21720 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Notices

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

part 351 (1999).

Background

On February 8, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain malleable cast iron pipe

fittings from Brazil. See Certain

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From

Brazil: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 65

FR 6153 (preliminary results). Indu ́stria

de Fundic ̧ao Tupy Ltda. (Tupy)

submitted its case brief on March 9,

2000. No interested parties submitted

rebuttal briefs. The Department has

conducted this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of certain malleable cast iron

pipe fittings, other than grooved, from

Brazil. In the original antidumping duty

order, these products were classifiable

in the Tariff Schedules of the United

States, Annotated, under item numbers

610.7000 and 610.7400. These products

are currently classifiable under item

numbers 7307.19.00 and 7307.19.90 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS).

The HTSUS item numbers are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comment Received

Comment: Tupy contends that the

Department made a clerical error by

neglecting to convert two variables from

a per-kilogram basis to a per-piece basis.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Tupy and have changed our calculations

so that all prices, revenues, and

expenses are on a per-piece basis.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of the clerical

error comment received, we have

corrected the programming error in our

preliminary results described above.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our analysis of the

correction, we determine a final

weighted-average margin of 0.00 percent

for Tupy for the period May 1, 1998,

through April 30, 1999.

Because the weighted-average

dumping margin is zero, we will

instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate entries made during this

review period without regard to

dumping duties for the subject

merchandise that Tupy exported.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirement

shall be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of review for

all shipments of certain malleable cast

iron pipe fittings from Brazil, entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cashdeposit rate for Tupy will be 0.00

percent; (2) for previously investigated

or reviewed companies not listed above,

the cash-deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this or

any previous reviews or the original

less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash-deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash-deposit rate will continue to be

5.64 percent, the ‘‘all-others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

The deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the

Act.

Dated: April 14, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–10190 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 032800A]

Small Takes of Marine Mammals

Incidental to Specified Activities;

Offshore Seismic Activities in the

Beaufort Sea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application

and proposed authorization for a small

take exemption; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request

from Western Geophysical/Western

Atlas International of Houston, Texas

(Western Geophysical) for an

authorization to take small numbers of

marine mammals by harassment

incidental to conducting seismic

surveys in the Beaufort Sea in state and

Federal waters. Under the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS

is requesting comments on its proposal

to authorize Western Geophysical to

incidentally take, by harassment, small

numbers of bowhead whales and other

marine mammals in the above

mentioned areas during the open water

period of 2000.

DATES: Comments and information must

be received no later than May 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the

application should be addressed to

Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal

Conservation Division, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910–3225. A copy of the application,

the Technical Monitoring Plan, and a

list of references used in this document

may be obtained by writing to this

address or by telephoning one of the

contacts listed here.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead, (301) 713–

2055, ext 128, Brad Smith, (907) 271–

5006.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Notices 21721

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow,

upon request, the incidental, but not

intentional taking of small numbers of

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who

engage in a specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and either regulations are

issued or, if the taking is limited to

harassment, notice of a proposed

authorization is provided to the public

for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS

finds that the taking will have no more

than a negligible impact on the species

or stock(s) and will not have an

unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of the species or stock(s) for

subsistence uses and that the

permissible methods of taking and

requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such taking

are set forth.

On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884),

NMFS published an interim rule

establishing, among other things,

procedures for issuing incidental

harassment authorizations (IHAs) under

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

activities in Arctic waters. For

additional information on the

procedures to be followed for this

authorization, please refer to that

document.

Summary of Request

On February 14, 2000, NMFS received

an application from Western

Geophysical requesting an authorization

for the harassment of small numbers of

several species of marine mammals

incidental to conducting seismic

surveys during the open water season in

the south central Beaufort Sea between

western Camden Bay and Harrison Bay

off Alaska. Weather permitting, the

survey is expected to take place between

approximately July 1 and mid- to lateOctober, 2000. However, only a small

portion of this area will be surveyed this

year. A detailed description of the work

proposed for 2000 is contained in the

application (Western Geophysical, 2000)

which is available upon request (see

ADDRESSES).

Description of Habitat and Marine

Mammals Affected by the Activity

A detailed description of the Beaufort

Sea ecosystem and its associated marine

mammals can be found in several

documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999;

NMFS, 1999; Minerals Management

Service (MMS), 1992, 1996) and does

not need to be repeated here.

Marine Mammals

The Beaufort/Chukchi Seas support a

diverse assemblage of marine mammals,

including bowhead whales (Balaena

mysticetus), gray whales (Eschrichtius

robustus), beluga (Delphinapterus

leucas), ringed seals (Phoca hispida),

spotted seals (Phoca largha) and

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus).

Descriptions of the biology and

distribution of these species and of

others can be found in NMFS (1999),

Western Geophysical (2000), the annual

monitoring reports for seismic surveys

in the Beaufort Sea (LGL Ltd. and

Greeneridge Sciences Inc, 1997, 1998,

and 1999) and several other documents

(Corps of Engineers, 1999; Lentfer, 1988;

MMS, 1992, 1996; Hill et al., 1999).

Please refer to those documents for

information on these species.

Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on

Marine Mammals

Disturbance by seismic noise is the

principal means of taking by this

activity. Support vessels and aircraft

may provide a potential secondary

source of noise. The physical presence

of vessels and aircraft could also lead to

non-acoustic effects on marine

mammals involving visual or other cues. Seismic surveys are used to obtain

data about formations several thousands

of feet deep. The proposed seismic

operation is an ocean bottom cable

(OBC) survey. For this activity, OBC

surveys involve dropping cables from a

ship to the ocean bottom, forming a

patch consisting of 4 parallel cables 8.9

kilometers (km) (5.5 miles (mi)) long,

separated by approximately 600 meters

(m) (1,968 feet (ft)) from each other.

Hydrophones and geophones, attached

to the cables, are used to detect seismic

energy reflected back from underground

rock strata. The source of this energy is

a submerged acoustic source, called a

seismic airgun array, that releases

compressed air into the water, creating

an acoustical energy pulse that is

directed downward toward the seabed.

The source level planned for this

project—a maximum of 247 dB re 1 μPam or 22.3 bar-meters (zero to peak), or

a maximum of 252 dB (re 1 μPa-m or 39

bar-meters (peak-to-peak)—will be from

an airgun array with a air discharge

volume of 1,210 in3. In addition to this

seismic source, Western Geophysical

also plans to use a 40-in3 airgun with a

source level of 210 dB (re 1 μPa-m), a

Sub-bottom Profiler, a Geo-pulse unit,

and two side-scan sonar units, one of

100 kHz and a one of 500 kHz unit.

It is anticipated that the seismic

vessel will sail along pre-plotted source

lines arranged orthogonally to the OBCs.

Each source line will be 5 km (3.1 mi)

long and adjacent source lines will be

approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) apart.

There will be 34 source lines for each

seismic patch. The overall grid of source

lines for a given patch will be 4.7 km

by 16.5 km (2.9 mi by 10.2 mi) and the

source line for one patch will overlap

with those for adjacent patches. Western

Geophysical anticipates completing 18

patches during the 2000 open-water

season.

After sufficient data have been

recorded to allow accurate mapping of

the rock strata, the cables are lifted onto

the deck of a cable-retrieval vessel,

moved to a new location (ranging from

several hundred to a few thousand feet

away), and placed onto the seabed

again. For a more detailed description of

the seismic operation, please refer to

Western Geophysical (2000).

Depending upon ambient noise

conditions and the sensitivity of the

receptor, underwater sounds produced

by open water seismic operations may

be detectable a substantial distance

away from the activity. Any sound that

is detectable is (at least in theory)

capable of eliciting a disturbance

reaction by a marine mammal or of

masking a signal of comparable

frequency (Western Geophysical, 2000).

An incidental harassment take is

presumed to occur when marine

mammals in the vicinity of the seismic

source, the seismic vessel, other vessels,

or aircraft react to the generated sounds

or to visual cues.

Seismic pulses are known to cause

strong avoidance reactions by many of

the bowhead whales occurring within a

distance of a few kilometers, including

changes in surfacing, respiration and

dive cycles, and may sometimes cause

avoidance or other changes in bowhead

behavior at considerably greater

distances (Richardson et al., 1995;

Rexford, 1996; MMS, 1997). Results

from the 1996–1998 BP and Western

Geophysical seismic program

monitoring indicate that most migrating

bowheads deflected seaward to avoid an

area within about 20 km (12.4 mi) of an

active nearshore seismic operation, with

the exception of a few closer sightings

when there was an island or very

shallow water between the seismic

operations and the whales (Miller et al.,

1998, 1999). The available data do not

provide an unequivocal estimate of the

distance at which approaching

bowheads begin to deflect, but this may

be on the order of 35 km (21.7 mi). It

is also uncertain how far beyond (west

of) the seismic operation the seaward

deflection persists (Miller et al., 1999).

Although very few bowheads

approached within 20 km (12.4 mi) of

21722 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Notices

the operating seismic vessel, the number

of bowheads sighted within that area

returned to normal within 12–24 hours

after the airgun operations ended (Miller

et al., 1999). Because recent seismic

work have been conducted in shallow

water, have been limited to a confined

area at any one time, and have

employed smaller arrays of airguns than

those that were often used in the past,

Western Geophysical believes that

avoidance distances around nearshore

seismic operations conducted this year

will likely be less than those around

some of the seismic operations

conducted before 1996.

Although some limited masking of

low-frequency sounds (e.g., whale calls)

is a possibility, the intermittent nature

of seismic source pulses (1 second in

duration every 16 to 24 seconds, less

than 7 percent)) will limit the extent of

masking. Bowhead whales are known to

continue calling in the presence of

seismic survey sounds, and their calls

can be heard between seismic pulses

(Greene et al., 1999, Richardson et al.,

1986). Masking effects are expected to

be absent in the case of belugas, given

that sounds important to them are

predominantly at much higher

frequencies than are airgun sounds

(Western Geophysical, 2000).

Hearing damage is not expected to

occur during the project. It is not

positively known whether the hearing

systems of marine mammals very close

to an airgun would be at risk of

temporary or permanent hearing

impairment, but temporary threshold

shift is a theoretical possibility for

animals within a few hundred meters of

the source (Richardson et al., 1995).

However, planned monitoring and

mitigation measures (described later in

this document) are designed to avoid

sudden onsets of seismic pulses at full

power, to detect marine mammals

occurring near the array, and to avoid

exposing them to sound pulses that

have any possibility of causing hearing

impairment. Moreover, bowhead whales

avoid an area many kilometers in radius

around ongoing seismic operations,

precluding any possibility of hearing

damage.

When the received levels of noise

exceed some behavioral reaction

threshold, cetaceans will show

disturbance reactions. The levels,

frequencies, and types of noise that will

elicit a response vary between and

within species, individuals, locations,

and seasons. Behavioral changes may be

subtle alterations in surface, respiration,

and dive cycles. More conspicuous

responses include changes in activity or

aerial displays, movement away from

the sound source, or complete

avoidance of the area. The reaction

threshold and degree of response are

related to the activity of the animal at

the time of the disturbance. Whales

engaged in active behaviors, such as

feeding, socializing, or mating, are less

likely than resting animals to show

overt behavioral reactions, unless the

disturbance is directly threatening.

Bowhead Whales

Studies conducted prior to 1996

(Reeves et al., 1984, Fraker et al., 1985,

Richardson et al., 1986, Ljungblad et al.,

1988) have reported that, when an

operating seismic vessel approaches

within a few kilometers, most bowhead

whales exhibit strong avoidance

behavior and changes in surfacing,

respiration, and dive cycles. In these

studies, bowheads exposed to seismic

pulses from vessels more than 7.5 km

(4.7 mi) away rarely showed observable

avoidance of the vessel, but their

surface, respiration, and dive cycles

appeared altered in a manner similar to

that observed in whales exposed at a

closer distance (Western Geophysical,

2000). In three studies of bowhead

whales and one of gray whales during

this period, surfacing-dive cycles were

unusually rapid in the presence of

seismic noise, with fewer breaths per

surfacing and longer intervals between

breaths (Richardson et al., 1986; Koski

and Johnson, 1987; Ljungblad et al.,

1988; Malme et al., 1988). This pattern

of subtle effects was evident among

bowheads 6 km to at least 73 km (3.7 to

45.3 mi) from seismic vessels. However,

in the pre-1996 studies, active

avoidance usually was not apparent

unless the seismic vessel was closer

than about 6 to 8 km (3.7 to 5.0

mi)(Western Geophysical, 2000).

Inupiat whalers believe that migrating

bowheads are sometimes displaced at

distances considerably greater than

suggested by pre-1996 scientific studies

(Rexford, 1996) previously mentioned in

this document. Also, whalers believe

that avoidance effects can extend out to

distances on the order of 30 miles, and

that bowheads exposed to seismic also

are ‘‘skittish’’ and more difficult to

approach. The ‘‘skittish’’ behavior may

be related to the observed subtle

changes in the behavior of bowheads

exposed to seismic pulses from distant

seismic vessels (Richardson et al.,

1986).

Gray Whales

The reactions of gray whales to

seismic pulses are similar to those

documented for bowheads during the

1980s. Migrating gray whales along the

California coast were noted to slow their

speed of swimming, turn away from

seismic noise sources, and increase their

respiration rates. Malme et al. (1983,

1984, 1988) concluded that

approximately 50 percent of the

migrating gray whales showed

avoidance when the average received

pulse level was 170 dB (re 1 μPa). By

some behavioral measures, clear effects

were evident at average pulse levels of

160+dB; less consistent results were

suspected at levels of 140–160 dB.

Recent research on migrating gray

whales showed responses similar to

those observed in the earlier research

when the source was moored in the

migration corridor 2 km (1.2 mi) from

shore. However, when the source was

placed offshore (4 km (2.5 mi) from

shore) of the migration corridor, the

avoidance response was not evident on

track plots (Tyack and Clark. 1998).

Beluga

The beluga is the only species of

toothed whale (Odontoceti) expected to

be encountered in the Beaufort Sea.

Belugas have poor hearing thresholds at

frequencies below 200 Hz, where most

of the energy from airgun arrays is

concentrated. Their thresholds at these

frequencies (as measured in a captive

situation), are 125 dB re 1 μPa or more

depending upon frequency (Johnson et

al., 1989). Although not expected to be

significantly affected by the noise, given

the high source levels of seismic pulses,

airgun sounds sometimes may be

audible to beluga at distances of 100 km

(62.1 mi)(Richardson and Wursig, 1997),

and perhaps further if actual lowfrequency hearing thresholds in the

open sea are better than those measured

in captivity (Western Geophysical,

2000). The reaction distance for beluga,

although presently unknown, is

expected to be less than that for

bowheads, given the presumed poorer

sensitivity of belugas than that of

bowheads for low-frequency sounds

(Western Geophysical, 2000).

Ringed, Largha and Bearded Seals

No detailed studies of reactions by

seals to noise from open water seismic

exploration have been published

(Richardson et al., 1995). However,

there are some data on the reactions of

seals to various types of impulsive

sounds (LGL and Greeneridge, 1997,

1998, 1999a; J. Parsons as quoted in

Greene, et al. 1985; Anon., 1975; Mate

and Harvey, 1985). These studies

indicate that ice seals typically either

tolerate or habituate to seismic noise

produced from open water sources.

Underwater audiograms have been

obtained using behavioral methods for

three species of phocinid seals, ringed,

harbor, and harp seals (Pagophilus

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Notices 21723

groenlandicus). These audiograms were

reviewed in Richardson et al. (1995) and

Kastak and Schusterman (1998). Below

30–50 kHz, the hearing threshold of

phocinids is essentially flat, down to at

least 1 kHz, and ranges between 60 and

85 dB (re 1 μPa @ 1 m). There are few

data on hearing sensitivity of phocinid

seals below 1 kHz. NMFS considers

harbor seals to have a hearing threshold

of 70–85 dB at 1 kHz (60 FR 53753,

October 17, 1995), and recent

measurements for a harbor seal indicate

that, below 1 kHz, its thresholds

deteriorate gradually to 97 dB (re 1 μPa

@ 1 m) at 100 Hz (Kastak and

Schusterman, 1998).

While no detailed studies of reactions

of seals from open-water seismic

exploration have been published

(Richardson et al., 1991, 1995), some

data are available on the reactions of

seals to various types of impulsive

sounds (see LGL and Greeneridge, 1997,

1998, 1999a; Thompson et al. 1998).

These references indicate that it is

unlikely that pinnipeds would be

harassed or injured by low frequency

sounds from a seismic source unless

they were within relatively close

proximity of the seismic array. For

permanent injury, pinnipeds would

likely need to remain in the high-noise

field for extended periods of time.

Existing evidence also suggests that,

while seals may be capable of hearing

sounds from seismic arrays, they appear

to tolerate intense pulsatile sounds

without known effect once they learn

that there is no danger associated with

the noise (see, for example, NMFS/

Washington Department of Wildlife,

1995). In addition, they will apparently

not abandon feeding or breeding areas

due to exposure to these noise sources

(Richardson et al., 1991) and may

habituate to certain noises over time.

Since seismic work is fairly common in

Beaufort Sea waters, pinnipeds have

been previously exposed to seismic

noise and may not react to it after initial

exposure.

For a discussion on the anticipated

effects of ships, boats, and aircraft on

marine mammals and their food

sources, please refer to the application

(Western Geophysical, 2000).

Information on these effects is

preliminarily adopted by NMFS as the

best information available on this

subject.

Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected

to Be Taken

Western Geophysical estimates that

the following numbers of marine

mammals may be subject to Level B

harassment, as defined in 50 CFR 216.3:

Species Population

Size

Harassment Takes in

2000

Possible Probable

Bowhead 8,200

160 dB criterion - 1,020 <500

20 km criterion - 2,500 1,275

Gray whale 26,600 <10 0

Beluga 39,258 250 <150

Ringed seal* 1-1.5 million 400 <200

Spotted seal* >200,000 10 <2

Bearded seal* >300,000 50 <15

* Some individual seals may be harassed more than once

Effects of Seismic Noise and Other

Activities on Subsistence Needs

The disturbance and potential

displacement of marine mammals by

sounds from seismic activities are the

principle concerns related to

subsistence use of the area. The harvest

of marine mammals (mainly bowhead

whales, but also ringed and bearded

seals) is central to the culture and

subsistence economies of the coastal

North Slope communities. In particular,

if migrating bowhead whales are

displaced farther offshore by elevated

noise levels, the harvest of these whales

could be more difficult and dangerous

for hunters. The harvest could also be

affected if bowheads become more

skittish when exposed to seismic noise.

Nuiqsut is the community closest to

the area of the proposed activity, and it

harvests bowhead whales only during

the fall whaling season. In recent years,

Nuiqsut whalers typically take two to

four whales each season (Western

Geophysical, 2000). Nuiqsut whalers

concentrate their efforts on areas north

and east of Cross Island, generally in

water depths greater than 20 m

(65 ft). Cross Island, the principle

field camp location for Nuiqsut whalers,

is located within the general area of the

proposed 2000 seismic area. Thus, the

possibility and timing of potential

seismic operations in the Cross Island

area requires Western Geophysical to

provide NMFS with either a Plan of

Cooperation with North Slope Borough

residents or measures that have been or

will be taken to avoid any unmitigable

adverse impact on subsistence needs.

Western Geophysical’s application has

identified those measures that will be

taken to minimize any adverse effect on

subsistence. In addition, the timing of

seismic operations in and east of the

Cross Island area will be addressed in a

Conflict and Avoidance Agreement

(C&AA) with the Nuiqsut whalers and

the AEWC (Western Geophysical, 2000).

Whalers from the village of Kaktovik

search for whales east, north, and west

of the village. Kaktovik is located 60 km

(37.3 mi) east of the easternmost end of

Western Geophysical’s planned 2000

seismic exploration area. The

westernmost reported harvest location

was about 21 km (13 mi) west of

Kaktovik, near 70°10 N′, 144° W

(Kaleak, 1996). That site is

approximately 40 km (24.7 mi) east of

the closest part of Western

Geophysical’s planned seismic

exploration area for 2000 (Western

Geophysical, 2000).

Whalers from the village of Barrow

search for bowhead whales much

further from the planned seismic area,

>200 km (>125 mi) west (Western

Geophysical, 2000).

The location of the proposed seismic

activity is south of the center of the

westward migration route of bowhead

whales, but there is some overlap.

Seismic monitoring results from 1996–

1998 indicate that most bowheads avoid

the area within about 20 km (12.4 mi)

around the array when it is operating,

and some avoid the area within 30 km

(18.6 mi). In addition, bowheads may be

able to hear the sounds emitted by the

seismic array out to a distance of 50 km

(31.1 mi) or more, depending on the

ambient noise level and the efficiency of

sound propagation along the path

between the seismic vessel and the

whale (Miller et al., 1997.

Western Geophysical (2000) believes

it is unlikely that changes in migration

21724 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Notices

route will occur at distances greater

than 25 km (15.5 mi) from an array of

maximum volume of 1,210 in3 operating

in water less than 30 m (100 ft) deep.

However, subtle changes in behavior

might occur out to longer distances.

Inupiat whalers believe that bowheads

begin to divert from their normal

migration path more than 35 miles away

(MMS, 1997).

It is recognized that it is difficult to

determine the maximum distance at

which reactions occur (Moore and

Clark, 1992). As a result, Western

Geophysical will participate in a C&AA

with the whalers to reduce any potential

interference with the hunt. Also, it is

believed that the monitoring plan

proposed by Western Geophysical

(2000) will provide information that

will help resolve uncertainties about the

effects of seismic exploration on the

accessibility of bowheads to hunters.

Many Nuiqsut hunters hunt seals

intermittently year round. However,

during recent years, most seal hunting

has been during the early summer in

open water. In summer, boat crews hunt

ringed, spotted, and bearded seals. The

most important sealing area for Nuiqsut

hunters is off the Colville delta,

extending as far west as Fish Creek and

as far east as Pingok Island. This area

overlaps with the westernmost portion

of the planned seismic area. In this area,

during summer, sealing occurs by boat

when hunters apparently concentrate on

bearded seals. However, these

subsistence hunters have not perceived

any interference between recent openwater seismic activities in the Alaskan

Beaufort Sea. Therefore, because

Western Geophysical is proposing

similar mitigation and consultation

procedures this year, it is unlikely that

seismic activities would have more than

a negligible impact on Nuiqsut seal

hunting.

Mitigation

For the second year, Western

Geophysical will reduce its airgun array

from the 1,500 in3 used in 1998 to 1,210

in3. This reduction in source level will

result in lower received levels and,

therefore, smaller safety ranges and

fewer takes by harassment than those in

1998. However, because the 1,210 in3

array is a subset (with some minor

variations) of the 1,500 in3 array (with

four guns not firing), NMFS again this

year proposes to limit Western

Geophysical’s active airguns so that they

do not exceed a capacity of 1,210 in3

during the 2000 open water seismic

survey.

Vessel-based observers will monitor

marine mammal presence in the vicinity

of the seismic array throughout the

seismic program. To avoid the potential

for injury to seals, Western Geophysical

proposes to immediately power down

the seismic source if seals are sighted

within the area delineated by the 190 dB

isopleth. In water depth less than 10 m

(33 ft), Western Geophysical will

establish safety zones 240 m (787.4 ft)

from the array when the array is

operating at 5 m (16.4 ft) depth and 90

m (295.3 ft) from the array when it is

operating at 2.3 m (7.5 ft) depth. In

water depth greater than 10 m (33 ft),

Western Geophysical will establish

safety zones 260 m (853 ft) from the

array when the array is operating at 5 m

(16.4 ft) depth and 150 m (492 ft) from

the array when it is operating at 2.3 m

(7.5 ft) depth.

To avoid the potential for injury to

whales, Western Geophysical will

immediately power down the seismic

source if bowhead, gray, or beluga

whales are sighted within the area

delineated by the 180 dB isopleth. In

water depth less than 10 m (33 ft),

Western Geophysical will establish

safety zones 750 m (2,460.6 ft) from the

array when the array is operating at 5 m

(16.4 ft) depth and 360 m (1,181.1 ft)

from the array when it is operating at

2.3 m (7.5 ft) depth. In water depth

greater than 10 m (33 ft), Western

Geophysical will establish safety zones

1000 m (3281 ft) from the array when

the array is operating at 5 m (16.4 ft)

depth and 600 m (1968.5 ft) from the

array when it is operating at 2.3 m (7.5

ft) depth.

Different safety radii will be

established for shallow-hazard survey

operations. Received levels of sounds

from a single 40 in3 airgun operating at

a depth of 1 m (3 ft) are expected to

diminish below 190 and 180 dB (re 1

μPa RMS) at distances of 22 m (72.2 ft),

and 100 m (328.1 ft), respectively. These

estimates are based on extensive

measurements of sounds from

operations with a single airgun and a

small array of airguns in the same area

during 1996–97 (Western Geophysical,

2000). Because the GeoPulse and the

sub-bottom profiler will normally be

operated simultaneously with the

airgun, and, because these units are less

powerful than the airgun, separate

safety zones do not need to be

established for them. As previously

done, operations using these sources

will be terminated whenever a seal or

whale enters its respective safety zone.

Within the first 10 days of Beaufort

Sea operations in 2000, Western

Geophysical will measure and analyze

the sounds from Western’s 2000 array

operating at both 5 m (16.4 ft) and 2 m

(6.6 ft) depths. This information will be

provided to NMFS, along with the

contractor’s recommendation as to

whether any adjustments in the safety

radii are needed to meet the 190 and

180 dBrms shutdown criteria.

In addition, Western Geophysical

proposes to ramp-up the 1,210 in3

seismic source to operating levels at a

rate no greater than 6 dB/min anytime

the array has not been firing for 1

minute at a vessel speed of 4 to 8 knots

and 2 minutes at a vessel speed of 3

knots or slower. Ramp-up will begin

with an air volume discharge not

exceeding 80 in3 with additional guns

added at intervals appropriate to limit

the rate of increase to 6 dB/min. No

ramp-up is proposed for the smaller

acoustic sources.

Monitoring

As part of its application, Western

Geophysical provided a monitoring plan

for assessing impacts to marine

mammals from seismic surveys in the

Beaufort Sea. This monitoring plan is

described in Western Geophysical

(2000) and in LGL Ltd. (2000). As

required by the MMPA, this monitoring

plan will be subject to a peer-review

panel of technical experts prior to

formal acceptance by NMFS.

Western Geophysical plans to conduct

the following monitoring:

Vessel-based Visual Monitoring

It is proposed that one or two marine

mammal observers aboard the seismic

vessel will search for and observe

marine mammals whenever seismic

operations are in progress and for at

least 30 minutes before the planned start

of seismic transmissions. These

observers will scan the area

immediately around the vessels with

reticle binoculars during the daytime.

Laser rangefinding binoculars will be

available to assist with distance

estimation. After mid-August, when the

duration of darkness increases, image

intensifiers will be used by observers

and additional light sources will be

used to illuminate the safety zone (see

application for more detail).

A total of four observers (three trained

biologists and one Inupiat observer/

communicator) will be based aboard the

seismic vessel. As in 1999, the use of

four observers is an increase over the

three observers used in 1998 and will

allow two observers to be on duty

simultaneously for up to 50 percent of

the active airgun hours. The use of two

observers will increase the probability

of detecting marine mammals, and two

observers will be required to be on duty

whenever the seismic array is ramped

up. Individual watches will normally be

limited to no more than 4 consecutive

hours.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Notices 21725

When mammals are detected within

or about to enter the safety zone

designated to prevent injury to the

animals (see Mitigation), the

geophysical crew leader will be notified

so that shutdown procedures can be

implemented immediately.

Aerial Surveys

Between September 1, 2000, until 1

day after the OBC seismic operations

end or until September 15 (whichever

comes first), aerial survey flights for

bowhead whale assessments are

proposed to be undertaken by Western

Geophysical. If OBC seismic work is

suspended during the bowhead

subsistence hunting season, but resumes

later in the autumn, aerial surveys will

commence (or resume) when OBC

seismic work resumes. Western

Geophysical proposes to continue aerial

surveys either until 1 day after OBC

seismic work ends, or until a total of 15

days of aerial surveys have been

conducted during September–October

2000, whichever comes first. It should

be noted that the proposed duration for

aerial surveys would be a reduction

from previous years. Western

Geophysical believes this reduction is

appropriate because some of the main

questions about disturbance to bowhead

whales from a nearshore seismic

operation have been answered through

the 1996–1998 monitoring projects. In

addition, MMS expects to conduct its

broad-scale aerial survey work from

approximately 31 August until the end

of the bowhead migration in October.

Western Geophysical believes that this

combined aerial survey data will

provide sufficient information to

estimate the numbers of bowheads taken

by harassment.

The primary objective of the aerial

surveys will be to document the

occurrence, distribution, and

movements of bowhead, as well as

beluga and gray, whales in, and near,

the area where they might be affected by

the seismic pulses. These observations

will be used to estimate the level of

harassment takes and to assess the

possibility that seismic operations affect

the accessibility of bowhead whales for

subsistence hunting. Pinnipeds will be

recorded when seen, although survey

altitude will be too high for systematic

surveys of seals.

Western Geophysical proposes to fly

at 300 m (1,000 ft) in areas where no

whaling is underway, but it may reduce

that altitude to no less than 274 m (900

ft) under low cloud conditions. In

addition, surveys will be flown at 457

m (1500 ft) altitude over areas where

whaling is occurring on that date and

will avoid direct overflights of

whaleboats and Cross Island, where

whalers from Nuiqsut are based during

their fall whale hunt.

The daily aerial surveys are proposed

to cover a grid of 18 north-south lines

spaced 8 km (5 mi) apart and will

extend seaward to about the 100 m (328

ft) depth contour (typically about 65 km

(40.4 mi) offshore. This grid will extend

from about 40 km (24.8 mi) east to 40

km (24.8 mi) west of the area in which

seismic operations are underway on that

date. This design will provide extended

coverage to the west to determine the

westward extent of the offshore

displacement of whales by seismic. In

2000, no ‘‘intensive’’ grid surveys are

planned to be conducted by Western

Geophysical because very few whales

occur within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the

seismic operation.

Detailed information on the survey

program can be found in Western

Geophysical (2000) and in LGL Ltd.

(2000), which are incorporated in this

document by citation.

Acoustical Measurements

The acoustic measurement program

proposed for 2000 is designed to be

continue work conducted in 1996

through 1999 (see LGL and Greeneridge

Sciences Inc., 1997, 1998, 1999). The

acoustic measurement program is

planned to include (1) vessel-based

hydrophone measurements, (2) use of

air-dropped sonobuoys during OBC

operations in September and October,

and (3) bottom-mounted acoustical

recorders.

(1) If shallow-water hazards surveys

are conducted, a vessel-based acoustical

measurement program is proposed for a

few days early in that program. The

objectives of this survey will be as

follows: (a) To measure the levels and

other characteristics of the horizontally

propagating sounds from the single

airgun, GeoPulse, and sub-bottom

profiler to be used in 2000 as a function

of distance relative to the source and (b)

to measure the levels and frequency

composition of the vessel sounds

emitted by vessels used regularly during

Western’s 2000 program in those cases

where these vessels have not previously

been measured adequately.

(2) Sonobuoys will be dropped and

monitored from survey aircraft during

September/October (if the seismic

operations are continuing at that time).

Sonobuoys will provide data on

characteristics of seismic pulses (and

signal-to-ambient ratios) at offshore

locations, including some of the specific

places where bowhead whales are

observed.

(3) Autonomous seafloor acoustic

recorders will be placed on the sea

bottom at three locations to record lowfrequency sounds continuously over an

extended period of time (if seismic

operations extend into September/

October). The objective is to obtain

continuous records of seismic sound

pulses, ambient noise, and bowhead

calls.

For a more detailed description of

planned monitoring activities, please

refer to the application and the

Technical Monitoring Plan (Western

Geophysical, 2000; LGL Ltd., 2000).

Estimates of Marine Mammal Take

Estimates of takes by harassment will

be made through vessel and aerial

surveys. Preliminarily, Western

Geophysical will estimate the number of

(a) marine mammals observed within

the area ensonified strongly by the

seismic vessel; (b) marine mammals

observed showing apparent reactions to

seismic pulses (e.g., heading away from

the seismic vessel in an atypical

direction); (c) marine mammals subject

to take by type (a) or (b) when no

monitoring observations were possible;

and (d) bowheads displaced seaward

from the main migration corridor.

Reporting

Western Geophysical will provide an

initial report on 2000 activities to NMFS

within 90 days of the completion of the

seismic program. This report will

provide dates and locations of seismic

operations, details of marine mammal

sightings, estimates of the amount and

nature of all takes by harassment, and

any apparent effects on accessibility of

marine mammals to subsistence users.

A final technical report will be

provided by Western Geophysical

within 20 working days of receipt of the

document from the contractor, but no

later than April 30, 2001. The final

technical report will contain a

description of the methods, results, and

interpretation of all monitoring tasks.

Consultation

Under section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA), NMFS completed an

informal consultation on the issuance of

an IHA for similar activities on July 26,

1999. If an authorization to incidentally

harass listed marine mammals is issued

under the MMPA for this activity,

NMFS will issue an Incidental Take

Statement under section 7 of the ESA.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)

In conjunction with the 1996 notice of

proposed authorization (61 FR 26501,

May 28, 1996) for open water seismic

operations in the Beaufort Sea, NMFS

released an EA that addressed the

21726 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Notices

impacts on the human environment

from issuance of the authorization and

the alternatives to the proposed action.

No comments were received on that

document and, on July 18, 1996, NMFS

concluded that neither implementation

of the proposed authorization for the

harassment of small numbers of several

species of marine mammals incidental

to conducting seismic surveys during

the open water season in the U.S.

Beaufort Sea nor the alternatives to that

action would significantly affect the

quality of the human environment. As a

result, the preparation of an

environmental impact statement on this

action is not required by section 102(2)

of NEPA or its implementing

regulations.

In 1999, NMFS determined that a new

EA was warranted based on the

proposed construction of the Northstar

project, the collection of data from 1996

through 1998 on Beaufort Sea marine

mammals and the impacts of seismic

activities on these mammals, and the

analysis of scientific data indicating that

bowheads avoid nearshore seismic

operations by up to about 20 km (12.4

mi). Accordingly, a review of the

impacts expected from the issuance of

an IHA has been assessed in both the EA

and in this document, and NMFS has

determined that there will be no more

than a negligible impact on marine

mammals from the issuance of the

harassment authorization and that there

will not be any unmitigable impacts to

subsistence communities, provided the

mitigation measures required under the

authorization are implemented. As a

result, NMFS determined that neither

implementation of the authorization for

the harassment of small numbers of

several species of marine mammals

incidental to conducting seismic

surveys during the open water season in

the U.S. Beaufort Sea nor the

alternatives to that action would

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. As a result, the

preparation of additional NEPA

documentation on this action is not

required by section 102(2) of NEPA or

by its implementing regulations.

Conclusions

NMFS has preliminarily determined

that the short-term impact of conducting

seismic surveys in the U.S. Beaufort Sea

will result, at worst, in a temporary

modification in behavior by certain

species of cetaceans and possibly by

pinnipeds. While behavioral

modifications may be made by these

species to avoid the resultant noise, this

behavioral change is expected to have a

negligible impact on the animals.

While the number of potential

incidental harassment takes will depend

on the distribution and abundance of

marine mammals (which vary annually

due to variable ice conditions and other

factors) in the area of seismic

operations, due to the distribution and

abundance of marine mammals during

the projected period of activity and the

location of the proposed seismic activity

in waters generally too shallow and

distant from the edge of the pack ice for

most marine mammals of concern, the

number of potential harassment takings

is estimated to be small. In addition, no

take by injury and/or death is

anticipated, and the potential for

temporary or permanent hearing

impairment will be avoided through the

incorporation of the mitigation

measures mentioned in this document.

No rookeries, mating grounds, areas of

concentrated feeding, or other areas of

special significance for marine

mammals occur within or near the

planned area of operations during the

season of operations.

Because bowhead whales are east of

the seismic area in the Canadian

Beaufort Sea until late August/early

September, seismic activities are not

expected to impact subsistence hunting

of bowhead whales prior to that date.

Between September 1, 2000, until 1 day

after the OBC seismic operations end or

until September 15 (whichever comes

first), aerial survey flights for bowhead

whale assessments are proposed to be

undertaken by Western Geophysical. If

OBC seismic work is suspended during

the bowhead subsistence hunting

season, but resumes later in the autumn,

aerial surveys will commence (or

resume) when OBC seismic work

resumes. Western Geophysical proposes

to continue aerial surveys either until 1

day after OBC seismic work ends, or

until a total of 15 days of aerial surveys

have been conducted during

September–October 2000, whichever

comes first. It should be noted that the

proposed duration for aerial surveys

would be a reduction from previous

years. Western Geophysical believes this

reduction is appropriate because some

of the main questions about disturbance

to bowhead whales from a nearshore

seismic operation have been answered

through the 1996–1998 monitoring

projects. In addition, MMS expects to

conduct its broad-scale aerial survey

work from approximately August 31

until the end of the bowhead migration

in October. Western Geophysical

believes that this combined aerial

survey data will provide sufficient

information to estimate the numbers of

bowheads taken by harassment.

Appropriate mitigation measures to

avoid an unmitigable adverse impact on

the availability of bowhead whales for

subsistence needs will be the subject of

consultation between Western

Geophysical and subsistence users.

Also, while open-water seismic

exploration in the U.S. Beaufort Sea has

some potential to influence seal hunting

activities by residents of Nuiqsut,

because (1) the peak sealing season is

during the winter months, (2) the main

summer sealing is off the Colville Delta,

and (3) the zone of influence by seismic

sources on beluga and seals is fairly

small, NMFS believes that Western

Geophysical’s seismic survey will not

have an unmitigable adverse impact on

the availability of these stocks for

subsistence uses.

Proposed Authorization

NMFS proposes to issue an IHA for

the 2000 Beaufort Sea open water

season for a seismic survey, provided

the previously mentioned mitigation,

monitoring, and reporting requirements

are incorporated. NMFS has

preliminarily determined that the

proposed seismic activity would result

in the harassment of only small

numbers of bowhead whales, beluga

whales, ringed seals, bearded seals, and

possibly spotted seals and gray whales;

would have no more than a negligible

impact on these marine mammal stocks;

and would not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of

marine mammal stocks for subsistence

uses.

Information Solicited

NMFS requests interested persons to

submit comments, and information,

concerning this request (see ADDRESSES).

Dated: April 17, 2000.

Donald R. Knowles,

Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10156 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Availability of Funds for Grants to

Support New Senior Companion

Projects

AGENCY: Corporation for National and

Community Service.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds.

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National

and Community Service (hereinafter,

the ‘‘Corporation’’) announces the

availability of approximately $1,000,000

for grants to support five new Senior