Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices 39871

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D.022800B]

Small Takes of Marine Mammals

Incidental to Specified Activities;

Marine Seismic-Reflection Data

Collection in Southern California

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

incidental harassment authorization.

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) as amended, notification is

hereby given that an Incidental

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take

small numbers of marine mammals by

harassment incidental to collecting

marine seismic-reflection data in

southern California waters has been

issued to the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS).

DATES: This authorization is effective

from June 5, 2000, through September

30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application

may be obtained by writing to Donna

Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal

Conservation Division, Office of

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

20910–3225, or by telephoning one of

the contacts listed here.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead, NMFS, (301)

713–2055, or Christina Fahy, NMFS,

562–960–4023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow,

upon request, the incidental, but not

intentional, taking of small numbers of

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who

engage in a specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and either regulations are

issued or, if the taking is limited to

harassment, a notice of a proposed

authorization is provided to the public

for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS

finds that the taking will have a

negligible impact on the species or

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of the

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses,

and if permissible methods of taking

and requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such

takings are set forth. NMFS has defined

‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103

as ‘‘...an impact resulting from the

specified activity that cannot be

reasonably expected to, and is not

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the

species or stock through effects on

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’

Subsection 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. The

MMPA now defines ‘‘harassment’’ as:

* * * any act of pursuit, torment, or

annoyance which (a) has the potential to

injure a marine mammal or marine mammal

stock in the wild; or (b) has the potential to

disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal

stock in the wild by causing disruption of

behavioral patterns, including, but not

limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,

breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a

45-day time limit for NMFS review of an

application followed by a 30-day public

notice and comment period on any

proposed authorizations for the

incidental harassment of small numbers

of marine mammals. Within 45 days of

the close of the comment period, NMFS

must either issue or deny issuance of

the authorization.

Summary of Request

On January 24, 2000, NMFS received

a request from the USGS for

authorization to take small numbers of

several species of marine mammals by

harassment incidental to collecting

marine seismic-reflection data from

waters off southern California. Seismic

data will be collected during a 3-week

period between May and July 2000,

preferably June, to determine the source

of the invasion of seawater into

freshwater aquifers that are critical to

the Los Angeles-San Pedro area water

supply and to support studies of the

regional landslide and earthquake

hazards for people within the coastal

cities between Santa Barbara and San

Diego.

Background

The USGS proposes to conduct a

high-resolution seismic survey offshore

from Southern California. For a 3-week

period between May and July 2000,

preferably in June, the USGS would like

to collect seismic-reflection data to

investigate: (1) the intrusion of seawater

into freshwater coastal aquifers that are

critical to the water supply for people

within the Los Angeles- San Pedro area

and (2) the hazards posed by landslides,

tsunamis, and potential earthquake

faults in the nearshore region from

Santa Barbara to San Diego. Both of

these tasks are multi-year efforts that

require high-resolution, seismicreflection data using a minisparker

acoustic source.

Coastal Southern California is the

most highly populated urban area along

the U.S. Pacific coast with 30 percent of

the California population

(approximately 10 million people)

living in Los Angeles County alone. The

primary objectives of the USGS research

are to provide information (1) to

understand and help mitigate the

intrusion of salt water into coastal

aquifer systems resulting from groundwater overdraft, and (2) to help mitigate

the earthquake threat to this area. Data

collected to address the salt water

intrusion objective will be used to

develop a hydrogeologic model for the

region. This model will assist water

managers (Water Replenishment District

of Southern California and the Los

Angeles County Department of Public

Works) in providing a safe and

uncontaminated ground-water supply to

the local population.

Important geologic information that

the USGS will derive from this project’s

seismic-reflection data is how

earthquake deformation is distributed

offshore; that is, where the active faults

are and what the history of movement

along them has been. This should

improve understanding of the shifting

pattern of deformation that occurred

over both the long term (approximately

the last 100,000 years) and short term

(the last few thousand years). The USGS

seeks to identify actively deforming

structures that may constitute

significant earthquake threats. The

USGS also proposes to locate offshore

landslides that might affect coastal

areas. Not only major subsea landslides

might affect the footings of coastal

buildings, but also very large slides can

generate local tsunamis. These large sea

waves can be generated by seafloor

movement that is produced either by

landslides or by earthquakes. Knowing

where large slides have occurred

offshore will help locate areas

susceptible to wave inundation.

Some faults that have produced

earthquakes lie entirely offshore or

extend into offshore areas where they

can be studied using high-resolution

seismic-reflection techniques. An

example is the Rose Canyon fault,

which extends through the San Diego

area, and is considered to be the

primary earthquake threat. This fault

extends northward from La Jolla,

beneath the inner continental shelf, and

appears again onshore in the Los

39872 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices

Angeles area. This fault and others like

it near shore could generate moderate

(M5-6) to large (M6-7) earthquakes.

Knowing the location and geometry of

fault systems is critical to estimating the

location and severity of ground shaking.

Therefore, the results of this project will

contribute to decisions involving land

use, hazard zonation, insurance

premiums, and building codes.

The USGS emphasizes that the goal is

not to predict earthquakes but rather to

help determine what steps might be

taken to minimize the devastation

should a large earthquake occur. The

regional earthquake threat is known to

be high, and a major earthquake could

adversely affect the well-being of a large

number of people. For example,

earthquakes in the coastal ocean off

southern California commonly result in

large-scale submarine landslides, many

of which could be capable of producing

destructive tsunamis.

The proposed work is in collaboration

with scientists at the Southern

California Earthquake Center, which

analyzes faults and earthquakes in

onshore regions, and with scientists at

the Scripps Institute of Oceanography,

who measure strain (incremental

movement) on offshore faults.

The USGS also wants to collect highresolution seismic- reflection data to

locate the sources and pathways of

seawater that intrudes into freshwater

aquifers below San Pedro. Ground water

usage in the Los Angeles basin began in

the mid-1800s. Today, more than 44,000

acre-feet of freshwater each year are

extracted from the aquifers that underlie

the West Coast Basin. Aggressive

extraction of freshwater from coastal

aquifers causes offshore salt water to

flow toward areas of active pumping. To

limit this salt-water intrusion, the Water

Replenishment District and water

purveyors in San Pedro are investing

$2.7 million per year at the Dominguez

Gap Barrier Project to inject freshwater

underground to establish a zone of high

water pressure in the aquifers near San

Pedro and Long Beach. The resulting

zone of high pressure forms a barrier

between the invasive saltwater and the

productive coastal aquifers.

USGS scientists in San Diego are

working with the Los Angeles County

Department of Public Works and the

Water Replenishment District to

develop a ground-water simulation

model to predict fluid flow below San

Pedro and nearby parts of the Los

Angeles Basin. This model will

eventually be used in managing water

resources. The accuracy of the present

model, however, is compromised by a

paucity of information about aquifer

geometry and about other geologic

factors that might affect fluid flow. Data

collected by the USGS will be used to

improve three-dimensional, fluid-flow

models to aid management of water

resources.

Proposed Field Work

Fieldwork described here will be the

fourth geophysical survey on the west

coast that the USGS has conducted

under close supervision by marinemammal biologists. In March 1998, the

USGS used a large (6,500 in3., 106 liters)

airgun array in and around Puget Sound

to study the regional earthquake hazard

(see 63 FR 2213, January 14, 1998). The

USGS employed 12 biologists, who

worked on two ships continuously to

oversee the seismic- reflection

operations. On several occasions the

USGS shut off the acoustic sources

when marine mammals entered safety

zones that had been stipulated by

NMFS, and when mammals left these

zones, the USGS gradually ramped-up

the array as required in its permit to

avoid harming wildlife. Marinemammal biologists reported that during

the survey, no overt distress was evident

among the dense marine mammal

population, and afterward no

unexplained marine mammal strandings

occurred.

In August 1998, the USGS surveyed

offshore from southern California, using

a small airgun (40 in3, 0.65 liters). Two

marine-mammal biologists oversaw this

activity. In June 1999, the USGS

conducted the third survey to support

study of aquifer contamination and

earthquake hazards in southern

California (see 64 FR 31548, June 11,

1999). Three marine-mammal biologists

provided oversight for this operation.

The survey described in this document

is proposed to be conducted with

similar oversight.

Experimental Design

Marine studies conducted by the

USGS focus on areas where saltwater

intrusion into coastal aquifers is an

active concern and where other kinds of

natural hazards have their greatest

potential impact on society. In southern

California, USGS studies will focus on

five chief geographic areas. First is the

San Pedro shelf, offshore of the

Dominguez Gap barrier project.

Collecting data as close to shore as

feasible is critically important in order

to merge onshore and offshore geology

in a manner that allows modeling the

hydrologic flow through the system.

With respect to the seismic-hazard

issues in the offshore, the USGS’ main

priority (and second geographic area) is

the coastal zone and continental shelf

between Long Beach and San Diego,

where much of the hazard appears to be

associated with strike-slip faults such as

the Newport-Inglewood and Palos

Verdes faults. A critical component of

the survey concerns the third

geographic area, which lies farther

offshore in the Santa Monica, San

Pedro, and San Diego Trough deeps,

where rapid sedimentation has left a

more complete record, relative to

shallow-water areas, that can be used to

decipher earthquake history. The fourth

area is the extension into the Santa

Barbara Channel of major elements of

onshore geology that cross the northern

part of Santa Monica Bay and include

several major known earthquake faults.

The fifth area is the geologic boundary,

marked generally by the Channel

Islands, between the inner California

Borderland (dominated by strike-slip

faults) and the Santa Barbara Channel

(dominated by compressional faults).

This change in fault types is important

to study because the degree of

earthquake threat varies with fault type.

The study proposed herein focuses on

the three highest priority areas, which

lie near shore between Los Angeles and

San Diego.

The seismic-reflection survey is

planned to last 21 days. Based on

experience collecting seismic-reflection

data in this general area during 1998

and 1999, the USGS would prefer to

conduct the 2000 survey in June.

Because it will have to contract for a

vessel from which to conduct the

geophysical survey, the targeted study

time frame is sometime within the May

through July window. The basis for this

decision is the USGS’ desire to avoid

the gray whale migrations and the peak

arrival of other mysticetes during the

later summer. An important part of the

effort this summer will be to fill in gaps

caused by shutdowns and daylight-only

operations during earlier surveys.

The USGS has not yet determined the

exact tracklines for the survey, but it

does know the areas where minisparker

use will be concentrated (see Fig. 3 in

the application). Within the overall

work area, the objective is to collect

seismic-reflection data along a grid of

lines that are about 2 km (1.07 nmi)

apart. Data collected during the 1998

and 1999 surveys will be used to guide

the planning for the proposed survey in

order to minimize the number of survey

lines that are required to adequately

define the aquifer geometries and

location of potential earthquake faults.

The USGS proposes to use two

seismic-reflection systems for data

collection: (1) A 1.5 kilo-Joule (kJ)

minisparker using a 200-m (656.2–ft)

long multichannel streamer, and (2) a

low-power, high resolution deep-tow

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices 39873

system. The potential effect on marine

mammals is from the minisparker;

mammals cannot become entangled in

the streamer. The low-powered, highresolution seismic- reflection system,

manufactured by Huntec, Ltd., will

obtain detailed information about the

very shallow geology. The seismicreflection systems will be aboard a

vessel owned by a private contractor or

academic cooperator. Ship navigation

will be accomplished using satellites of

the Global Positioning System. The

survey ship will be able to report

accurate positions, which is important

to mitigating the minisparker’s effect on

marine mammals and to analyzing what

impact, if any, minisparker operation

has on the environment.

The Seismic Sound Sources

The primary sound source to be used

during this survey will be a 1.5 kJ

‘‘SQUID 2000’’ minisparker system

manufactured by Applied Acoustic

Engineering, Inc. This minisparker

includes eight electrodes that are

mounted on a small pontoon sled. The

electrodes simultaneously discharge

electric current through the seawater to

an electrical ground. This discharge

creates an acoustic signal. The pontoon

sled that supports the minisparker is

towed on the sea surface, approximately

20 meters (65.6 ft) behind the ship.

Source characteristics of the SQUID

2000TM minisparker provided by the

manufacturer show a sound-pressure

level (SPL) of 209 dB re 1 μPa-m rootmean-square (RMS). The amplitude

spectrum of this pulse indicates that

most of the sound energy lies between

150 hertz (Hz) and 1700 Hz (1.7 kHz),

and the peak amplitude is at 900 Hz.

The output sound pulse of the

minisparker has a duration of about 0.8

milli-seconds (ms). When operated at

sea for the multichannel seismicreflection survey proposed herein, the

minisparker will be discharged every 4

to 6 seconds.

The second seismic source that will

be used during this survey is a

HuntecTM system, which generates

underwater sound at higher frequencies

than does the minisparker. The

HuntecTM system uses

electromagnetically driven plates to

produce an acoustic pulse every 0.5

seconds, with a duration of about 0.3

ms. In water depths greater than 200 m

(656.2 ft), the HuntecTM source is towed

behind the ship at a depth of

approximately 100 m (328.1 ft). In

shallow water, such as the inner shelf,

the sound source is towed at a depth of

about 5 m (16.4 ft) of the sea surface

within about 5 m (16.4 ft) of the stern

of the ship. The SPL for this source is

205 dB re 1 μParms. The frequencies of

the main output sound are between 500

Hz and 8 kHz, with a peak amplitude at

4.5 kHz.

Comments and Responses

A notice of receipt of the application

and proposed authorization was

published on March 28, 2000 (65 FR

1374), and a 30-day public comment

period was provided on the application

and proposed authorization. Comments

were received from the Marine Mammal

Commission (MMC).

Comment 1: The MMC notes that the

description of the two sound sources

contained in the Federal Register

document appears somewhat different

than the description contained in the

application. For example, the

description of the minisparker does not

mention a 200–m (656.2–ft) streamer,

that the HuntecTM system is towed

approximately 100 m (328.1 ft) behind

the ship in water depths greater than

200 m (656.2 ft), and that only the

minisparker will be towed at night.

Response: The description of the

acoustic sources is more clearly

described in this document. The

streamer is only used as a receiver and

is not a sound source. The streamer will

be deployed during any operation

involving the minisparker sound source.

In shallow water, which will be the

major part of the survey this year,

because of the approval to work within

the 3–mile (5.6 km) limit using the

minisparker sound source, the

HuntecTM system will be towed just

below or at the sea surface and typically

will be within 5 m (16.4 ft) of the

minisparker sound source. Thus, during

night operations in shallow water, both

systems will be in the same illuminated

safety zone.

Comment 2: The MMC notes that the

area of the planned survey, while not

likely to encounter California sea otters

as noted in the application, may

encounter Guadalupe fur seals. If

California sea otters may be

encountered, the applicant should apply

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for

an incidental harassment authorization.

If Guadalupe fur seals could be

encountered, this species should be

included in any incidental harassment

authorization issued by NMFS.

Response: California sea otters, which

are typically found north of Point

Conception, are not expected to be

observed within the limits of the

proposed survey. The USGS has

reviewed the reports of the marine

mammal observers from Cascadia

Research Collective in Olympia, WA

(Cascadia) for its surveys in 1998 and

1999 and noted that sea otters were not

sighted during either operation. Also for

those same years, there are no reported

sightings of Guadalupe fur seals. While

the Guadalupe fur seal population has

been increasing on Guadalupe Island,

Mexico, their only breeding location,

from below 1000 in the late 1970s to the

current estimate of 7500, their breeding

season is from May-July, so it is very

likely that most Guadalupe fur seals will

be found further south, and not off

southern California. However, there was

a recent report of a mother-pup on San

Miguel Island, from June-September,

1997. Melin & DeLong (1999) speculate

that it may have been due to El Nino

conditions, as there are more strandings

of Guadalupe fur seals along the

Calfornia coast during El Nino years.

Therefore, although the numbers of

Guadalupe fur seals are increasing, and

they seem to be extending their range at

least during warmer years, because the

seismic-reflection surveys are going to

be taking place during the breeding

season, the likelihood of a Guadalupe

fur seal being in the area is extremely

low.

Comment 3: The MMC questions

whether the planned nighttime

observations would be capable of

assuring that the surveys have the least

practicable adverse impact on marine

mammals if the HuntecTM system is

used at night, or if the 200–m (656.2–ft)

streamer is part of the minisparker

sound source. Concerned that nighttime lighting for marine mammal

observations could attract fish and

squid, which in turn may attract and

increase the likelihood of attracting

marine mammals, the MMC

recommends that NMFS consult with

the applicant to assure that any marine

mammals approaching or entering the

designated safety zone around the

sound source(s) can be detected in time

to stop operations so the animals are not

adversely affected.

Response: In order for seismic

reflection surveys to incidentally take

marine mammals at night, the nighttime lighting must be capable of making

the entire safety zone visible. If lighting

attracts marine mammals, then the

USGS would incur more shutdowns and

a longer period of time would be needed

to complete the surveys. NMFS is

unaware of ship lighting attracting fish

and squid to the extent that marine

mammals would likewise be attracted to

the vessel. The mitigation plan for the

USGS survey is being designed by

Cascadia in order to ensure that

shutdowns are conducted when marine

mammals are about to enter the safety

zone. The IHA requires the USGS to

have a minimum of 3 observers

available at all times, with two on watch

39874 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices

at all times that seismic operations are

starting up or underway.

NMFS notes that the recent

precautionary application of a 180–dB

safety zone for protecting marine

mammals does not necessarily mean

that animals entering that zone will be

adversely affected. It simply means that

animals have the potential to incur a

temporary elevation in hearing

threshold (termed temporary threshold

shift (TTS)), lasting, at worst, for a few

minutes at the 180 dB sound pressure

level. Also, based upon California

Coastal Commission (CCC)

determinations, the USGS has

implemented, and NMFS has adopted

for this action, a safety zone for

pinnipeds based on the 180 dB isopleth.

However, current scientific consensus

indicates that a safe level for impulse

sounds for pinnipeds from incurring

TTS is higher than the level indicated

for cetaceans (e.g., 180 dB). As a result,

although scientists have preliminarily

established an SPL of 190 dB re 1 μPamRMS as a safe level for pinnipeds

underwater, and while NMFS adopts

this information as the best scientific

information available, the USGS must

abide by the conditions contained in its

CCC consistency determination.

Therefore, NMFS believes that the

potential for adversely affecting

pinnipeds is even less likely as they

would need to be significantly closer to

the source than provided by the safety

zone.

Comment 4: The MMC notes that the

USGS application did not indicate the

species or numbers of marine mammals

that approached or entered the

designated safety zones during the 1998

and 1999 surveys. The MMC

recommends, as it did on the USGS’

1999 application, that the USGS be

required to (1) report at the end of each

24–hour period the species and number

of marine mammals observed

approaching and entering the

designated safety zone during the day

and during the night; and (2) suspend

night-time operations if the species or

number of animals observed

approaching and entering the

designated safety zone at night are

significantly different than those

observed during the day, suggesting that

nighttime observations were failing to

detect significant numbers of animals

that enter the safety zones and could be

killed or injured.

Response: There are several issues

involved in this recommendation that

need to be addressed separately. First,

marine mammals are very unlikely to be

seriously injured, let alone killed, by the

relatively low-intensity acoustic sources

proposed by the USGS for this survey.

Although at different frequencies, the

seismic equipment proposed for use by

USGS are less powerful than fishfinding sonars commonly used in U.S.

waters (including California), and there

is no evidence to date that commercially

available sonars are adversely affecting

marine mammals.

Second, it may not be possible for the

USGS to make daily reports. The USGS’

leased vessel does not have satellite

communication facilities and the only

communication method available would

be cell phone, but only when the vessel

is within range of an onshore repeater.

NMFS doesn’t believe daily reports

are necessary for this authorization

because, based on the Cascadia

observations during the previous

surveys, the number of mammals that

enter the safety zone is small; there were

only 11 occurrences in 1998 and 21 in

1999. It is also important to note that the

designated safety zones were

significantly larger (as much as 200 m

(656.2 ft), depending upon the species

in question) during those earlier

surveys. The number of occurrences for

the proposed survey this year is

expected to be lower given the 30 m

(98.4 ft) safety zone for the much less

powerful sound source that will be

employed. Cascadia will report all

marine mammal observations. This

report will be available upon

completion of the survey (see

Reporting).

The second part of the

recommendation from the MMC is

difficult to evaluate. First, merely

comparing numbers of occurrences

between night and day has the built-in

assumption that the density of marine

mammals is uniform throughout the

survey area. A review of the area of the

shutdowns required by the Cascadia

observers during the previous surveys

shows that the shutdowns are

commonly grouped in a few geographic

areas, probably reflecting such factors as

feeding success by the mammals. In

1999, when there were 21 shutdowns

for mammals moving within the

designated safety zone, six occurred on

one day but there were no shutdowns

during several of the survey days.

In this regard, it should also be noted

that Cascadia reported for the 1999

survey that eight of the 21 occurrences

that required shutdown of the sound

sources involved common dolphins

(Delphinus delphis) approaching the

seismic boat to bowride. More

specifically, the report stated that:

‘‘Marine mammal movements and

behaviors observed during the seismicreflection operations, revealed no

apparent patterns of avoidance and

none could be interpreted as

harassment.’’ Again, given the 30–m

(98.4–ft) safety zone for the much less

powerful sound source that will be used

this year, the number of occurrences of

shutdowns for the proposed survey

should be significantly less.

Finally, the CCC did not approve

night operations for the 1999 survey, so

the USGS does not have data concerning

day vs. night operations from that year.

In 1998, when there were night

operations, Cascadia observers required

11 shutdowns. Three of these

shutdowns were due to pinnipeds, and

these occurrences were in mid-day. Of

the remaining eight shutdowns, three

occurred at night. Because the hours of

daylight were about double the hours of

darkness during the time of the survey,

there did not appear to be any

significant difference between night and

day operational shutdowns during the

1998 survey.

Comment 5: Noting that the work

proposed by the USGS is a multi-year

effort, the MMC recommends that

NMFS consult with the applicant to

determine whether it would be more

appropriate to obtain an authorization

under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA

for the full range of studies proposed

rather than annual authorizations under

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

Response: NMFS believes that a

multi-year authorization under section

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA warrants the

extensive time and effort to implement

regulations and annual Letters of

Authorization thereunder only when the

activity does not have the potential to

vary significantly on an annual basis

and/or when the impacts are fairly

uniform. For example, activities such as

construction and production of an oil

production facility at Northstar (64 FR

57010, October 22, 1999) or the taking

of seals at Seabrook Nuclear Power

Station (64 FR 28114, May 25, 1999)

meet these two criteria. On the other

hand, whenever an activity is likely to

require its authorization issued under

section 101(a)(5)(A) to be publically

reviewed annually (such as occurred

with seismic oil and gas exploration in

the Beaufort Sea prior to 1994), little

would be gained by delaying an

authorization for several months while

regulations are issued prior to an

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A)

of the MMPA. This lengthy delay in

issuing incidental take authorizations

due to the inordinate length of time

necessary for rulemaking actions was

the primary reason Congress

implemented MMPA section

101(a)(5)(D) authorizations when the

takings were limited to incidental

harassment. Since the CCC has

instructed the USGS that each operation

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices 39875

must be considered separately because

of the different geographic areas and

different times of the year that the

surveys may be conducted, no benefit

would be gained by issuing regulations

governing this activity’s incidental take.

Comment 6: The MMC notes

statements made in the application and

Federal Register document (65 FR 1374,

March 28, 2000), that pinnipeds will

come from great distances to scrutinize

seismic operations, and that as a result,

NMFS will not require the minisparker

to be shut down if pinnipeds approach

the safety zone. The MMC states that

there is no indication whether the

referenced observations are anecdotal or

the product of peer-reviewed science. If

not peer-reviewed, the MMC suggests

that research should be conducted

under section 104 of the MMPA.

Response: The proposed mitigation

measure noted in the Federal Register

document (65 FR 1374, March 28, 2000),

states that for pinnipeds, if the research

vessel towing the minisparker

approaches a pinniped, a safety radius

of 30 m (98 ft) around the seismic

source when operating in deep water

and 15 m (49.2 ft) when in shallow

water will be maintained. However, if a

pinniped approaches the towed

minisparker source, NMFS proposes to

not require the USGS to shutdown the

minisparker, but to require the USGS to

monitor the interaction to ensure the

animal does not show signs of distress.

If the pinniped(s) show obvious distress,

the USGS will terminate minisparker

operations and will continue to conduct

observations on effects the minisparker

may have on the animals. Reviewers

should note that these seals and sea

lions need to be actively approaching

the vessel (itself moving forward at

about 3–5 knots) from the side of the

vessel or the stern, meaning that the

animal is voluntarily approaching a

noise source that is increasing in

strength as the animal gets closer.

It is NMFS’ responsibility to ensure

that the incidental taking is reduced to

the lowest level practicable. In

reviewing the information available,

NMFS has determined that it is not

practicable to require applicants to

delay seismic surveys in order to

provide additional protection for

curious seals. These delays lengthen the

time necessary for completing surveys,

requiring additional survey time and

resulting in a potential increase in

impacts on more sensitive marine

mammal species, and raise the potential

for increased costs for conducting

surveys. As mentioned in this document

and in prior Federal Register notices,

seals and sea lions are believed to be

less likely to be harmed by underwater

noise than cetaceans, and have even

been observed swimming in the bubbles

of seismic airguns, a source significantly

more powerful than the proposed

instruments.

While, to our knowledge, the

information provided has not been peerreviewed or scientifically verified under

a section 104 scientific research permit,

these observations were, for the most

part, obtained as a result of monitoring

seismic activities. As a result, NMFS

does not consider them anecdotal.

NMFS has chosen to adopt observations

made to date, some of which were

conducted under previous MMPA

section 101(a)(5)(D) authorizations, as

the best scientific information available.

Description of Habitat and Marine

Mammals Affected by the Activity

The Southern California Bight

supports a diverse assemblage of 29

species of cetaceans (whales, dolphins

and porpoises) and 6 species of

pinnipeds (seals and sea lions). The

species of marine mammals that are

likely to be present in the seismic

research area include the bottlenose

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), common

dolphin, killer whale (Orcinus orca),

Pacific white-sided dolphin

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), northern

right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis

borealis), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus

griseus), pilot whales (Globicephala

macrorhynchus), Dall’s porpoise

(Phocoenoides dalli), sperm whale

(Physeter macrocephalus), humpback

whale (Megaptera novaengliae), gray

whale (Eschrichtius robustus), blue

whale (Balaenoptera musculus), minke

whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), fin

whales (Balaenoptera physalus), harbor

seal (Phoca vitulina), elephant seal

(Mirounga angustirostris), northern sea

lion (Eumetopias jubatus), and

California sea lion (Zalophus

californianus), northern fur seal

(Callorhinus ursinus) and sea otters

(Enhydra lutris). General information on

these latter species can be found in the

USGS application and in Forney et al.

(1999) and Barlow et al. (1998, 1997).

Please refer to these documents for

information on the biology, distribution,

and abundance of these species in

southern California waters.

Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on

Marine Mammals

Discussion

Seismic surveys are used to obtain

data about stratigraphic sequences and

rock formations up to several thousands

of feet deep. These surveys are

accomplished by transmitting sound

waves into the earth, which are reflected

off subsurface formations and recorded

with detectors in the water column.

Disturbance by seismic noise is the

principal means of taking by this

activity. Vessel noise may provide a

secondary source. Also, the physical

presence of vessel(s) could lead to some

non-acoustic effects involving visual or

other cues.

Depending upon ambient conditions

and the sensitivity of the receptor,

underwater sounds produced by openwater seismic operations may be

detectable some distance away from the

activity. Any sound that is detectable is

(at least in theory) capable of eliciting a

disturbance reaction by a marine

mammal or of masking a signal of

comparable frequency. An incidental

harassment take is presumed to occur

when marine mammals in the vicinity

of the seismic source (or vessel) react to

the generated sounds or to visual cues.

Seismic pulses are known to cause

some species of whales, including gray

whales, to behaviorally respond within

a distance of several kilometers

(Richardson et al., 1995). Although

some limited masking of low-frequency

sounds is a possibility for those species

of whales using low frequencies for

communication, the intermittent nature

of seismic source pulses limits the

extent of masking. Bowhead whales in

Arctic waters, for example, are known to

continue calling in the presence of

seismic survey sounds, and their calls

can be heard between seismic pulses

(Richardson et al., 1986).

When the received levels of noise

exceed some behavioral reaction

threshold, cetaceans will show

disturbance reactions. The levels,

frequencies, and types of noise that will

elicit a response vary between and

within species, individuals, locations

and seasons. Behavioral changes may be

subtle alterations in surface-diverespiration cycles. More conspicuous

responses include changes in activity or

aerial displays, movement away from

the sound source, or complete

avoidance of the area. The reaction

threshold and degree of response are

related to the activity of the animal at

the time of the disturbance. Whales

engaged in active behaviors, such as

feeding, socializing, or mating are less

likely than resting animals to show

overt behavioral reactions, unless the

disturbance is directly threatening.

Hearing damage is not expected to

occur during the project. While it is not

known whether a marine mammal colocated or very close to an intense

seismic source would be at risk of

permanent hearing impairment, TTS is

a theoretical possibility for animals

close to the seismic-reflection sources.

39876 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices

However, planned monitoring and

mitigation measures (described later in

this document) are designed to detect

marine mammals occurring near the

seismic-reflection source(s) and to

avoid, to the greatest extent practicable,

exposing them to sound pulses that

have any possibility of causing TTS in

hearing.

Maximum Sound-Exposure Levels for

Marine Mammals

The adverse effects of underwater

sound on mammals have been

documented for exposure times that last

for tens of seconds or minutes, but

adverse effects have not been

documented for the brief pulses typical

of the minisparker (0.8 ms) and the

HuntecTM system (typically 0.3 ms).

While NMFS in the past considered that

the maximum SPLs, from impulse

sounds, to which marine mammals

could safely be exposed were 180 dB re

1 μPa-mrms for mysticetes (baleen

whales) and sperm whales, and 190 dB

re 1 μPa-mrms for odontocetes (toothed

whales, dolphins and porpoises) and

pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), recent

workshops have recommended a more

precautionary approach be taken and,

accordingly, NMFS now recommends

that odontocetes also be limited to an

SPL no greater than 180 dB re 1 μPamrms. However, based on statements and

recommendations made at NMFS’

Acoustic Criteria Workshop in 1998,

NMFS has not increased its

recommended safety zone for pinnipeds

to this same level. In 1999 and 2000, the

CCC has limited the maximum soundexposure level to 180 dB re 1 μPa-m for

all species of marine mammals.

In its application, the USGS has

provided two estimates of how close

marine mammals can approach the

HuntecTM and minisparker sources

before they need to be powered down.

The first estimate follows the procedure

required by the CCC in 1999, where

underwater sound is assumed to

attenuate with distance according to the

equation 20log(Radius(R)), and the

maximum SPL to which marine

mammals can be exposed is 180 dB re

1 μPa-mRMS. The alternative estimate of

safe distance is proposed for operations

limited to shallow water. In shallow

water, sound from both the HuntecTM

and minisparker sources will decay

(attenuate) with distance more sharply

than 20log(R) because some of the

sound energy will exit the water and

penetrate the sea floor when the source

is physically close to the sea floor.

In the deeper water (greater than 50 m

(164 ft)) areas of the proposed survey,

the safety zone for the HuntecTM and

minisparker is a circle whose radius is

the distance from the source to where

the SPL is reduced to 180 dB re 1 μPamRMS. For a 20log(R) sound attenuation,

the safety zone for a 209 dB re 1 μPamRMS source has a radius of about 30 m

(98 ft).

Much of that part of the proposed

2000 survey that focuses on saltwater

intrusion of coastal aquifers will be

conducted close to shore, where water

is shallow. In 1999, the USGS measured

a sound attenuation of 27log(R) in

shallow water off southern California.

Therefore, the USGS proposes that for

inshore areas, underwater sound will

attenuate to approximately 25log(R),

which for inshore areas would yield a

safety zone with a radius of 15 m (49.2

ft).

Because observers would be able to

monitor this short radius of a 15 m (49.2

ft) or 30 m (98 ft) safety zone, the USGS

also proposed that the HuntecTM and

minisparker can be used at night, using

spotlights to illuminate the safety zone

around the tow sled.

Estimated Number of Potential

Harassments of Marine Mammals

Based on estimated marine mammal

populations within the survey area

(Calambokidis and Francis, 1994) and

on the number of individuals that were

observed during the 1998 and 1999

seismic surveys, the USGS estimates

that up to 50 blue whales, 5 killer

whales, 10 minke whales, 10 sea otters,

50 humpback whales, 50 northern sea

lions, 100 northern fur seals, 100

northern elephant seals, 100 Dall’s

porpoise, 100 Risso’s dolphins, 100

northern right-whale dolphins, 100–200

Pacific white-sided dolphins, 100

bottlenosed dolphins, 200 California sea

lions, 200 Pacific harbor seals, and

10,000–12,000 common dolphins may

be harassed incidental to the USGS

survey. No marine mammals will be

seriously injured or killed as a result of

the survey. However, NMFS has

subsequently reviewed the information

and has determined that the large

mysticete whales, northern sea lions,

and sea otters are unlikely to be affected

by either acoustic source planned to be

used this year in this area by the USGS.

The large whales are expected to remain

in offshore waters outside the Channel

Islands at the time of the year that the

activity will take place; northern sea

lions, which are expected to be in more

northerly waters during the summer, are

not known to be affected by low

frequency seismic sources unless close

to the source; and California sea otters

will be north of Point Conception.

Mitigation of Potential Environmental

Impact

To avoid potential Level A

harassment (i.e., injury) of marine

mammals, safety zones will be

established and monitored continuously

by biologists, and the USGS will shut off

any operating seismic source whenever

the ship and a marine mammal converge

closer than the previously mentioned

safety distances.

For all cetaceans (whales, dolphins,

and porpoises), NMFS is requiring

USGS to immediately cease operations

of the minisparker when members of

these species approach within 30 m (98

ft) of the sound source when operating

in deep water, and 15 m (49.2 ft) for

both the minisparker and the HuntecTM

source when operating in shallow water.

(The HuntecTM source in deep water

will be in waters significantly deeper

than the radius of the safety zone and

therefore is not practical to monitor).

NMFS understands that the CCC has not

accepted the scientific data that in

shallow water, underwater sound

commonly attenuates more sharply than

20log(R), for reasons mentioned

previously in this document. However,

NMFS is required to use the best

scientific information available when

making determinations and

implementing appropriate mitigation

measures, and as such, has concluded

that the more restrictive conditions

placed on the USGS by the CCC are not

supportable and therefore cannot be

adopted by NMFS. This however, in no

way relieves the USGS from complying

with the conditions imposed by the CCC

in its determination of coastal

consistency.

For pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), if

the research vessel approaches a

pinniped, the USGS originally

requested, and, for the reasons cited in

the previous paragraph, NMFS has

accepted, that a safety radius of 30 m

(98 ft) around the minisparker seismic

source when operating in deep water

and 15 m (49.2 ft) for both acoustic

sources when in shallow water will be

maintained. NMFS believes the 180 dB

re 1 μPa-mRMS safety zone is more

conservative than is necessary for the

reasons stated previously in this

document, however, because this level

was requested initially by the applicant,

NMFS has accepted this condition for

the USGS’ IHA.

However, if a pinniped approaches

the towed acoustic source, NMFS will

not require the USGS to shutdown the

source, but will require the USGS to

monitor the interaction to ensure the

animal does not show signs of distress.

Experience indicates that pinnipeds will

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices 39877

come from great distances to inspect

seismic operations. Seals have been

observed swimming within airgun

bubbles, 10 m (33 ft) away from active

arrays, apparently unaffected. Although

seismic-reflection operations will be

terminated if the pinnipeds show

obvious distress, the USGS is required

to conduct observations on effects the

acoustic sources may have on the

animals.

The USGS will have marine biologists

aboard the ship who will have the

authority to stop the seismic-reflection

operations when a marine mammal

enters the safety zone or indicates

obvious distress anywhere within the

vicinity of the ship. Although NMFS

believes it is very unlikely to occur, if

observations are made that one or more

marine mammals of any species are

attempting to beach themselves when

the source is operating in the vicinity of

the shore, the seismic-reflection sources

will be immediately shut off and NMFS

contacted.

During seismic-reflection surveying,

the ship’s speed will only be 4 to 5

knots, so that when the acoustic source

is being discharged, nearby marine

mammals, if they hear the low- to midfrequency noise, will have gradual

warning of the vessel’s approach and

can move away if disturbed. Finally,

NMFS will coordinate with the local

stranding network to determine whether

any strandings which occur during, or

near the time of the survey, can be

related to the seismic-reflection

operation. If NMFS determines, based

upon a necropsy of the animal(s), that

the death was likely due to exposure to

the USGS acoustic source(s), the survey

will cease until procedures are altered

to eliminate the potential for future

mortality.

Operating less than 24 hours each day

incurs substantially increased cost for

the leased ship, which the USGS states

that it cannot afford. The ship schedule

provides a narrow time window for this

project; other non-related experiments

are already scheduled to precede and

follow this survey and for that reason,

the USGS cannot arbitrarily extend the

survey time. Thus, the USGS does not

propose as a mitigation measure

shutting down in dark or during periods

of poor visibility. The 2000 survey will

require only 3 weeks, and it will be

spread out geographically from Los

Angeles to San Diego, so no single area

will experience long-term activity. In

the view of the USGS, the best course

is to complete the survey as

expeditiously as possible. For these

reasons, the USGS has requested that

the acoustic survey be conducted 24

hours/day and the IHA allow 24-hour

operations, specifically at night and

with the understanding that the USGS

will survey during this time in shallow

water. Both NMFS and the CCC concur,

and the IHA provides for 24–hour

operations surveys while in shallow

water.

Possible Modifications or Alternatives

to the Proposed Survey

Options to change the activity are

limited. In order to reduce the

probability for the incidental

harassment of marine mammals and to

be able to operate within nearshore

areas, the USGS has changed from using

a seismic airgun source, as used in prior

surveys, to a minisparker for the

proposed survey. The seismic-source

strength cannot be reduced further in an

attempt to limit the potential

environmental impact. The minisparker

is already smaller than any source the

USGS has previously used for these

kinds of geophysical surveys, and the

problem with this option is that the

USGS cannot significantly reduce the

source strength without jeopardizing the

success of this survey. This judgment is

based not only on USGS’ decades-long

experience with seismic-reflection

surveys, but especially on the 1998

survey that was conducted in the same

general area as outlined here. If the

USGS were to reduce the sound-source

size and then fail to obtain the required

information, another survey would need

to be conducted, and this would have

the potential to increase impact on

marine mammals.

To abandon this study altogether is a

poor option. The USGS has described

the societal relevance of this project as

it would improve understanding of fluid

movement in coastal aquifers and how

to stem the intrusion of salt water into

them. Another facet of this study is to

help scientists understand the regional

earthquake hazard that, in turn, will aid

city planners in establishing building

codes. If the project was canceled, such

information would be unavailable.

This project could be carried out at

some other time of year. The USGS

talked with biologists to find out the

best time for the project to be

conducted. The USGS wants to avoid

the gray whale migrations and the midsummer arrival of other mysticete

species because, while these species

remain mostly in the area of the

Channel Islands, some individuals

venture closer to the mainland. An

important consideration in deciding the

most appropriate time of the year is that

biologists can best prevent harm to

mammals when daylight is long, that is,

near the solstice.

Monitoring

Monitoring marine mammals while

the acoustic sources are active will be

conducted 24 hours each day. Trained

marine mammal observers will be

aboard the seismic vessel to mitigate the

potential environmental impact from

using these acoustic sources and to

gather data on the species, number, and

reaction of marine mammals to the

sources. During daylight, observers will

use 7x50 binoculars with internal

compasses and reticules to record the

horizontal and vertical angle to sighted

mammals. Night-time operations will be

conducted with a spotlight to illuminate

the safety zone around the minisparker

tow sled. Monitoring data to be recorded

during seismic-reflection operations

include the name of the observer on

duty, and weather conditions (such as

Beaufort sea state, wind speed, cloud

cover, swell height, precipitation, and

visibility). For each mammal sighting,

the observer will record the time,

bearing and reticule readings, species,

group size, and the animal’s surface

behavior and orientation. Observers will

instruct geologists to shut off the

acoustic source(s) whenever a marine

mammal enters the safety zone.

Reporting

The USGS will contract with Cascadia

to provide an initial report to NMFS

within 160 days of the completion of the

2000 phase of the marine seismic

project. This report will provide dates

and locations of seismic operations,

details of marine mammal sightings, and

estimates of the amount and nature of

all takes by harassment. A final

technical report will be provided by

USGS within 270 days of completion of

the 2000 phase of the marine seismic

project. The final technical report will

contain a description of the methods,

results, and interpretation of all

monitoring tasks.

Consultation

Under section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act, NMFS has completed

consultation on the issuance of an IHA.

NMFS finds this action to be unlikely to

adversely affect listed marine mammals

because the endangered whales are

expected to be more prevalent in

offshore waters outside the Channel

Islands at the time of the year that the

activity will take place; northern sea

lions, which are expected to be in more

northerly waters during the summer, are

not known to be affected by low

frequency seismic sources unless close

to the source; and the Guadalupe fur

seal is expected to be on or near

39878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices

Guadalupe Island, Mexico, during this

time.

Conclusions

NMFS has determined that the shortterm impact of conducting marine

seismic-reflection data in offshore

southern California may result, at worst,

in a temporary modification in behavior

by certain species of pinnipeds and

cetaceans. While behavioral

modifications may be made by certain

species of marine mammals to avoid the

resultant noise from the seismic sources,

this behavioral change is expected to

have no more than a negligible impact

on the animals.

In addition, no take by serious injury

or death is anticipated, and takes will be

at the lowest level practicable due to the

incorporation of the mitigation

measures previously mentioned. No

known rookeries, mating grounds, areas

of concentrated feeding, or other areas

of special significance for marine

mammals occur within or near the

planned area of operations during the

season of operations.

Since NMFS is assured that the taking

would not result in more than the

incidental harassment (as defined by the

MMPA) of small numbers of certain

species of marine mammals, would have

only a negligible impact on these stocks,

and would result in the least practicable

impact on the stocks, NMFS has

determined that the requirements of

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

been met and the authorization can be

issued.

Authorization

Accordingly, NMFS has issued an

IHA to the USGS for the possible

harassment of small numbers of several

species of marine mammals incidental

to collecting marine seismic-reflection

data off southern California between

June 5 and September 30, provided the

mitigation, monitoring and reporting

requirements described in the

authorization are undertaken.

Dated: June 21, 2000.

Art Jeffers,

Deputy Director, Office of Protected

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–16228 Filed 6–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 053100C]

Marine Mammals; File No. 358–1564–00

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game, 1255 W. 8th Street, P.O. Box

25526, Juneau, Alaska 99802–5526 [P.I.

Kenneth W. Pitcher] has been issued a

permit to take Steller sea lions

(Eumetopias jubatus) for purposes of

scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related

documents are available for review

upon written request or by appointment

in the following office(s): 

Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,

Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713–

2289); and

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. 21668,

Juneau, AK 99802–1668 (907/586–

7248).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Simona Roberts or Ruth Johnson, 301/

713–2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 11, 2000, notice was published

in the Federal Register (65 FR 6997)

that a request for a scientific research

permit to take Steller sea lions had been

submitted by the above-named

organization. The requested permit has

been issued under the authority of the

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,

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

Regulations Governing the Taking and

Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR

part 216), the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.), and the regulations governing

the taking, importing, and exporting of

endangered and threatened species (50

CFR parts 222–226).

Issuance of this permit, as required by

the ESA, was based on a finding that

such permit (1) was applied for in good

faith, (2) will not operate to the

disadvantage of the endangered species

which is the subject of this permit, and

(3) is consistent with the purposes and

policies set forth in section 2 of the

ESA.

Dated: June 22, 2000.

Ann Terbush,

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–16351 Filed 6–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain

Cotton, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend

and Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles and

Textile Products Produced or

Manufactured in Bangladesh

June 22, 2000.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs adjusting

limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross

Arnold, International Trade Specialist,

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212. For information on the quota

status of these limits, refer to the Quota

Status Reports posted on the bulletin

boards of each Customs port, call (202)

927–5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs

website at http://www.customs.gov. For

information on embargoes and quota reopenings, call (202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as

amended.

The current limits for certain

categories are being adjusted for swing,

special shift and carryforward.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982,

published on December 22, 1999). Also

see 64 FR 68333, published on

December 7, 1999.

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

June 22, 2000.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.