceans (see 

Wright et al., 2007a,b). 

Response: L–DEO’s EA (see Chapter 3) 

provided information on non-auditory 

physiological effects (including stress) 

in relation to seismic survey sounds in 

the EA. However, few studies exist on 

the quantification of a specific exposure 

level above which non-auditory effects 

can be expected. At present, NMFS is 

unaware of quantitative predictions of 

the numbers of marine mammals that 

might exhibit stress when exposed to 

seismic sounds. NMFS believes that 

these data presented in the EA were the 

best scientific information available for 

estimating impacts on marine mammal 

species and stocks. 

All parties involved have used the 

best information currently available to 

analyze physiological impacts to marine 

mammals as shown in: (1) The Federal 

Register notice for the receipt of L– 

DEO’s application (73 FR 78294, 

December 22, 2008); (2) the EA and SEA 

for the TAIGER seismic; (3) the BiOp 

and ITS; and (4) numerous and salient 

public comments received by NMFS 

during the public comment period. 

International Legal Compliance 

Comment 192: L–DEO has stated that 

it will ‘‘coordinate with Taiwan, China, 

Japan, and the Philippines, as well as 

applicable U.S. agencies (e.g., NMFS) 

and will comply with their 

requirements’’ (p. 78316). This is a 

promise of action but there is no 

indication in the Federal Register notice 

how fulfillment of this promise will be 

verified. HSI and other interested 

parties state that before NMFS issues an 

authorization, NMFS must verify that L– 

DEO has complied with all relevant 

laws and regulations of the countries 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41305 

within whose EEZs it will be 

conducting surveys. NMFS must request 

and receive the relevant paperwork from 

the applicant, that L–DEO has a 

minimum initiated and preferably 

completed. It cannot take at face value 

the assurances of L–DEO that such 

compliance will occur. It is a longstanding concern of HSUS/HSI (and 

other NGOs, both domestic and 

international) that U.S. agencies issue 

environmental permits and 

authorizations for activities that will in 

part be conducted within foreign 

jurisdictions without first verifying that 

the applicant has complied or even 

initiated compliance with local laws 

and regulations of these four nations. 

Response: NMFS has communicated 

with NSF and L–DEO regarding the 

seismic survey in SE Asia. NMFS has 

received copies of L–DEO’s foreign 

clearances from Taiwan, Japan, and the 

Philippines. L–DEO has been denied 

access to the waters of China. NMFS 

expects NSF and L–DEO to coordinate 

with the governments of Taiwan, Japan, 

and the Philippines, as well as adhere 

to local conservation laws and 

regulations of nations while in foreign 

waters, and known rules and boundaries 

of Marine Protected Areas (MPA), 

regarding the marine geophysical 

activity in SE Asia. In the absence of 

local conservation laws and regulations 

or MPA rules, L–DEO will continue to 

use the monitoring and mitigation 

measures identified in the IHA. NMFS 

has included conditions to these effects 

in the IHA. L–DEO is required to submit 

a draft report on all activities and 

monitoring results to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 

days of the completion of the Langseth’s 

SE Asia cruise (see ‘‘Reporting’’ section 

below). 

Comment 193: HSI states that far too 

often, applicants for MMPA Incidental 

Harassment Authorizations, who are 

working on geophysical and other 

projects that do not directly concern 

marine mammals, but result in their 

incidental harassment and that will 

occur at least partially within foreign 

jurisdictions, fail to consult much or at 

all with regional entities who can be 

considered stakeholders in the decisions 

to authorize such projects. The 

authorizing agency compounds this 

failing by accepting the applicant’s 

assurances at face value that sufficient 

consultation has occurred or will occur. 

HSI strongly advises the NMFS (and 

applicants such as L–DEO) to rectify 

this problem in the future. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges HSI’s 

recommendation and expects applicants 

to comply with all foreign and domestic 

laws. NMFS encourages applicants to 

consult with all stakeholders regarding 

projects in a specified region. 

Recommendations for Consultation and 

Research 

Comment 194: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. 

Wu state they have already contacted 

marine biologists highly knowledgeable 

and very concerned about the ecology of 

all marine mammals in the National 

Taiwan University, Academica Sinica 

and the National Taiwan Ocean 

University. They will continue to 

provide guidance to the planning of the 

TAIGER program. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

principal investigators comment. 

Comment 195: CSI states that in 

December, 2008, for the ETSSTAWG (an 

international working group established 

in early 2008 to provide scientific 

guidance and advice to all interest 

groups) recommended that a buffer for 

noise threats be out to at least 5 km from 

shore for the ETS population after 

reviewing a proposal for designation of 

Majore Wildlife Habitat for the ETS 

population (review letter to Wild At 

Heart Legal Defense Association—dated 

29 December, 2008). 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO negotiated with 

the project’s principal scientists to 

modify the cruise plan and adopt more 

precautionary mitigation measures. Off 

Taiwan’s west coast, the cruise tracks 

have been re-routed offshore by 

approximately 20 km to protect the 

‘critically endangered’ ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin population and the 

finless porpoise, as well as ease 

potential pressure on other coastal 

species. Thus, the precautionary buffer 

recommended by ETSSTAWG in their 

comments to NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 km and 

perhaps a more precautionary 15 km of 

the ETS Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin 

subpopulation—meaning up to around 

20 km from shore’’ will be adopted. L– 

DEO will limit seismic survey lines to 

take place at least 20 km from the west 

coast of Taiwan, expect for in the 

passage between the Penghu Islands and 

the Waishanding Jhou (Wau-san-ting 

Chou) sandbar, where the survey will 

pass through the approximately 17.1 km 

mid line distance between the two 

possibly sensitive areas, subject to the 

limitations imposed by other foreign 

nations, to minimize the potential for 

exposing the ETS sub-population and 

other coastal species to SPLs greater 

than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

NMFS has included conditions to this 

effect in the IHA as well. 

Comment 196: CSI recommends that 

activities that would increase the risk of 

extinction of Sousa chinensis 

populations, including physiological 

and behavioral impacts, not be 

permitted. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with CSI’s 

recommendations. NMFS believes that 

L–DEO’s revised seismic survey as well 

as the implementation of the required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals in the planned study area. L– 

DEO will limit seismic survey lines to 

water depths greater than 200 m in the 

South China Sea, and as far east as 

possible from the mainland China side 

of the Taiwan Strait, to reduce potential 

for effects on Western Pacific gray 

whales, Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins, and finless porpoises. L–DEO 

will limit seismic survey lines to take 

place at least 20 km from the west coast 

of Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where the 

survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). 

Comment 197: Several interested 

parties recommend dedicated marine 

mammal systematic surveys in waters 

off eastern Taiwan (particularly in 

waters beyond 20 km from shore where 

almost no cetacean survey effort exists) 

and of the Penghu Channel to better 

understand the region’s waters, 

determine concentrations of beaked 

whales, and reduce impacts on other 

cetaceans. Systematic cetacean surveys 

of the waters of these waters are needed 

before seismic surveys are conducted so 

that better planning with adequate 

information can reduce impacts on 

marine mammals. Better coverage of the 

region’s waters by cetaceans surveys can 

also allow fine turning of spatial and 

temporal avoidance of humpback 

whales by seismic surveys. Simple 

strategic scheduling of seismic surveys 

can eliminate or at least greatly reduce 

the impacts on this population. 

Response: In this case, NMFS does 

not agree that marine mammal 

assessment surveys are needed prior to 

issuing an IHA. When information is 

unavailable on a local marine mammal 

population size, NMFS uses either stock 

or species information on abundance. 

Also, while information may be lacking 

for many species of cetaceans, 

information on some of the locallyfound species is found in the L–DEO’s 

IHA application, EA, and Supplemental 

EA. See L–DEO’s IHA application, EA, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41306 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

and Supplemental EA for more 

information. 

In order to reduce impacts on marine 

mammals, NMFS has included temporal 

and spatial avoidance requirements in 

the IHA. See the information in the 

Monitoring and Mitigation sections 

below. Also, after the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO has revised the 

planned seismic survey to reduce 

potential impacts on marine mammal 

populations in the study area. 

Comment 198: Several interested 

parties recommend greater local 

consultation. Extensive consultation 

with experts on these regions and more 

studies to better understand the biology 

of cetaceans in this region can provide 

expert guidance to greatly reduce the 

impacts on the seismic surveys. More 

information exists in publications in 

local languages that have not been 

considered by this proposal. Conduct a 

consultation workshop with scientists 

who have expertise in local marine 

mammals, reptiles, fish, and 

invertebrates to understand better the 

local sensitive species and waters. 

Consultation with ETSSTAWG is 

needed. 

Response: L–DEO and NSF have 

formally consulted with NMFS’ Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division 

regarding the IHA and NMFS’ 

Endangered Species Division regarding 

a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of 

the ESA for the marine geophysical 

survey in SE Asia. L–DEO and NSF have 

also consulted with numerous persons 

and organizations in the SE Asia region. 

Below is a timeline of L–DEO’s 

consultation process and issues 

discussed: 

• December 18, 2007—Initial 

consultation began with LGL Ltd. when 

Dr. John Richardson contacts Dr. John 

Wang for a reprint. Dr. John Wang 

expresses concerns about seismics and 

mentions that the Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin is being reviewed for 

critically endangered status. 

• August 9, 2008—Meike Holst of 

LGL Limited contacts Dr. John Wang for 

reprints. The L–DEO program is 

discussed via e-mail. 

• August 14, 2008—Dr. John Wang 

copies Robin Winkler of WaH and asks 

for details on the cruise. 

• August 19, 2008—Meike Holst 

shared details with Dr. John Wang and 

consults with him further. 

• August 20, 2008—Meike Holst 

assures Robin Winkler of the planned 

mitigation measures in place and asks 

about relevant local laws. 

• August 30, 2008—Chao-Shing Lee 

referred Meagan Cummings of L–DEO to 

Dr. Lien-Siang Chou. Meagan Cummings 

e-mailed Dr. Lien-Siang Chou and 

informed her that she planned to send 

copies of the EA when it became 

available. 

• September 19, 2008—Robin 

Winkler responds to Meike Holst and 

copies Dr. Peter Ross. Meike Holst never 

hears back from Dr. Peter Ross. 

• October 2, 2008—Hong Young, Prof. 

K. T. Shao from the Center for 

Biodiversity Research (Academica 

Sinica), and Prof. F. C. Chiu, Director of 

the Taiwan Ocean Research Institute are 

contacted by Claudio Fossati, one of L– 

DEO’s lead bioacousticians and MMOs. 

• January 13, 2009—Dr. Randall 

Reeves reviews the EA and recommends 

contacting Dr. Lien-Siang Chou or 

Benjamin Kahn based in Cairns, 

Australia. 

• January 19, 2009—Dr. Francis Wu 

recommends Dr. Lien-Siang Chou. 

http://ecology.lifescience.ntu.edu.tw/ 

english/faculty_chou_ls.htm. 

• February 27, 2009—Meagan 

Cummings contacts Dr. Peter Ross. Dr. 

Peter Ross recommended an 

independent review of the program. 

Meagan Cummings assured him that 

NMFS was the reviewing agency and 

they wrote back and forth a few times 

and was informed that there was a 

regional expert. 

• February 27, 2009 to present—L– 

DEO has been consulting mainly with 

Dr. Lien-Siang Chou and her 

department’s graduate students. Meagan 

Cummings met with Dr. Lien-Siang 

Chou on March 21, 2009 in Taiwan. L– 

DEO scheduled a workshop for March 

27, 2009 to discuss mitigation measures 

and visual sighting techniques for 

finless porpoises. 

• March 27, 2009—L–DEO met with 

Dr. Lien-Siang Chou and her graduate 

students at National Taiwan University. 

The discussion points during the 

meeting included: MMO operations 

(Big-eye and 7x50 binoculars, visible 

distances from the observation tower, 

safety radii, ramp-up, power-down, and 

shut-down explanations), the 

Supplemental EA (revised tracklines, 

proximity to Taiwan, the ETS IndoPacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises), possible carcass and 

stranding procedures (stranding density 

and locations during the past 10 years, 

current protocols for live and dead 

animals, reporting protocols and 

notification of the Taiwan Cetacean 

Society, funding to conduct necropsies, 

investigate resources to process more 

animals if there are a significant number 

of strandings, possible MRI of smaller 

cetaceans to look at possible effects of 

sound or pressure, fewer recent 

strandings than average, public concern 

has dropped, Taiwan’s marine mammal 

stranding response team, stranding 

teams divided up between the north and 

south of Taiwan, discovery and 

reporting of possible carcasses at sea, 

and taking carcass samples for DNA 

analysis), NMFS notification 

requirements, finless porpoise sighting 

techniques, current MMO protocols, 

sampling considerations, regions of 

concern, beaked whales in Taiwan, 

population and density of Taiwanese 

cetaceans, and addressing the media. 

Comment 199: Recent estimates of 

habitat boundaries and noise buffer 

zones specifically for the ETS IndoPacific humpback dolphins are not 

referred to yet could have easily been 

acquired through consultation with the 

ETSSTAWG. The existence of this 

expert advisory team dedicated to ETS 

humpback dolphin matters was brought 

to the attention of one of the principal 

preparers of the EA by the directors of 

Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association 

in an e-mail dated September 19, 2008. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO will 

maintain the precautionary buffer 

recommended by ETSSTAWG in their 

comments to NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 km and 

perhaps a more precautionary 15 km of 

the ETS Sousa population—meaning up 

to around 20 km from shore.’’ L–DEO 

will limit seismic survey lines to take 

place at least 20 km from the west coast 

of Taiwan, except for in the passage 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou (Wau-san-ting Chou) 

sandbar, where the survey will pass 

through the approximately 17.1 km midline distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). See relevant responses to 

comment above for information on 

consultation. 

Comment 200: WaH states that in the 

event that no attempt was made by LGL 

to consult with the ETSSTAWG prior to 

completion of the EA, WaH would 

recommend that this is done 

immediately with a view to clarifying 

some of the concerns relating to 

harassment of Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins, and that similar consultations 

be held with other experienced 

researchers through the region in 

question. 

Response: During the preparation of 

the IHA application and EA, LGL Ltd. 

contacted and consulted with regional 

experts. After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41307 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures to address concerns 

for species of particular concern (e.g., 

ETS sub-population of Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins). L–DEO also 

prepared a Supplemental EA. The 

Supplemental EA is in response to the 

comments received by NMFS through 

the public comment period associated 

with the IHA process. See relevant 

discussions in this document as well as 

L–DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Species of Particular Concern 

Comment 201: NRDC states many 

genetically distinct populations of 

cetaceans are found within the enclosed 

seas of the western Pacific, including 

the ETS population of Indo-Pacific 

humpbacked dolphin, South China Sea 

population of finless porpoise, fin 

whales, gray whales, and humpback 

whales. Take estimates should use 

abundance and density estimates for 

these distinct populations (rather than 

estimates for the entire North Pacific) 

where appropriate. 

Response: NMFS agrees that impacts 

should be assessed on the population or 

stock unit whenever possible. Due to the 

lack of systematic aircraft- or ship-based 

surveys conducted for marine mammals 

in waters near Taiwan, the species of 

marine mammals that occur there are 

not well known. A few surveys have 

been conducted from small vessels with 

low observation platforms. In the 

absence of any other density data, L– 

DEO used the survey effort and 

sightings in Yang et al. (1999) and Wang 

et al. (2001a) to estimate densities of 

marine mammals in the TAIGER study 

area. L–DEO’s application provides 

information on stock abundance and 

local and regional populations. The data 

source for each stock estimate is 

provided in Table 2 of L–DEO’s IHA 

application. There is some uncertainty 

about the representatives of the density 

data and the assumptions used in the 

calculations. Perhaps the greatest 

uncertainty results from using survey 

results from the northeast Pacific Ocean. 

NMFS believes that this approach and 

these data are the best scientific 

information available for estimating 

impacts on marine mammal species and 

stocks. However, information on marine 

mammal stock abundance may not 

always be complete. When information 

is lacking to define a particular 

population or stock of marine mammals 

then impacts are assessed with respect 

to the species as a whole (54 FR 40338, 

September 29, 1989). 

Comment 202: Dr. John Wang states 

that for gray, right, and humpback 

whales, some common issues arise from 

the seismic surveys. The timing of the 

L–DEO surveys overlaps, spatially and 

temporally, with whales wintering 

(calving and nursing) in the region’s 

waters (see above) and during the 

northward migrations of mothers with 

neonatal or other young calves from 

these calving/nursing grounds. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO revised their 

seismic survey to include temporal and 

spatial concerns regarding marine 

mammals in the study area. Because of 

concerns about effects of the proposed 

survey lines on gray whales, the 

proposed survey lines in the South 

China Sea south of the Taiwan Strait 

were re-routed so that they are now 

located in water depths >200 m. To 

mitigate against the potential effects of 

the surveys on humpback whales, 

particularly mothers and calves on the 

breeding grounds or during the 

beginning of migration to summer 

feeding grounds, the surveys that 

approach the Babuyan Islands have 

been rescheduled as late as possible, to 

Leg 4. Also, L–DEO will shut-down the 

airgun array immediately if a Western 

Pacific gray, North Pacific right, and/or 

humpback whale mother/calf pair are 

visually sighted at any distance. 

Requirements to these effects have been 

included in the NMFS-issued IHA. See 

responses to comments pertaining to 

Western Pacific gray and humpback 

whales below. 

Comment 203: CSI states that if small 

numbers of Western North Pacific blue 

whales still exist in the region’s waters, 

seismic surveys can have a large impact 

on the few remaining individuals (even 

if only a very few whales are disturbed). 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO modified the 

cruise plan and adopted more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. L–DEO’s revised 

seismic survey is expected to have a 

negligible impact on populations of blue 

whales in the study area. Blue whales 

can be easily detected visually so that 

the proper mitigation measures may be 

implemented. 

Species of Particular Concern—Pearl 

River Estuary (PRE), Jiulong River 

Estuary (JRE), and Eastern Taiwan Strait 

(ETS) Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins 

Comment 204: Several interested 

parties are concerned about the acoustic 

disturbance that can seriously affect 

several coastal populations of IndoPacific humpback dolphins, notably the 

ones at the PRE in Guangdong Province, 

the JRE in Fujian Province (near 

Xiamen), and along the coastal waters of 

the ETS. The JRE sub-population of 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins is 

estimated to be less than 90 individuals 

(Chen et al., 2008) and faces similar 

threats. The JRE sub-population is 

distinct from the ETS sub-population 

(Wang et al., 2008a), but the level of 

exchange (if any) with other provisional 

populations along the mainland Chinese 

coast is unknown. Other Chinese subpopulations have been studied and have 

a distribution in adjacent waters of the 

Chinmen islands and further east are 

completely unknown and were not 

surveyed by Chen et al. (2008) due to 

political border issues. Not enough is 

known about this population to estimate 

what proportion of dolphins in this 

small sub-population will be impacted, 

but it is clear that some will be 

impacted and with such a small 

population size, even minimal 

disturbance can have a large impact on 

the sub-population. Far less is known 

about Sousa chinensis in other regions 

so the impact on these dolphins cannot 

be estimated. However, given the 

proposed trackline which meets the 

mainland Chinese coast perpendicularly 

and closes near the area of Xiamen/ 

Chinmen Islands and near Pingtan 

(where records of Sousa chinensis also 

exist—see Wang, 1999; Zhou, 2004), 

dolphins of these coastal waters would 

be expected to be impacted. 

The proposed tracklines of these 

seismic surveys will traverse through 

areas that will overlap or are in close 

proximity to these resident humpback 

dolphin populations, posing serious 

risks and threats to the livelihood of 

their daily lives. One of the Langseth’s 

proposed tracklines approaches to the 

mainland Chinese coast is directly in 

line with the heart of the JRE 

population. At a distance of 10 km from 

shore, dolphins using waters east of the 

Chinmen islands may be exposed to 

levels greater than 160 dB and some 

may be exposed to greater than 180 dB 

depending on where the dolphins are 

found in their distribution and how 

close the Langseth is to the 25–30 m 

isobath (which appears to be the depth 

limit for the species—see Jefferson and 

Karczmarski, 2001). Not enough is 

known about this population to estimate 

the numbers of dolphins that will be 

impacted. Given such a small 

population size, even minimal 

disturbance can have a large impact on 

the lives of the populations. The 

animals may be exposed to received 

levels >180 dB, which would exceed the 

type of take which L–DEO has applied 

for. 

Response: Because of these concerns 

about effects of the proposed surveys on 

Western Pacific gray whales, 

populations of Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins, and finless porpoises, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41308 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

proposed survey lines in the South 

China Sea south of the Taiwan Strait 

were re-routed after the issuance of the 

proposed IHA so that they are now 

located in water depths >200 m, as 

recommended by NRDC. The seismic 

lines in the western Taiwan Strait were 

dropped. Requirements to these effects 

have been included in the IHA and no 

takes of any of the three sub-populations 

of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins 

found in the SE Asia study area is 

authorized for this seismic survey. 

Comment 205: Several interested 

parties have expressed concern with the 

safety of the ETS Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphin. This ‘critically endangered’ 

sub-population is very small at <100 

individuals. The distinct population is a 

year-round resident of a very restricted 

stretch of shallow coastal waters along 

western Taiwan (i.e., the ETS). Any 

single threat (e.g., loss of habitat, 

pollution, bycatch, and noise) has the 

potential to be the final cause of 

extinction. Unless effective mitigation 

measures are taken to reduce these 

threats, it is unlikely that the population 

will continue to exist. Mortality (by 

human causes) of even a single 

individual per year from this population 

is not sustainable. 

Seismic surveys in June and July (as 

well as any other time of the year) will 

have a serious impact on this critically 

endangered population. Given their year 

round residency, there is no season that 

will reduce the serious impacts of 

seismic surveys in inshore waters on 

this population. In June and July, large 

numbers of cetaceans are found along 

and near the shelf edge of eastern 

Taiwan. Conducting seismic surveys 

close to the shores of Taiwan risks 

greatly impacting on these cetaceans. 

Response: After the issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO negotiated with 

the project’s principal scientists to 

modify the cruise plan and adopt more 

precautionary mitigation measures. Off 

Taiwan’s west coast, the cruise tracks 

have been re-routed offshore by 

approximately 20 km to protect the 

critically endangered ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins and the finless 

porpoise, as well as ease potential 

pressure on other coastal species. Thus, 

the revised survey will maintain the 

precautionary buffer recommended by 

ETSSTAWG in their comments to 

NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 km and perhaps a 

more precautionary 15 km of the ETS 

Sousa population—meaning up to 

around 20 km from shore.’’ See L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Concerns were expressed about the 

survey line that was parallel to and 

within a few km of the east coast of 

Taiwan because of potential effects on 

coastal species and those that frequent 

the shelf break and steep slopes, where 

the continental shelf is narrow. Due to 

these concerns, the survey line has been 

moved offshore by more than 20 km to 

decrease potential impacts on species 

that occur there. 

Requirements to these effects have 

been included in the IHA. No injury, 

serious injury, or mortality has been 

authorized. 

Comment 206: HSI states the 

application and the Federal Register 

notice never indicate that the Eastern 

Taiwan Strait (ETS) population of the 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa 

chinensis, is listed as ‘‘critically 

endangered’’ on the International Union 

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red 

List. Instead these two documents lump 

the entire region’s Sousa populations 

together. While the IUCN did list the 

larger regional Sousa population as 

‘‘near threatened,’’ it specifically 

identified the ETS population as 

separate and ‘‘critically endangered.’’ 

This designation was made well before 

the December publication of the Federal 

Register notice. The failure to note this, 

to address the fact that two-thirds of this 

population (the maximum proportion 

the notice indicates could be taken—see 

p. 78311) cannot be considered a ‘‘small 

number,’’ or to address the fact that the 

survey track lines cover the entire 

length of this imperiled population’s 

home range is unacceptable and must be 

rectified by a resubmission of the 

application. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges HSI’s 

comment. L–DEO’s Supplemental EA 

states the ETS sub-population of IndoPacific humpback dolphins is 

considered ‘critically endangered’ on 

the IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species (IUCN, 2008). See L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA for a detailed 

description of the revised survey as well 

as monitoring and mitigation measures. 

No takes of the ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin sub-population are 

authorized under the NMFS-issued IHA. 

See response to comment below. 

Comment 207: Dr. John Wang and CSI 

states that Sousa chinensis is considered 

a slow swimming species with average 

speeds between 3.6 and 7.2 km/hr 

(Saayman and Tayler, 1979; Jefferson, 

2000) but much slower during resting 

periods (Saayman and Tayler, 1979)— 

observations of the ETS population 

(unpublished data) are consistent. As 

such, the ETS Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins will not be able to outrun the 

Langseth (even while towing airguns, 

the operating speed is reported to be 

between 7.4–9.3 km/hr) for extended 

periods. Even if they were able to 

outrun the Langseth, there would be no 

escape within their distribution 

because: (a) The tracklines cover nearly 

the entire longitudinal length of the ETS 

sub-population’s total distribution and 

beyond, and (b) no safe acoustic shelters 

exist. Therefore, nearly the entire 

population (especially the most 

vulnerable members: mothers with 

young calves and other compromised 

individuals) will be affected by the 

seismic surveys along western Taiwan 

regardless of where the dolphins are in 

their distribution and an unknown but 

substantial number will be exposed to 

levels >180dB. Clearly, the proportion 

of the ETS sub-population to be 

impacted by the seismic survey (and at 

dangerous exposure levels) is far too 

high for any cetaceans let alone one that 

is critically endangered. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO has negotiated 

with the project’s principal scientists to 

modify the cruise plan and adopt more 

precautionary mitigation measures. L– 

DEO will limit seismic survey lines to 

take place at least 20 km from the west 

coast of Taiwan, except for in the 

passage between the Penghu Islands and 

the Waishanding Jhou sandbar, where 

the survey will pass through the 

approximately 17.1 km mid-line 

distance between the two possibly 

sensitive areas, subject to the limitations 

imposed by other foreign nations, to 

minimize the potential for exposing 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, finless 

porpoises, and other coastal species to 

SPLs greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms). The buffer zone will reduce 

the potential impacts to animals, 

especially to protect the ‘critically 

endangered’ ETS Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin sub-population. 

Requirements to this effect have been 

included in the NMFS-issued IHA. 

Comment 208: Dr. McIntosh and Dr. 

Wu state that a specific concern 

expressed by Dr. John Wang is with the 

safety of the ETS Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphin; this species is considered 

critically endangered. The principal 

scientists share Dr. Wang’s desire to 

protect this species and plan to avoid 

seismic work in or near its habitat. This 

species is known to live in very shallow 

water environments, primarily in water 

depths less than 25 meters and typically 

close to the coast. Dr. McIntosh and Dr. 

Wu expect seismic operations to occur 

generally in water depths of 50 m or 

greater, especially along Taiwan’s west 

coast. With the generally shallow slope 

of the seafloor in this area this means 

that our work will typically be farther 

than 10 km from the coast. Furthermore, 

we are willing to adjust line positions to 

provide an adequate buffer zone for the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41309 

coastal habitat of these humpback 

dolphins. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

principal investigators comments. A 

description of the revised seismic 

survey can be found in L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA. 

Species of Particular Concern—Deep 

Diving Species 

Comment 209: ETTSTAWG states 

beaked whales can be expected to be at 

heightened risk from the L–DEO project, 

in part because their extended dives 

make it exceedingly difficult for even 

trained personnel to spot them. 

Response: NMFS agrees that beaked 

whales are difficult to detect visually, 

even by trained and experienced 

MMVOs. In order to minimize potential 

effects of the seismic surveys, L–DEO 

will (when operating the sound source), 

minimize approaches to slopes, 

submarine canyons, seamounts, an other 

underwater geologic features, if 

possible, because of sensitivity to 

beaked whales. If concentrations of 

beaked whales are observed (by visual 

or passive acoustic detection) at a site 

such as on the continental slope, 

submarine canyon, seamount, or other 

underwater geologic feature just prior to 

or during the airgun operations, those 

operations will be moved to another 

location along the site based on 

recommendations by the on-duty 

MMVO aboard the Langseth. After the 

issuance of the proposed IHA, L–DEO 

also re-routed the seismic survey line 

paralleling the east coast of Taiwan 

further offshore to decrease potential 

impacts on species (including beaked 

whales) over the continental slope, and 

seismic surveys (to the maximum extent 

practicable) will be conducted from the 

coast (inshore) and proceed towards the 

sea (offshore) in order to avoid trapping 

marine mammals in shallow water. 

NMFS believes these mitigation 

measures should lessen the potential 

risks to beaked whales. 

Species of Particular Concern—Finless 

Porpoises 

Comment 210: Several interested 

parties have stated that finless porpoises 

are arguably one of the most difficult 

species to detect at sea by observers, 

even in calm conditions, because of its 

small size, lack of dorsal fin, brief 

surface time, and usually occurring 

individually or in small groups, so 

many will be missed by MMVOs during 

seismic operations. Depending on the 

behavior of the animals, they can be 

near impossible to detect. Jefferson et al. 

(2002) reported that during calm 

sighting conditions, finless porpoises 

were observed primarily within 300 m 

from the trackline (perpendicular 

distance) and none were observed 

beyond about 700 m. In low light 

conditions or even slight seas, detecting 

finless porpoises is challenging even for 

researchers experienced with the 

species. MMVOs will be ineffective at 

detecting animals within the predicted 

distance, therefore, an unknown 

(potentially large) number of finless 

porpoises will be exposed to much 

greater noise levels than suggested by L– 

DEO (especially since detection is 

effectively zero beyond 1 km, yet the 

predicted distance for received levels 

>190 dB is more than 2 km from the 

source). 

Response: NMFS agrees that finless 

porpoises are arguably one of the most 

difficult species to detect at sea by 

observers. NMFS has not authorized any 

takes of finless porpoises in the IHA 

issued to L–DEO for this survey. Take 

estimates for finless porpoises have 

been reduced to zero because of the 

elimination of seismic tracklines in 

shallow water areas where they are 

likely to occur. In addition to having 

additional MMVOs and the use of PAM 

onboard the Langseth to detect animals, 

L–DEO will also shut-down 

immediately if there is a sighting at any 

distance of finless porpoises. See 

responses to previous comments and L– 

DEO’s Supplemental EA. 

Comment 211: Dr. John Wang states 

finless porpoises are arguably the most 

difficult cetacean to detect at sea by 

observers, so many will be missed by 

MMVOs during seismic operations. 

Therefore, an unknown (potentially 

large) number of finless porpoises will 

be exposed to much greater noise levels 

than suggested by L–DEO (especially 

since detection is effectively zero 

beyond 1 km, yet the predicted distance 

for received levels >190 dB is more than 

2 km from the source. 

Response: NMFS agrees that finless 

porpoises are arguably the most difficult 

cetacean to detect by MMVOs due to 

their small body size, lack of a dorsal 

fin, and shy behavior. However, the 

PAM system onboard the Langseth is 

capable of detecting the clicks of finless 

porpoises. Finless porpoises are 

unlikely to be encountered during the 

survey as L–DEO will avoid shallow 

water areas near the China coast, 

western Taiwan Strait, and South China 

Sea in order to avoid this species. L– 

DEO will also limit seismic survey lines 

to water depths greater than 200 m (656 

ft) in the South China Sea and as far east 

as possible from the mainland side of 

the Taiwan Strait, to reduce potential 

for effects on finless porpoises. L–DEO 

is not authorized incidental take of 

finless porpoise and will shut-down the 

airgun array if any finless porpoises are 

visually sighted. 

Comment 212: Dr. John Wang states 

finless porpoises appear to go undergo 

inshore-offshore migrations seasonally 

(see Jefferson and Hung, 2004) but this 

is not well understood. During the 

timing of the proposed seismic surveys, 

many finless porpoises will be in the 

Taiwan Strait (as evidenced by bycatch 

records and some sighting data—J.Y. 

Wang, unpublished data) and an 

unknown (but potentially large) number 

will be exposed to the airgun sounds. 

Furthermore, the timing also coincides 

with the presence of many female with 

newborn calves in these waters. These 

will be the most vulnerable individuals 

as they will be less able to escape the 

wide range of the airguns in shallow 

waters. The potential impact on finless 

porpoises is far from negligible and 

none of the mitigation measures 

proposed would be effective in reducing 

the harm. 

Response: After issuance of the 

proposed IHA, L–DEO has negotiated 

with the project’s principal scientists to 

modify the cruise plan and adopt more 

precautionary monitoring and 

mitigation measures. Off Taiwan’s west 

coast, the cruise tracks have been rerouted offshore by approximately 20 km 

to protect finless porpoise. Because of 

concerns about effects of the proposed 

surveys on finless porpoises, the 

proposed survey lines in the South 

China Sea south of the Taiwan Strait 

were also re-routed so that they are now 

located in water depths >200 m, as 

recommended by NRDC. The seismic 

lines in the western Taiwan Strait have 

been dropped. The proposed survey line 

paralleling the east coast of Taiwan has 

also been moved offshore by more than 

20 km to decrease potential impacts on 

species that occur in coastal waters and 

over the continental slope. The airgun 

array will be shut-down immediately if 

there is a sighting at any distance of 

finless porpoises. Requirements to this 

effect have been included in the IHA. 

Comment 213: CSI and WaH states the 

anticipated presence of female finless 

porpoises and their (neonatal) calves in 

the survey region during the proposed 

seismic surveys is of great concern, 

particularly given the fact that these 

animals will likely be difficult if not 

completely impossible to detect visually 

at distances at which they may still be 

exposed to noise levels >180 dB (rms), 

and do not vocalize at all times. These 

will be the most vulnerable individuals 

as they will be less able to maintain 

swimming speeds that will allow them 

to escape the range of the airguns. 

Finless porpoises are generally slowswimmers, but are capable of high speed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41310 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

bursts. However it is unlikely that such 

speeds can be maintained for more than 

a few minutes. 

Response: See responses to previous 

comments pertaining to finless 

porpoises. 

Species of Particular Concern—Western 

Pacific Gray Whales 

Comment 214: CSI states the route(s) 

and months when Western Pacific gray 

whales may undertake their migration 

from a suspected wintering ground(s) in 

the South China Sea are unknown. 

However, it is likely that the period for 

the migration is in the spring. The 

proposed L–DEO surveys overlap with 

the period during which these gray 

whales are expected to be either in their 

wintering grounds or are undergoing 

their northward migration through the 

Taiwan Strait. Scheduling the seismic 

surveys in the South China Sea to be 

conducted in March and April will 

likely coincide with at least some 

migrating gray whales, and are an 

additional threat to these highly 

threatened gray whales. L–DEO did not 

address this possibility and have not 

proposed any mitigation measures to 

avoid this likely overlap of seismic 

surveys and migrating gray whales. 

Even the take of a few individuals is 

projected to cause a continuing decline 

in the population towards extinction 

(Cooke et al., 2006). 

Response: Winter breeding grounds of 

the Western Pacific gray whale are not 

known, but are thought to be located in 

the South China Sea, along the coast of 

Guangdong province and Hainan (Wang, 

1984; and Zhu, 1998 in Weller et al., 

2002a; Rice, 1998). Also, the migration 

route of the gray whale is ill defined, 

but very likely extends through 

Taiwanese waters, probably through the 

Taiwan Strait. Their occurrence there is 

possible from December to April. If 

migration timing is similar to that of the 

better-known Eastern Pacific gray whale 

through similar latitudes, southbound 

migration probably occurs mainly in 

December to January, and northbound 

migration mainly in February to April, 

with northbound migration of newborn 

calves and their mothers probably 

concentrated toward the end of that 

period. Even during migration, gray 

whales are found primarily in shallow 

coastal waters. Because of these 

concerns about the effects of the 

proposed surveys on gray whales, the 

proposed survey lines in the South 

China Sea south of the Taiwan Strait 

were re-routed after the issuance of the 

proposed IHA so that they are now 

located in water depths >200 m, as 

recommended by NRDC. The seismic 

lines in the western Taiwan Strait have 

been dropped. L–DEO will also 

immediately shut-down the airgun array 

if there is a sighting of a Western Pacific 

gray whale at any distance (see L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA). 

Comment 215: In its discussion of 

disturbance reactions, HSI also notes the 

proposed IHA’s Federal Register notice 

(73 FR 78294, December 22, 2008) use 

of the Eastern Pacific gray whale’s status 

as an example of a species experiencing 

‘‘no impact’’ despite living in a noisy 

environment. The notice states that the 

whales ‘‘continued to migrate annually 

* * * with substantial increases in the 

population over recent years, despite 

intermittent seismic exploration and 

much ship traffic’’ (73 FR 78302, 

December 22, 2008). However, the 

notice ignores the drastic drop in 

Eastern Pacific gray whale numbers 

between 1998 and 2000, by perhaps as 

many as 9,000 animals (Angliss and 

Outlaw, 2007). While it is certainly 

debatable to what (if any) degree 

exposure to various noise sources 

contributed to this population’s decline, 

to ignore the decline when using the 

population as an example of a 

population’s increase in the face of 

exposure to various noise sources is 

simply bad science. 

Response: As a coastal population, the 

Eastern North Pacific stock of gray 

whales, are subject to a wide variety of 

direct and indirect anthropogenic effects 

off of Mexico, California, Oregon, 

Washington, Canada, and Alaska. Some 

of the effects include pollution from 

chemical contaminants, subsistence 

harvesting, fishery interactions, ship 

strikes, and potentially impacts from 

noise. The population size of the 

Eastern North Pacific gray whale stock 

has been increasing over the past several 

decades. Due to the steady increases in 

population abundance, this stock of gray 

whales was removed from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

1994, as it was no longer considered 

Endangered or Threatened under the 

ESA. 

The decline in Eastern Pacific gray 

whale numbers between 1998 and 2000 

may be an indication that the 

abundance was responding to 

environmental limitations as the 

population approaches the carrying 

capacity of its environment. Visibly 

emaciated whales (LeBoeuf et al., 2000; 

Moore et al., 2001) suggest a decline in 

food resources associated with 

unusually high sea temperatures in 1997 

(Minobe, 2002), which may factor in to 

the high mortality rates observed in 

1999 and 2000 (Gulland et al., 2005). 

Several factors since this mortality event 

suggest that the high mortality rate was 

a short-term acute event and not a 

chronic situation or trend: (1) Counts of 

stranded dead gray whales dropped to 

levels below those seen prior to this 

event, (2) in 2001 living whales no 

longer appeared to be emaciated, and (3) 

calf counts in 2001–2002, a year after 

the event ended, were similar to 

averages for previous years (NMFS, 

2007; Rugh et al., 2005). It is expected 

that a population close to or at the 

carrying capacity of the environment 

will be more susceptible to fluctuations 

in the environment (Moore et al., 2001), 

and assessments indicated that the 

population is likely close to or above its 

unexploited equilibrium level (IWC, 

2002). It can be predicted that the 

population will undergo fluctuations in 

the future that may be similar to the 2- 

year event that occurred in 1999–2000 

(Norman et al., 2000; Perez-Cortes et al., 

2000; Brownell et al., 2001; Gulland et 

al., 2005). 

Species of Particular Concern— 

Humpback Whales 

Comment 216: CSI states the schedule 

for surveying the Luzon Strait and the 

Philippine Sea overlaps completely 

with the period when humpback whales 

are still in the area (and includes the 

latter portion of the peak period (April) 

for humpback whale concentrations in 

the Babuyan Islands). Therefore it is 

unclear how the timing of the surveys 

reduces the impacts on humpback 

whales as claimed by L–DEO. A large 

portion of this population of humpback 

whales will also be migrating through 

the Philippine Sea to northern waters at 

the same time as the proposed surveys. 

Although the exact migratory routes of 

most humpback whales are unknown, it 

is clear that at least some will follow a 

path that is parallel and fairly close to 

the shores of eastern Taiwan. One of the 

proposed survey tracklines of the 

Langseth also follows this course. Many 

females undertaking the migration at 

this time will also be accompanied by 

neonatal calves and these are the most 

sensitive individuals of the population 

(McCauley et al., 2000). 

Response: Several commenters raised 

concerns about survey lines scheduled 

for Leg 2 (April 20 to June 7, 2009) 

approaching humpback whale breeding 

areas in the Babuyan and Ryuku Islands. 

In fact, the humpback whales that 

winter and calve in the Ryuku Islands 

are near Okinawa (Nishiwaki, 1959; 

Rice, 1989; Darling and Mori, 1993), 

some 400 km north of the most 

northerly survey. However, a small 

population of humpback whales does 

winter and calve in the Babuyan Islands 

in Luzon Strait (Acebes and Lesaca, 

2003; Acebes et al., 2007). The whales 

may arrive in the area as early as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41311 

November and leave in May or even 

June, with peak occurrence during 

February through March or April 

(Acebes et al., 2007). 

To mitigate against the potential 

effects of the surveys on humpback 

whales, particularly mothers and calves 

on the breeding grounds or during the 

beginning of migration to summer 

feeding grounds, the surveys that 

approach the Babuyan Islands have 

been rescheduled as late as possible, to 

Leg 4 (June 18 to July 20, 2009). L–DEO 

will also be required to shut-down 

immediately if there is a visual sighting 

at any distance for mother/calf pairs of 

humpback whales. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Proposed Activity Area 

A total of 34 cetacean species, 

including 25 odontocete (dolphins and 

small- and large-toothed whales) species 

and 9 mysticetes (baleen whales) are 

known to occur in the proposed 

TAIGER study area (see Table 2 of L– 

DEO’s application). Cetaceans and 

pinnipeds are managed by NMFS and 

are the subject of this IHA application. 

Information on the occurrence, 

distribution, population size, and 

conservation status for each of the 34 

marine mammal species that may occur 

in the proposed project area is presented 

in the Table 2 of L–DEO’s application as 

well as here in the table below (Table 2). 

The status of these species is based on 

the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

the International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List 

of Threatened Species, and Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered 

Species (CITES). Several species are 

listed as Endangered under the ESA, 

including the Western North Pacific 

gray, North Pacific right, sperm, 

humpback, fin, sei, and blue whales, 

and the dugong (Dugong dugon). In 

addition, the Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphin is listed as Near Threatened 

and the finless porpoise is listed as 

Vulnerable under the 2008 IUCN Red 

List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 

2008). 

Although the dugong may have 

inhabited waters off Taiwan, it is no 

longer thought to occur there (March et 

al., n.d.; Chou, 2004; Perrin et al., 2005). 

Similarly, although the dugong was 

once widespread through the 

Philippines, current data suggest that it 

does not inhabit the Batan or Babuyan 

Islands or northwestern Luzon (Marsh et 

al., n.d.; Perrin et al., 2005), where 

seismic operations will occur. However, 

the dugong does occur off northeastern 

Luzon (Marsh et al., n.d.; Perrin et al., 

2005) outside the study area. In China, 

it is only known to inhabit the waters 

off Guangxi and Guangdong and the 

west coast of Hanain Island (Marsh et 

al., n.d.; Perrin et al., 2005), which do 

not occur near the study area. It is rare 

in the Ryuku Islands, but can be sighted 

in Okinawa, particularly off the east 

coast of the island (Yoshida and Trono, 

2004; Shirakihara et al., 2007); some 

individuals may have previously 

occurred in the southernmost of the 

Ryuku Islands, Yaeyama (Marsh et al., 

n.d.), but these animals have not been 

documented there recently (Shirakihara 

et al., 2007). The dugong is managed 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The 

USFWS concurred with L–DEO’s 

determination that the survey is likely 

to have no effects on the species and no 

consultation under Section 7 of the ESA 

is required, therefore, it is not 

considered further in this analysis. 

Wang et al. (2001a) noted that during 

the spring/summer off southern Taiwan, 

the highest number of marine mammal 

sightings and species occur during April 

and June. The number of sightings per 

survey effort and the number of species 

were highest directly west of the 

southern tip of Taiwan and northeast off 

the southern tip. 

Table 2 (below) outlines the cetacean 

species, their habitat and abundance in 

the proposed project area, and the 

requested take levels. Additional 

information regarding the distribution of 

these species expected to be found in 

the project area and how the estimated 

densities were calculated was included 

in the notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 

78294, December 22, 2008) and may be 

found in L–DEO’s application. 

The occurrence, habitat, regional 

abundance, conservation status, best 

and maximum density estimates, 

number of marine mammals that could 

be exposed to sound level at or above 

160dB re 1μPa, best estimate of number 

of individuals exposed, and best 

estimate of number of exposures per 

marine mammal in or near the proposed 

seismic survey area in SE Asia. See 

Tables 2–4 in L–DEO’s application for 

further detail. 

TABLE 2 

Species 

Occurrence in 

study area in 

SE Asia 

Habitat Regional 

population size 

Density/ 

1000km b

(best) 

Density/ 

1000km c

(max) 

Number of 

indiv. 

exposed to 

≥ 160 dB 

Percent of 

estimated 

population 

exposed to 

≥ 160 dB 

Mysticetes 

Western Pacific gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus).

Rare ................ Coastal ........... 131 d ................ 0 0 0 0 

North Pacific right whale 

(Eubalaena japonica).

Rare ................ Pelagic and 

coastal.

Less than 100 e 0 0 0 0 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Uncommon ..... Mainly near 

shore waters 

and banks.

938–1107 f ...... 0.89 1.33 6 0.60 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Uncommon ..... Pelagic and 

coastal.

25,000 g ........... 0.03 0.04 0 0 

Bryde’s whale 

Balaenoptera brydei).

Common ......... Pelagic and 

coastal.

20,000– 

30,000 e h.

0.27 0.41 43 0.17 

Omura’s whale 

(Balaenoptera omurai).

Common? ....... Pelagic and 

coastal.

N.A. ................. 0.03 0.04 4 N.A. 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis).

Rare ................ Primarily offshore, pelagic.7,260–12,620 i 0.03 0.04 4 0.04 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus).

Rare ................ Continental 

slope, mostly 

pelagic.

13,620–18,680 j 0.03 0.04 4 0.03 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41312 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

TABLE 2—Continued 

Species 

Occurrence in 

study area in 

SE Asia 

Habitat Regional 

population size 

Density/ 

1000km b

(best) 

Density/ 

1000km c

(max) 

Number of 

indiv. 

exposed to 

≥ 160 dB 

Percent of 

estimated 

population 

exposed to 

≥ 160 dB 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus).

Rare ................ Pelagic and 

coastal.

N.A. ................. 0.03 0.04 4 N.A. 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

Common? ....... Usually pelagic 

and deep 

seas.

26,674 k ........... 0.03 0.04 4 0.01 

Pygmy sperm whale 

(Kogia breviceps).

Uncommon ..... Deep waters ... N.A. ................. 0 0 .................... N.A. 

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia 

sima).

Common? ....... Deep waters 

off shelf.

11,200 e ........... 4.25 6.68 703 6.28 

Kogia sp. (unidentified) ..... Common? ....... Deep waters ... N.A. ................. 0.26 0.40 38 N.A. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris).

Likely Common Pelagic ............ 20,000 e ........... 0.34 0.75 58 0.29 

Longman’s beaked whale 

(Indopacetus pacificus).

Rare ................ Deep water ..... N.A. ................. N.A. N.A. .................... N.A. 

Blainville’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon 

densirostris).

Uncommon? ... Pelagic ............ 25,300 l ........... 0.89 1.60 153 0.61 

Ginkgo-toothed beaked 

whale (Mesoplodon 

ginkgodens).

Rare ................ Pelagic ............ N.A. ................. N.A. N.A. .................... N.A. 

Mesoplodon sp. (unidentified).Uncommon? ... Pelagic ............ N.A. ................. 1.55 1.60 268 N.A. 

Unidentified beaked whale Rare ................ Pelagic ............ N.A. ................. 0.72 0.94 118 N.A. 

Rough-toothed dolphin 

(Steno bredanensis).

Common ......... Deep water ..... 146,000 ETPe 1.33 5.44 212 0.14 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis).Uncommon ..... Coastal ........... 1,680 China + 

Taiwan e.

24.30 35.36 0 0 

Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus).Common ......... Coastal and 

oceanic, 

shelf break.

243,500 ETPe 24.30 35.36 4,021 1.65 

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus).Common? ....... Coastal and 

shelf waters.

N.A. ................. 43.60 65.40 0 N.A. 

Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens).

Rare, Likely 

Absent.

Coastal and 

pelagic.

930,000– 

990,000 e.

N.A. N.A. 0 0 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata).

Common ......... Coastal and 

pelagic.

800,000 ETPe 120.80 140.97 20,169 2.52 

Spinner dolphin (Stenella 

longirostris).

Common ......... Coastal and 

pelagic.

800,000 ETPe 54.84 88.89 9,485 1.19 

Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba).

Common ......... Coastal and 

pelagic.

1,000,000 

ETPe.

0.20 0.32 38 0.01 

Fraser’s dolphin 

(Lagenodelphis hosei).

Common ......... Waters greater 

than 1,000 m.

289,000 ETPe 96.84 124.14 16,749 5.80 

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis).Rare ................ Shelf and pelagic, 

seamounts.

3,000,000 

ETPe.

N.A. N.A. 0 0 

Long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus 

capensis).

Uncommon ..... Coastal ........... N.A. ................. 0.05 0.12 10 N.A. 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

Common ......... Pelagic ............ 175,000 ETPe 41.88 67.18 7,209 4.12 

Melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra).

Common? ....... Oceanic ........... 45,000 ETPe .. 13.37 20.86 2,173 4.83 

Pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata).

Uncommon ..... Deep, 

pantropical 

waters.

39,000 ETPe .. 2.01 3.16 327 0.84 

False killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens).

Common? ....... Pelagic ............ 40,000 n ........... 4.56 4.77 789 1.97 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Uncommon? ... Widely distributed.8,500 ETPe .... 1.00 1.73 166 1.95 

Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala 

macrorhynchus).

Common? ....... Mostly pelagic, 

relief topography.

500,000 ETPe 3.83 6.43 630 0.13 

Finless porpoise 

(Neophocaena 

phocaenoides).

Common? ....... Coastal ........... 5,220–10,220 

Japan + HKe.

4.36 6.54 0 0 

Sirenians: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41313 

TABLE 2—Continued 

Species 

Occurrence in 

study area in 

SE Asia 

Habitat Regional 

population size 

Density/ 

1000km b

(best) 

Density/ 

1000km c

(max) 

Number of 

indiv. 

exposed to 

≥ 160 dB 

Percent of 

estimated 

population 

exposed to 

≥ 160 dB 

Dugong (Dugong dugon) .. Uncommon? ... Coastal ........... N.A. ................. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

N.A.—Data not available or species status was not assessed, ETP—Eastern Tropical Pacific, HK = Hong Kong. 

a U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = Not listed. b Best estimate as listed in Table 3 of the application. c Maximum estimate as listed in Table 3 of the application. 

d Vladimirov et al. (2008). e North Pacific unless otherwise indicated (Jefferson et al., 2008). f Western North Pacific (Calambokidis et al., 2008). g Northwest Pacific and Okhotsk Sea (IWC, 2007a). h Kitakado et al. (2008). i Tillman (1977). 

j Ohsumi and Wada (1974). 

k Western North Pacific (Whitehead, 2002b). 

l ETP; all Mesoplodon spp. (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993). 

m IUCN states that this species should be re-assessed following taxonomic classification of the two forms. The chinensis-type would be considered vulnerable (IUCN, 2008). n ETP (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993). 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

Potential Effects of Airguns 

The sounds from airguns might result 

in one or more of the following: 

tolerance, masking of natural sounds, 

behavioral disturbances, temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, and 

non-auditory physical or physiological 

effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon 

et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; 

Southall et al., 2007). Permanent 

hearing impairment, in the unlikely 

event that it occurred, would constitute 

injury, but temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) is not an injury (Southall et al., 

2007). With the possible exception of 

some cases of temporary threshold shift 

in harbor seals, it is unlikely that the 

project would result in any cases of 

temporary or especially permanent 

hearing impairment, or any significant 

non-auditory physical or physiological 

effects. Some behavioral disturbance is 

expected, but this would be localized 

and short-term. 

The notice of the proposed IHA (73 

FR 78294, December 22, 2008) included 

a discussion of the effects of sounds 

from airguns on mysticetes, 

odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including 

tolerance, masking, behavioral 

disturbance, hearing impairment, and 

other non-auditory physical effects. 

Additional information on the 

behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by 

all types of marine mammals to seismic 

vessels can be found in L–DEO’s 

application and associated EA. 

The notice of the proposed IHA also 

included a discussion of the potential 

effects of the multibeam echosounder 

(MBES) and the sub-bottom profiler 

(SBP). Because of the shape of the 

beams of these sources and their power, 

NMFS believes it unlikely that marine 

mammals will be exposed to either the 

MBES or the SBP at levels at or above 

those likely to cause harassment. 

Further, NMFS believes that the brief 

exposure of cetaceans to a few signals 

from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar 

system is not likely to result in the 

harassment of marine mammals. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

The notice of the proposed IHA (73 

FR 78294, December 22, 2008) included 

an in-depth discussion of the methods 

used to calculate the densities of the 

marine mammals in the area of the 

seismic survey and the take estimates. 

Additional information was included in 

L–DEO’s application. A summary is 

included here. 

All anticipated ‘‘takes by harassment’’ 

authorized by this IHA are Level B 

harassment only, involving temporary 

changes in behavior. The mitigation 

measures are expected to minimize the 

possibility of injurious takes. Take 

calculations were based on maximum 

exposure estimates (based on maximum 

density estimates) vs. best estimates and 

are based on the 160 dB isopleths of a 

larger array of airguns. Given these 

considerations, the predicted number of 

marine mammals that might be exposed 

to sounds 160 dB or greater may be 

somewhat overestimated. 

No systematic aircraft- or ship-based 

surveys have been conducted for marine 

mammals in waters near Taiwan, and 

the species of marine mammals that 

occur there are not well known. A few 

surveys have been conducted from 

small vessels (approximately 10–12 m 

or 33–40 ft long) with low observation 

platforms (approximately 3 m or 10 ft 

above sea level) as follows: 

• Off the east central coast of Taiwan 

to a maximum of approximately 20 km 

(12.4 mi) from shore in water depths up 

to approximately 1,200 m deep between 

June 1996 and July 1997 (all cetacean; 

Yang et al., 1999); 

• Off the south coast of Taiwan to a 

distance of approximately 50 km (mi) 

and depths greater than 1,000 m (3,280 

ft) during April 13–September 9, 2000 

(all cetaceans; Wang et al., 2001a); 

• Off the west coast of Taiwan close 

to shore during early April–early 

August, 2002–2006 (Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphins; Wang et al., 2007); 

and 

• Around and between the Babuyan 

Islands off northern Philippines in 

waters less than 1,000 m deep during 

late February-May 2000–2003 

(humpback whales; Acebes et al., 2007). 

The only density calculated by the 

authors was for the Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin (Wang et al., 2007). 

In addition, a density estimate was also 

available for the Indo-Pacific bottlenose 

dolphin (Yang et al., 2000 in Perrin et 

al., 2005). 

In the absence of any other density 

data, L–DEO used the survey effort and 

sightings in Yang et al. (1999) and Wang 

et al. (2001a) to estimate densities of 

marine mammals in the TAIGER study 

area. To correct for detection bias (bias 

associated with diminishing sightability 

with increasing lateral distance from the 

trackline), L–DEO used mean group 

sizes given by or calculated from Wang 

et al. (2001a, 2007) and Yang et al., 

(1999), and a value for ƒ(0) of 5.32 

calculated from the data and density 

equation in Wang et al. (2007); Yang et 

al. (1999), and Wang et al. (2001a) did 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41314 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

not give a value for ƒ(0), but they used 

a vessel and methods similar to those of 

Wang et al. (2007). To correct for 

availability and perception bias, which 

are attributable to the less than 100 

percent probability of sighting an 

animals present along the survey 

trackline, L–DEO used g(0) values 

calculated using surfacing and dive data 

from Erickson (1976), Barlow and 

Sexton (1996), Forney and Barlow 

(1998), and Barlow (1999): 0.154 for 

Mesoplodon sp., 0.102 for Cuvier’s 

beaked whale, 0.193 for the dwarf sperm 

whale and Kogia sp., 0.238 for the killer 

whale, and 1.0 for delphinids. 

The surveys of Yang et al. (1999) and 

Wang et al. (2001a) were carried out in 

areas of steep slopes and complex 

bathymetric features, where many 

cetacean species are known to 

concentrate. It did not seem reasonable 

to extrapolate those densities to the 

overall survey area, which is 

predominantly in areas of deep water 

without complex bathymetry. For latter 

areas, L–DEO used density data from 

two 5° x 5° blocks in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean (ETP) surveyed by 

Ferguson and Barlow (2001): Blocks 87 

and 882, bounded by 20° N to 25° N (the 

same latitudes as the proposed survey 

area and 115° W to 125° W, in deep 

water and just offshore from Mexico. L– 

DEO then calculated an overall estimate 

weighted by the estimated lengths of 

seismic lines over complex bathymetry 

or slope (approximately 1,200 km or 746 

mi) and over deep, flat, or gently sloping 

bottom (approximately 12,934 km or 

8,037 mi). 

The density estimate for the IndoPacific hump-backed dolphin is from 

Wang et al. (2007) and applies only to 

the population’s limited range on the 

west coat of Taiwan. No density data 

were available for the Pacific whitesided or short-beaked common dolphin 

for the study area. As these species are 

rare in the area, densities are expected 

to be near zero. In addition, density data 

were unavailable for striped and longbeaked common dolphins. As these two 

species were not seen during the abovementioned surveys and are considered 

uncommon in the TAIGER study area, 

L–DEO assigned these two species 10 

percent of the density estimate of the 

delphinid occurring in similar habitat in 

the area with the lowest density (i.e., 

pygmy killer whale). Also no density 

estimate was available for finless 

porpoise. As this species was not 

sighted during surveys of southern 

Taiwan in 2000 (Wang et al., 2001a), L– 

DEO assigned it 10 percent of the lowest 

density (i.e., Indo-Pacific bottlenose 

dolphin). Density data were unavailable 

for Longman’s beaked and ginkgotoothed beaked whales; however, these 

two species are represented by densities 

for unidentified beaked whales. 

Large whales were not sighted during 

the surveys by Yang et al. (1999) or 

Wang et al. (2001a). The only available 

abundance estimate for large whales in 

the area (except that for humpbacks, see 

below) is that of Shimada et al. (2008), 

who estimated abundances of Bryde’s 

whales in several blocks in the 

northwestern Pacific based on surveys 

in 1998–2002, the closest of which to 

the proceed survey area is the block 

bounded by 10° N–25° N and 130° E– 

137.5° E. The resulting abundance and 

area were used to calculate density. 

Sperm, sei, Omura’s, fin, minke, and 

blue whales are less common than 

Bryde’s whales in these waters, so L– 

DEO assigned a density of 10 percent of 

that calculated for Bryde’s whale. North 

Pacific right, and Western Pacific gray 

whales are unlikely to occur in the 

TAIGER study area, thus, densities were 

estimated to be zero. 

For humpback whales in the Babuyan 

Islands, L–DEO used the population 

estimate of Acebes et al. (2007) and 

applied it to an area of approximately 

78,000 km2, extending from the north 

coast of Luzon to just south of Orchid 

Island to derive a density estimate. That 

area is a historically well-documented 

breeding ground that whaling records 

indicate was used until at least the 

1960s (Acebes et al., 2007), and an area 

where humpbacks have been sighted 

more recently. 

There is some uncertainty about the 

representatives of the density data and 

the assumptions used in the 

calculations. For example, the timing of 

the surveys of Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins (early April-early August) and 

humpback whales (late February–May) 

overlaps the timing of the proposed 

surveys, but the Bryde’s whale surveys 

(August and September), and those of 

Yang et al. (1999) (year-round) include 

different seasons, and would not be as 

representative if there are seasonal 

density differences. Perhaps the greatest 

uncertainty results from using survey 

results from the northeast Pacific Ocean. 

However, the approach used here is 

believed to be the best available 

approach. Also, to provide some 

allowance for these uncertainties, 

‘‘maximum estimates’’ as well as ‘‘best 

estimates’’ of the densities present and 

numbers of marine mammals potentially 

affected have been derived. Best 

estimates for most species are based on 

average densities from the surveys of 

Yang et al. (1999), Wang et al. (2001a), 

and Ferguson and Barlow (2001), 

weighted by effort, whereas maximum 

estimates are based on the higher of the 

two densities from the Taiwan surveys 

and the eastern Pacific survey blocks. 

For the sperm whales, mysticetes, two 

delphinids (Indo-Pacific humpback and 

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins), as 

well as for the finless porpoise, the 

maximum estimates are the best 

estimates multiplied by 1.5. Densities 

calculated or estimated as described 

above are given in Table 3 of L–DEO’s 

application. 

The estimated numbers of individuals 

potentially exposed on each leg of the 

survey are based on the 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) Level B harassment exposure 

threshold for cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

It is assumed that marine mammals 

exposed to airgun sounds at these levels 

might experience disruption of 

behavioral patterns. 

It should be noted that the following 

estimates of takes by harassment assume 

that the surveys will be fully completed. 

As is typical during offshore ship 

surveys, inclement weather and 

equipment malfunctions are likely to 

cause delays and may limit the number 

of useful line-km to seismic operations 

that can be undertaken. Furthermore, 

any marine mammal sightings within or 

near the designated EZ will result in the 

power-down or shut-down of seismic 

operations as a mitigation measure. 

Thus, the following estimates of the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

160 dB sounds probably overestimate 

the actual numbers of marine mammals 

that might be involved. These estimates 

assume that there will be no weather, 

equipment, or mitigation delays, which 

is highly unlikely. 

The number of different individuals 

that may be exposed to airgun sounds 

with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) on one or more occasions was 

estimated by considering the total 

marine area that would be within the 

160 dB radius around the operating 

airgun array on at least one occasion. 

The number of possible exposures 

(including repeated exposures of the 

same individuals) can be estimated by 

considering the total marine area that 

would be within the 160 dB radius 

around the operating airguns, including 

areas of overlap. The seismic lines are 

widely spaced in the survey area, and 

are further spaced in time because the 

survey is planned in discrete legs 

separated by several days. Thus, an 

individual mammal would not be 

exposed numerous times during the 

survey; the areas including overlap are 

1.1 to 1.3 times the areas excluding 

overlap, depending on the leg, so the 

numbers of exposures are not discussed 

further. Moreover, it is unlikely that a 

particular animal would stay in the area 

during the entire survey. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41315 

The number of different individuals 

potentially exposed to received levels 

≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) was calculated 

by multiplying: 

• The expected species density, either 

‘‘mean’’ (i.e., best estimate) or 

‘‘maximum,’’ times 

• The anticipated minimum area to 

be ensonified to that level during airgun 

operations excluding overlap. 

The area expected to be ensonified 

was determined by entering the planned 

survey lines into a MapInfo Geographic 

Information System (GIS), using the GIS 

to identify the relevant areas by 

‘‘drawing’’ the applicable 160 dB buffer 

around each seismic line (depending on 

water and tow depth) and then 

calculating the total area within the 

buffers. Areas where overlap occurred 

were limited and included only once to 

determine the area expected to be 

ensonified when estimating the number 

of individuals exposed. 

Applying the approach described 

above and in L–DEO’s Supplemental 

EA, approximately 160,132 km2 (61,827 

mi2), which is approximately 5 percent 

less than the original 168,315 km2, 

would be within the 160 dB isopleth on 

one or more occasions during the 

survey. Because this approach does not 

allow for turnover in the mammal 

populations in the study area during the 

course of the survey, the actual number 

of individuals exposed could be 

underestimated. However, the approach 

assumes that no cetaceans will move 

away from or toward the trackline as the 

Langseth approaches in response to 

increasing sound levels prior to the time 

the levels reach 160 dB, which will 

result in overestimates for those species 

known to avoid seismic vessels. 

Table 3 (see below) outlines the 

species, estimated stock population 

(minimum and best), and estimated 

percentage of the stock exposed to 

seismic pulses in the project area. 

Additional information regarding the 

status, abundance, and distribution of 

the marine mammals in the area and 

how densities were calculated was 

included in Table 2 (see above), the 

notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 

78294, December 22, 2008) and may be 

found in L–DEO’s application. 

The estimates of the possible numbers 

of marine mammals exposed to sound 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB 

during L–DEO’s proposed seismic 

survey in SE Asia in March–July 2009. 

The proposed sound source consists of 

a 36-airgun, 6,600 in3 array. Received 

levels are expressed in dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

(averaged over pulse duration), 

consistent with NMFS’ practice. Not all 

marine mammals will change their 

behavior when exposed to these sound 

levels, but some may alter their behavior 

when levels are lower (see text). See 

Tables 2–4 in L–DEO’s application for 

further detail. 

TABLE 3 

Species 

Number of 

individuals 

exposed 

(best)1

Number of 

individuals 

exposed 

(max)1

Approx. percent regional 

population 

(best) 2

Mysticetes: 

Western Pacific gray whale ..................................................................................................

(Eschrichtius robustus) ......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

North Pacific right whale ......................................................................................................

(Eubalaena japonica) ............................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Humpback whale ..................................................................................................................

(Megaptera novaeangliae) .................................................................................................... 6 9 0.60 

Minke whale ..........................................................................................................................

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Bryde’s whale .......................................................................................................................

(Balaenoptera brydei) ........................................................................................................... 43 65 0.17 

Omura’s whale ......................................................................................................................

(Balaenoptera omurai) .......................................................................................................... 4 6 N.A. 

Sei whale ..............................................................................................................................

(Balaenoptera borealis) ........................................................................................................ 4 6 0.04 

Fin whale ..............................................................................................................................

(Balaenoptera physalus) ....................................................................................................... 4 6 0.03 

Blue whale ............................................................................................................................

(Balaenoptera musculus) ...................................................................................................... 4 6 N.A. 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale .........................................................................................................................

(Physeter macrocephalus) .................................................................................................... 4 6 0.01 

Pygmy sperm whale .............................................................................................................

(Kogia breviceps) .................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ N.A. 

Dwarf sperm whale ...............................................................................................................

(Kogia sima) ......................................................................................................................... 703 1,124 6.28 

Kogia sp. ...............................................................................................................................

(unidentified) ......................................................................................................................... 38 58 N.A. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale .........................................................................................................

(Ziphius cavirostris) .............................................................................................................. 58 131 0.29 

Longman’s beaked whale .....................................................................................................

(Indopacetus pacificus) ......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ N.A. 

Blainville’s beaked whale .....................................................................................................

(Mesoplodon densirostris) .................................................................................................... 153 276 0.61 

Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale ..............................................................................................

(Mesoplodon ginkgodens) .................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ N.A. 

Mesoplodon sp. ....................................................................................................................

(unidentified) 3 ....................................................................................................................... 268 276 1.06 

Unidentified beaked whale 4 ................................................................................................. 118 155 N.A. 

Rough-toothed dolphin .........................................................................................................

(Steno bredanensis) ............................................................................................................. 212 865 0.14 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41316 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

TABLE 3—Continued 

Species 

Number of 

individuals 

exposed 

(best)1

Number of 

individuals 

exposed 

(max)1

Approx. percent regional 

population 

(best) 2

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin ............................................................................................

(Sousa chinensis) ................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Common bottlenose dolphin .................................................................................................

(Tursiops truncatus) .............................................................................................................. 4,021 5,886 1.65

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................................

(Tursiops aduncus) ............................................................................................................... 0 0 N.A. 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ...................................................................................................

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ..................................................................................................

(Stenella attenuata) .............................................................................................................. 20,169 23,646 2.52 

Spinner dolphin .....................................................................................................................

(Stenella longirostris) ............................................................................................................ 9,485 15,373 1.19 

Striped dolphin ......................................................................................................................

(Stenella coeruleoalba) ......................................................................................................... 38 60 0.01 

Fraser’s dolphin ....................................................................................................................

(Lagenodelphis hosei) .......................................................................................................... 16,749 21,470 5.80 

Short-beaked common dolphin ............................................................................................

(Delphinus delphis) ............................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Long-beaked common dolphin .............................................................................................

(Delphinus capensis) ............................................................................................................ 10 23 0.01 

Risso’s dolphin .....................................................................................................................

(Grampus griseus) ................................................................................................................ 7,209 11,478 4.12 

Melon-headed whale ............................................................................................................

(Peponocephala electra) ...................................................................................................... 2,173 3,424 4.83 

Pygmy killer whale ................................................................................................................

(Feresa attenuata) ................................................................................................................ 327 520 789 

False killer whale ..................................................................................................................

(Pseudorca crassidens) ........................................................................................................ 789 825 1.97 

Killer whale ...........................................................................................................................

(Orcinus orca) ....................................................................................................................... 171 297 2.01 

Short-finned pilot whale ........................................................................................................

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) ............................................................................................. 630 1,069 0.13 

Finless porpoise ...................................................................................................................

(Neophocaena phocaenoides) ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Sirenians 

Dugong .................................................................................................................................

(Dugong dugon) .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ N.A. 

N.A.—Data not available or species status was not assessed. 

1Best estimate and maximum estimate density are from Table 3 of L–DEO’s application. There will be no seismic acquisition data during Leg 3 

of the survey; this, it is not included here in this table. 2 Regional population size estimates are from Table 2. 

3 Requested takes include Blainville’s, and ginkgo-toothed beaked whales. 

4 Requested takes include Cuvier’s, Blainville’s, ginkgo-toothed, and Longman’s beaked whales. 

Table 1 of L–DEO’s Supplemental EA 

shows the best and maximum estimates 

of the number of exposures and the 

number of individual marine mammals 

that potentially could be exposed to 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) during the different legs of the 

seismic survey if no animals moved 

away from the survey vessel. 

The ‘‘best estimate’’ of the number of 

individual marine mammals that could 

be exposed to seismic sounds with 

received levels greater than or equal to 

160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (but below Level 

A harassment thresholds) during the 

survey is shown in Table 1 of L–DEO’s 

Supplemental EA and Table 3 (shown 

above). The ‘‘best estimate’’ total 

includes 65 baleen whale individuals, 

25 of which are listed as Endangered 

under the ESA: 6 humpback whales 

(0.60 percent of the regional 

population), 4 sei whales (0.04 percent), 

4 fin whales (0.03 percent), and 4 blue 

whales (regional population unknown). 

These estimates were derived from the 

best density estimates calculated for 

these species in the area (see Table 1 of 

L–DEO’s Supplemental EA). In addition, 

4 sperm whales (0.01 percent of the 

regional population), as well as 0 IndoPacific humpback dolphins (0 percent 

population, and 0 percent of the eastern 

Taiwan Strait (ETC) population), 0 

finless porpoise (0 percent), and 597 

beaked whales (including Longman’s 

and ginkgo-toothed beaked whales) are 

included in the ‘‘best estimate’’ total. 

Most (97.8 percent) of the cetaceans 

potentially exposed are delphinids; 

pantropical spotted, Fraser’s, and 

spinner dolphins are estimated to be the 

most common species in the area, with 

best estimates of 20,169 (2.52 percent of 

the regional population), 16,749 (5.80 

percent), and 9,485 (1.19 percent) 

individuals exposed to greater or equal 

to 160 dB re μPa (rms) respectively. 

Potential Effects on Habitat 

A detailed discussion of the potential 

effects of this action on marine mammal 

habitat, including physiological and 

behavioral effects on marine fish and 

invertebrates was included in the 

proposed IHA (73 FR 78294, December 

22, 2008). Based on the discussion in 

the proposed IHA notice and the nature 

of the activities (limited duration), the 

authorized operations are not expected 

to have any habitat-related effects that 

could cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41317 

mammals or their populations or stocks. 

Similarly, any effects to food sources are 

expected to be negligible. 

The L–DEO seismic survey will not 

result in any permanent impact on 

habitats used by marine mammals, or to 

the food sources they use. The main 

impact issue associated with the 

proposed activity will be temporarily 

elevated noise levels and the associated 

direct effects on marine mammals, as 

described above. The following sections 

briefly review effects of airguns on fish 

and invertebrates, and more details are 

included in L–DEO’s application and 

EA, respectively. 

Subsistence Activities 

There is no legal subsistence hunting 

for marine mammals in the waters of 

Taiwan, China, or the Philippines, so 

the proposed activities will not have 

any impact on the availability of the 

species or stocks for subsistence users. 

Today, Japan still hunts whales and 

dolphins for ‘‘scientific’’ purposes. Up 

until 1990, a drive fishery of false killer 

whales occurred in the Penghu Islands, 

Taiwan, where dozens of whales were 

taken. Although killing and capturing of 

cetaceans has been prohibited in 

Taiwan since August 1990 under the 

Wildlife Conservation Law (Zhou et al., 

1995; Chou, 2004), illegal harpooning 

still occurs (Perrin et al., 2005). Until 

the 1990’s, there was a significant hunt 

of around 200 to 300 dolphins annually 

in the Philippines. Catches included 

dwarf sperm, melon-headed, and shortfinned pilot whales, as well as 

bottlenose, spinner, Fraser’s, and Risso’s 

dolphins (Rudolph and Smeenk, 2002). 

Reports also indicate that perhaps 5 

Bryde’s whales were caught annually 

(Rudolph and Smeenk, 2002), although 

the last Bryde’s whales were caught in 

1996 (Reeves, 2002). Successive bans on 

the harvesting of whales and dolphins 

were issued by the Philippine 

Government during the 1990’s. 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

Mitigation and monitoring measures 

for the seismic survey have been 

developed and refined during previous 

L–DEO seismic studies and associated 

environmental assessments (EAs), IHA 

applications, and IHAs. The mitigation 

and monitoring measures described 

herein represent a combination of 

procedures required by past IHAs for 

other similar projects and on 

recommended best practices in 

Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. 

(1998), and Weir and Dolman (2007). 

The measures are described in detail 

below. 

Mitigation measures that will be 

adopted during the TAIGER survey 

include: 

(1) Speed or course alteration, 

provided that doing so will not 

compromise operational safety 

requirements; 

(2) Power-down procedures; 

(3) Shut-down procedures; 

(4) Ramp-up procedures; 

(5) Temporal and spatial avoidance of 

sensitive species and areas, provided 

that doing so will not compromise 

operational safety requirements (see 

‘‘temporal and spatial avoidance,’’ 

below); 

(6) Special procedures for situations 

or species of particular concern, e.g., 

emergency shutdown procedures if a 

North Pacific right whale, Western 

Pacific gray whale, humpback whale 

mother/calf pairs, Indo-Pacific 

humpback and bottlenose dolphins, and 

finless porpoise are sighted from any 

distance (see ‘‘shut-down procedures’’ 

and ‘‘special procedures for species of 

particular concern’’ below); and 

minimization of approaches to slopes 

and submarine canyons, if possible, 

because of sensitivity for beaked whales; 

and 

(7) Additional mitigation measures 

(see ‘‘additional mitigation measures’’ 

below). The thresholds for estimating 

take are also used in connection with 

mitigation. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

Vessel-based Marine Mammal Visual 

Observers (MMVOs) will be based 

aboard the seismic source vessel and 

will watch for marine mammals near the 

vessel during daytime airgun operations 

and during start-ups of airguns at night. 

MMVOs will also watch for marine 

mammals near the seismic vessel for at 

least 30 minutes prior to the start of 

airgun operations and after an extended 

shutdown of the airguns (i.e., 8 

minutes). When feasible, MMVOs will 

also make observations during daytime 

periods when the seismic system is not 

operating for comparison of sighting 

rates and animal behavior with vs. 

without airgun operations. Based on 

MMVO observations, the airguns will be 

powered-down, or if necessary, shutdown completely (see below), when 

marine mammals are detected within or 

about to enter a designated EZ. The 

MMVOs will continue to maintain 

watch to determine when the animal(s) 

are outside the safety radius, and airgun 

operations will not resume until the 

animal has left that zone. The predicted 

distances for the safety radius are listed 

according to the sound source, water 

depth, and received isopleths in 

Table 1. 

During seismic operations in SE Asia, 

at least four MMOs and one 

bioacoustician will be based aboard the 

Langseth (five total MMOs). MMVOs 

will be appointed by L–DEO with NMFS 

concurrence. At least two MMVOs 

(except during meal times) will monitor 

the EZ from the observation tower for 

marine mammals during ongoing 

daytime operations and nighttime 

startups of the airguns. Three MMOs are 

typically on watch at a time, two on the 

observation tower conducting and the 

third monitoring the PAM equipment. 

Use of two simultaneous MMVOs and 

one bioacoustician will increase the 

effectiveness of detecting animals near 

the sound source. MMVOs typically 

visually observe for one to three hours, 

and MMVOs will be on duty in shifts of 

duration no longer than three hours. 

MMOs and/or the lead bioacoustician 

will monitor the PAM equipment at all 

times in shifts of one to six hours. L– 

DEO has employed a regional expert as 

at least one of the MMOs, and has 

negotiated with experts from National 

Taiwan University, Academia Sinica, 

and the National Taiwan Ocean 

University. L–DEO is carrying an 

additional MMO (six total MMOs), who 

is a Taiwan regional expert from Dr. 

Lien-Siang Chou’s team, during Leg 2 of 

the seismic survey (and during Leg 4 as 

well). The vessel crew will also be 

instructed to assist in detecting marine 

mammals and implementing mitigation 

measures (if practical). Before the start 

of the seismic survey the crew was 

given additional instruction regarding 

how to do so. 

The Langseth is a suitable platform for 

marine mammal observations. When 

stationed on the observation platform, 

the eye level will be approximately 18 

m (58 ft) above sea level, and the 

observer will have a good view around 

the entire vessel. During the daytime, 

the MMVO(s) will scan the area around 

the vessel systematically with reticle 

binoculars (e.g., 7x50 Fujinon), Big-eye 

binoculars (25x150), and with the naked 

eye to avoid eye fatigue. During 

darkness, night vision devices will be 

available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 

binocular-image intensifier or 

equivalent), when required. Laser 

rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 

laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be 

available to assist with distance 

estimation. Those are useful in training 

MMVOs to estimate distances visually, 

but are generally not useful in 

measuring distances to animals directly; 

that is done primarily with the reticles 

on the binocular’s lenses. 

Speed or Course Alteration—If a 

marine mammal is detected outside the 

safety radius and based on its position 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41318 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

and the relative motion, is likely to 

enter the EZ, the vessel’s speed and/or 

direct course may be changed. This 

would be done if practicable while 

minimizing the effect on the planned 

science objectives. The activities and 

movements of the marine mammal(s) 

(relative to the seismic vessel) will then 

be closely monitored to determine 

whether the animal(s) is approaching 

the applicable EZ. If the animal appears 

likely to enter the EZ, further mitigative 

actions will be taken, i.e., either further 

course alterations or a power-down or 

shut-down of the airguns. Typically, 

during seismic operations, major course 

and speed adjustments are often 

impractical when towing long seismic 

streamers and large source arrays, thus 

alternative mitigation measures (see 

below) will need to be implemented. 

Power-down Procedures—A powerdown involves reducing the number of 

airguns in use such that the radius of 

the 180 dB or 190 dB zone is decreased 

to the extent that marine mammals are 

no longer in or about to enter the EZ. A 

power-down of the airgun array can also 

occur when the vessel is moving from 

one seismic line to another. During a 

power-down for mitigation, one airgun 

will be operated. The continued 

operation of one airgun is intended to 

alert marine mammals to the presence of 

the seismic vessel in the area. In 

contrast, a shut-down occurs when all 

airgun activity is suspended. 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the EZ but is likely to enter it, 

and if the vessel’s speed and/or course 

cannot be changed to avoid the 

animal(s) entering the EZ, the airguns 

will be powered down to a single airgun 

before the animal is within the EZ. 

Likewise, if a mammal is already within 

the EZ when first detected, the airguns 

will be powered down immediately. 

During a power-down of the airgun 

array, the 40 in3 airgun will be operated. 

If a marine mammal is detected within 

or near the smaller EZ around that 

single airgun (see Table 1 of L–DEO’s 

application and Table 1 above), all 

airguns will be shut down (see next 

subsection). 

Following a power-down, airgun 

activity will not resume until the marine 

mammal is outside the EZ for the full 

array. The animal will be considered to 

have cleared the EZ if it: 

(1) Is visually observed to have left 

the EZ, or 

(2) Has not been seen within the EZ 

for 15 minutes in the case of species 

with shorter dive durations—small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds; or 

(3) Has not been seen within the EZ 

for 30 minutes in the case of species 

with longer dive durations—mysticetes 

and large odontocetes, including sperm, 

pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and 

beaked whales. 

During airgun operations following a 

power-down (or shut-down) whose 

duration has exceeded the limits 

specified above and subsequent animal 

departures, the airgun array will be 

ramped-up gradually. Ramp-up 

procedures are described below. 

Shut-down Procedures—The 

operating airgun(s) will be shut down if 

a marine mammal is detected within or 

approaching the EZ for a single airgun 

source. Shut-downs will be 

implemented (1) if an animal enters the 

EZ of the single airgun after a powerdown has been initiated, or (2) if an 

animal is initially seen within the EZ of 

a single airgun when more than one 

airgun (typically the full array) is 

operating. Airgun activity will not 

resume until the marine mammal has 

cleared the EZ, or until the MMVO is 

confident that the animal has left the 

vicinity of the vessel. Criteria for 

judging that the animal has cleared the 

EZ will be as described in the preceding 

subsection. 

Considering the conservation status 

for North Pacific right whales and 

Western Pacific gray whales, and IndoPacific humpback dolphins, the 

airgun(s) will be shut-down 

immediately if either of these species 

are observed, regardless of the distance 

from the Langseth. Due to additional 

concerns, shut-downs will also occur for 

visual sightings of humpback whale 

mother/calf pair, Indo-Pacific bottlenose 

dolphins and/or finless porpoises. 

Ramp-up will only begin 30 min after 

the last documented whale visual 

sighting, and 15 min after the last 

documented dolphin/porpoise sighting. 

Ramp-up Procedures—A ramp-up 

procedure will be followed when the 

airgun array begins operating after a 

specified period without airgun 

operations or when a power-down has 

exceeded that period. It is proposed 

that, for the present cruise, this period 

would be approximately 8 minutes. This 

period is based on the largest modeled 

180 dB radius for the 36-airgun array 

(see Table 1 of L–DEO’s application and 

Table 1 here) in relation to the planned 

speed of the Langseth while shooting. 

Similar periods (approximately 7–10 

minutes) were used during previous L– 

DEO surveys. 

Ramp-up will begin with the smallest 

airgun in the array (40 in3). Airguns will 

be added in a sequence such that the 

source level of the array will increase in 

steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5 min 

period over a total duration of 

approximately 35 minutes. During 

ramp-up, the MMVOs will monitor the 

EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, 

a course/speed change, power-down, or 

shut-down will be implemented as 

though the full array were operational. 

If the complete EZ has not been 

visible for at least 30 min prior to the 

start of operations in either daylight or 

nighttime, ramp-up will not commence 

unless at least one airgun (40 in3 or 

similar) has been operating during the 

interruption of seismic survey 

operations. Given these provisions, it is 

likely that the airgun array will not be 

ramped up from a complete shut-down 

at night or in thick fog, because the 

other part of the EZ for that array will 

not be visible during those conditions. 

If one airgun has operated during a 

power down period, ramp-up to full 

power will be permissible at night or in 

poor visibility, on the assumption that 

marine mammals will be alerted to the 

approaching seismic vessel by the 

sounds from the single airgun and could 

move away if they choose. Ramp-up of 

the airguns will not be initiated if a 

marine mammal is sighted within or 

near the applicable EZ during the day or 

close to the vessel at night. 

Temporal and Spatial Avoidance— 

The Langseth will not acquire seismic 

data in the humpback winter 

concentration areas during the early part 

of the seismic program. North Pacific 

humpback whales are known to winter 

and calve around Ogasawara (400 km 

north of the most northerly survey) and 

Ryuku Islands in southern Japan and in 

the Babuyan Islands in Luzon Strait in 

the northern Philippines (Perry et al., 

1999a; Acebes et al., 2007; 

Calambokidis et al., 2008). In the Luzon 

Strait, a small population of humpback 

whales may arrive in the area as early 

as November and leave in May or even 

June, with a peak occurrence during 

February through March or April 

(Acebes et al., 2007). To mitigate against 

the potential effects of the surveys on 

humpback whales, particularly mothers 

and calves on the breeding grounds or 

during the beginning of migration to 

summer feeding grounds, the Langseth 

will avoid these wintering areas at the 

time of peak occurrence, by surveying 

the lines that approach the Babuyan 

Islands as late as possible to Leg 4 (June 

18 to July 20). 

Due to the conservation status of 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins in the 

Taiwan Strait, particularly the central 

western coast off Taiwan’s west coast 

(including the Waishanding Jhou 

sandbar), the cruise tracks will be 

approximately 20 km (12.4 mi) offshore 

to protect this sub-population and 

finless porpoises, as well as to ease 

potential pressure on other coastal 

species. This is consistent with the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41319 

conservative buffer recommended by 

ETSSTAWG in their comments to 

NMFS, ‘‘at least 13 km (8.1 mi) and 

perhaps a more precautionary 15 km 

(9.3 mi) to the ETS Sousa population 

(Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin)— 

meaning up to 20 km from shore’’ to 

minimize the potential of exposing 

these threatened dolphins to SPLs 

greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), 

subject to the limitations imposed by 

other foreign nations. Regarding the 

buffer for the area between the Penghu 

Islands and the Waishanding Jhou 

sandbar, the widest point between the 

closest Penghu island and the sandbar is 

34.2 km (21.3); therefore the mid-line 

for the planned survey is 17.1 km (10.6 

mi). The total distance between Taiwan 

and the Penghu Islands is 

approximately 45 km and the planned 

seismic survey line off the west coast of 

Taiwan is within the territorial sea of 

Taiwan. 

Because of the concerns about 

potential effects of the seismic surveys 

on Western Pacific gray whales 

(wintering areas and migration), IndoPacific humpback dolphins, and finless 

porpoises, the seismic survey lines in 

the South China Sea south of the 

Taiwan Strait have been re-routed so 

that they are now located in water 

depths greater than 200 m (656 ft), as 

recommended by NRDC. Those in the 

Taiwan Strait will be as far east as 

possible from the mainland China side. 

The seismic lines that were proposed in 

the IHA application in the western 

Taiwan Strait have been dropped. 

Because of concerns about potential 

effects of the seismic surveys on coastal 

species and those that frequent the 

continental shelf break and steep slopes 

(e.g., beaked and sperm whales), the 

proposed survey line paralleling the east 

coast of Taiwan (the continental shelf is 

narrow there) has also been moved 

offshore by more than 20 km to decrease 

potential impacts on these species (see 

Figure 1 of L–DEO’s Supplemental EA). 

Procedures for Species of Particular 

Concern—Several species of particular 

concern could occur in the study area. 

Special mitigation procedures will be 

used for these species as follows: 

(1) The airguns will be shut-down if 

a North Pacific right whale, Western 

Pacific gray whale, humpback whale 

mother/calf pair, Indo-Pacific humpback 

and bottlenose dolphin, and/or finless 

porpoise is sighted at any distance from 

the vessel; 

(2) Because of the sensitivity of 

beaked whales, approach to slopes, 

submarine canyons, and other 

underwater geologic features will be 

minimized, if possible, during the 

survey (Figure 1 of L–DEO’s 

application); and 

(3) If visually sighted, avoidance of 

concentrations of humpback, sperm, 

and beaked whales, and dugongs. 

Additional Mitigation Measures 

(1) To the maximum extent 

practicable, L–DEO will schedule 

seismic operations in inshore or shallow 

waters during daylight hours and OBS 

operations to nighttime hours. 

(2) To the maximum extent 

practicable, inshore seismic surveys will 

be conducted from the coast (inshore) 

and proceed towards the sea (offshore) 

in order to avoid trapping marine 

mammals in shallow water. 

(3) NSF and L–DEO have coordinated 

with the governments of Taiwan, Japan, 

and the Philippines regarding the 

marine geophysical activity. 

(4) NMFS expects NSF and L–DEO to 

adhere to conservation laws and 

regulations of nations while in foreign 

waters, and known rules and boundaries 

of Marine Protected Areas (MPA). In the 

absence of local conservation laws and 

regulations or MPA rules, L–DEO will 

continue to use the monitoring and 

mitigation measures identified in the 

IHA. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) 

will take place to complement the visual 

monitoring program, if practicable. 

Visual monitoring typically is not 

effective during periods of poor 

visibility (e.g., bad weather) or at night, 

and even with good visibility, is unable 

to detect marine mammals when they 

are below the surface or beyond visual 

range. Acoustical monitoring can be 

used in addition to visual observations 

to improve detection, identification, 

localization, and tracking of cetaceans. 

The acoustic monitoring will serve to 

alert visual observers (if on duty) when 

vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It is 

only useful when marine mammals call, 

but it can be effective either by day or 

by night and does not depend on good 

visibility. It will be monitored in real 

time so visual observers can be advised 

when cetaceans are detected. When 

bearings (primary and mirror-image) to 

calling cetacean(s) are determined, the 

bearings will be relayed to the visual 

observer to help him/her sight the 

calling animal(s). 

The PAM system consists of hardware 

(i.e., hydrophones) and software. The 

‘‘wet end’’ of the system consists of a 

low-noise, towed hydrophone array that 

is connected to the vessel by a ‘‘hairy’’ 

faired cable. The array will be deployed 

from a winch located on the back deck. 

A deck cable will connect from the 

winch to the main computer lab where 

the acoustic station and signal condition 

and processing system will be located. 

The lead-in from the hydrophone array 

is approximately 400 m (1,312 ft) long, 

and the active part of the hydrophone is 

approximately 56 m (184 ft) long. The 

hydrophone array is typically towed at 

depths less than 20 m (65.6 ft). 

The towed hydrophone array will be 

monitored 24 hours per day while at the 

survey area during airgun operations, 

and also during most periods when the 

Langseth is underway while the airguns 

are not operating. One MMO will 

monitor the acoustic detection system at 

any one time, by listening to the signals 

from two channels via headphones and/ 

or speakers and watching the real time 

spectrographic display for frequency 

ranges produced by cetaceans. MMOs 

monitoring the acoustical data will be 

on shift for 1–6 hours. Besides the 

‘‘visual’’ MMOs, an additional MMO 

with primary responsibility for PAM 

will also be aboard. However, all MMOs 

are expected to rotate through the PAM 

position, although the most experienced 

with acoustics will be on PAM duty 

more frequently. 

When a vocalization is detected, the 

acoustic MMO will, if visual 

observations are in progress, contact the 

MMVO immediately to alert him/her to 

the presence of the cetacean(s) (if they 

have not already been seen), and to 

allow a power down or shutdown to be 

initiated, if required. The information 

regarding the call will be entered into a 

database. The data to be entered include 

an acoustic encounter identification 

number, whether it was linked with a 

visual sighting, date, time when first 

and last heard and whenever any 

additional information was recorded, 

position and water depth when first 

detected, bearing if determinable, 

species or species group (e.g., 

unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), 

types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., 

clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, 

creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, 

etc.), and any other notable information. 

The acoustic detection can also be 

recorded for further analysis. 

L–DEO will coordinate the planned 

marine mammal monitoring program 

associated with the TAIGER seismic 

survey in SE Asia with other parties that 

may have interest in the area and/or be 

conducting marine mammal studies in 

the same region during the proposed 

seismic survey. L–DEO and NSF will 

coordinate with Taiwan, Japan, and the 

Philippines, as well as applicable U.S. 

agencies (e.g., NMFS), and will comply 

with their requirements. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

Reporting 

MMVO Data and Documentation 

MMVOs will record data to estimate 

the numbers of marine mammals 

exposed to various received sound 

levels and to document apparent 

disturbance reactions or lack thereof. 

Data will be used to estimate numbers 

of animals potentially ‘taken’ by 

harassment (as defined in the MMPA). 

They will also provide information 

needed to order a shut-down of the 

seismic source when a marine mammal 

or sea turtle is within or near the EZ. 

When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

will be recorded: 

(1) Species, group size, and age/size/ 

sex categories (if determinable); 

behavior when first sighted and after 

initial sighting; heading (if consistent), 

bearing, and distance from seismic 

vessel; sighting cue; apparent reaction to 

the seismic source or vessel (e.g., none, 

avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.); 

and behavioral pace. 

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. 

The data listed (time, location, etc.) 

will also be recorded at the start and 

end of each observation watch, and 

during a watch whenever there is a 

change in one or more of the variables. 

All observations, as well as 

information regarding seismic source 

shutdown, will be recorded in a 

standardized format. Data accuracy will 

be verified by the MMVOs at sea, and 

preliminary reports will be prepared 

during the field program and summaries 

forwarded to the operating institution’s 

shore facility and to NSF weekly or 

more frequently. MMVO observations 

will provide the following information: 

(1) The basis for decisions about 

powering down or shutting down airgun 

arrays. 

(2) Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

‘taken by harassment.’ These data will 

be reported to NMFS per terms of 

MMPA authorizations or regulations. 

(3) Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted. 

(4) Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 

A report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report will be submitted 

to NMFS, providing full documentation 

of methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day 

report will summarize the dates and 

locations of seismic operations, and all 

marine mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). The report will also 

include estimates of the amount and 

nature of potential ‘‘take’’ of marine 

mammals by harassment or in other 

ways. 

All injured or dead marine mammals 

(regardless of cause) will be reported to 

NMFS as soon as practicable. Report 

should include species or description of 

animal, condition of animal, location, 

time first found, observed behaviors (if 

alive) and photo or video, if available. 

Monitoring to Date 

During Leg 1 of the TAIGER survey, 

L–DEO’s MMOs onboard the Langseth 

have reported four visual sightings and 

four acoustic detections during 

operations in the study area. MMOs 

have visually sighted a group of sperm 

whales (approximately 3 individuals), a 

group of short-finned pilot whales 

(approximately 36 individuals), an 

unidentified toothed whale, and a single 

unidentified sea turtle during the four 

visual sightings. For the four acoustic 

detections made, spectrograms 

resembling known sounds made by 

sperm whales and melon-headed whales 

were recorded during visual 

observations of the sperm whale and 

unidentified toothed whale, 

respectively. Spectrograms resembling a 

call of a melon-headed whale and an 

unidentified whistle were recorded on 

different nights. Two of the visual 

sightings of cetaceans occurred while 

one airgun was in operations and did 

not require additional mitigation action. 

The visual sighting of a group of pilot 

whales occurred during a period of no 

seismic activity. A power-down was 

initiated for the sighting of the single 

unidentified sea turtle. 

During Leg 2 of the TAIGER survey, 

L–DEO’s MMOs onboard the Langseth 

have reported 11 visual sightings and 8 

acoustic detections during operations in 

the study area. No visual or acoustic 

detections were made during week one 

of Leg 2. During week two of the Leg 2, 

MMOs on the Langseth recorded six 

visual sightings of marine mammals (all 

during seismic operations), two of 

which sightings required a power-down. 

MMOs have visually sighted two groups 

of unidentified dolphins, two groups of 

unidentified toothed whales (both 

probable false killer whales), a group of 

pantropical (approximately 100 

individuals), and a group of Fraser’s 

dolphins (approximately 50 

individuals). A total of five acoustic 

detections were of unidentified toothed 

whales and three of unidentified 

dolphins. Only one of those acoustic 

detections was concurrent with a visual 

sighting (unidentified toothed whale). 

During week three of Leg 2, MMOs on 

the Langseth recorded four visual 

sightings of marine mammals (all during 

seismic operations), one of which 

required a power-down. MMOs have 

visually sighted four groups of 

unidentified dolphins (one probably 

bottlenose dolphin group). The groups 

ranged from approximately 12 to 75 

individuals. No acoustic detections 

were made during week three. 

During week four of Leg 2, MMOs on 

the Langseth recorded one visual 

sighting of spinner dolphins 

(approximately 75 individuals), and 

implemented a power-down during the 

sighting. No other sightings were made 

during week four. Three acoustic 

detections of delphinids were made 

during week three, all on the same day. 

No monitoring for marine mammals 

was conducted during Leg 3 of the 

TAIGER survey, as it only consisted of 

OBS operations. During week one of Leg 

4, three marine mammal sightings were 

made. No sightings occurred during 

seismic periods; thus, not shut-downs or 

power-downs of the airgun array were 

required. The sightings included an 

unidentified sea turtle, sperm whales 

(approximately two individuals), melonheaded whales (approximately 20 

individuals), and unidentified dolphins 

(approximately 12 individuals). On June 

23, 2009, two acoustic detections of 

delphinids were made, and another 

delphinid acoustic detection was made 

on June 28, 2009. All acoustic 

detections occurred during seismic 

activity, but none required mitigation 

measures. 

During week one of Leg 4, MMOs on 

the Langseth recorded three marine 

mammal sightings and an unidentified 

sea turtle. No sightings occurred during 

seismic periods; thus, no shut-downs or 

power-downs of the airgun array were 

required. The marine mammal sightings 

included one of sperm whales 

(approximately 2 individuals), a group 

of melon-headed whales (approximately 

20 individuals), and a group of 

unidentified dolphins (approximately 

12 individuals). On June 23, 2009, two 

acoustic detections of delphinids were 

made. On June 28, 2009, an additional 

delphinid acoustic detection was made. 

All acoustic detections occurred during 

seismic activity, but none required 

mitigation measures. 

During week two of Leg 4, MMOs on 

the Langseth recorded two marine 

mammal sightings. Both sightings of 

unidentified dolphins (approximately 2 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 41321 

and 100 individuals) occurred during 

seismic activity, but only one sighting 

required a power-down of the airgun 

array. There were no shut-downs due to 

marine mammal sightings during this 

period. There were four acoustic 

detections, all of which occurred during 

seismic activity. 

During week three of Leg 4, MMOs on 

the Langseth recorded one marine 

mammal sighting. The group of five 

individual sperm whales consisted of 

four adults and one calf. This sighting 

occurred during seismic activity, but 

did not require the implementation of 

any mitigation measures. No acoustic 

detections were made during this 

period. 

During week four of Leg 4, MMOs on 

the Langseth recorded one marine 

mammal sighting. One sighting of 36 

pantropical spotted dolphins (24 adults 

and 12 calves) was made during this 

period. This sighting occurred during 

seismic activity, but did not require the 

implementation of any mitigation 

measures. There were two acoustic 

detections made during this period, 

both of which occurred during seismic 

activity. 

IHA Modifications 

On March 31, 2009, NMFS issued an 

IHA to L–DEO to take small numbers of 

marine mammals incidental to 

conducting a marine geophysical survey 

in SE Asia, under a cooperative 

agreement with NSF, as part of the 

TAIGER program from March–July, 

2009. On April 21, 2009, NMFS 

received a request from L–DEO, asking 

that IHA conditions (10(u) and 10(w)) be 

modified for clarification because as 

currently written, the conditions would 

effectively preclude the complete 

execution of Leg 2—the seismic survey 

line along the west coast of Taiwan. 

Specifically, condition 10(u) only 

allowed the survey to occur if the 

Taiwan Strait were more than 170 km 

wide throughout its entire length or 

only in the southern portion of the area. 

The area between Taixi and Tongshiao, 

which demarcates the primary 

distribution of the ‘critically 

endangered’ (IUCN, 2008) Indo-Pacific 

humpback dolphin Eastern Taiwan 

Strait sub-population, is typically 

narrower than 170 km. L–DEO stated 

that the 150 km distance probably 

originated as an error with an early draft 

of the Supplemental EA. 

Condition 10(w) did not specifically 

address the maintenance of a 

conservative buffer from the Penghu 

Islands and the Waishanding Jhou 

sandbar. Under the modification to 

condition 10(w) the planned seismic 

survey line will only change in the area 

between the Penghu Islands and the 

Waishanding Jhou sandbar. The widest 

point between the closest Penghu island 

and the sandbar is 34.2 km (21.3 mi); 

therefore the mid-line for the planned 

survey is 17.1 km (10.6 mi). The total 

distance between Taiwan and the 

Penghu Islands is approximately 45 km 

and the planned seismic survey line off 

the west coast of Taiwan is within the 

territorial sea of Taiwan. Additionally, 

as requested by L–DEO, distances stated 

in the IHA now include nautical miles 

for navigational purposes. 

In addition, NMFS clarified condition 

10(s). Condition 10(s) needed to be 

modified to more specifically describe 

the geographical area of the Taiwan 

Strait where the first and second legs of 

the TAIGER survey are being conducted. 

Prior to the issuance of the original IHA, 

L–DEO voluntarily dropped the seismic 

survey tracklines in the western Taiwan 

Strait for a number of reasons, including 

concerns about the effects of the surveys 

on Western Pacific gray whales, IndoPacific humpback dolphins, and finless 

porpoises, and because China denied L– 

DEO access to their waters. Condition 

10(s), as modified, better reflects these 

circumstances. 

A copy of the modified IHA can be 

found online at: http:// 

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

taiger_iha_modified.pdf. 

On July 13, 2009, NMFS received a 

request from L–DEO for an additional 16 

authorized takes of sperm whales for the 

remainder of the seismic survey. It is 

unlikely that his many animals will be 

exposed to these sound levels, but with 

the group dynamic for this particular 

species, additional numbers have been 

requested to allow for a chance 

encounter of a large sperm whale group. 

During vessel operations in the TAIGER 

study area, there have been 13 

individual sperm whales sighted in 

three groups. On July 8, 2009, five 

individuals were identified by MMOs to 

have been exposed to sound levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) in the study area. These five 

animals were observed in a single group 

about 2 km (1.24 mi) from the MMO 

observation tower (approximately 2.2 

km [1.37 mi] from the closest airgun) 

onboard the Langseth. These animals 

showed similar movement and 

behavioral responses as those observed 

outside the 160 dB isopleths. L–DEO 

has provided additional sighting data as 

well. Authorized takes of 20 sperm 

whales (0.08 percent of the regional 

population) are included in the IHA 

modified on July 15, 2009. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, NSF 

has consulted with the NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, Endangered 

Species Division on this seismic survey. 

NMFS has also consulted internally 

pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on the 

issuance of an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this 

activity. On March 31, 2009, NMFS 

concluded consultation with NMFS and 

NSF and issued a Biological Opinion 

(BiOp), which concluded that the 

proposed action and issuance of an IHA 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of North Pacific 

right, Western Pacific gray, blue, fin, sei, 

humpback, and sperm whales, and 

leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), 

green (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta), hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), and olive 

ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea 

turtles. The BiOp also concluded that 

designated critical habitat for these 

species does not occur in the action area 

and would not be affected by the survey. 

Relevant Terms and Conditions of the 

Incidental Take Statement in the BiOp 

have been incorporated into the IHA. 

Since NMFS modified the IHA issued 

to L–DEO, a review under Section 7 was 

conducted. On May 1, 2009, NMFS 

concluded that the proposed revisions 

to the IHA would not cause adverse 

effects on species or designated critical 

habitat. Given this, the consultation 

requirements have been met and no 

additional consultation is required for 

the issuance of the revised IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NSF prepared an EA titled ‘‘Marine 

Seismic Survey in Southeast Asia, 

March–July 2009’’ that references L– 

DEO’s EA and Supplemental EA of a 

Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V 

Marcus G. Langseth in Southeast Asia, 

March–July 2009. LGL Limited, 

Environmental Research Associates, 

prepared the EA and Supplemental EA 

on behalf of L–DEO and NSF. NMFS has 

adopted NSF’s EA and issued a Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 

issuance of the IHA. The modification of 

the IHA was within the scope of the 

impacts considered in the EA and used 

to support the FONSI. 

Determinations 

NMFS has determined that the impact 

of conducting the seismic survey in SE 

Asia may result, at worst, in a temporary 

modification in behavior (Level B 

harassment) of small numbers of marine 

mammals. Further, this activity is 

expected to result in a negligible impact 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

41322 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Notices 

on the affected species or stocks. The 

provision requiring that the activity not 

have an unmitigable impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stock for subsistence uses is not 

implicated for this action. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document, this negligible impact 

determination is supported by: 

(1) The likelihood that, given 

sufficient notice through relatively slow 

ship speed, marine mammals are 

expected to move away from a noise 

source that is annoying prior to its 

becoming potentially injurious; 

(2) The fact that marine mammals 

would have to be closer than 40 m (131 

ft) in deep water, 60 m (197 ft) at 

intermediate depths, or 296 m (971 ft) 

in shallow water when a single airgun 

is in use from the vessel to be exposed 

to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to 

have even a minimal chance of causing 

TTS; 

(3) The fact that cetaceans would have 

to be closer than 950 m (0.6 mi) in deep 

water, 1,425 m (0.9 mi) at intermediate 

depths, and 3,694 m (2.3 mi) in shallow 

water when the full array is in use at a 

9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth from the vessel 

to be exposed to levels of sound (180 

dB) believed to have even a minimal 

chance of causing TTS; 

(4) The fact that marine mammals 

would have to be closer than 6,000 m 

(3.7 mi) in deep water, 6,667 m (4.1 mi) 

at intermediate depths, and 8,000 m (4.9 

mi) in shallow water when the full array 

is in use at a 9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth 

from the vessel to be exposed to levels 

of sound (160 dB) believed to have even 

a minimal chance at causing TTS; 

(5) The likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

observers is high at that short distance 

from the vessel; 

(6) The use of PAM, which is effective 

out to tens of km, will assist in the 

detection of vocalizing marine mammals 

at greater distances from the vessel; 

(7) The incorporation of other 

required mitigation measures (i.e., 

ramp-up, power-down, shut-down, 

temporal and spatial avoidance, special 

measures for species of particular 

concern, and additional mitigation 

measures); and 

(8) The relatively limited duration 

and geographically widespread 

distances of the seismic survey in the SE 

Asia study area (approximately 103 

days). As a result, no take by injury or 

death is anticipated, and the potential 

for temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment is very low and will be 

avoided through the incorporation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures. 

While the number of marine 

mammals potentially incidentally 

harassed will depend on the 

distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the survey 

activity, the number of potential 

harassment takings is estimated to be 

small, relative to the affected species 

and stock sizes (less than a few percent 

of any of the estimated population 

sizes), and has been mitigated to the 

lowest level practicable through 

incorporation of the measures 

mentioned previously in this document. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS issued and modified an IHA to 

L–DEO for conducting a marine 

geophysical survey in SE Asia from 

March–July, 2009, including the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–19459 Filed 8–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2