Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49737 

Education Division at the address listed 

above. The request should set forth the 

specific reasons why a hearing on this 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Morse or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 

427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject amendment to Permit No. 15471 

is requested under the authority of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and 

the regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216). 

Permit No. 15471 (issued on August 

23, 2010; 75 FR 52721), authorizes the 

permit holder to import biological 

samples taken for scientific research 

from South American fur seals 

(Arctocephalus australis). Unlimited 

samples from up to 200 salvaged 

carcasses and live female and pup South 

American fur seals may be received, 

imported, or exported annually. No live 

animals can be harassed or taken, 

lethally or otherwise, under the permit. 

The permit expires on August 31, 2015. 

The permit holder is requesting the 

permit be amended to increase the total 

number of individuals and include 

samples from male South American fur 

seals. In addition, the permit holder is 

requesting to add adult and pup South 

American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) 

from which unlimited samples could be 

received, imported, or exported. No live 

animals would be harassed or taken, 

lethally or otherwise, under the 

requested amendment. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of this 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20458 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA430 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the CentralWestern Bering Sea, August 2011 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

take authorization (ITA). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulation, notification is 

hereby given that NMFS has issued an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) to take marine mammals, by 

Level B harassment, incidental to 

conducting a marine geophysical survey 

in the central-western Bering Sea, 

August 2011. 

DATES: Effective August 7 through 

October 1, 2011. 

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 

or by telephoning the contacts listed 

here. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the above address, telephoning the 

contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or visiting the 

Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

The following associated documents are 

also available at the same Internet 

address: Environmental Assessment 

(EA), prepared by USGS. The NMFS 

Biological Opinion will be available 

online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

consultation/opinions.htm. Documents 

cited in this notice may be viewed, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian D. Hopper, 301–427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1371 (a)(5)(D)) directs the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to 

authorize, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals of a 

species or population stock, by United 

States citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and, if the 

taking is limited to harassment, a notice 

of a proposed authorization is provided 

to the public for review. 

Authorization for the incidental 

taking of small numbers of marine 

mammals shall be granted if NMFS 

finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant). The 

authorization must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking, other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the species or stock 

and its habitat, and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings. 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 United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. 

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

establishes a 45-day time limit for 

NMFS’s 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 public comment period, NMFS 

must either issue or deny the 

authorization. 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) 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received an application on 

April 8, 2011, from USGS for the taking 

by harassment, of marine mammals, 

incidental to conducting a marine 

geophysical survey in the centralVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:59 Aug 10, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49738 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

western Bering Sea within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 

adjacent international waters in depths 

greater than 3,000 m (9,842 ft). USGS 

plans to conduct the survey from 

approximately August 7 to September 1, 

2011. On June 8, 2011, NMFS published 

a notice in the Federal Register (76 FR 

33246) discussing the effects on marine 

mammals and making preliminary 

determinations regarding a proposed 

IHA. The notice initiated a 30 day 

public comment period, which closed 

on July 8, 2011. 

USGS plans to use one source vessel, 

the R/V Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth) 

and a seismic airgun array to collect 

seismic reflection and refraction profiles 

to be used to delineate the U.S. 

Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) in the 

central-western Bering Sea. In addition 

to the operations of the seismic airgun 

array, USGS intends to operate a 

multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a 

sub-bottom profiler (SBP) continuously 

throughout the survey. 

Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased 

underwater sound) generated during the 

operation of the seismic airgun array 

may have the potential to cause a shortterm behavioral disturbance for marine 

mammals in the survey area. This is the 

principal means of marine mammal 

taking associated with these activities 

and USGS has requested an 

authorization to take 12 species of 

marine mammals by Level B 

harassment. Take is not expected to 

result from the use of the MBES or SBP, 

for reasons discussed in this notice; nor 

is take expected to result from collision 

with the vessel because it is a single 

vessel moving at a relatively slow speed 

during seismic acquisition within the 

survey, for a relatively short period of 

time (approximately 21 days). It is likely 

that any marine mammal would be able 

to avoid the vessel. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

USGS plans to conduct the seismic 

survey in the central-western Bering Sea 

between approximately 350 and 800 

kilometers (km) (189 and 432 nautical 

miles (nmi)) offshore in the area 55° to 

58.5° North, 177° West to 175° East. The 

survey will take place in the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 

adjacent international waters in water 

depths greater than 3,000 meters (m) 

(9,842 feet (ft)). The project is scheduled 

to occur from approximately August 7 to 

September 1, 2011. Some minor 

deviation from these dates is possible, 

depending on logistics and weather. 

The seismic survey will collect 

seismic reflection and refraction profiles 

to be used to delineate the U.S. ECS in 

the Bering Sea. The ECS is the region 

beyond 200 nmi where a nation can 

show that it satisfies the conditions of 

Article 76 of the United Nations 

Convention on the Law of the Sea. One 

of the conditions in Article 76 is a 

function of sediment thickness. The 

seismic profiles are designed to identify 

the stratigraphic ‘‘basement’’ and to map 

the thickness of the overlying 

sediments. Acoustic velocities (required 

to convert measured travel times to true 

depth) will be measured directly using 

sonobuoys and ocean-bottom 

seismometers (OBSs), as well as by 

analysis of hydrophone streamer data. 

Acoustic velocity refers to the velocity 

of sound through sediments or crust. 

The survey will involve one source 

vessel, the Langseth. The Langseth will 

deploy an array of 36 airguns as an 

energy source. The receiving system 

will consist of one 8 km (4.3 nmi) long 

hydrophone streamer and/or five OBSs. 

As the airgun 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 planned seismic survey will 

consist of approximately 2,240 km of 

transect lines in the central-western 

Bering Sea survey area, with an 

additional 140 km (75.6 nmi) of turns. 

During turns, the array will be powereddown to one 40 in3 airgun. All of the 

survey will take place in water deeper 

than 3,000 m (9,842 ft). A multi-channel 

seismic (MCS) survey using the 

hydrophone streamer will take place 

along 14 lines. Following the MCS 

survey, 18 OBSs will be deployed and 

a refraction survey will take place along 

three of the 14 lines. If time permits, an 

additional 525 km of contingency lines 

will be added to the MCS survey. In 

addition to the the airgun array, a 

Kongsberg EM 122 MBES and Knudsen 

320B SBP will be operated from the 

Langseth continuously throughout the 

cruise. There will be additional seismic 

operations associated with equipment 

testing, start-up, and possible line 

changes or repeat coverage of any areas 

where initial data quality is substandard. In USGS’s calculations, 25 

percent has been added for those 

additional operations. 

All planned geophysical data 

acquisition activities will be conducted 

by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 

(L–DEO), the Langseth’s operator, with 

on-board assistance by the scientists 

who have planned the study. The 

Principal Investigators are Drs. Jonathan 

R. Childs and Ginger Barth of the USGS. 

The vessel will be self-contained, and 

the crew will live aboard the vessel for 

the entire cruise. 

Description of the Dates, Duration, and 

Specified Geographic Region 

The survey will occur in the centralwestern Bering Sea between 

approximately 350 and 800 kilometers 

(km) (189 and 432 nautical miles (nmi)) 

offshore in the area 55° to 58.5° North, 

177° West to 175° East. The seismic 

survey will take place in water depths 

greater than 3,000 m. The exact dates of 

the activities depend on logistics and 

weather conditions. The Langseth will 

depart from Dutch Harbor, Alaska on 

August 7, 2011, and return there on 

September 1, 2011. Seismic operations 

will be carried out for an estimated 18 

to 21 days. 

NMFS outlined the purpose of the 

program in a previous notice for the 

proposed IHA (76 FR 33246, June 8, 

2011). The activities to be conducted 

have not changed between the proposed 

IHA notice and this final notice 

announcing the issuance of the IHA. For 

a more detailed description of the 

authorized action, including vessel and 

acoustic source specifications, the 

reader should refer to the proposed IHA 

notice (76 FR 33246, June 8, 2011), the 

IHA application and associated 

documents referenced above this 

section. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of the USGS 

application and proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33246). During the 

30-day public comment period, NMFS 

only received comments from the 

Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission). The Commission’s 

comments are online at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. Following are their 

comments and NMFS’s responses: 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that the NMFS require the 

USGS to re-estimate the proposed 

exclusion and buffer zones and 

associated takes of marine mammals 

using site-specific information. 

Response: In the water depths that the 

survey is to be conducted, site-specific 

source signature measurements are 

neither warranted nor practical. Site 

signature measurements are normally 

conducted commercially by shooting a 

test pattern over an ocean bottom 

instrument in shallow water. This 

method is neither practical nor valid in 

water depths as great as 3,000 m 

(9,842.5 ft). The alternative method of 

conducting site-specific attenuation 

measurements would require a second 

vessel, which is impractical both 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49739 

logistically and financially. Sound 

propagation varies noticeably less 

between deep water sites than between 

shallow water sites (because of the 

reduced significance of bottom 

interaction), thus decreasing the 

importance of site-specific estimates. 

Based on these reasons, and the 

information provided by USGS in their 

IHA application and EA, NMFS is 

satisfied that the data supplied are 

sufficient for NMFS to conduct its 

analysis and make any determinations; 

therefore, no further effort is needed by 

the applicant. While exposures of 

marine mammals to acoustic stimuli are 

difficult to estimate, NMFS is confident 

that the levels of take authorized herein 

are estimated based upon the best 

available scientific information and 

estimation methodology. The 160 dB 

zone used to estimate exposure is 

appropriate and sufficient for purposes 

of supporting NMFS’s analysis and 

determinations required under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA and its 

implementing regulations. See NMFS’s 

response to Comment 2 (below) for 

additional details. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that, if site-specific 

information is not used to estimate the 

proposed exclusion and buffer zones 

and associated takes of marine 

mammals, the USGS provide a detailed 

justification for the exclusion and buffer 

zones applicable to the proposed survey 

in the Bering Sea, which are based on 

either empirical data collected in the 

GOM or on modeling that uses 

measurements from the GOM, and 

explain the significance of any 

deviations in survey method, such as 

the proposed change in tow depth. 

Response: USGS has revised 

Appendix A in the EA to include 

information from the calibration study 

conducted on the Langseth in 2007 and 

2008. This information is now available 

in the final EA on USGS’s Web site at 

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/EA/ECS_EA/ 

as well as on NSF’s Web site at 

http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/ 

index.jsp. The revised Appendix A 

describes the L–DEO modeling process 

and compares the model results with 

empirical results of the 2007 to 2008 

Langseth calibration experiment in 

shallow, intermediate, and deep water. 

The conclusions identified in Appendix 

A show that the model represents the 

actual produced levels, particularly 

within the first few kms, where the 

predicted exclusion zones (EZs, i.e., 

safety radii) lie. At greater distances, 

local oceanographic variations begin to 

take effect, and the model tends to over 

predict. Further, since the modeling 

matches the observed measurement 

data, the authors have concluded that 

the models can continue to be used for 

defining EZs, including for predicting 

mitigation radii for various tow depths. 

The data results from the studies were 

peer reviewed and the calibration 

results, viewed as conservative, were 

used to determine the cruise-specific 

EZs. 

At present, the L–DEO model does not 

account for site-specific environmental 

conditions. The calibration study of the 

L–DEO model predicted that using sitespecific information may actually 

provide less conservative EZ radii at 

greater distances. The Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Marine Seismic Research 

Funded by the National Science 

Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (DPEIS) prepared 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) did incorporate various sitespecific environmental conditions in the 

modeling of the Detailed Analysis 

Areas. The NEPA process associated 

with the DPEIS is still ongoing and the 

USGS and NSF have not yet issued a 

Record of Decision. Once the NEPA 

process for the PEIS has concluded, 

USGS and/or NSF will look at 

upcoming cruises on a site-specific basis 

for any impacts not already considered 

in the DPEIS. 

The IHA issued to USGS, under 

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

provides monitoring and mitigation 

requirements that will protect marine 

mammals from injury, serious injury, or 

mortality. USGS is required to comply 

with the IHA’s requirements. These 

analyses are supported by extensive 

scientific research and data. NMFS is 

confident in the peer-reviewed results of 

the L–DEO seismic calibration studies 

which, although viewed as conservative, 

are used to determine cruise-specific 

EZs and which factor into exposure 

estimates. NMFS has determined that 

these reviews are the best scientific data 

available for review of the IHA 

application and to support the necessary 

analyses and determinations under the 

MMPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA; 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA. 

Based on NMFS’s analysis of the 

likely effects of the specified activity on 

marine mammals and their habitat, 

NMFS has determined that the EZs 

identified in the IHA are appropriate for 

the survey and that additional field 

measurement is not necessary at this 

time. While exposures of marine 

mammals to acoustic stimuli are 

difficult to estimate, NMFS is confident 

that the levels of take authorized have 

been estimated based upon the best 

available scientific information and 

estimation methodology. The 160 dB 

zone used to estimate exposure is 

appropriate and sufficient for purposes 

of supporting NMFS’s analysis and 

determinations required under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA and its 

implementing regulations. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommends that the NMFS specify in 

the authorization all conditions under 

which an 8 min period could be 

followed by a resumption of the airguns 

at full power. 

Response: In the instance of a powerdown or shut-down based on the 

presence of a marine mammal in the EZ, 

USGS will restart the airgun array to the 

full operating source level (i.e., 36 

airguns 6,600 in3) only if the PSVO 

visually observes the marine mammal 

exiting the EZ for the full source level 

within an 8 min period of the shutdown or power-down. The 8 min period 

is based on the 180 dB radius for the 36 

airgun subarray at a depth of 9 m in 

relation to the minimum planned speed 

of the Langseth while shooting (8.5 km/ 

hr (4.6 kts)). In the event that a marine 

mammal would re-enter the EZ after 

reactivating the airguns, USGS would 

reinitiate a shut-down or power-down 

as required by the IHA. 

Should the airguns be inactive or 

powered-down for more than 8 min, and 

the PSVO does not observe the marine 

mammal leaving the EZ, then USGS 

must wait 15 min (for small odontocetes 

and pinnipeds) or 30 min (for 

mysticetes and large odontocetes) after 

the last sighting before USGS can 

initiate ramp-up procedures. However, 

ramp-up will not occur as long as a 

marine mammal is detected within the 

EZ, which provides more time for 

animals to leave the EZ, and accounts 

for the position, swim speed, and 

heading for marine mammals within the 

EZ. 

Finally, USGS may need to 

temporarily perform a shut-down due to 

equipment failure or maintenance. In 

this instance, USGS will restart the 

airgun array to the full source level 

within an 8 min period of the shut 

down only if the PSVOs do not observe 

marine mammals within the EZ for the 

full source level. If the airguns are 

inactive or powered-down for more than 

8 min, USGS would follow the ramp-up 

procedures required by the IHA. USGS 

would restart the airguns beginning 

with the smallest airgun in the array and 

add airguns in a sequence such that the 

source level of the array does not exceed 

approximately 6 decibels (dB) per 5 min 

period over a total duration of 

approximately 30 min. Again, the 

PSVOs would monitor the EZs for 

marine mammals during this time and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49740 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

would initiate a power-down or a shutdown, as required by the IHA. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommends that the NMFS extend the 

30 min period following a marine 

mammal sighting in the EZ to cover the 

full dive times of all species likely to be 

encountered. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that 

several species of deep-diving cetaceans 

are capable of remaining underwater for 

more than 30 min (e.g., sperm whales, 

Cuvier’s beaked whales, Baird’s beaked 

whales); however, for the following 

reasons NMFS believes that 30 min is an 

adequate length for the monitoring 

period prior to the ramp-up of airguns: 

(1) Because the Langseth is required 

to monitor before ramp-up of the airgun 

array, the time of monitoring prior to 

start-up of any but the smallest array is 

effectively longer than 30 min (ramp-up 

will begin with the smallest airgun 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 to 30 

min; 

(2) In many cases PSVOs are 

observing during times when USGS is 

not operating the seismic airguns and 

would observe the area prior to the 30 

min observation period; 

(3) The majority of the species that 

may be exposed do not stay underwater 

more than 30 min; and 

(4) All else being equal and if deepdiving individuals happened to be in 

the area in the short time immediately 

prior to the pre-ramp-up monitoring, if 

an animal’s maximum underwater dive 

time is 45 min, then there is only a one 

in three chance that the last random 

surfacing would occur prior to the 

beginning of the required 30 min 

monitoring period and that the animal 

would not be seen during that 30 min 

period. 

Finally, seismic vessels are moving 

continuously (because of the long, 

towed array and streamer) 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 (deepdiving)), the vessel will be far beyond 

the length of the EZ radii within 30 min, 

and therefore it will be safe to start the 

airguns again. 

Under the MMPA, incidental take 

authorizations must include means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on marine mammal species and 

their habitat. Monitoring and mitigation 

measures are designed to comply with 

this requirement. NMFS believes that 

the framework for visual monitoring 

will: (1) Be effective at spotting almost 

all species for which take is requested; 

and (2) that imposing additional 

requirements, such as those suggested 

by the Commission, would not 

meaningfully increase the effectiveness 

of observing marine mammals 

approaching or entering the EZs and 

thus further minimize the potential for 

take. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

recommends that the NMFS provide 

additional justification for its 

preliminary determination that the 

proposed monitoring program will be 

sufficient to detect, with a high level of 

confidence, all marine mammals within 

or entering the identified exclusion and 

buffer zones, which at a minimum 

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 vessel; 

(3) Describe changes in detection 

probability under various sea state and 

weather conditions and light levels; and 

(4) Explain how close to the vessel 

marine mammals must be for Protected 

Species Observers (PSOs) to achieve 

high nighttime detection rates. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

planned monitoring program will be 

sufficient to detect (using visual 

monitoring and passive acoustic 

monitoring (PAM)), with reasonable 

certainty, marine mammals within or 

entering identified EZs. This 

monitoring, along with the required 

mitigation measures, 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 of marine mammals. 

Also, NMFS expects some animals to 

avoid areas around the airgun area 

ensonified at the level of the EZ. 

NMFS acknowledges that the 

detection probability for certain species 

of marine mammals varies depending 

on animal size and behavior as well as 

sea state and weather conditions and 

light levels. The detectability of marine 

mammals likely decreases in low light 

(i.e., darkness), higher Beaufort sea 

states and wind conditions, and poor 

weather (e.g., fog and/or rain). However, 

at present, NMFS views the 

combination of visual monitoring and 

PAM as the most effective monitoring 

and mitigation techniques available for 

detecting marine mammals within or 

entering the EZ. The final monitoring 

and mitigation measures are the most 

effective feasible measures and NMFS is 

not aware of any additional measures 

which could meaningfully increase the 

likelihood of detecting marine mammals 

in and around the EZ. Further, public 

comment has not revealed any 

additional monitoring or mitigation 

measures that could be feasibly 

implemented to increase the 

effectiveness of detection. 

USGS (the Federal funding agency for 

this survey), National Science 

Foundation (NSF), and L–DEO are 

receptive to incorporating proven 

technologies and techniques to enhance 

the current monitoring and mitigation 

program. Until proven technological 

advances are made, nighttime mitigation 

measures during operations include 

combinations of the use of Protected 

Species Visual Observers (PSVOs) for 

ramp-ups, PAM, night vision devices 

(NVDs), and continuous shooting of a 

mitigation airgun. Should the airgun 

array be powered-down, the operation 

of a single airgun would continue to 

serve as a sound source deterrent to 

marine mammals. In the event of a 

complete shut-down of the airgun array 

at night for mitigation or repairs, USGS 

suspends the data collection until onehalf hour after nautical twilight-dawn 

(when PSVO’s are able to clear the EZ). 

USGS will not activate the airguns until 

the entire EZ is visible for at least 30 

min. 

In cooperation with NMFS, L–DEO 

will be conducting efficacy experiments 

of NVDs during a future Langseth 

cruise. In addition, in response to a 

recommendation from NMFS, L–DEO is 

evaluating the use of handheld forwardlooking thermal imaging cameras to 

supplement nighttime monitoring and 

mitigation practices. During other low 

power seismic and seafloor mapping 

surveys, USGS successfully used these 

devices while conducting nighttime 

seismic operations. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

recommends that the NMFS consult 

with the funding agency (i.e., NSF) and 

individual applicants (e.g., USGS and 

L–DEO) to develop, validate, and 

implement a monitoring program that 

provides a scientifically sound, 

reasonably accurate assessment of the 

types of marine mammal taking and the 

number of marine mammals taken. 

Response: Numerous studies have 

reported on the abundance and 

distribution of marine mammals 

inhabiting the Bering Sea, which 

overlaps with the seismic survey area, 

and USGS has incorporated this data 

into their analyses used to predict 

marine mammal take in their 

application. NMFS believes that USGS’s 

current approach for estimating 

abundance in the survey area (prior to 

the survey) is the best available 

approach. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49741 

There will be significant amounts of 

transit time during the cruise, and 

PSVOs will be on watch prior to and 

after the seismic portions of the survey, 

in addition to during the survey. The 

collection of this visual observational 

data by PSVOs may contribute to 

baseline data on marine mammals 

(presence/absence) and provide some 

generalized support for estimated take 

numbers, but it is unlikely that the 

information gathered from this single 

cruise alone would result in any 

statistically robust conclusions for any 

particular species because of the small 

number of animals typically observed. 

NMFS acknowledges the 

Commission’s recommendations and is 

open to further coordination with the 

Commission, USGS (the Federal 

research funding agency for this cruise), 

NSF (the vessel owner), and L–DEO (the 

ship operator on behalf of NSF), to 

develop, validate, and implement a 

monitoring program that will provide or 

contribute towards a more scientifically 

sound and reasonably accurate 

assessment of the types of marine 

mammal taking and the number of 

marine mammals taken. However, the 

cruise’s primary focus is marine 

geophysical research and the survey 

may be operationally limited due to 

considerations such as location, time, 

fuel, services, and other resources. 

Comment 7: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require the 

applicant: 

(1) To report on the number of marine 

mammals that were detected 

acoustically and for which a powerdown or shut-down of the airguns was 

initiated; 

(2) Specify if such animals also were 

detected visually; and 

(3) Compare the results from the two 

monitoring methods (visual versus 

acoustic) to help identify their 

respective strengths and weaknesses. 

Response: The IHA requires that 

PSAOs on the Langseth do and record 

the following when a marine mammal is 

detected by the PAM: 

(1) Notify the on-duty PSVO(s) 

immediately of a vocalizing marine 

mammal so a power-down or shut-down 

can be initiated, if required; 

(2) Enter the information regarding 

the vocalization 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. 

USGS reports on the number of 

acoustic detections made by the PAM 

system within the post-cruise 

monitoring reports as required by the 

IHA. The report also includes a 

description of any acoustic detections 

that were concurrent with visual 

sightings, which allows for a 

comparison of acoustic and visual 

detection methods for each cruise. 

The post-cruise monitoring reports 

also include the following information: 

the total operational effort in daylight 

(hrs), the total operational effort at night 

(hrs), the total number of hours of visual 

observations conducted, the total 

number of sightings, and the total 

number of hours of acoustic detections 

conducted. 

LGL Ltd., Environmental Research 

Associates (LGL), a contractor for USGS, 

has processed sighting and density data, 

and their publications can be viewed 

online at: http://www.lgl.com/

index.php?option=com_content&

view=article&id=69&Itemid=162&

lang=en. Post-cruise monitoring reports 

are currently available on the NMFS’s 

MMPA Incidental Take Program Web 

site and future reports will also be 

available on the NSF Web site should 

there be interest in further analysis of 

this data by the public. 

Comment 8: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS condition the 

authorization, if issued, to require the 

USGS to monitor, document, and report 

observations during all ramp-up 

procedures; this data will provide a 

stronger scientific basis for determining 

the effectiveness of and deciding when 

to implement this particular mitigation 

measure. 

Response: The IHA requires that 

PSVOs on the Langseth make 

observations for 30 min prior to rampup, during all ramp-ups, and during all 

daytime seismic operations and record 

the following information when a 

marine mammal is sighted: 

(1) 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 of the 

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

approach, paralleling, etc., and 

including responses to ramp-up), and 

behavioral pace; and 

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel (including number 

of airguns operating and whether in 

state of ramp-up or power-down), 

Beaufort wind force and sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

Comment 9: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS in 

collaboration with the NSF, analyze 

these data to determine the effectiveness 

of ramp-up procedures as a mitigation 

measure for geophysical surveys. 

Response: One of the primary 

purposes of monitoring is to result in 

‘‘increased knowledge of the species’’ 

and the effectiveness of monitoring and 

mitigation measures; the effectiveness of 

ramp-up as a mitigation measure and 

marine mammal reaction to ramp-up 

would be useful information in this 

regard. NMFS has asked USGS, NSF, 

and L–DEO to gather all data that could 

potentially provide information 

regarding the 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. 

Description of the Marine Mammals in 

the Area of the Specified Activity 

Twenty marine mammal species (14 

cetacean and 6 pinniped) are known to 

or could occur in the central-western 

Bering Sea. Several of these species are 

listed as endangered under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including the 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena 

japonica), bowhead (Balaena 

mysticetus), humpback (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), sei (Balaenoptera 

borealis), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), 

blue (Balaenoptera musculus), and 

sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) 

whales, as well as the western stock of 

Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). 

The eastern stock of Steller sea lions is 

listed as threatened. 

The marine mammals that occur in 

the survey area belong to three 

taxonomic groups: odontocetes (toothed 

cetaceans, such as dolphins), mysticetes 

(baleen whales), and pinnipeds (seals, 

sea lions, and walrus). Cetaceans and 

pinnipeds are the subject of the IHA 

application to NMFS. Walrus sightings 

are rare in the Bering Sea during the 

summer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) manages the Pacific 

walrus and they are not considered 

further in this analysis; all others 

species are managed by NMFS. Coastal 

cetacean species (gray whales) likely 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49742 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

would not be encountered in the deep, 

offshore waters of the survey area. 

Table 1 presents information on the 

abundance, distribution, population 

status, conservation status, and density 

of the marine mammals that may occur 

in the survey area during August 2011. 

TABLE 1—THE HABITAT, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR

IN OR NEAR THE SEISMIC SURVEY AREAS IN THE CENTRAL-WESTERN BERING SEA (SEE TEXT AND TABLE 2 IN

USGS’S APPLICATION AND EA FOR FURTHER DETAILS) 

Species 

Occurrence in/ 

near survey 

area 

Habitat Regional 

abundance ESA1 MMPA2

Density (number/1,000 

km2) 

Best 3 Max 4

Mysticetes: 

North Pacific right 

whale (Eubalaena 

japonica).

Rare .................. Coastal, shelf, offshore.Low hundreds 5 ...... EN D 0 0 

Bowhead whale 

(Balaena 

mysticetus).

Uncommon ....... Pack ice, coastal .... 12,631 6 .................. EN D 0 0 

Gray whale 

(Eschrichtius 

robustus).

Common ........... Coastal, shallow 

shelf.

NW Pacific: 19,126 

NE Pacific: ∼100 7.

DL/E8 NC D (Western 

populations) 

0 .01 0 .12 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Common ........... Offshore, nearshore 

in winter.

20,800 9 .................. EN D 0 .40 1 .04 

Minke whale 

(Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Common ........... Nearshore, offshore, 

ice.

25,000 10 ................. NL NC 1 .23 4 .10 

Sei whale 

(Balaenoptera borealis).

Uncommon ....... Offshore, shelf ........ 7,260 to 12,620 11 .. EN D 0 .05 0 .58 

Fin whale 

(Balaenoptera 

physalus).

Common ........... Offshore, deep 

water.

13,620 to 18,680 12 EN D 3 .94 17 .00 

Blue whale 

(Balaneoptera 

musculus).

Rare .................. Offshore, shelf, 

coastal.

3,500 13 ................... EN D 0 0 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale 

(Physeter 

macrocephalus).

Uncommon ....... Offshore .................. 24,000 14 ................. EN D 0 .07 0 .14 

Cuvier’s beaked 

whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris).

Very rare ........... Offshore .................. 20,000 15 ................. NL NC 0 0 

Baird’s beaked 

whale (Berardius 

bairdii).

Rare .................. Offshore .................. 7,000 16 ................... NL NC 0 .07 0 .10 

Stejneger’s beaked 

whale 

(Mesoplodon 

stejnegeri).

Uncommon ....... Offshore .................. N.A. ........................ NL NC 0 .04 0 .12 

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens).

Rare .................. Pelagic, shelf, 

coastal.

988,000 17 ............... NL NC 0 .03 0 .04 

Killer whale 

(Orcinus orca).

Common ........... Pelagic, shelf, 

coastal.

8,500 18 ................... NL NC 2 .82 3 .96 

Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides 

dalli).

Common ........... Nearshore, offshore 1,186,000 19 ............ NL NC 8 .86 18 .25 

Pinnipeds: 

Northern fur seal 

(Callorhinus 

ursinus).

Common ........... Offshore and coastal.1.1 million 20 ........... NL D 28 .5 42 .75 

Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias 

jubatus).

Common ........... Coastal ................... 58,334, 72,223 21, 

42,366 22.

T 23, EN 23 D 2 .70 4 .05 

Spotted seal (Phoca 

largha).

Uncommon ....... Ice ........................... AK: ∼59,214 24 ........ NL ........................... N .A. N .A. 

Ringed seal (Pusa 

hispida).

Uncommon ....... Ice, landfast, pack .. AK: 249,000 24 ........ NL NC N .A. N .A. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49743 

TABLE 1—THE HABITAT, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR

IN OR NEAR THE SEISMIC SURVEY AREAS IN THE CENTRAL-WESTERN BERING SEA (SEE TEXT AND TABLE 2 IN

USGS’S APPLICATION AND EA FOR FURTHER DETAILS)—Continued 

Species 

Occurrence in/ 

near survey 

area 

Habitat Regional 

abundance ESA1 MMPA2

Density (number/1,000 

km2) 

Best 3 Max 4

Ribbon seal 

(Histriophoca 

fasciata).

Common ........... Ice ........................... Bering Sea: 

90,000– 

100,000 24.

NL NC 43 .60 65 .40 

N.A. Not available or not assessed. 

1 U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = Not listed. 2 U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: D = Depleted, NC = Not Classified. 3 Best density estimate as listed in Table 3 of the application. 4 Maximum density estimate as listed in Table 3 of the application. 5 Western population (Brownell et al., 2001) 6 Based on 2003–2005 surveys (Koski et al., 2010). 7 Northwest (NW) Pacific (Allen and Angliss, 2010); Northeast (NE) Pacific (Reilly et al., 2008). 8 The western (Northeast Pacific) subpopulation is listed as Endangered. 9 North Pacific Ocean (Barlow et al., 2009). 10 Northwest Pacific (Buckland et al., 1992; IWC, 2010). 11 North Pacific (Tillman, 1977). 12 North Pacific (Ohsumi and Wada, 1974). 13 Eastern North Pacific (NMFS, 1998). 14 Eastern temperate North Pacific (Whitehead, 2002b). 15 Eastern Tropical Pacific (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993). 16 Western North Pacific (Reeves and Leatherwood, 1994; Kasuya, 2002). 17 North Pacific Ocean (Miyashita, 1993b). 18 Eastern Tropical Pacific (Ford, 2002). 19 North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Houck and Jefferson, 1999). 20 North Pacific (Gelatt and Lowry, 2008). 21 Eastern U.S. Stock (Allen and Angliss, 2010). 22 Western U.S. Stock (Allen and Angliss, 2010). 23 Eastern stock is listed as threatened, and the western stock is listed as endangered. 24 Burns 1981. 

Refer to Section III of USGS’s 

application for detailed information 

regarding the abundance and 

distribution, population status, and life 

history and behavior of these species 

and their occurrence in the project area. 

The application also presents how 

USGS calculated the estimated densities 

for the marine mammals in the survey 

area. NMFS has reviewed these data and 

determined them to be the best available 

scientific information for the purposes 

of the IHA. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

Acoustic stimuli generated by the 

operation of the airguns, which 

introduce sound into the marine 

environment, may have the potential to 

cause Level B harassment of marine 

mammals in the survey area. The effects 

of sounds from airgun operations might 

include one or more of the following: 

tolerance, masking of natural sounds, 

behavioral disturbance, temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, or nonauditory 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). Although the 

possibility cannot be entirely excluded, 

it is unlikely that the project would 

result in any cases of temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, or any 

significant non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects. Based on the 

available data and studies described 

here, some behavioral disturbance is 

expected, but NMFS expects the 

disturbance to be localized and shortterm. 

The notice of the proposed IHA (76 

FR 33246, June 8, 2011) 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. NMFS refers the reader 

to USGS’s application, and EA for 

additional information on the 

behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by 

all types of marine mammals to seismic 

vessels. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

NMFS included a detailed discussion 

of the potential effects of this action on 

marine mammal habitat, including 

physiological and behavioral effects on 

marine fish and invertebrates in the 

notice of the proposed IHA (76 FR 

33246, June 8, 2011). While NMFS 

anticipates that the specified activity 

may result in marine mammals avoiding 

certain areas due to temporary 

ensonification, this impact to habitat is 

temporary and site-specific, which 

NMFS considered in greater detail in 

the notice of the proposed IHA (76 FR 

33246, June 8, 2011) as behavioral 

modification. The main impact 

associated with the activity would be 

temporarily elevated noise levels and 

the associated direct effects on marine 

mammals. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an ITA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and the availability of such 

species or stock for taking for certain 

subsistence uses. 

USGS based the mitigation measures 

to be implemented for the seismic 

survey on the following: 

(1) Protocols used during previous 

USGS and L–DEO seismic research 

cruises as approved by NMFS; 

(2) Previous IHA applications and 

IHAs approved and authorized by 

NMFS; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49744 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

(3) Recommended best practices in 

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

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

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, USGS 

and/or its designees will implement the 

following mitigation measures for 

marine mammals: 

(1) EZs; 

(2) Power-down procedures; 

(3) Shut-down procedures; 

(4) Ramp-up procedures; and 

(5) Special procedures for situations 

and species of concern. 

Planning Phase—In designing the 

seismic survey, USGS has considered 

potential environmental impacts 

including seasonal, biological, and 

weather factors; ship schedules; and 

equipment availability. Part of the 

considerations was whether the research 

objectives could be met with a smaller 

source; tests will be conducted to 

determine whether the two-string subarray (3,300 in3) will be satisfactory to 

accomplish the geophysical objectives. 

If so, the smaller array will be used to 

minimize environmental impact. Also, 

the array will be powered-down to a 

single airgun during turns, and the array 

will be shut-down during OBS 

deployment and retrieval. 

EZs—Received sound levels have 

been determined by corrected empirical 

measurements for the 36 airgun array, 

and the L–DEO model was used to 

predict the EZs for the single 1900LL 40 

in3 airgun, which will be used during 

power-downs. Results were recently 

reported for propagation measurements 

of pulses from the 36 airgun array in 

two water depths (approximately 1,600 

m and 50 m (5,249 to 164 ft)) in the Gulf 

of Mexico (GOM) in 2007 to 2008 

(Tolstoy et al., 2009). It would be 

prudent to use the empirical values that 

resulted to determine EZs for the airgun 

array. Results of the propagation 

measurements (Tolstoy et al., 2009) 

showed that radii around the airguns for 

various received levels varied with 

water depth. During the study, all 

survey effort will take place in deep 

(greater than 1,000 m) water, so 

propagation in shallow water is not 

relevant here. The depth of the array 

was different in the GOM calibration 

study (6 m (19.7 ft)) than in the survey 

(9 m); thus, correction factors have been 

applied to the distances reported by 

Tolstoy et al. (2009). The correction 

factors used were the ratios of the 160, 

180, and 190 dB distances from the 

modeled results for the 6,600 in3 airgun 

array towed at 6 m versus 9 m. Based 

on the propagation measurements and 

modeling, the distances from the source 

where sound levels are predicted to be 

190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

were determined. The 180 and 190 dB 

radii are to 940 m and 400 m, 

respectively, as specified by NMFS 

(2000); these levels were used to 

establish the EZs. 

If the PSVO detects marine 

mammal(s) within or about to enter the 

appropriate EZ, the airguns will be 

powered-down (or shut-down, if 

necessary) immediately. 

Table 2 summarizes the predicted 

distances at which sound levels (160, 

180, and 190 dB (rms)) are expected to 

be received from the 36 airgun array and 

a single airgun operating in deep water 

depths. 

TABLE 2—MEASURED (ARRAY) OR PREDICTED (SINGLE AIRGUN) DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS ≥190, 180, AND

160 DB RE: 1 μPA (RMS) COULD BE RECEIVED IN WATER DEPTHS >1,000 M DURING THE SURVEY IN THE CENTRALWESTERN BERING SEA, AUGUST 2011 

Source and volume Water depth 

Predicted RMS distances (m) 

190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 

Single Bolt airgun (40 in3) ........................ Deep >1,000 m ........................................ 12 40 385 

4 Strings 36 airguns (6,600 in3) ............... Deep >1,000 m ........................................ 400 940 3,850 

Power-down Procedures—A powerdown involves decreasing 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, USGS will 

operate one airgun. 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 the 

Langseth suspends all airgun activity. 

If the PSVO detects a marine mammal 

outside the EZ, but it is likely to enter 

the EZ, USGS will power-down the 

airguns before the animal is within the 

EZ. Likewise, if a mammal is already 

within the EZ, when first detected 

USGS will power-down the airguns 

immediately. During a power-down of 

the airgun array, USGS will also operate 

the 40 in3 airgun. If a marine mammal 

is detected within or near the smaller 

EZ around that single airgun, USGS will 

shut-down the airgun (see next section). 

Following a power-down, USGS will 

not resume airgun activity until the 

marine mammal has cleared the EZ. 

USGS will consider the animal to have 

cleared the EZ if: 

• A PSVO has visually observed the 

animal leave the EZ, or 

• A PSVO has not sighted the animal 

within the EZ for 15 min for species 

with shorter dive durations (i.e., small 

odontocetes or pinnipeds), or 30 min for 

species with longer dive durations (i.e., 

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 time limits 

specified previously, USGS will rampup the airgun array gradually (see Shutdown and Ramp-up Procedures). 

Shut-down Procedures—USGS will 

shut down the operating airgun(s) if a 

marine mammal is seen within or 

approaching the EZ for the single 

airgun. USGS will implement a shutdown: 

(1) If an animal enters the EZ of the 

single airgun after USGS has initiated a 

power-down; or 

(2) If an animal is initially seen within 

the EZ of the single airgun when more 

than one airgun (typically the full 

airgun array) is operating. 

USGS will not resume airgun activity 

until the marine mammal has cleared 

the EZ, or until the PSVO 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 section. 

Ramp-up Procedures—USGS will 

follow a ramp-up procedure when the 

airgun array begins operating after a 

specified period without airgun 

operations or when a power-down has 

exceeded that period. USGS proposes 

that, for the present cruise, this period 

would be approximately eight min. This 

period is based on the 180 dB radius 

(940 m) for the 36 airgun array towed at 

a depth of 9 m in relation to the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49745 

minimum planned speed of the 

Langseth while shooting (7.4 km/hr). 

USGS and L–DEO have used similar 

periods (approximately 8 to 10 min) 

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 six dB per five min 

period over a total duration of 

approximately 35 min. During ramp-up, 

the PSOs will monitor the EZ, and if 

marine mammals are sighted, USGS will 

implement a power-down or shut-down 

as though the full airgun 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, USGS will not commence the 

ramp-up 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 

outer 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. USGS will not initiate a 

ramp-up of the airguns if a marine 

mammal is sighted within or near the 

applicable EZs during the day or close 

to the vessel at night. 

Special Procedures for Situations and 

Species of Concern—USGS will 

implement special mitigation 

procedures as follows: 

• The airguns will be shut-down 

immediately if ESA-listed species for 

which no takes are being requested (i.e., 

North Pacific right and blue whales) are 

sighted at any distance from the vessel. 

Ramp-up will only begin if the whale 

has not been seen for 30 min. 

• Concentrations of humpback, fin, 

and/or killer whales will be avoided if 

possible, and the array will be powereddown if necessary. For purposes of this 

survey, a concentration or group of 

whales will consist of three or more 

individuals visually sighted that do not 

appear to be traveling (e.g., feeding, 

socializing, etc.). 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s mitigation measures and has 

considered a range of other measures in 

the context of ensuring that NMFS 

prescribes the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. NMFS’s 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

(2) The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

(3) The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Based on NMFS’s evaluation of the 

applicant’s measures, as well as other 

measures considered by NMFS or 

recommended by the public, NMFS has 

determined that the mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impacts on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for IHAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the action 

area. 

Monitoring 

USGS would sponsor marine mammal 

monitoring during the present project, 

in order to implement the mitigation 

measures that require real-time 

monitoring, and to satisfy the 

anticipated monitoring requirements of 

the IHA. USGS’s Monitoring Plan is 

described below this section. The 

monitoring work described here has 

been planned as a self-contained project 

independent of any other related 

monitoring projects that may be 

occurring simultaneously in the same 

regions. USGS is prepared to discuss 

coordination of its monitoring program 

with any related work that might be 

done by other groups insofar as this is 

practical and desirable. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

USGS’s PSVOs will be based aboard 

the seismic source vessel and will watch 

for marine mammals near the vessel 

during daytime airgun operations and 

during any ramp-ups at night. PSVOs 

will also watch for marine mammals 

near the seismic vessel for at least 30 

min prior to the start of airgun 

operations after an extended shut-down. 

PSVOs will conduct observations 

during daytime periods when the 

seismic system is not operating for 

comparison of sighting rates and 

behavior with and without airgun 

operations and between acquisition 

periods. Based on PSVO observations, 

the airguns will be powered-down or 

shut-down when marine mammals are 

observed within or about to enter a 

designated EZ. 

During seismic operations in the 

central-western Bering Sea, at least four 

PSOs will be based aboard the Langseth. 

USGS will appoint the PSOs with 

NMFS’s concurrence. Observations will 

take place during ongoing daytime 

operations and nighttime ramp-ups of 

the airguns. During the majority of 

seismic operations, two PSVOs will be 

on duty from the observation tower to 

monitor marine mammals near the 

seismic vessel. Use of two simultaneous 

PSVOs will increase the effectiveness of 

detecting animals near the source 

vessel. However, during meal times and 

bathroom breaks, it is sometimes 

difficult to have two PSVOs on effort, 

but at least one PSVO will be on duty. 

PSVO(s) will be on duty in shifts of 

duration no longer than 4 hr. 

Two PSVOs will also be on visual 

watch during all nighttime ramp-ups of 

the seismic airguns. A third PSO (i.e., 

Protected Species Acoustic Observer 

(PSAO)) will monitor the PAM 

equipment 24 hours a day to detect 

vocalizing marine mammals present in 

the action area. In summary, a typical 

daytime cruise would have scheduled 

two PSVOs on duty from the 

observation tower, and a third PSAO on 

PAM. Other crew will also be instructed 

to assist in detecting marine mammals 

and implementing mitigation 

requirements (if practical). Before the 

start of the seismic survey, the crew will 

be given additional instruction on 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 21.5 

m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the 

PSVO will have a good view around the 

entire vessel. During daytime, the 

PSVOs will scan the area around the 

vessel systematically with reticle 

binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Fujinon), Big-eye 

binoculars (25 x 150), and with the 

naked eye. During darkness, NVDs will 

be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 

3 binocular-image intensifier or 

equivalent), when required. Laser rangeVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:59 Aug 10, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49746 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser 

rangefinder or equivalent) will be 

available to assist with distance 

estimation. Those are useful in training 

observers to estimate distances visually, 

but are generally not useful in 

measuring distances to animals directly; 

that is done primarily with the reticles 

in the binoculars. 

When marine mammals are detected 

within or about to enter the designated 

EZ, the airguns will immediately be 

powered-down or shut-down if 

necessary. The PSVO(s) will continue to 

maintain watch to determine when the 

animal(s) are outside the EZ by visual 

confirmation. Airgun operations will 

not resume until the animal is 

confirmed to have left the EZ, or if not 

observed after 15 min for species with 

shorter dive durations (small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min 

for species with longer dive durations 

(mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, killer, and beaked 

whales). 

PAM 

PAM will complement the visual 

monitoring program, when practicable. 

Visual monitoring typically is not 

effective during periods of poor 

visibility or at night, and even with 

good visibility, is unable to detect 

marine mammals when they are below 

the surface or beyond visual range. 

Besides the three PSVOs, an 

additional PSAO with primary 

responsibility for PAM will also be 

aboard the vessel. USGS can use 

acoustic monitoring in addition to 

visual observations to improve 

detection, identification, and 

localization 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 that 

the PSVOs 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 

towed hydrophone array that is 

connected to the vessel by a 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 laboratory where the acoustic 

station and signal conditioning and 

processing system will be located. The 

digitized signal and PAM system is 

monitored by PSAOs at a station in the 

main laboratory. The lead in from the 

hydrophone array is approximately 400 

m (1,312 ft) long, the active section of 

the array is approximately 56 m (184 ft) 

long, and the hydrophone array is 

typically towed at depths of less than 20 

m (66 ft). 

Ideally, the PSAO will monitor the 

towed hydrophones 24 hr per day at the 

seismic survey area during airgun 

operations, and during most periods 

when the Langseth is underway while 

the airguns are not operating. However, 

PAM may not be possible if damage 

occurs to both the primary and back-up 

hydrophone arrays during operations. 

The primary PAM streamer on the 

Langseth is a digital hydrophone 

streamer. Should the digital streamer 

fail, back-up systems should include an 

analog spare streamer and a hullmounted hydrophone. Every effort 

would be made to have a working PAM 

system during the cruise. In the unlikely 

event that all three of these systems 

were to fail, USGS would continue 

science acquisition with the visualbased observer program. The PAM 

system is a supplementary enhancement 

to the visual monitoring program. If 

weather conditions were to prevent the 

use of PAM then conditions would also 

likely prevent the use of the airgun 

array. 

One PSAO 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. PSAOs 

monitoring the acoustical data will be 

on shift for one to six hours at a time. 

Besides the PSVO, an additional PSAO 

with primary responsibility for PAM 

will also be aboard the source vessel. 

All PSVOs 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 while 

visual observations are in progress, the 

PSAO will contact the PSVO 

immediately, to alert him/her to the 

presence of cetaceans (if they have not 

already been seen), and to allow a 

power-down or shut-down to be 

initiated, if required. The information 

regarding the call will be entered into a 

database. Data entry will 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. 

PSVO Data and Documentation 

PSVOs 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 power-down or shutdown of the airguns when a marine 

mammal is within or near the EZ. 

Observations will also be made during 

daytime periods when the Langseth is 

underway without seismic operations. 

In addition to transits to, from, and 

through the study area, there will also 

be opportunities to collect baseline 

biological data during the deployment 

and recovery of OBSs. 

When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

will be recorded: 

(1) 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 

behavioral pace. 

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

The data listed under (2) 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 and power-downs or 

shut-downs will be recorded in a 

standardized format. Data will be 

entered into an electronic database. The 

accuracy of the data entry will be 

verified by computerized data validity 

checks as the data are entered and by 

subsequent manual checking of the 

database. These procedures will allow 

initial summaries of data to be prepared 

during and shortly after the field 

program, and will facilitate transfer of 

the data to statistical, graphical, and 

other programs for further processing 

and archiving. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide: 

(1) The basis for real-time mitigation 

(airgun power-down or shut-down). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49747 

(2) Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which must be 

reported to NMFS. 

(3) Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted. 

(4) Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals relative to the source vessel at 

times with and without seismic activity. 

(5) Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 

USGS will submit a report to NMFS 

and NSF 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 provide 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 number and 

nature of exposures that could result in 

‘‘takes’’ of marine mammals by 

harassment or in other ways. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA, such as an 

injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear 

interaction, and/or entanglement), 

USGS will immediately cease the 

specified activities and immediately 

report the incident to the Chief of the 

Permits, Conservation, and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by email to Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and 

Brian.D.Hopper@noaa.gov, and the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators 

(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov and 

Barbara.Mahoney@noaa.gov). The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities will not resume until NMFS 

is able to review the circumstances of 

the prohibited take. NMFS will work 

with USGS to determine what is 

necessary to minimize the likelihood of 

further prohibited take and ensure 

MMPA compliance. USGS may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter or e-mail, or telephone. 

In the event that USGS discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

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

than a moderate state of decomposition 

as described in the next paragraph), 

USGS will immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401, and/or by e-mail to 

Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and 

Brian.D.Hopper@noaa.gov, and the 

NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline (1– 

877–925–7773) and/or by e-mail to the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators 

(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov and 

Barbara.Mahoney@noaa.gov). The 

report must include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities may continue while 

NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS will work with USGS to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that USGS discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

USGS will report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits, Conservation, and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, at 301–427–8401, 

and/or by e-mail to 

Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and 

Brian.D.Hopper@noaa.gov, and the 

NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline (1– 

877–925–7773) and/or by e-mail to the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators 

(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov and 

Barbara.Mahoney@noaa.gov), within 24 

hours of the discovery. USGS will 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

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]. 

Only take by Level B harassment is 

anticipated and authorized as a result of 

the marine seismic survey in the 

central-western Bering Sea. Acoustic 

stimuli (i.e., increased underwater 

sound) generated during the operation 

of the seismic airgun array may have the 

potential to cause marine mammals in 

the survey area to be exposed to sounds 

at or greater than 160 dB or cause 

temporary, short-term changes in 

behavior. There is no evidence that the 

planned activities could result in injury, 

serious injury, or mortality within the 

specified geographic area for which 

NMFS has issued the IHA. Take by 

injury, serious injury, or mortality is 

thus neither anticipated nor authorized. 

NMFS has determined that the required 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will minimize any potential risk for 

injury, serious injury, or mortality. 

The following sections describe 

USGS’s methods to estimate take by 

incidental harassment and present the 

applicant’s estimates of the numbers of 

marine mammals that could be affected 

during the seismic program. The 

estimates are based on a consideration 

of the number of marine mammals that 

could be harassed by operations with 

the 36 airgun array to be used during 

approximately 2,420 km (1,307 nmi) of 

survey lines in the central-western 

Bering Sea. 

USGS assumes that, during 

simultaneous operations of the airgun 

array and the other sources, any marine 

mammals close enough to be affected by 

the MBES and SBP would already be 

affected by the airguns. However, 

whether or not the airguns are operating 

simultaneously with the other sources, 

marine mammals are expected to exhibit 

no more than short-term and 

inconsequential responses to the MBES 

and SBP given their characteristics (e.g., 

narrow, downward-directed beam) and 

other considerations described 

previously. Such reactions are not 

considered to constitute ‘‘taking’’ 

(NMFS, 2001). Therefore, USGS 

provides no additional allowance for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49748 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

animals that could be affected by sound 

sources other than airguns. 

There are no systematic data on the 

numbers and densities of marine 

mammals in the deep, offshore waters of 

the central-western Bering Sea. The 

closest survey data are from Moore et al, 

(2002), who conducted vessel-based 

surveys in the Bering Sea during July 5– 

August 5, 1999 and during June 10–July 

3, 2000. The area surveyed extended 

from the Alaska Peninsula to 

approximately 58.8° North and was 

separated into two areas: the centraleastern Bering Sea and the southeastern 

Bering Sea. Most of the area covered 

was in water depths greater than 500 m. 

Similar surveys were conducted during 

July 17–August 5, 1997 and June 7–July 

2, 1999 (Tynan 2004) and during June– 

July 2002, 2008, and 2010 (Friday et al., 

2008, 2011). Most surveys for pinnipeds 

in Alaskan waters have estimated the 

number of animals at haulout sites, not 

in the water (e.g., Loughlin, 1994; Sease 

et al., 2001; Withrow and Cesarone, 

2002; Cease and York, 2003). USGS and 

NMFS are not aware of any at-sea 

estimates of pinnipeds in the offshore 

waters of the Bering Sea. 

Table 1 (Table 6 of the IHA 

application) gives the estimated average 

(best) and maximum densities of marine 

mammals expected to occur in the deep, 

offshore waters of the survey area. For 

cetaceans, USGS used the densities 

reported by Moore et al. (2002), which 

were corrected for trackline detection 

probability, but not availability biases, 

which was assumed to be 1. In addition, 

USGS calculated density estimates from 

the Friday et al. (2011) effort and 

sightings northwest of the Pribilof 

Islands using correction values from 

Barlow and Forney (2007). For two 

species sighted in the southeastern 

Bering Sea, but not the central-eastern 

Bering Sea (Baird’s beaked whale and 

Pacific white-sided dolphin), USGS 

assigned densitities using their best 

professional judgment. Finally, USGS 

used seasonal densities for pinnipeds, 

which were based on counts at haul-out 

sites and biological (mostly breeding) 

information to estimate in-water 

densities. 

There is some uncertainty about the 

representativeness of the data and the 

assumptions used in the calculations 

below for two main reasons: (1) The 

surveys from which cetacean densities 

were derived were conducted in June– 

July whereas the seismic survey is in 

August; and (2) they were in shelf and 

slope waters, where most marine 

mammals are expected to occur in much 

higher densities than in the deep, 

offshore water of the survey area. 

However, the densities are based on a 

considerable survey effort (19,160 km), 

and the marine mammal surveys and 

the seismic survey are in the same 

season; therefore, 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 

potentially affected have been derived. 

Best estimates of cetacean density are 

effort-weighted mean densities from the 

various surveys, whereas maximum 

estimates of density come from the 

individual survey that provided the 

highest density. For marine mammals 

where only one density estimate was 

available, the maximum is 1.5 times the 

best estimate. 

For one species, the Dall’s porpoise, 

density estimates in the original reports 

are much higher than densities expected 

during the survey, because this porpoise 

is attracted to vessels. USGS estimates 

for Dall’s porpoises are from vesselbased surveys without seismic activity; 

they are overestimates possibly by a 

factor of 5 times, given the tendency of 

this species to approach vessels 

(Turnock and Quinn, 1991). Noise from 

the airgun array during the survey is 

expected to at least reduce and possibly 

eliminate the tendency of this porpoise 

to approach the vessel. Dall’s porpoises 

are tolerant of small airgun sources 

(MacLean and Koski, 2005) and 

tolerated higher sound levels than other 

species during a large-array survey (Bain 

and Williams, 2006); however, they did 

respond to that and another large airgun 

array by moving away (Calambokidis 

and Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 

2006). Because of the probable 

overestimates, the best and maximum 

estimates for Dall’s porpoises shown in 

Table 1 (Table 6 of the IHA application) 

are one-quarter of the reported densities. 

In fact, actual densities are probably 

slightly lower than that. 

USGS’s estimates of exposures to 

various sound levels assume that the 

surveys will be fully completed 

including the contingency line; in fact, 

the ensonified areas calculated using the 

planned number of line-km have been 

increased by 25 percent to accommodate 

lines that may need to be repeated, 

equipment testing, etc. 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-kilometers of 

seismic operations that can be 

undertaken. Furthermore, any marine 

mammal sightings within or near the 

designated EZs will result in the powerdown or shut-down of seismic 

operations as a mitigation measure. 

Thus, the following estimates of the 

numbers of marine mammals potentially 

exposed to sound levels of 160 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) are precautionary and 

probably overestimate the actual 

numbers of marine mammals that might 

be involved. These estimates also 

assume that there will be no weather, 

equipment, or mitigation delays, which 

is highly unlikely. 

USGS estimated the number of 

different individuals that may be 

exposed to airgun sounds with received 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms) on one or more occasions by 

considering the total marine area that 

would be within the 160 dB radius 

around the operating airgun array on at 

least one occasion and the expected 

density of marine mammals. 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. In the survey, the 

seismic lines are widely spaced in the 

survey area, so few individual marine 

mammals would be exposed more than 

once during the survey. The area 

including overlap is only 1.13 times the 

area excluding overlap. Moreover, it is 

unlikely that a particular animal would 

stay in the area during the entire survey. 

The number of different individuals 

potentially exposed to received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 re 1 μPa was 

calculated by multiplying: 

(1) The expected species density, 

either ‘‘mean’’ (i.e., best estimate) or 

‘‘maximum’’, times 

(2) The anticipated 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 GIS, using 

the GIS to identify the relevant areas by 

‘‘drawing’’ the applicable 160 dB buffer 

(see Table 1 of the IHA application) 

around each seismic line, and then 

calculating the total area within the 

buffers. Areas of overlap (because of 

lines being closer together than the 160 

dB radius) were limited and included 

only once when estimating the number 

of individuals exposed. Before 

calculating numbers of individuals 

exposed, the areas were increased by 25 

percent as a precautionary measure. 

Table 1 (Table 6 of the IHA 

application) shows the best and 

maximum estimates of the number of 

different individual marine mammals 

that potentially could be exposed to 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) during the seismic survey if no 

animals moved away from the survey 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49749 

vessel. The requested take 

authorization, given in Table 3 (the far 

right column of Table 4 of the IHA 

application), is based on the best 

estimates rather than the maximum 

estimates of the numbers of individuals 

exposed, because of uncertainties about 

the representativeness of the density 

data discussed previously. For cetacean 

species not listed under the ESA that 

could occur in the study area but were 

not sighted in the surveys from which 

density estimates were calculated— 

Baird’s beaked whales and Stejneger’s 

beaked whales—the average group size 

has been used to request take 

authorization. For ESA-listed cetacean 

species unlikely to be encountered 

during the study (i.e., North Pacific right 

and blue whales), the requested takes 

are zero. 

Applying the approach described 

above, approximately 12,372 km2 (3,607 

nmi2) (approximately 15,465 km2 (4,509 

nmi2) including the 25 percent 

contingency) would be within the 160 

dB isopleths on one or more occasions 

during the survey, assuming that the 

contingency line is completed. Because 

this approach does not allow for 

turnover in the marine mammal 

populations in the study area during the 

course of the survey, the actual number 

of individuals exposed could be 

underestimated in some cases. 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. 

The ‘‘best estimate’’ of the number of 

individual cetaceans that could be 

exposed to seismic sounds with greater 

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

during the survey is 271 (see Table 7 of 

the IHA application). That total includes 

69 whales listed as endangered under 

the ESA (6 humpback, 1 sei, 61 fin, and 

1 sperm whale, which would represent 

less than 0.03 percent, 0.01 percent, 

0.38 percent, and 0.01 percent of the 

regional populations, respectively. 

Estimated takes also include five Baird’s 

beaked whales, two Stejneger’s beaked 

whales, 44 killer whales, and 19 minke 

whales, which would represent 0.02 

percent, Not Available (NA), 0.51 

percent, and 0.08 percent of the regional 

populations, respectively. Dall’s 

porpoises are expected to be the most 

common species in the study area; the 

best estimate of the number of Dall’s 

porpoises that could be exposed is 137 

or 0.01 percent of the regional 

population. This may be a slight 

overestimate because the estimated 

densities are slight overestimates. 

Estimates for other species are lower. 

The ‘‘maximum estimates’’ total 703 

cetaceans. ‘‘Best estimates’’ of 42 Steller 

sea lions, 441 northern fur seals, and 

674 ribbon seals could be exposed to 

airgun sounds with received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms). These estimates represent 0.06 

percent of the Steller sea lion regional 

population, 0.04 percent of the northern 

fur seal regional population, and 0.71 

percent of the ribbon seal regional 

population. The estimated numbers of 

pinnipeds that could be exposed to 

received levels greater than or equal to 

160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are probably 

overestimates of the actual numbers that 

will be affected. During the August 

survey period, the Steller sea lion is in 

its breeding season, with males staying 

on land and females with pups 

generally staying close to the rookeries 

in shallow water. Male northern fur 

seals are at their rookeries in June, and 

adult females are either there or 

migrating there, possibly through the 

survey area. No take has been requested 

for North Pacific right, bowhead, gray, 

and blue whales, Cuvier’s beaked 

whales, and white-sided dolphins. In 

addition, takes were not requested for 

spotted and ringed seals. Although these 

marine mammal species may occur in 

the offshore waters of the Bering Sea in 

the summer (Table 2), USGS and NMFS 

believe that the remote likelihood of 

encountering these species in the survey 

area (most of which are considered rare 

to uncommon during the summer) does 

not warrant requesting and/or 

authorizing takes. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATES OF THE POSSIBLE NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS EXPOSED TO DIFFERENT SOUND LEVELS ≥ 160 

dB DURING USGS’S SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE CENTRAL-WESTERN BERING SEA DURING AUGUST 2011 

Species 

Estimated number 

of individuals 

exposed to 

sound levels 

≥ 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(Best 1) 

Estimated number 

of individuals 

exposed to 

sound levels 

≥ 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(Maximum 1) 

Take authorized 

Approximate 

percent of 

regional 

population 2

(Best) 

Mysticetes: 

North Pacific right whale .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Bowhead whale ................................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Gray whale ....................................................................... 0 2 0 <0.01 

Humpback whale .............................................................. 6 16 6 0.03 

Minke whale ...................................................................... 19 63 19 0.08 

Sei whale .......................................................................... 1 9 1 0.01 

Fin whale .......................................................................... 61 263 61 0.38 

Blue whale ........................................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Physeteridae: 

Sperm whale ..................................................................... 1 2 1 <0.01 

Ziphidae: 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Baird’s beaked whale ....................................................... 1 2 5 0.02 

Stejneger’s beaked whale ................................................ 1 2 2 NA 

Delphinidae: 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ............................................... 0 1 0 <0.01 

Killer whale ....................................................................... 44 61 44 0.51 

Phocoenidae: 

Dall’s porpoise .................................................................. 137 282 137 0.01 

Pinnipeds: 

Northern fur seal ............................................................... 441 661 441 0.04 

Steller sea lion .................................................................. 42 63 42 0.06 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49750 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATES OF THE POSSIBLE NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS EXPOSED TO DIFFERENT SOUND LEVELS ≥ 160 

dB DURING USGS’S SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE CENTRAL-WESTERN BERING SEA DURING AUGUST 2011—Continued 

Species 

Estimated number 

of individuals 

exposed to 

sound levels 

≥ 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(Best 1) 

Estimated number 

of individuals 

exposed to 

sound levels 

≥ 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(Maximum 1) 

Take authorized 

Approximate 

percent of 

regional 

population 2

(Best) 

Spotted seal ...................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Ringed seal ....................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Ribbon seal ....................................................................... 674 1011 674 0.71 

1Best and maximum estimates are based on densities from Table 3 and ensonified areas (including 25% contingency) of 26,166.25 km2 for 

160 dB. 2 Regional population size estimates are from Table 2 (see Table 2 of the IHA application); NA means not available. 

Encouraging and Coordinating 

Research 

USGS will coordinate the planned 

marine mammal monitoring program 

associated with the seismic survey in 

the central-western Bering Sea with 

other parties that may have an interest 

in the area and/or be conducting marine 

mammal studies in the same region 

during the seismic survey. USGS will 

coordinate with applicable U.S. 

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

with their requirements. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Determination 

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.’’ 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, NMFS evaluated factors 

such as: 

(1) The number of anticipated 

injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities; 

(2) The number, nature, intensity, and 

duration of Level B harassment (all 

relatively limited); and 

(3) The context in which the takes 

occur (i.e., impacts to areas of 

significance, impacts to local 

populations, and cumulative impacts 

when taking into account successive/ 

contemporaneous actions when added 

to baseline data); 

(4) The status of stock or species of 

marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not 

depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, 

and impact relative to the size of the 

population); 

(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates 

of recruitment or survival; and 

(6) The effectiveness of monitoring 

and mitigation measures (i.e., the 

manner and degree in which the 

measure is likely to reduce adverse 

impacts to marine mammals, the likely 

effectiveness of measures, and the 

practicability of implementation). 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document, and in the proposed notice of 

an IHA (76 FR 33246, June 8, 2011), the 

specified activities associated with the 

marine seismic survey are not likely to 

cause PTS, or other non-auditory injury, 

serious injury, or death because: 

(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 potential for temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment is very 

low and would likely be avoided 

through the incorporation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures; 

(3) The fact that pinnipeds and 

cetaceans would have to be closer than 

400 m (1,312.3 ft) and 940 m (3,084 ft) 

in deep water when the 36 airgun array 

and 12 m (39.4 ft) and 40 m (131.2ft) 

when the single airgun is in use at 9 m 

(29.5 ft) tow depth from the vessel to be 

exposed to levels of sound believed to 

have even a minimal chance of causing 

permanent threshold shift; and 

(4) The likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

PSOs is high at close proximity to the 

vessel. 

No injuries, serious injuries, or 

mortalities are anticipated to occur as a 

result of the USGS’s planned marine 

seismic survey, and none are 

authorized. Only short-term behavioral 

disturbance is anticipated to occur due 

to the brief and sporadic duration of the 

survey activities. Due to the nature, 

degree, and context of behavioral 

harassment anticipated, the activity is 

not expected to impact rates of 

recruitment or survival for any affected 

species or stock. 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that 12 species of marine 

mammals under its jurisdiction could be 

potentially affected by Level B 

harassment over the course of the IHA. 

For each species, these numbers are 

small relative to the population size. 

NMFS has determined, provided that 

the aforementioned mitigation and 

monitoring measures are implemented, 

that the impact of conducting a marine 

seismic survey in the central-western 

Bering Sea, August 2011, may result, at 

worst, in a temporary modification in 

behavior and/or low-level physiological 

effects (Level B harassment) of small 

numbers of certain species of marine 

mammals. 

While behavioral modifications, 

including temporarily vacating the area 

during the operation of the airgun(s), 

may be made by these species to avoid 

the resultant acoustic disturbance, the 

availability of alternate areas within 

these areas and the short and sporadic 

duration of the research activities, have 

led NMFS to determine that this action 

will have a negligible impact on the 

species in the specified geographic 

region. 

Based on the analysis contained in 

this notice of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS finds that USGS’s planned 

research activities will result in the 

incidental take of small numbers of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment only, and that the total 

taking from the marine seismic survey 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals; and that impacts to affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals 

have been mitigated to the lowest level 

practicable. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires 

NMFS to determine that the 

authorization will not have an 

unmitigable adverse effect on the 

availability of marine mammal species 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49751 

or stocks for subsistence use. There are 

no relevant subsistence uses of marine 

mammals in the study area (deep, 

offshore waters of the central-western 

Bering Sea) that implicate MMPA 

section 101(a)(5)(D). 

Endangered Species Act 

Of the species of marine mammals 

that may occur in the survey area, 

several are listed as endangered under 

the ESA, including the North Pacific 

right, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and 

sperm whales, as well as the western 

stock of Steller sea lions. The eastern 

stock of Steller sea lions is listed as 

threatened. Under section 7 of the ESA, 

USGS initiated formal consultation with 

the NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, Endangered Species 

Division, on this seismic survey. 

NMFS’s Office of Protected Resources, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, also initiated formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

with NMFS’s Office of Protected 

Resources, Endangered Species 

Division, to obtain a Biological Opinion 

(BiOp) evaluating the effects of issuing 

the IHA on threatened and endangered 

marine mammals and, if appropriate, 

authorizing incidental take. In August 

2011, NMFS issued a BiOp and 

concluded that the action and issuance 

of the IHA are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the North 

Pacific right, humpback, sei, fin, blue, 

and sperm whales, and Steller sea lions. 

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. 

USGS must comply with the Relevant 

Terms and Conditions of the Incidental 

Take Statement (ITS) corresponding to 

NMFS’s BiOp issued to both USGS and 

NMFS’s Office of Protected Resources. 

USGS must also comply with the 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

included in the IHA in order to be 

exempt under the ITS in the BiOp from 

the prohibition on take of listed 

endangered marine mammal species 

otherwise prohibited by section 9 of the 

ESA. 

NEPA 

With its complete application, USGS 

provided NMFS an EA analyzing the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts of the specified 

activities on marine mammals including 

those listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. The EA, prepared by 

LGL on behalf of USGS, is entitled 

‘‘Environmental Assessment of a Marine 

Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in the central-western 

Bering Sea, August 2011.’’ After NMFS 

reviewed and evaluated the USGS EA 

for consistency with the regulations 

published by the Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6, 

Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, NMFS 

adopted the USGS EA and issued a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to USGS for 

the take, by Level B harassment, of 

small numbers of marine mammals 

incidental to conducting a marine 

geophysical survey in the centralwestern Bering Sea, August 2011, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20461 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. 11–C0009] 

Perfect Fitness, Provisional 

Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement 

and Order 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: It is the policy of the 

Commission to publish settlements 

which it provisionally accepts under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act in the 

Federal Register in accordance with the 

terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published 

below is a provisionally-accepted 

Settlement Agreement with Perfect 

Fitness, containing a civil penalty of 

$425,000.00. 

DATES: Any interested person may ask 

the Commission not to accept this 

agreement or otherwise comment on its 

contents by filing a written request with 

the Office of the Secretary by August 26, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to 

comment on this Settlement Agreement 

should send written comments to the 

Comment 11–C0009, Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer C. Argabright, Trial Attorney, 

Division of Compliance, Office of the 

General Counsel, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408; telephone (301) 504–7808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the Agreement and Order appears 

below. 

Dated: August 8, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

United States of America Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

Settlement Agreement 

1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, 

Perfect Fitness and staff (‘‘Staff’’) of the 

United States Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

enter into this Settlement Agreement 

(‘‘Agreement’’) under the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). The 

Agreement and the incorporated 

attached Order resolve Staff’s 

allegations set forth below. 

The Parties 

2. Staff is the staff of the Commission, 

an independent federal regulatory 

agency established pursuant to, and 

responsible for, the enforcement of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089. 

3. Perfect Fitness is a privately-held 

Limited Liability Company, organized 

and existing under the laws of the State 

of California, with its principal 

corporate office located at 1750 

Bridgeway, Suite A100, Sausalito, 

California 94965. 

Staff Allegations 

4. Between January 2008 and August 

2008, Perfect Fitness manufactured and 

distributed approximately ten thousand 

(10,000) ‘‘Perfect Pullup’’ exercise 

equipment (‘‘Subject Products’’). 

Retailers continued to sell the Subject 

Products until they were recalled on 

February 17, 2011. The Subject Products 

sold for approximately $80–$100 

through major sporting goods stores, 

online retailers, and through direct 

television marketing. 

5. The Subject Products are 

‘‘consumer products’’ and, at all 

relevant times, Perfect Fitness was a 

‘‘manufacturer’’ of these consumer 

products, which were ‘‘distribute[d] in 

commerce,’’ as those terms are defined 

or used in sections 3(a)(5), (8), and (11) 

of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5), (8), 

and (11). 

6. The Subject Products are defective 

because the handle can break during 

use, resulting in consumers falling to 

the floor. 

7. Perfect Fitness received its first 

complaint involving handle breakage in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES