17118 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

(particularly bowhead whales) and 

subsistence harvests from acoustic 

sounds. However, we expect these 

impacts can be mitigated through 

incorporation of specified mitigation 

measures. 

Alternatives/Mitigations 

NMFS/MMS have identified 9 

alternatives, including the no action 

alternative. Analyzed alternatives range 

from issuance of MMS permits with and 

without mitigation measures. 

Specifically, the alternatives include 

different combinations of safety and 

exclusion zones for preventing injury 

(180/190 dB), limiting behavioral 

harassment (160 dB) and limiting 

impacts on feeding and migrating 

bowhead cow calf pairs (160 dB/120 dB, 

respectively). An identified alternative 

to protecting feeding and migration 

areas through specific temporal/spatial/ 

operational restrictions to further reduce 

impacts to feeding/socializing/ 

migrating aggregations of bowhead and 

gray whales and bowhead cow/calf pairs 

has also been analyzed. At this time, 

MMS and NMFS have not identified a 

preferred alternative. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to the 

person listed above (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), at least five 

business days before the scheduled 

meeting date. 

Dated: March 27, 2007. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6414 Filed 4–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 030607A] 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Specified Activities; Open Water 

Seismic Operations in Cook Inlet, 

Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of two 

incidental harassment authorizations. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions 

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) as amended, notification is 

hereby given that Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations (IHAs) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

conducting seismic operations in the 

northwest portion of Cook Inlet, Alaska, 

have been issued to ConocoPhillips 

Alaska, Inc. (CPAI) and Union Oil 

Company of California (UOCC) for a 

period between mid-March and midJune, 2007. 

DATES: The authorization for CPAI is 

effective from March 30 until May 31, 

2007; and the authorization for UOCC is 

effective from May 1 until June 15, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, 

IHA, Environmental Assessment (EA), 

and/or a list of references used in this 

document may be obtained 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 

20910–3225, or by telephoning one of 

the contacts listed here (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext 

137, or Brad Smith, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, (907) 271–3023. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization 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 and that the 

permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ’’...an impact resulting from 

the specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. Except 

with respect to certain activities not 

pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–

day time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a 30–day public 

notice and comment period on any 

proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of small numbers 

of marine mammals. Within 45 days of 

the close of the comment period, NMFS 

must either issue or deny issuance of 

the authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On October 6 and on October 12, 

2006, NMFS received applications from 

CPAI and UOCC, respectively, 

requesting Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations (IHAs) for the possible 

harassment of small numbers of the 

Cook Inlet beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), Steller lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus), Pacific harbor 

seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi), harbor 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), and 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) incidental 

to conducting open water seismic 

operations in portions of Cook Inlet, 

Alaska. A detailed description of these 

activities was published in the Federal 

Register on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 536). 

No change has been made to these 

proposed activities. 

Both proposed operations use an 

ocean-bottom cable (OBC) system to 

conduct seismic surveys. OBC seismic 

surveys are used in waters that are too 

shallow for the data to be acquired using 

a marine-streamer vessel and/or too 

deep to have static ice in the winter. 

The proposed operations would be 

active 24 hours per day, but the airguns 

would only be active for 1 – 2 hours 

during each of the 3 – 4 daily slack tide 

periods. The source for the proposed 

OBC seismic surveys would be a 900–

in3 BOLT airgun array situated on the 

source vessel, the Peregrine Falcon. The 

array would be made up of 2 sub-arrays, 

each with 2 3–airgun clusters separated 

by 1.5 m (4.9 ft) off the stern of the 

vessel. One cluster will consist of 3 

225–in3 airguns and the second cluster 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17119 

will have 3 75–in3 airguns. During 

seismic operations, the sub-arrays will 

fire at a rate of every 10 – 25 seconds 

and focus energy in the downward 

direction as the vessel travels at 4 – 5 

knots (4.6 – 5.8 mph). Source level of 

the airgun array is 249 dB re 1 microPa 

at 1 m (0 – peak), and the dominant 

frequency range is 8 – 40 Hz. 

The geographic region for the seismic 

operation proposed by CPAI 

encompasses a 25 mi2 (65 km2) area in 

northwestern Cook Inlet, paralleling the 

shoreline from just offshore of the 

Beluga River south for about 6 km (3.7 

miles). The approximate boundaries of 

the region of the proposed project area 

are 61°09.473′N, 151°11.987′W; 

61°16.638′N, 151o02.198′W; 

61°12.538′N, 150°49.979′W; and 

61°05.443′N, 151o00.165′W. Water 

depths range from 0 to 24 m (80 ft). 

There will be a 1.6 km (1 mile) setback 

of operations from the mouth of the 

Beluga River to comply with Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) 

restrictions. The proposed seismic 

operations would occur from mid March 

depending on the time of ice breakup, 

and last until mid-May, 2007. 

The geographic region for the activity 

proposed by UOCC encompasses a 28.2 

km2 (10.9 square miles) area in 

northwestern Cook Inlet, paralleling the 

shoreline offshore of Granite Point, and 

extending from shore into the inlet to an 

average of about 1.6 km (1 mile). The 

approximate boundaries of the region of 

the proposed project area are 

61°00.827′N, 151°24.071′W; 

61°02.420′N, 151°15.375′W; 

61°00.862′N, 150°15.313′W; and 

61°57.979′N, 151°23.946′W. There are 

no major rivers flowing into the open 

water seismic project area. Water depths 

range from 0 to 18 m (60 ft). The 

proposed seismic operations would 

begin as early as May 1 and end no later 

than June 15, 2007. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt and request for 30–

day public comment on the applications 

and proposed authorizations was 

published on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 

536). During the 30–day public 

comment period, NMFS received the 

following comments from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission), 

the Humane Society of the United States 

(HSUS), the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD), the Whales and 

Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), 

the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), 

CPAI, the Center for Regulatory 

Effectiveness (CRE), and one private 

citizen. 

General Comments 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS issue the IHAs 

subject to the following stipulations: 

(1) The applicants be required to 

institute monitoring and mitigation 

measures sufficient to afford the 

potentially affected marine mammals 

species adequate protection from 

sources of disturbance, including 

disturbance of behavior; 

(2) The period of observation be 

extended from 15 to 30 minutes before 

it is assumed that an animal has moved 

beyond the safety zone; 

(3) Observations be carried out during 

all ramp-up procedures to gather data 

regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up 

as a mitigation measures; and 

(4) Operations be suspended 

immediately if a dead or seriously 

injured marine mammals is found in the 

vicinity of the operations and the death 

or injury could be attributable to the 

applicants’ activities. Any suspension 

should remain in place until NMFS has 

(a) reviewed the situation and 

determined that further deaths or 

serious injuries are unlikely or (b) 

issued regulations authorizing such 

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

MMPA. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission’s comments and 

recommendation that the applicants 

must institute monitoring and 

mitigation measures sufficient to afford 

the potentially affected marine mammal 

species adequate protection from 

sources of disturbance, including 

disturbance of behavior. As an 

additional measure of marine mammal 

monitoring, NMFS requires that CPAI 

conducting aerial monitoring of Cook 

Inlet beluga whales in the vicinity of the 

project area during seismic surveys 

between mid-March and mid-May (see 

Monitoring Section later in this 

document). The aerial surveys would 

determine the presence and relative 

numbers of belugas between east 

Susitna River and North Foreland and 

determine the location of belugas 

relative to seismic operations. No aerial 

monitoring is required for seismic 

operations by UOCC since the proposed 

project area and time would not have a 

relative high number of beluga whales. 

NMFS also agrees with the 

Commission that the duration of preoperation monitoring be extended to 30 

minutes to make sure that no marine 

mammals are in the safety zone before 

the initiation of airgun firing. As is 

standard under IHAs, observation 

would also be conducted during all 

ramp-up procedures to ensure the 

effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation 

measure. 

NMFS further agrees with the 

Commission that seismic operations 

must be suspended immediately if a 

dead or seriously injured marine 

mammal is found in the vicinity of the 

project area and the death or injury of 

the animal could be attributable to the 

applicants’ activities. This requirement 

is a conditions in the IHA. 

Comment 2: CPAI urges NMFS to 

proceed with the authorization as 

proposed in the Federal Register notice 

(72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) and to 

require only the mitigation measures, 

monitoring and reporting procedures 

listed in the notice, including: (1) 

limiting the time and frequency of the 

operations and the use of airguns; (2) 

establishment of safety zones; (3) vessel 

speed and course alteration; (4) powerdown procedures; (5) shut down 

procedures; (6) ramp-up procedures; (7) 

use of qualified NMFS-approved vesselbased marine mammal observers 

(MMOs); and (8) report of submission 

after the end of the project. 

Response: The Federal Register notice 

(72 FR 536), published on January 5, 

2007, provides a detailed description of 

the proposed seismic operations by 

CPAI and UOCC in upper Cook Inlet, 

the anticipated impacts to marine 

mammal species and/or stocks and their 

habitat within the project area, the 

potential effects on the subsistence 

harvest of these marine mammal species 

and/or stocks, and a list of proposed 

monitoring and mitigation measures to 

reduce the potential impacts that would 

result from the proposed actions. A 

thorough review by NMFS biologists of 

these projects, impacts, and monitoring 

and mitigation measures led NMFS to 

reach a preliminary determination the 

proposed projects, would result in no 

more than a negligible impact on such 

species or stocks, and would not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

subsistence uses, provided that all 

monitoring and mitigation measures are 

carried out. 

After careful consideration, NMFS 

decided to add an additional monitoring 

measure to require CPAI to also conduct 

aerial monitoring of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales within its project area off Beluga 

River in upper Cook Inlet to ensure 

beluga whales are not displaced from 

their normal habitat. Please refer to the 

Monitoring Section later in this 

document for a detailed description of 

CPAI′s aerial monitoring plan. 

In addition, CAPI and UOCC are 

required to conduct pre-survey 

monitoring of marine mammals for 30 

minutes to ensure that the safety zone 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17120 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

is free of marine mammals prior to 

initiating airgun firing, and that seismic 

operations must be suspended 

immediately if a dead or seriously 

injured marine mammals is found in the 

vicinity of the operations and the death 

or injury could be attributable to the 

applicants′ activities. All these 

requirements are conditions of the IHAs. 

MMPA Concerns 

Comment 3: CBD states that NMFS 

did not make the distinction between 

‘‘small number’’ and ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ while making the decision in 

the Federal Register notice (72 FR 536, 

January 5, 2007). 

Response: NMFS disagree. The 

analysis provided in the Federal 

Register notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 

2007) clearly described in detail the 

numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales, 

Pacific harbor seals, and harbor 

porpoises that may be potentially taken 

by Level B harassment as a result of the 

seismic operations in upper Cook Inlet. 

Although no take number was estimated 

for Steller sea lions and killer whales 

within the project area due to their rare 

presence based on surveys conducted in 

recent years, NMFS believes that the 

harassment of these species would be 

much less likely than those of beluga 

whales and harbor seals. NMFS believes 

that the numbers for all affected species 

are small. 

NMFS conducts separate detailed 

analyses on the levels of take by noise 

exposure and cumulative impacts to 

these marine mammal species and 

stocks from a wide spectrum in the past, 

current, and foreseeable future were also 

conducted and described in the 

aforementioned Federal Register notice 

and in the EA. These analyses led 

NMFS to conclude that while behavioral 

modifications, including temporarily 

vacating the area during the project 

period may be made by these species to 

avoid the resultant visual and acoustic 

disturbance, NMFS nonetheless finds 

that this action would result in no more 

than a negligible impact on these marine 

mammal species and/or stocks. NMFS 

also finds that the proposed action 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence uses. Please refer to the 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 536, 

January 5, 2007) and the EA for a 

detailed description of the analysis. 

Comment 4: CBD questions whether 

NMFS used the ‘‘best available science’’

in making its negligible impact 

statement. As CBD points out that in 

making its determination, NMFS must 

give the benefit of the doubt to the 

species rather than for the benefit of 

commercial exploitation. 

Response: NMFS disagree. Sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary 

of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment. An authorization 

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 and that the 

permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking are set forth. To reach a 

determination whether such take 

constitute a negligible impact to the 

marine mammal species or stock(s), 

NMFS must use the best available 

scientific information. 

In reaching the determination for 

issuance of two IHAs for conducting 

seismic surveys in upper Cook Inlet, 

NMFS has consulted a number of 

scientific studies in this field and 

prepared an EA based on the most 

recent peer-reviewed information. 

Where information is unobtainable 

because of ethical concerns regarding 

conducting invasive and injurious 

effects on marine mammals, surrogate 

species or appropriate modeling is used 

in lieu of empirical information on 

marine mammals. This information are 

reviewed by the Commission and its 

Scientific Advisors, some of whom are 

experts on assessing impacts on marine 

mammals from underwater sound 

sources. The information contained in 

the EA has also been reviewed by 

endangered species biologists at NMFS 

Anchorage Field Office and expert in 

bioacoustics at NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources. Please refer to the 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 536, 

January 5, 2007) and the EA for a 

detailed description of NMFS analyses. 

As NMFS has used the best science 

currently available in making its 

negligible impact determination and 

because NMFS always gives the benefit 

of the doubt to the species when making 

these determinations, NMFS believes 

that no harm will occur to these affected 

species and/or stocks. 

Comment 5: The WDCS recommends 

that the IHA should not be issued and 

that seismic surveying should not be 

allowed to take place in the Cook Inlet. 

The WDCS further states that recent 

status review and extinction assessment 

reveals that Cook Inlet beluga whale 

population has not shown appreciable 

recovery since 1999, and should be 

listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) as an endangered species. The 

WDCS states that any added pressure to 

this population might push it beyond 

recovery. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. As stated 

here and in the EA, NMFS determined 

that the proposed short-term action that 

has several mitigation measures 

incorporated to reduce impacts to the 

lowest level practicable would result in 

no more than a negligible impact on 

Cook Inlet beluga whales (72 FR 536, 

January 5, 2007). The Cook Inlet beluga 

whale listing action under the ESA is a 

separate action, that is currently under 

NMFS review and consideration. 

Comment 6: CBD states that it does 

not believe NMFS can lawfully 

authorize any Level A harassment of 

Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Response: As stated in the Federal 

Register notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 

2007), no take by Level A harassment 

(injury) or death is anticipated or 

authorized for the proposed Cook Inlet 

seismic operations. 

Comment 7: CBD states that in light 

of the impending listing of the Cook 

Inlet beluga, NMFS should delay issuing 

any take authorization for the species 

until the ESA process is complete. 

Response: NMFS cannot legally delay 

issuing a take authorization based on 

the impending listing of a species. 

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

establishes a 45–day time limit for 

NMFS review of an IHA 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. An authorization shall be 

granted if NMFS finds, that as here, the 

taking will have a no more than 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s) and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses and that the 

permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking are set forth, such as the 

case of this action. 

NEPA Concerns 

Comment 8: The Commission is 

concerned about the potential impact of 

the proposed activities in conjunction 

with other factors that might be 

adversely affecting beluga whales (i.e., 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17121 

cumulative effects). The Commission 

states that such factors include 

increased vessel traffic, contaminants, 

military operations, waste management, 

urban runoff, and furthermore, a variety 

of new activities that are planned for 

Cook Inlet during the period for which 

the incidental taking authorizations are 

sought. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Commission′s concern regarding the 

potential impact of the proposed 

activities in conjunction with other 

factors that might be adversely affecting 

the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock. 

NMFS also believes that extra caution is 

needed when proceed in authorizing 

any IHAs for Cook Inlet beluga whales, 

due to the precarious situation of this 

stock. Therefore, NMFS has conducted 

a detailed analysis on the cumulative 

impact on the environment which may 

result from the incremental impact of 

the proposed short-term seismic survey 

action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions within upper Cook Inlet. 

The analyses are described in detail in 

the Environmental Assessment on the 

Issuance of Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations to ConocoPhillips 

Alaska, Inc. and Union Oil Company of 

California to Take Marine Mammals by 

Harassment Incidental to Conducting 

Seismic Operations in Northwestern 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

Comment 9: CBD states that for the 

analyses on CPAI and UOCC′s 

applications, NMFS must consider these 

effects together with all other activities 

that affect these species, stocks, and 

local populations, other anthropogenic 

risk factors such as other industrial 

development, climate change, and the 

cumulative effect of these activities over 

time. 

Response: NMFS has conducted 

extensive analyses on the cumulative 

impact to marine mammal species 

within the proposed action areas in the 

EA. Please also refer to Response to 

Comment 8. 

Comment 10: CBD states that NMFS 

cannot rationally adopt its EA and make 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). CBD states that NMFS must 

prepare a full environmental impact 

statement (EIS) analyzing the effects of 

the proposed seismic surveys in the 

context of the cumulative effects of all 

other natural and anthropogenic 

impacts on the marine mammals, 

habitats and communities of Cook Inlet. 

Response: In December, 2006, NMFS 

prepared a draft EA for public comment 

and review. During the 30–day 

comment period, rigorous reviews were 

conducted by NMFS scientists in the 

NMFS Alaska Office and by members of 

the Committee of Scientific Advisors on 

Marine Mammals of the Commission. In 

view of the information presented in 

this document and the analysis 

contained in the supporting draft EA 

prepared for this proposed action, and 

the best available scientific information 

on effects of sound on marine mammals, 

we have determined that the this action 

would not significantly impact the 

quality of the human environment. 

In addition, monitoring and 

mitigation measures described in this 

document and in the supporting draft 

EA when implemented will reduce 

impacts on marine mammal stock to the 

lowest level practicable. Furthermore, 

additional aerial monitoring measure for 

Cook Inlet beluga whales is added to the 

requirements for seismic operations by 

CPAI near Beluga River (see Monitoring 

Section below), which was included in 

the Final EA. This additional aerial 

monitoring measure is contained in the 

IHA issued to CPAI. In addition, all 

beneficial and adverse impacts of the 

proposed action have been addressed to 

reach the conclusion of no significant 

impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an 

EIS for this action is not warranted. 

Subsequently, NMFS finalized the draft 

EA and issued a FONSI on the proposed 

project. 

Levels and Numbers of Marine 

Mammals Affected 

Comment 11: CBD and one private 

citizen express their concerns that there 

is a threat of serious injury and 

mortality to the Cook Inlet beluga 

whales and other marine mammals from 

the proposed seismic surveys. 

Response: As described in detail in a 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 536) 

published on January 5, 2007, and in the 

draft EA for the proposed action, NMFS 

has performed a thorough analysis on 

the levels of potential impacts to Cook 

Inlet beluga whales and four other 

species of marine mammals as a result 

of seismic operations in the upper Cook 

Inlet. Based on this analysis, which is 

supported by the best available 

scientific information, NMFS has come 

to the conclusion that only a few beluga 

whales, Pacific harbor seals, harbor 

porpoises, Steller sea lions, and killer 

whales may be taken incidental to 

seismic surveys, by no more than Level 

B harassment and that such taking will 

result in no more than a negligible 

impact on such species or stocks. 

Therefore, NMFS believes that the 

authorized harassment takes should be 

at the lowest level practicable due to 

incorporation of mitigation measures 

described in the IHA, the EA, and in 

this document. 

No take by Level A harassment 

(injury) or death is anticipated or 

authorized, and harassment takes 

should be at the lowest level practicable 

due to incorporation of strict monitoring 

and mitigation requirements 

conditioned in the IHA. Please refer to 

the Federal Register notice (72 FR 536, 

January 5, 2007) and the EA for a 

detailed description of the analysis. 

Comment 12: The Commission states 

that the estimated taking of up to 57 

beluga whales incidental to the two 

proposed projects can be characterized 

as a small number of animals for 

purposes of making the finding required 

under the MMPA. However, it 

represents more than one-quarter of the 

IUCN′s estimate of the number of 

mature animals in this population 

(Lowry et al., 2006). Arguably, the 

Commission states that this level of 

anticipated taking could have more than 

a negligible impact on the survival and 

recovery of the stock. The Commission 

believes that caution is warranted. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission that extra caution is 

needed when authorizing any incidental 

take permits of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales, due to the precarious situation 

of this stock. The IUCN stated that the 

population of Cook Inlet beluga whale is 

estimated at 207 mature individuals 

(Lowry et al., 2006), however, there is 

no mention of any population surveys 

the IUCN conducted to reach this 

number. A Bayesian inference on the 

population size of Cook Inlet beluga 

(1994 2005) provided by the IUCN on its 

website (http://www.iucnredlist.org/ 

search/details/61442.pdf) showed that 

the population estimate of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales to be over 300 (range: 

approximately 290 400) whales, above 

NMFS’ estimate of 278 whales, in 2005. 

In addition, the estimated potential take 

of up to 57 Cook Inlet beluga whales 

would include all individuals, and the 

potential take would be limited to only 

Level B behavioral harassment. 

Furthermore, with the implementation 

of monitoring and mitigation measures 

discussed in the EA and this document, 

NMFS believe the actual take by 

harassment would be much lower. 

Therefore, NMFS does not believe that 

the anticipated taking resulted from the 

proposed activities would have more 

than a negligible impact on the survival 

and recover of the Cook Inlet beluga 

whale stock. 

Comment 13: CBD is concerned that 

beluga′s foraging behavior and the large 

tidal fluctuations in Cook Inlet pose 

high risk of stranding at low tide even 

in the absence of anthropogenic 

disturbance. 

Response: Beluga whale stranding 

events in upper Cook Inlet are not 

uncommon. NMFS has reported 804 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17122 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

strandings (both individual and mass 

strandings) in upper Cook Inlet since 

1988 (Vos and Shelden, 2005). Mass 

stranding events primarily occurred 

along Turnagain Arm, and often 

coincided with extreme tidal 

fluctuations (‘‘spring tides’’) and/or 

killer whale sighting reports (Shelden et 

al., 2003). These mass stranding events 

involve both adult and juvenile beluga 

whales are are apparently healthy, 

robust animals. 

It is uncertain why beluga whales 

strand in Cook Inlet. Beluga whales are 

known to intentionally strand 

themselves during molting, while 

rubbing their skin against rocky bottoms 

(NMFS, 2005). Beluga whales may also 

strand purposely or accidentally to 

avoid predation by killer whales. 

Stranded whales, particularly large 

adults, are at risk of mortality due to 

stress, hyperthermia and suffocation. 

During two mass stranding events in 

1996 and 1999 involving about 120 

whales, 9 adult whales died (Moore et 

al., 2000). In 2003, 115 beluga whales 

stranded during five events. Five 

mortalities occurred during one of these 

events when 46 animals stranded in 

Turnagain Arm (Vos and Shelden, 

2005). However, NMFS has determined 

that implementation of mitigation 

measures described in this document, 

such as altering vessel direction, powerdown or shut-down of airguns when 

whales are detected to be heading 

towards the safety zone, carrying out 

ramp-up procedure when startup 

airguns, and conducting seismic surveys 

only during slack tide periods, would 

prevent such stranding events from 

occurring. 

Comment 14: HSUS states that the 

information provided and the impact 

analysis for Cook Inlet belugas are not 

based on the most recent sources. HSUS 

states that the most recent status review 

issued by NMFS for Cook Inlet beluga 

(Hobbs et al., 2006) updates, and 

dramatically expands on, information 

from the stock assessment. HSUS states 

that only the most recent information 

should be used when considering the 

status, distribution and effects on the 

stock. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

HSUS that the most recent information 

should be used when considering the 

status, distribution, and effects of the 

stock. NMFS has updated the EA for 

this action with new stock assessment 

data based on the most recent aerial 

surveys conducted by NMFS National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory in the 2006 

season. The revised data updates the 

Cook Inlet beluga whale population at 

302 whales (NMFS, unpublished data) 

from the previous 278 whales assessed 

in 2005. However, NMFS does not agree 

with the HSUS that the Status Review 

updates, and dramatically expands on, 

information from the stock assessment. 

As stated in its Executive Summary, the 

Status Review ‘‘provides a summary of 

the best available science to aid NMFS 

policy makers’’ in determining that the 

listing action may be warranted, and 

therefore is consistent with NMFS Draft 

Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet 

Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) 

(draft Conservation Plan, NMFS, 2005a). 

Comment 15: HSUS, citing Hobbs, 

states that the range of beluga whales 

has contracted considerably to focus 

during spring and summer around river 

mouths in upper Cook Inlet, in the 

general area where the seismic projects 

are proposed. HSUS states that the 

contracted smaller ranges are very 

important habitat to a vulnerable 

population. HSUS is concerned that the 

mitigation measures of ramping would 

displace beluga whales and force them 

to utilize suboptimal habitat. 

Response: In the Status Review 

(Hobbs et al., 2006) the statement 

regarding the diminishing of the beluga 

whale′s ranges provides the following 

description: 

‘‘In the 1970s and 1980s, beluga 

sightings occurred across much of the 

northern and central parts of Cook Inlet 

(Calkins 1984), but in the 1990s the 

summer distribution diminished to only 

the northernmost portion of Cook Inlet 

(Rugh et al., 2000).’’

The Status Review and the draft 

Conservation Plan, as supported by 

NMFS long-term beluga whale surveys 

in Cook Inlet, showed that whales do 

not just congregate around any river 

mouth in upper Cook Inlet. The Status 

Review states that from late spring and 

throughout the summer months, the 

majority of beluga probably feed on fish 

species that are abundant in the Susitna 

River system and adjacent intertidal 

mudflats. The proposed project area for 

CPAI, as described in detail in the 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 536, 

January 5, 2007), is paralleling the 

shoreline from just offshore of the 

Beluga River south for about 6 km, 

which is about 15 miles south of Susitna 

River mouth. This area is in the extreme 

southern edge of the area classified by 

NMFS as Type 2 habitat (high value, 

summer feeding area) in its draft 

Conservation Plan. Since the proposed 

CPAI seismic operations will be 

completed by May 15, NMFS does not 

believe that this project would have 

significant impact to beluga foraging 

activities. However to ensure that CPAI 

survey does not have a significant 

impact, NMFS is requiring CPAI to 

conduct an aerial monitoring program 

(see Monitoring Section). As for the 

proposed UOCC seismic project, which 

would occur further south in a latter 

period (from May 15 June 15) when the 

majority of Cook Inlet belugas will be 

feeding around the Susitna River, Knik 

Arm, and Tumagain Arm areas (Rugh et 

al., 2000), no aerial monitoring is 

required. Therefore, it is not likely that 

the proposed seismic operations and the 

mitigation measures will displace 

beluga whales from their prime feeding 

ground or force them to utilize 

suboptimal habitat. Please refer to the 

draft Conservation Plan and the EA for 

a detailed description of beluga whales′ 

temporal and spatial distribution in 

Cook Inlet. 

Comment 16: HSUS is concerned that 

displacing animals for up to 8 hours 

each day (1 2 hours during each of 3 4 

daily slack tides) for a period of months 

could have significant effects on 

foraging success and thus fitness of 

individuals in this declining 

population. HSUS notes that 

disturbance resulting in displacement 

by beluga whales does not appear to 

have been considered in the draft EA. 

HSUS also states that displacement even 

from a small area, if that area is 

important habitat, could have serious 

long term impacts on Cook Inlet beluga. 

In addition, citing Morton and Symonds 

(2002), HSUS states that killer whales 

and harbor porpoises have been 

displaced from important habitat by seal 

scrammers, a sound source similar to 

airguns. 

Response: NMFS disagree. Regarding 

the potential concern of displacing 

animals for up to 8 hours each day for 

the three-month period, since the survey 

vessel will be moving as it is conducting 

seismic surveys, NMFS does not believe 

that the whales will be displaced from 

a particular location during the entire 

period. The most likely scenario is that 

as the survey vessel conducts the 

surveys, marine mammals including 

beluga whales will be temporarily 

displaced from an approximately 370 m 

(1,214 ft) radius zone of influence (ZOI). 

As the vessel moves around, the ZOI 

will be shifting constantly. Therefore, 

no animal is expected to be displaced 

from an area for longer than 1 2 hours. 

NMFS considers temporary (rather than 

long-term) displacement of marine 

mammals as a form of behavior 

avoidance and is discussed in the draft 

EA (page 28). Please refer to the EA, 

Cook Inlet Beluga Conservation Plan, 

and Response to Comment 15 for 

additional information on beluga whale 

habitat. 

Regarding Morton and Symonds’s 

(2002), HSUS incorrectly stated that 

acoustic harassment devices (AHDs) and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17123 

airguns were similar in acoustic 

features. The sound produced by an 

AHD is intermittent but is considered 

non-pulse, based on differences in 

measurements between continuous and 

impulses sound level meters (Harris, 

1998). In addition, the 10–kHz Airmar 

AHD mentioned in Morton and 

Symond′s (2002) was designed 

specifically to cause physical pain to 

seals, and the nature of killer-whale 

hearing (similar to most odontocetes 

including belugas) makes this species 

vulnerable to impact by this type of 

sound source as well. As a result, NMFS 

believes that the AHD which was used 

from 1993 to 1999, is not be comparable 

to seismic airguns as proposed to be 

used during the three-month long 

seismic surveys proposed in Cook Inlet. 

Comment 17: Citing NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs), HSUS 

points out that the Gulf of Alaska harbor 

seals should not be treated as a single 

stock. 

Response: Whether the Gulf of Alaska 

harbor seals should be reclassified into 

more finely scaled stocks remains under 

study. Until NMFS officially has 

adopted the revised stock 

reclassification based on available 

scientific information, NMFS will 

continue to use the existing stock 

information with the latest population 

abundance assessment for management 

purposes under the MMPA. In addition, 

even if the Cook Inlet harbor seals were 

to be reclassified as a separate stock, 

NMFS does not believe that the 

proposed seismic project would have 

significant impact to these animals due 

to the rare occurrence of the harbor seals 

within the project area. The most recent 

count for harbor seals within Cook Inlet 

is 7,330 seals (Josh London, National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory. Pers. 

Comm. February 2007). NMFS 

calculated that up to 30 Pacific harbor 

could be taken by Level B behavioral 

harassment as a result of the seismic 

projects. Therefore, the estimated take 

as a result of the proposed projects 

would represent 0.4 percent of the total 

seals in Cook Inlet. 

Comment 18: HSUS points out that 

the Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoise stock 

was recently revised from ‘‘not 

strategic’’ to ‘‘strategic’’ due to poor 

and/or outdated abundance estimates. 

Response: NMFS updated the 

information on Gulf of Alaska stock of 

harbor porpoise in the EA, based on the 

newly released draft Stock Assessment 

Report. The classification of the Gulf of 

Alaska harbor porpoises to a strategic 

stock is largely due to lack of 

information on incidental harbor 

porpoise mortality in commercial 

fisheries. The population estimate for 

this stock has been revised from 30,506 

to 41,854 porpoises. Therefore, the 

percentage of estimated take of the Gulf 

of Alaska harbor porpoise by seismic 

surveys has been revised from 0.02 

percent to 0.01 percent. 

Comment 19: HSUS is concerned that 

information on harbor porpoise 

densities in Cook Inlet was based on 

surveys done in 1991 1993, therefore, 

the abundance data would not be 

accurate. HSUS further states that 

harbor porpoises are not evenly 

distributed but ‘‘tend to clump in areas 

where forage conditions are more ideal, 

making them more vulnerable to 

anthropogenic impacts in some areas 

than others.’’ Citing Rugh (2005), HSUS 

states that there were high densities of 

harbor porpoises in two different areas 

in Cook Inlet. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the survey studies on population 

densities of Cook Inlet harbor porpoises 

cited (Dalheim et al., 2002) were 

conducted 14 years ago, however, there 

is no evidence that these data are not 

accurate. A reference search did not 

show that there are any better or more 

recent studies available. Therefore, 

NMFS considers that Dalheim et al.’s 

(2002) research on population densities 

of Cook Inlet harbor porpoises is the 

best scientific information available 

thus far. 

The statement ‘‘that harbor porpoises 

tend to clump in areas where forage 

conditions are more ideal, making them 

more vulnerable to anthropogenic 

impacts in some areas than others’’ is 

not totally relevant since the proposed 

seismic surveys do not necessarily seek 

areas where forage conditions are good 

for marine mammals. Even if the areas 

were the same, marine mammals 

clustered in groups would offer a better 

opportunity to see them and implement 

appropriate mitigation. 

NMFS assumes that the citation HSUS 

mentioned is Rugh et al. (2005), NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC–

149: Aerial Surveys of Belugas in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska, June 2001, 2002, 2003, 

and 2004. In this paper, Rugh et al. 

stated that twice they located high 

density areas for harbor porpoises: south 

of Tuxedni Bay in 1994 and south of 

Chinitna Bay in 2004. Both areas are 

located in lower Cook Inlet, which are 

not the proposed project area. This 

statement supports NMFS assessment in 

its EA that harbor porpoises tend to 

concentrate in lower Cook Inlet. 

Comment 20: Citing NMFS’ draft EA 

that there is no abundance estimate of 

Steller sea lions and killer whales in the 

proposed project area, HSUS and the 

AWI state that this does not preclude 

the occurrence of Steller sea lion within 

the project area and the analysis in the 

EA is inadequate. HSUS further 

questions NMFS regarding source 

references that Steller sea lions seldom 

occur in upper Cook Inlet besides data 

from aerial surveys conducted in June 

and July. 

Response: First, one should not 

interpret the statement in the draft EA 

that no population estimate has been 

made for Steller sea lions and killer 

whales within the proposed project area 

as that NMFS has no knowledge 

whether these species occur in the area 

or not. Repeated aerial surveys by 

NMFS for Cook Inlet beluga whales 

have recorded any sighting of other 

marine mammals including Steller sea 

lions and killer whales, however, no 

efforts were made to calculate the 

abundance of these species due to their 

rare occurrence in the project area (Rugh 

et al., 2005). In fact, Rugh et al. (2005) 

documented every sighting of marine 

mammals in their beluga whale aerial 

survey report. Although systematic 

surveys for beluga whales are usually 

conducted in June and July, field 

observations were made by biologists in 

NMFS Anchorage Office throughout the 

year on marine mammals within Cook 

Inlet. All these observations point out 

that Steller sea lions are rare in upper 

Cook Inlet (Brad Smith, NMFS 

Anchorage Office. Pers. Comm. 

February 2007). 

Acoustic Impacts 

Comment 21: CBD, the AWI and the 

WDCS question NMFS assumption that 

belugas would not be harassed by 

seismic sounds below 160 dB re: 1 

microPa. CBD states that there are 

numerous studies showing significant 

behavioral impacts from received 

sounds well below 160 dB. For example, 

in its recent decision document related 

to seismic surveys associated with oil 

and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea, 

NMFS imposed a 120–dB safety zone for 

aggregations of bowhead whales based 

on its finding that ‘‘bowhead whales 

apparently show some avoidance in 

areas of seismic sounds at levels lower 

than 120 dB’’ (MMS, 2006). Also harbor 

porpoises have been reported to avoid a 

broad range of sounds low-frequency 

(airgun pulses), mid-frequency (sonar 

transmissions), and high-frequency 

(acoustic harassment devices) at very 

low sound pressure levels (between 100 

and 140 dB re: 1 microPa) (Kastelein et 

al., 2000; Olesiuk et al., 2002; 

Calambokidis et al., 1998; NMFS, 

2005b). AWI states that whales have 

stranded and died after being exposed to 

lower levels of sound, notably in the 

Bahamas incident of 2001. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17124 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

Response: NMFS does not agree. As 

stated in the Federal Register (72 FR 

536, January 5, 2007) and the EA, one 

of the most important aspects to assess 

the effects of high intensity sounds on 

marine mammals is to understand their 

hearing sensitivity. For most small- and 

medium-sized odontocetes (beluga 

whales included), the most sensitive 

hearing ranges fall between 1 and 100 

kHz (Richardson et al., 1995). Although 

it has been reported that beluga whale’s 

hearing extends to as low as 40 75 Hz 

(Awbrey et al., 1988; Johnson et al., 

1989), its hearing threshold is at about 

130 140 dB re: 1 microPa (Richardson et 

al., 1995). The dominant frequencies 

(i.e., frequencies with highest sound 

pressure levels) of the airguns to be used 

in the proposed seismic operations are 

in the extreme low end of the spectrum 

(around 20 Hz). NMFS believes that at 

these low frequency ranges, the ability 

for belugas to detect sound is greatly 

reduced, therefore, belugas are not 

likely to be harassed. 

While bowhead whales may be 

affected by seismic sounds above 120 

dB re: 1 microPa, they are mostly found 

within the Arctic, do not occur in Cook 

Inlet and therefore will not be affected. 

Other mysticete species are not 

expected in upper Cook Inlet. The 

harbor porpoise examples given in the 

comments were exposed to acoustic 

signals with much higher frequencies 

than the acoustic signals being 

produced by the proposed project (150 

3,500 Hz). For example, the experiment 

conducted by Kastelein et al. (2000) 

used three types of sounds, all had 

harmonics with high sound pressure 

levels above the range of 11 to 30 kHz. 

Gordon et al. (1998) reported on 

experimental playbacks to harbor 

porpoises in inshore waters around 

Orkney, United Kingdom using a small 

source air gun (source level 228 dB re: 

1 microPa zero-to-peak at 1 m) and 

observed no changes in the rate of 

acoustic detection as a result of sound 

exposure. In general, it is well known 

that harbor porpoises′ hearing 

sensitivity drops sharply as frequency 

goes under 8,000 Hz (Andersen, 1970; 

Kastelein et al., 2002). 

In addition, it is also important to 

understand that whether a marine 

mammal would be harassed by sound or 

not also depends on the context of the 

animal’s behavior and the acoustical 

property of the sound signal. It is also 

very possible that whales may not be 

harassed when exposed to sound at 

received levels higher than 160 dB re: 1 

microPa (e.g., Madsen and Mohl, 2000; 

Harris et al., 2001). Furthermore, as 

discussed in the EA, the upper Cook 

Inlet is one of the most industrialized 

and urbanized regions of Alaska. As 

such, ambient noise levels are high and 

range from 100 120 dB re: 1 microPa 

(Blackwell and Greene, Jr., 2002). 

Therefore, it is likely that marine 

mammals in this region are habituated 

to these anthropogenic sounds. 

NMFS does not concur with the AWI 

that there was a whale stranding event 

in the Bahamas in 2001 caused by 

exposure to sound levels under 160 dB 

re: 1 microPa, as mentioned in its 

comment (no reference provided). There 

was a mass stranding event in the 

Bahamas on March 15 16, 2000, which 

is possibly linked to naval exercises in 

the area (Cox et al., 2006). Although no 

received levels and mechanism that 

caused the stranding were determined, 

it was revealed that four of five ships 

were using mid-frequency sonar (AN/ 

SQS–53C: 2.6 3.3 kHz, approximately 

235 dB re: 1 microPa SPL, AN/SQS–56: 

6.8, 7.5, and 8.2 kHz, approximately 223 

dB re: 1 microPa SPL; Anon, 2001). 

These sounds are very different from the 

seismic pulses in terms of frequencies, 

amplitudes, and temporal patterns. 

Comment 22: Citing a recently issued 

IHA by NMFS to the National Science 

Foundation for conducting seismic 

surveys, CBD is concerned that beluga 

whales could be displaced at a 

significant distance (up to 20 km, or 

12.4 mi) from a sound source. 

Response: NMFS notes that there have 

been observations that small toothed 

whales sometimes move away, or 

maintain a somewhat greater distance 

from the seismic vessel, when a large 

array of airguns is operating than when 

it is silent (e.g., Calambokidis and 

Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003). Aerial 

surveys during seismic operations in the 

southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded 

much lower sighting rates of beluga 

whales within 10 20 km (16 – 32 mi) of 

an active seismic vessel. These results 

were consistent with the low number of 

beluga sightings reported by observers 

aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting 

that some belugas might be avoiding the 

seismic operations at distances of 10–20 

km (Miller et al., 2005). However, as 

noted in the Federal Register notice 

referenced by the CBD (71 FR 43450, 

August 1, 2006), NMFS does not 

consider minor movements away from 

an acoustic source to rise to Level B 

harassment, since at the range of 7,097 

and 10,646 m (4.4–6.6 mi; depending on 

ocean depths), received levels dropped 

down to below 160 dB re: 1 microPa. 

Comment 23: The WDCS states the 

possibility that up to 57 Cook Inlet 

beluga whales (up to 20 percent of the 

population) could be subjected to 180–

dB received level is unacceptable. Given 

the most recent research survey, 

providing a population abundance 

estimate of only 278 animals, it would 

be unacceptable for even one animal to 

be subjected to the received levels 

proposed during the seismic surveys. 

Response: NMFS does not think the 

WDCS statement is accurate. Based on 

NMFS’ calculation, as discussed in the 

draft EA, no Cook Inlet beluga whales 

would be subjected to noise levels equal 

to or greater than 180 dB re: 1 microPa 

(rms) from the proposed seismic 

surveys. Based on NMFS’ acoustic 

criteria, 180 dB re: 1 microPa (rms) is 

considered to be the onset of TTS and 

exposure of cetaceans to this level of 

noise will not be permitted under these 

IHAs. Strict mitigation and monitoring 

measures described in the EA and 

required under these IHAs will prevent 

any cetaceans from exposure to 180 dB 

re: 1 microPa (rms) or greater. 

NMFS states that up to 57 beluga 

whales (representing 19 percent of the 

population based on the most recent 

survey data) could be exposed to noise 

levels of 160 dB re: 1 microPa (rms), 

which is the onset of Level B behavioral 

harassment, as a result of the seismic 

operations. 

Comment 24: CBD questions NMFS’

Level A harassment criteria of 180 dB 

re: 1 microPa for cetacean and 190 dB 

re: 1 microPa for pinniped species. CBD 

cites that in 2002, 2 Cuvier’s beaked 

whales (Ziphius cavirostris) were found 

to have stranded in the Gulf of 

California, Mexico, coincident with 

geophysical surveys that were being 

conducted in the area (Hildebrand, 

2004), and in the same year, humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) were 

reported to have stranded in unusually 

high numbers along Brazil’s Abrolhos 

Banks, where oil-and-gas surveys were 

being conducted (Engel et al., 2004). In 

addition, CBD states that the western 

Pacific gray whales were displaced from 

feeding grounds and exhibited 

behavioral changes in response to 

seismic surveys off Russia′s Sakhalin 

Island (Wursig et al., 1999). CBD also 

states that no studies undertaken on the 

acoustic sensitivity of pinnipeds 

suggests these species are at lower risk 

of threshold shift or auditory injury than 

cetaceans (Kastak et al., 1999; 2005), 

and that harbor seals have exhibited low 

discomfort thresholds to anthropogenic 

noise (Kastelein et al., 2006). 

Response: In 1998, scientists 

convened at the High Energy Seismic 

Sound (HESS) Workshop, reviewed the 

available scientific information, and 

agreed on the received sound levels 

above which marine mammals might 

incur permanent tissue damage 

resulting in a permanent threshold shift 

(PTS) of hearing. Shortly thereafter, a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17125 

NMFS panel of bioacousticians used the 

information gathered at the HESS 

workshop to establish the current Level 

A Harassment acoustic criteria for nonexplosive sounds, 180 dB re: 1 microPam (rms) for cetaceans, and 190 dB re: 1 

microPa-m (rms) for pinnipeds, exposed 

to impulsive sounds. In the absence of 

good sound scientific information for 

specific species, NMFS conservatively 

adopt these criteria to establish safety 

zones, within which monitoring or 

mitigation measures must be applied, 

for all cetacean and pinniped species. 

A study by Finneran et al. (2002) on 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

and beluga whale using a behavioral 

response paradigm and exposing them 

to intense impulses from a seismic 

watergun showed that masking 

temporary threshold shifts (MTTS) 

occurred after being exposed to an 

impulsive sound of 160 kPa, or 226 dB 

re: 1 microPa p-p, with total energy 

fluxes of 186 dB re: 1 microPa2–s for the 

beluga whale. No MTTS was observed 

in the dolphin at the highest exposure 

conditions: 207 kPa, 228 dB re: 1 

microPa p-p, and 188 dB re: 1 

microPa2–s total energy flux. 

As for these two stranding examples 

cited in the comment (Hildebrand, 2004; 

Engel et al., 2004) that occurred in the 

vicinity where there had been seismic 

surveys conducted using powerful 

airguns, a causation relationship 

between seismic surveys and strandings 

has yet to be scientifically established. 

These references did not state that 

seismic surveys are the cause of the 

strandings. Please see NMFS more 

detailed response to these two events in 

the previous notice (69 FR 74906, 

December 16, 2004). NMFS notes that 

no measurements were made on the 

distance between the acoustic source 

and the marine mammals. The report by 

Wursig et al. (1999), which is also cited 

in the comment, provided a detailed 

study of behavioral ecology of western 

Pacific gray whale summering off 

Sakhalin Island. The report did not 

suggest that the species were displaced 

from important feeding ground. On the 

contrary, a follow up final report 

(Wursig et al., 2000) on the same subject 

stated that ‘‘whales did not appear to be 

displaced by industrial activity.’’

No comparable studies have been 

conducted on pinnipeds regarding their 

responses to impulsive sounds. The two 

references (Kastak et al., 1999; 2005) 

cited in the comment cannot be used to 

address the noise responses of 

pinnipeds for the proposed project 

because animals in these studies were 

exposed to octave-band noises for 

extended durations (20 22 minutes in 

Kastka et al., 1999; 20, 25, and 50 

minutes in Kastka et al., 2005). In the 

third reference (Kastelein et al., 2006) 

cited in the comment, harbor seals were 

also exposed to octave-band noise, 

nonetheless, no TTS was observed. All 

these studies underscore the importance 

of including sound exposure metrics 

(incorporating sound pressure level and 

exposure duration) in order to fully 

assess the effects of noise on marine 

mammal hearing, not just looking at the 

absolute sound pressure levels. 

Comment 25: HSUS uses an example 

that workers in loud factories become 

habituated to noise in order to make 

money to feed their families, but that 

does not insulate them from the 

multiplicity of effects of stress or 

chronic sub-lethal conditions that may 

go undetected by external monitoring, 

therefore, the habituation to high level 

acoustic disturbance cannot be 

dismissed. 

Response: NMFS does not believe that 

the HSUS′ example of workers working 

in noisy factories is a good analogue to 

marine mammals living in a noisy 

environment due to the different 

contexts. In addition, such comparison 

cannot be performed as HSUS did not 

provide quantitative data on the noise 

levels of the ‘‘loud factories’’ that are 

presumed to cause stress or chronic sublethal condition. 

The marine environment is an 

efficient medium for sound propagation 

and the ambient noise, as shown in 

many studies, are much higher 

underwater than in air, although 

quantitative comparison is often 

impossible due to different reference 

point in acoustic pressures selected. 

Many of the sounds (e.g., those from 

marine life, wind, surf, waves, rain, 

bubbles, ice, earthquakes, and thunder/ 

lightning) underwater occur naturally 

and are considered an intrinsic property 

of the environment (Wenz, 1962; 

Diachok and Winokur, 1974; Arnold et 

al., 1984; Wilson et al., 1984; Nystuen 

and Farmer, 1987; Richardson et al., 

1995; Tkalich and Chan, 2002; Ma et al., 

2005). Therefore, marine mammal 

hearing sensitivities may not reflect 

those of terrestrial animals. 

Furthermore, the proposed seismic 

surveys would occur in a short period 

of three months and are not confined in 

one fixed spot, while the factory 

workers in HSUS′ example are 

presumed to be working in the same 

noisy environment for a number of 

years. 

Comment 26: HSUS states that when 

describing the characteristics of seismic 

sound, NMFS did not cite the most 

recent literature except Richardson et al. 

(1995), Marine Mammal and Noise 

(Academic Press), which HSUS 

considers to be outdated. HSUS brings 

NMFS attention to a recent paper by 

Madsen et al. (2006) indicating that 

seismic airguns generate significant 

sound energy at frequencies well above 

those of interest to the surveyors. Citing 

Madsen et al. (2006), HSUS states that 

received levels of up to 147 dB re: 1 

microPa rms were generated for higher 

frequencies, which may cause 

avoidance, stress, and masking to 

marine mammals. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS 

does not consider Richardson et al.’s 

(1995) work as outdated. To the 

contrary, it is still one of the most 

authoritative and widely cited 

literatures on characteristics of seismic 

sound and airguns. In fact, Richardson 

et al. (1995) has noted that low 

frequency airgun pulses contain energy 

in much higher frequencies, which was 

also cited in our draft EA. NMFS is 

aware of Madsen et al.’s work and 

considers it an important contribution 

to our understanding of seismic sounds 

propagation in deep water. 

In addition, NMFS does not believe 

that received levels from inpulse noise 

(sound as seismic) of up to 147 dB re: 

1 microPa rms would cause a 

biologically significant response by 

marine mammal species and stocks in 

Cook Inlet (see Response to Comment 

21). However, in recognition of the 

potential of horizontal propagation of 

sound energy at higher frequencies, 

NMFS requires that safety zones based 

on 180 dB and 190 dB re: 1 microPa rms 

isopleths around the survey vessel be 

established for cetacean and pinniped 

species, respectively at the distance of 

greatest propagation. Please refer to the 

EA and Federal Register notice (72 FR 

536, January 5, 2007) for detailed 

information. 

Comment 27: HSUS states that NMFS 

did not consider some of the more 

recent work examining the impacts of 

seismic airguns on marine mammals. 

HSUS brings NMFS attention to the 

proceedings from a workshop on this 

issue by the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) Scientific 

Committee’s Standing Working Group 

on Environmental Concerns. In 

addition, HSUS states that very 

outdated sources (primarily from the 

1990s) of empirical work on the impact 

of seismic airguns on marine mammals 

were cited in the draft EA. 

Responses: NMFS is aware of the 

proceeding by the 2006 IWC Scientific 

Committee’s Standing Working Group 

on Environmental Concerns and has 

reviewed all its session papers on 

impacts of seismic surveys on cetaceans. 

These papers and the proceeding were 

not considered in the EA because none 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17126 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

of the session papers were peerreviewed, and many are summaries of 

original studies that were already 

included in the EA. Nonetheless, a few 

of the new studies presented at the IWC 

did provide information on long-range 

effects of airgun noise on marine 

mammals. For example, field 

monitoring of seismic surveys by U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in Juan de 

Fuca Strait, Georgia Strait, Puget Sound, 

Hood Canal, and other marine waters in 

British Columbia and Washington 

showed that most marine mammals 

exhibited avoidance and Level B 

behavioral change when exposed at 170 

183 dB re: 1 microPa rms but were not 

affected when levels were below 170 

dB, except for harbor porpoises (Bain 

and Williams, 2006). Although the 

authors stated that there were 

insufficient numbers of individuals of 

marine mammals observed to merit 

statistical analysis, the general 

observations support NMFS 160–dB 

criteria for the onset of Level B 

behavioral harassment. 

As regards to the sources used in the 

draft EA, NMFS does not considered 

them outdated. All references NMFS 

used are peer-reviewed and are cited in 

peer-reviewed papers. All these papers 

were tested in time and thus NMFS 

considers them to be the best available 

scientific information. A quick tally 

showed that among the 21 references 

cited on noise impacts on marine 

mammals, 3 (14 percent) were 

published in the 1980s, 8 (38 percent) 

in the 1990s, and 10 (48 percent) in the 

2000s. 

Comment 28: HSUS states that the 

fact that cetaceans are near vessels 

during airgun firing, even riding the 

bows of vessels towing arrays is more a 

reflection of the characteristics of airgun 

sound propagation than an indication 

that airgun pulses do not affect 

cetaceans. HSUS states that there may 

well be sound shadows closer to the 

vessel and the animals may be attracted 

to the vessels in an effort to escape 

exposure to the blast. 

Response: The Lloyd-mirror effect 

phenomenon, where acoustic energy is 

diminished in a sound field near the 

surface where engine and propeller 

noise from a ship is blocked by the 

vessel’s hull, has been a discussion 

regarding ship strike of large whales 

(Terhune and Verboom, 1999; Blue et 

al., 2001). However, it is highly unlikely 

that the received levels would be 

reduced to the degree from the source 

(airgun array) with no blockage between 

the source and the receivers. 

Nonetheless, the IHAs require the 

surveyors to shut down the airgun as 

soon as a marine mammal is sighted or 

believed to be inside the safety zones, 

and no airgun can be started until 30 

minutes after all marine mammals have 

vacated the safety zones. 

Comment 29: HSUS states that beluga 

whales react to low frequency sounds 

from icebreaker ships, probably at the 

level at which they are just able to 

detect them, up to 40 km away (Finley 

et al., 1990; Cosens and Dueck, 1993). 

HSUS questions NMFS’ assumption that 

beluga whales do not react to low 

frequency sounds. 

Response: NMFS does not agree with 

HSUS′ extrapolation of beluga reactions 

to approaching icebreaker ship sounds 

to predict their responses to lowfrequency seismic surveys. First, the 

acoustic characteristics of an icebreaker 

do not resemble those from a seismic 

airgun array. While seismic airguns 

produce transient sounds (pulses), the 

noise from a ship is continuous sounds 

(non-pulses) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

In addition, HSUS incorrectly classified 

sounds from icebreaker ships as ‘‘lowfrequency.’’ In fact, mid-point 

frequencies of intense sound levels 

(over 162 dB re: 1 microPa) from 

icebreaker ships recorded ranged from 

50.1 Hz 5.01 kHz (Cosens and Dueck, 

1993). In a more recent study, the 

statistical source spectrum levels in 

12th octave bands between 100 Hz and 

20 kHz from the Canadian Coast Guard 

icebreaker Henry Larsen, were 

calculated at a median source level of 

192 dB re: 1 microPa @ 1 m from 

bubbler system noise and 197 dB re: 1 

microPa @ 1 m for noise associated with 

propeller cavitation along this entire 

frequency range (Erbe and Farmer, 

2000). Therefore, their effects of noises 

from icebreaking ships and seismic 

airguns to marine mammals cannot be 

compared. Furthermore, the contexts of 

the acoustic signals and the prior 

exposure of anthropogenic sounds by 

the whales need also to be taken into 

consideration when interpreting animal 

responses. As suggested in both 

publications cited by HSUS (Finley et 

al., 1990; Cosens and Dueck, 1993), the 

beluga whale reactions to icebreaker 

noise at unprecedented ranges in the 

remote Canada High Arctic was 

probably due to the fact that these 

animals are relatively naive with respect 

to exposure to industrial noise. 

Richardson et al. (1995) also suggested 

that the acute responsiveness to 

icebreakers was probably caused by the 

partial confinement of whales by heavy 

ice, scarcity of ships in the high arctic 

in spring, and ideal sound propagation 

conditions (LGL and Greeneridge, 1986). 

Comment 30: HSUS states that there 

is an overemphasis on avoidance 

behavior and hearing loss when 

discussing the potential impacts of the 

seismic surveys on marine mammals in 

Cook Inlet in NMFS’ draft EA. Citing the 

IWC Report of the Standing Working 

Group on Environmental Concerns 

(2006), HSUS states that ‘‘Clark and his 

colleagues...suggest strongly that 

masking may be a significant problem 

for animals exposed to seismic airguns,’’

but it was not mentioned in the draft 

EA. 

Response: NMFS considers that longterm displacement and hearing loss as a 

result of anthropogenic sounds are 

biologically significant impacts to 

marine mammals, as discussed in detail 

in the draft EA. Therefore, NMFS 

considers it better to overemphasize and 

to call extra attention to the reviewers 

and the public regarding the danger of 

these impacts, than to have these issues 

overlooked. However, NMFS does not 

believe beluga whale or other marine 

mammal acoustic communications 

would be masked as a result from the 

seismic surveys. For the most part, the 

low-frequency and intermittent seismic 

pulses, the high-frequency 

communication calls of five species of 

marine mammals in Cook Inlet, and the 

broadband echolocation signals from 

three cetacean species do not overlap in 

either frequency or temporal domain. 

And the non-sequential, high-frequency 

nature of cetacean communication 

signals (whistles and pulsed calls) can 

be easily transmitted in between the 

brief seismic pulses. 

The IWC report (IWC, 2006) did not 

state or even suggest that masking is a 

potential problem for marine mammals 

exposed to seismic sounds. In fact, the 

only places ‘‘masking’’ is mentioned in 

that report is when discussing noises 

from pile-driving, windfarms, and high 

ambient noise environments. Clark and 

Gagnon (2006), in their session paper 

presented at the 2006 IWC meeting, do 

not suggest that masking is a problem 

for marine mammals exposed to seismic 

sounds. In fact, ‘‘masking’’ or ‘‘mask’’

was not mentioned in their paper (Clark 

and Gagnon, 2006). This particular 

paper does state that highly sequential 

and patterned low-frequency, 

narrowband mysticete songs often 

coincide with the same acoustic features 

of seismic sounds. The paper also 

provided examples showing acoustic 

maps for the 20 22 Hz frequency band, 

where analyses indicate that fin whales 

would stop singing when a seismic 

survey was operating but would resume 

singing within hours to days after the 

survey stopped. NMFS does not think 

this would be the case in Cook Inlet 

since there are no mysticeti species 

present. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17127 

Comment 31: The AWI and HSUS are 

concerned about seismic sound on fish 

species and state that several recent 

studies demonstrating hearing loss and 

widespread behavioral disruption in 

commercial species of fish (Engas et al., 

1996; Popper et al., 2003). HSUS further 

states that the discussion of sound 

effects on fish seemed brief and sketchy. 

HSUS suggests that the draft EA 

expands its discussion of the impacts of 

seismic on other marine life. HSUS also 

points that some studies cited in the 

draft EA suggest very strongly that 

marine mammal prey might be 

negatively impacted by seismic surveys, 

either because they are significantly 

displaced (e.g., Slotte et al., 2004) or 

because they are physically injured (e.g., 

McCauley et al., 2003). 

Response: The purpose of the EA is to 

evaluate environmental impacts of 

issuing the two IHAs for incidental 

taking of marine mammals by 

harassment will: (1) have a negligible 

impact on the marine mammal species 

or stocks; and (2) not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock for 

subsistence uses. However, throughout 

the EA, NMFS provided a basic analysis 

on potential seismic surveys impacts on 

marine environment, including fish 

species. The analysis indicates that it is 

highly unlikely the marine 

environment, including other marine 

species, would be significantly 

impacted as a result of the proposed 

seismic surveys. Therefore, a more in 

depth discussion on the effects of 

seismic surveys on other marine life is 

beyond the scope of the EA. 

The research conducted by Slotte et 

al. (2004) during the seismic 

investigations off the Norwegian west 

coast, as cited in HSUS′ comment, did 

not find that pelagic fish (herring, blue 

whiting and mesopelagic species) were 

displaced. This particular research 

recorded the acoustic abundance of fish 

during the seismic surveys, and 

compared it with data recorded directly 

prior to and after shooting along the 

seismic transects. The comparison 

showed that although lower acoustic 

abundance of fish was recorded during 

the shooting, there was not a difference 

in fish abundance prior to and after 

shooting within the seismic area. The 

authors state that these results indicate 

‘‘that the shooting had insignificant 

short-term scaring effects.’’ In addition, 

the authors state that ‘‘both blue whiting 

and mesopelagic species were found in 

deeper waters in periods with shooting 

compared to periods without shooting, 

indicating that vertical movement rather 

than horizontal movement could be a 

short-term reaction to this noise.’’ The 

word ‘‘displacement’’ or ‘‘displace’’ did 

not appear in the paper. 

The experiments by McCauley et al. 

(2003), as cited in the comment, were 

conducted by carrying out trials where 

pink snapper (Pagrus auratus) were held 

in cages and were exposed to signals 

from an airgun towed toward and away 

from the cages. The airgun, which has 

a source level of 222.6 dB re: 1 microPa 

p-p (or 203.6 dB re: 1 microPa rms) at 

1 m, was towed from start up at 400 –

800 m (1,312 – 2,615 ft) away to 5 – 15 

m (16 – 49 ft) at closest approach to the 

cage. The study showed that the ears of 

fish exposed to an operating air-gun 

sustained extensive damage to their 

sensory epithelia that was apparent as 

ablated hair cells. However, the authors 

cautioned that several caveats must be 

considered when interpreting these 

results. Foremost of these caveats was 

that the fish studied were caged and 

could not swim away from the sound 

source. Video monitoring of behavior 

suggested that the fish would have fled 

the sound source if possible. It is also 

likely that many fish species hearing the 

approaching air-gun would swim away, 

as has been observed on a large scale by 

Engas et al. (1996). 

Comment 32: HSUS states that NMFS’

draft EA overemphasizes TTS and 

serious injury, as well as behavioral 

harassment, but ignores the potential for 

increased stress, displacement to suboptimal habitat (even if only 

temporarily), and masking. The AWI, 

WDCS, and HSUS state that the 

proposed mitigation measures are 

inadequate and will not necessarily 

protect the marine mammals in the 

project area. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

protect marine mammals from Level A 

harassment and TTS (Level B 

harassment), as described in detail in 

the EA. These are standard mitigation 

measures widely used for seismic 

operations and are statutorily required 

in many countries (JNCC, 2004; Weir et 

al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2006). Regarding 

the comments on potential increased 

stress, displacement to sub-optimal 

habitat, and masking of marine 

mammals, please refer to Responses to 

Comments 25, 15, and 30, respectively. 

Comment 33: HSUS states that the 

TTS data used in the draft EA are 

primarily based on studies conducted 

on captive animals that have been 

habituated to research protocols and a 

noisy environment (San Diego Harbor). 

These TTS values have never been 

validated on free-ranging naive animals, 

which at best might be more sensitive 

behaviorally than captive animals and at 

worst might also be more susceptible to 

hearing damage at lower received levels. 

Response: It is true that three of the 

six studies on marine mammal TTS 

cited in the draft EA were based on 

research conducted on animals in San 

Diego Bay, however, recent studies on 

the same animals, which was also cited 

in the EA, indicated that masking noise 

did not have a substantial effect on the 

onset-TTS levels observed (Finneran et 

al., 2005). These data represent the best 

scientific information available to date. 

In addition, those TTS data were not 

used by NMFS as criteria for onset of 

TTS. The criterion used by NMFS for 

onset-TTS is 180 dB re: 1 microPa for 

cetaceans, which is much lower than 

levels reported in these studies. 

Regarding the validation of TTS 

values on free-ranging naive animals, as 

noted in the HSUS comments, NMFS is 

not aware of any such studies being 

conducted or other data existing, either 

within or outside the United States. 

Comment 34: AWI states that 

anthropogenic noise does not just affect 

hearing organs, and that the hearing 

range of the Cook Inlet belugas has not 

been assessed. AWI further states that 

presumably the data used is from a few 

captive individuals, likely habituated to 

noise over a length of time. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 

anthropogenic noise does not just affect 

hearing organs of marine mammals. For 

a detailed discussion on the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals, please refer to the EA. 

Hearing sensitivity of beluga whales is 

well documented (White et al., 1978; 

Awbrey et al., 1988; Johnson et al., 

1989), and multiple studies on beluga 

whales′ behavioral audiograms from 

different researchers largely agree with 

each other. Therefore, in view of the 

scientific methods, there is no reason to 

believe that Cook Inlet beluga whales 

would have significantly different 

hearing range than the same species 

from different areas. In addition, 

habituation to noise does not affect 

animal′s hearing sensitivity, especially 

in the experimental setting, where 

animals are rewarded to ‘‘hear better.’’

Monitoring and Mitigation 

Comment 35: CBD questions whether 

NMFS has taken the ‘‘means effecting 

the least practicable impact’’ on marine 

mammals when implementing 

mitigation measures. CBD argues that 

the mitigation requirement that the 

taking have the ‘‘least practicable 

impact’’ on the species requires NMFS 

to consider a larger safety zone. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. It may 

seem that a large safety zone would be 

a more conservative mitigation measure 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17128 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

to ensure that marine mammals are not 

exposed to intense seismic sound 

pressure levels. However, a larger safety 

zone often presents more challenges in 

monitoring, and would compromise the 

effectiveness of spotting marine 

mammals within or approaching the 

safety zones. In addition, as mentioned 

in Response to Comment 22, and 

discussed in detail in the Federal 

Register notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 

2007) and in the EA, carefully modeled 

and empirically field-verified safety 

zones based on isopleths of 180 dB re: 

1 microPa for cetaceans and 190 dB re: 

1 microPa for pinnipeds are one of the 

most conservative mitigation measures 

which allows the least practicable 

impact on the species for this proposed 

action. 

Comment 36: CBD states that the 

proposed requirements related to 

monitoring of the safety zone for the 

proposed actions do not meet the 

MMPA′s standards because, for 

example, there is no requirement for 

passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). The 

WDCS also recommends that PAM be 

undertaken to enable an additional 

opportunity to detect marine mammals 

in the survey area. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

MMPA has not established standards for 

monitoring requirements. The 

monitoring requirements proposed are 

to ensure 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. Monitoring measures 

are also used to reduce the level of takes 

to the lowest level practicable due to 

implementation of the mitigation 

measures. 

Monitoring measures for different 

project are proposed in a case-by-case 

basis, and there is no ‘‘one size fits all’’

type of monitoring procedures. For the 

proposed seismic projects in upper 

Cook Inlet, the radius of the safety zone 

(370 m, or 1,214 ft) based on the 180 db 

re: 1 microPa isopleths is too small to 

allow accurate and effective acoustic 

monitoring. As the Joint Nature 

Conservation Committee (JNCC, 2004) 

stated that in practice the exclusion 

zone (safety zone) need be more than 

500 m (1,640 ft) to allow for accurate 

passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). 

JNCC also noted that in many cases 

PAM is not as accurate as visual 

observation when determining range. 

NMFS believes that in the subject 

seismic survey projects, where safety 

zone is sufficient small, passive acoustic 

monitoring is not warranted. The 

presence of additional vessels for 

deploying PAM would only introduce 

more noise to the small area where the 

proposed projects are to occur. 

However, as an additional monitoring 

measure, NMFS requires CPAI to 

conduct aerial monitoring for its seismic 

surveys off Beluga River in upper Cook 

Inlet. A detailed aerial monitoring plan 

is provided in the Monitoring Section of 

this document. 

Comment 37: The WDCS recommends 

that at least three marine mammal 

observers (MMOs) should be available 

so that two visual observers are on 

watch at all times during the survey. 

The Commission expresses its concern 

that operations at night or under foggy 

condition may not provide sufficient 

measure to protect marine mammals. 

The WDCS recommends that no 

operations should take place at night or 

in sea conditions above a sea state 2, 

where the likelihood of detection of 

elusive and cryptic cetacean species, in 

particular beaked whales, Kogia, harbor 

porpoises, and beluga whales 

dramatically decreases. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

WDCS recommendation that at least two 

MMOs should be available for visual 

monitoring at all times during the 

survey, in addition, aerial monitoring 

will be required for all seismic survey 

during day-light hours off Beluga River. 

NMFS does not agree with the WDCS 

that seismic surveys need to be shut 

down at night or in sea conditions above 

Beaufort sea state 2, as the safety zone 

is small enough (370 m, or 1,214 ft, 

radius for 180 db re: 1 microPa) and that 

the action area can be sufficiently 

monitored with night-vision devices 

(NVDs), even at Beaufort sea state 2. The 

comment regarding prohibiting seismic 

surveys at night is not practicable due 

to cost consideration and ship time 

schedule. If the vessel is prohibited 

from operating during nighttime, the 

survey would have to be extended for 

much longer period of time and would 

not be beneficial to the marine mammal 

species in the area. In addition, rampup prior to initiation of seismic surveys 

will provide sufficient warning to 

marine mammals in the project vicinity 

to temporarily vacate the project area for 

1 2 hours. Therefore, NMFS does not 

believe that monitoring would be 

compromised as a result of low-light 

and high waves. 

No beaked whales and Kogia spp. are 

expected to occur in Cook Inlet. 

Comment 38: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS provide an 

assessment of the likelihood of detecting 

marine mammals at or below the surface 

within zones of potential impacts, 

particularly under less than optimal 

conditions, prior to concluding that 

these measures will be effective in 

ensuring that marine mammals are not 

exposed to potentially harmful sound 

levels. 

Response: NMFS believes that 

monitoring measures described in the 

EA, in addition to aerial surveys 

monitoring, would detect all marine 

mammals at or below the surface within 

zones of potential impacts. Vessel-based 

monitoring procedures are standard 

measures that are commonly used 

during seismic surveys. Especially for 

the proposed activities, the safety zone 

is small enough due to the low-intensity 

airgun array, visual monitoring from the 

survey vessel by two MMOs is believed 

to be adequate. Though such monitoring 

does not guarantee that there would be 

no marine mammals within the zones of 

influence during a survey, NMFS also 

requires the ramp-up procedure before 

initiation of airgun firing. 

Comment 39: The AWI is concerned 

that ramp-up procedure has been found 

to attract inquisitive animals to a noise 

source (no reference provided). 

Response: NMFS is not aware of any 

instances that an inquisitive marine 

mammal has been attracted to a noise 

source during ramp-up of a seismic 

survey. In any case, the IHAs will 

require that surveyors shut down the 

airgun as soon as a marine mammal is 

sighted or believed to be inside the 

safety zones. An inquisitive marine 

mammal moving to the ship due to its 

inquisitive nature to the sound source 

will be easily spotted before it enters the 

safety zone. 

Comment 40: HSUS states that the 

safety zone is inadequate to prevent or 

minimize stress, displacement, and 

masking. 

Response: Regarding the 

establishment and effectiveness of the 

safety zone, please referred to Response 

to Comment 21; regarding potential 

stress, displacement, and masking, 

please refer to Responses to Comments 

15, 16, 21, 22, 24, and 25. Please also 

refer to the EA for a thorough analysis 

of the mitigation and monitoring 

measures for the proposed projects. 

Other – ESA Listing, Subsistence 

Harvest, and Paper Reduction Act 

Comment 41: CBD believes that the 

threats facing Cook Inlet beluga are of 

sufficient magnitude and immediacy 

that NMFS should proceed with an 

emergency listing provided by Section 

4(b)(7) of the ESA and designate the 

proposed seismic survey area in upper 

Cook Inlet as critical habitat. The WDCS 

recommends that whilst NMFS has 

categorized habitat according to its 

value and sensitivity, all habitats that 

the Cook Inlet beluga whales use should 

be considered critical. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17129 

Response: As detailed in Federal 

Register notice (65 FR 34590, May 31, 

2000), NMFS stated that the MMPA and 

ESA establish a specific regulatory 

process for limiting subsistence harvest, 

and neither statute includes emergency 

provisions to eliminate portions of the 

process. Since recent subsistence 

harvest is considered to be the major 

link directly to the decline of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales (NMFS, 2005a), therefore, 

other emergency polices, strategies, or 

actions would not likely promote 

recovery. 

Critical habitat designations must be 

based on the best scientific information 

available, in an open public process, 

within specific time-frames. Before 

designating critical habitat, careful 

consideration must be given to the 

economic impacts, impacts on national 

security, and other relevant impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. The Secretary of Commerce may 

exclude an area from critical habitat if 

the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designation, unless 

excluding the area will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. 

For additional information regarding 

Cook Inlet beluga whale conservation, 

please refer to NMFS’ (2005a) Draft 

Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet 

Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas). 

Comment 42: AWI states that the 

proposed project area is home to 

endangered Steller sea lions and the 

Cook Inlet beluga whales that are 

currently being considered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for 

listing under the ESA. 

Response: As stated in the EA, Steller 

sea lion occurrence is rare in Cook Inlet 

and its appearance during the project 

period is unlikely. The Cook Inlet 

beluga whales are currently being 

considered by NMFS, not the FWS as 

mentioned in the comment, for listing 

under the ESA. 

Comment 43: CBD observes that given 

the very low subsistence take of Cook 

Inlet belugas authorized in recent years, 

the injury or mortality of even a single 

beluga by Conoco/Union Oil’s activities 

could very well have the effect of 

precluding any subsistence harvest in a 

given year. 

Response: The subsistence take of 

Cook Inlet belugas by the Alaskan 

natives is currently managed under an 

interim harvest management plan 

developed by the Alaska native 

organizations and NMFS (69 FR 17973, 

April 6, 2004) and is not directly related 

to the proposed action. The proposed 

action does not authorize any takes by 

Level A harassment (injury) or death of 

any marine mammals within the 

proposed project area in upper Cook 

Inlet, nor is such takes anticipated. 

Comment 44: The CRE notes that they 

have not been successful in identifying 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

authorizations that would allow NMFS 

to collect any seismic permit 

information. 

Response: Applications and reporting 

requirements for small take 

authorizations under sections 

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

MMPA have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

control number 0648–0151. 

Description of Marine Mammals 

Affected by the Activity 

Marine mammal species potentially 

occurring within the proposed action 

area include the Cook Inlet beluga 

whales, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor 

seals, harbor porpoises, and killer 

whales. Among these species, only the 

Steller sea lion is listed as endangered 

under the ESA, and it is also designated 

as depleted under the MMPA. The Cook 

Inlet beluga whale is designated as 

depleted under the MMPA. General 

information for these species can be 

found in Angliss and Outlaw (2006), 

which is available at the following URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ 

ak2005.pdf. A more detailed description 

of these species and stocks within Cook 

Inlet is provided in the January 5, 2007, 

Federal Register (72 FR 536). Therefore, 

it is not repeated here. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

and Their Habitat 

Seismic surveys using acoustic energy 

may have the potential to adversely 

impact marine mammals in the vicinity 

of the activities (Gordon et al., 2004). 

The sound source levels (zero to peak) 

associated with the OBC seismic survey 

can be as high as 233 – 240 dB re 1 

microPa at 1 m. However, most energy 

is directed downward, and the short 

duration of each pulse limits the total 

energy. Received levels within several 

kilometers typically exceed 160 dB re 1 

microPa (Richardson et al., 1995), 

depending on water depth, bottom type, 

ice cover, etc. Intense acoustic signals 

from seismic surveys have been known 

to cause behavioral alteration such as 

reduced vocalization rates (Goold, 

1996), avoidance (Malme et al., 1986, 

1988; Richardson et al., 1995; Harris et 

al., 2001), and changes in blow rates 

(Richardson et al., 1995) in several 

marine mammal species. 

The proposed surveys would use a 

900–in3 BOLT airgun array consisting of 

3 225–in3 airguns and 3 75–in3 airguns. 

The source level of this array is 

expected to be considerably lower than 

the 1,200–in3 BOLT airgun array used 

by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) vessel 

Healy (70 FR 47792, August 15, 2005). 

To conservatively assess the received 

levels from airgun pulses, the USCG’s 

Healy modeled data were used to 

calculate the maximum distances where 

sound levels would be 190, 180, and 

160 dB re 1 microPa rms. The maximum 

distances where sound levels were 

estimated at 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 

microPa rms from a single 1,200–in3

BOLT airgun in the northern Beaufort 

Sea were 313 m (1,027 ft), 370 m (1,214 

ft), and 1,527 m (5,010 ft), respectively. 

However, since the proposed seismic 

surveys would use a smaller 900–in3

airgun array in an area with soft mud 

bottom that gradually slopes outward 

from shore, which is a poor condition 

for sound transmission (Richardson et 

al., 1995), the received levels are 

expected to be significantly lower at 

these distances. 

The seismic surveys would only 

introduce acoustic energy into the water 

column and no objects would be 

released into the environment. The 

survey vessel would travel at a speed of 

4 – 5 knots and the two projects would 

be conducted in a small area of Cook 

Inlet for a short period of time. 

There is a relative lack of knowledge 

about the potential impacts of seismic 

energy on marine fish and invertebrates. 

Available data suggest that there may be 

physical impacts on eggs and on larval, 

juvenile, and adult stages of fish at very 

close range (within meters) to seismic 

energy source. Considering typical 

source levels associated with seismic 

arrays, close proximity to the source 

would result in exposure to very high 

energy levels. Where eggs and larval 

stages are not able to escape such 

exposures, juvenile and adult fish most 

likely would avoid them. In the cases of 

eggs and larvae, it is likely that the 

numbers adversely affected by such 

exposure would be very small in 

relation to natural mortality. Studies on 

fish confined in cages that were exposed 

under intense sound for extended 

period showed physical or physiological 

impacts (Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; 

McCauley et al., 2003; Smith et al., 

2004). While limited data on seismic 

surveys regarding physiological effects 

on fish indicate that impacts are shortterm and are most apparent after 

exposure at very close range (McCauley 

et al., 2000a; 2000b; Dalen et al., 1996), 

other studies have demonstrated that 

seismic guns had little effect on the dayto-day behavior of marine fish and 

invertebrates (Knudsen et al., 1992; 

Wardle et al., 2001). It is more likely 

that fish will swim away upon hearing 

the approaching seismic impulses 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17130 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

(Engas et al., 1996). Based on the 

foregoing, NMFS finds preliminarily 

that the proposed seismic surveys 

would not cause any permanent impact 

on the physical habitats and marine 

mammal prey species in the proposed 

project area. 

Number of Marine Mammals Expected 

to Be Taken 

NMFS estimates that approximately 6 

– 57 Cook Inlet beluga whales (average 

26 whales) out of a population of 302 

whales (NMFS, unpublished data) and a 

maximum of 30 Pacific harbor seals out 

of a population of 29,175 seals would be 

harassed incidentally by the two 

proposed seismic operations from 

March to June, 2007. These numbers of 

take represent 2.0 – 18.9 percent 

(average 8.6 percent) Cook Inlet beluga 

whales and less than 0.1 percent of 

Alaska stock of Pacific harbor seals that 

could be taken by Level B harassment if 

no mitigation and monitoring measures 

are implemented. These numbers are 

based on the animal density, length of 

track planned, and the assumption that 

all animals will be harassed at distances 

where noise at received level is at and 

above 160 dB re 1 microPa rms. Beluga 

whale and harbor seal densities were 

calculated by dividing the daily counts 

of whales (ranges from 11 – 99, with an 

average of 46) and seals (75) by the 

approximate area (1,248 km2, or 482 

square miles) surveyed in the Susitna 

Delta (Beluga River to Pt. MacKenzie) 

during the most recently published 

survey for June 2004 (Rugh et al., 2005). 

Although 18.9 percent of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales could subject to take by 

Level B harassment, this estimate was 

based on an unusually high count of 

whales on June 3, 2004 in Susitna Delta 

(from North Foreland to Pt. Mackenzie). 

Cook Inlet beluga aerial surveys 

conducted by NMFS in June, 2003 and 

2004, provided median counts of whales 

between 0 – 99, with an average count 

of 29 whales in the same area. This 

estimate is conservative as it assumes 

that all animals exposed by seismic 

impulses over 160 dB re 1 microPa 

would be harassed and disturbed. As 

mentioned earlier that the majority 

acoustic energy of low frequency airgun 

impulses falls outside beluga whale′s 

most sensitive hearing range 

(Richardson et al., 1995), it is most 

likely that only a portion of whales 

within the 160 dB re 1 microPa isopleth 

would be disturbed. In addition, it is 

also possible that many of the animals 

would be habituated to this level of 

acoustic disturbances. Furthermore, 

mitigation measures, including the 

ramp-up requirement during the 

initiation of the seismic operations (see 

below) could eliminate most, if not all, 

startling behavior from animals near the 

proposed project area. Therefore, NMFS 

believes that the actual number of Level 

B harassment takes of Cook Inlet beluga 

whale would be much lower than the 

estimated average of 26 whales. 

There are no similar population 

surveys for harbor porpoises, Steller sea 

lions, and killer whales conducted 

within the proposed project area. 

However, based on an abundance 

survey of harbor porpoises within the 

entire Cook Inlet (Dahlheim et al., 

2000), it is estimated that the population 

density of harbor porpoise in the entire 

Inlet is 0.0072 animal per km2. Based on 

this density data, NMFS estimates that 

about 6 harbor porpoises out of a 

population of 30,506 porpoises could be 

harassed incidentally by the two 

proposed seismic operations from 

March to June, 2007. This number of 

take represents less than 0.02 percent of 

harbor porpoises that could be taken by 

Level B harassment. 

There is no density estimates 

available for Steller sea lions and killer 

whales with in Cook Inlet. However, 

their appearance in Upper Cook Inlet is 

rare and none of these species were 

sighted in the upper Inlet during the 

2004 survey (Rugh et al., 2005). 

Therefore, NMFS concludes that the 

harassment of these species is 

reasonably believed to be much lower 

than those of beluga whales and harbor 

seals. 

Effects on Subsistence Needs 

The proposed project areas are located 

4 – 15 miles (6.4 – 24.1 km) from 

Tyonek, which is predominately a 

Dena’ina Athabaskan community. 

However, these areas are not important 

subsistence areas for Tyonek hunters. 

The Tyonek native community has been 

displaced from many traditional 

hunting (and trapping and fishing) areas 

north of Tyonek including Beluga River 

during the twentieth century. As more 

non-natives utilized and occupied 

traditional subsistence areas combined 

with harvest regulation restrictions, 

changes in the abundance and 

distribution of subsistence resources, 

and other factors, Tyonek native 

subsistence activities have focused 

closer to the village. While Tyonek 

natives may harvest one beluga whale 

per year and occasionally harbor seals 

(Huntington, 2000), their primary source 

of meat is moose (Foster, 1982). 

Therefore, NMFS believes that the 

proposed projects would not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of marine mammal species 

or stocks for subsistence harvest. 

Mitigation 

The following mitigation measures are 

required under the IHAs that were 

issued to CPAI and UOCC for 

conducting seismic operations in 

northwestern Cook Inlet. NMFS believes 

that the implementation of these 

mitigation measures would result in the 

least practicable impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat. 

Time and Frequency 

Seismic operations will be limited 

from early March to mid-June in 

portions of northwestern Cook Inlet. 

During the seismic operations, airguns 

will only be active for 1 – 2 hours 

during each of the 3 – 4 slack tide 

periods, with the vessel moving at a 

speed of 4 – 5 knots (4.6 – 5.8 mph). 

There will be a 1.6 km (1 mile) set 

back of airguns from the mouth of the 

Beluga River to comply with Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game 

restrictions. 

Establishment of Safety Zones 

The applicants will establish a 370–m 

(1,214–ft) radius safety zone for 

cetaceans and a 313–m (1,027–ft) radius 

safety zone for pinnipeds for the seismic 

operations. These safety zone radii were 

calculated from a model for a 1,200–in3

BOLT array used in the Beaufort Sea 

where the received sound pressure 

levels (SPL) attenuated to 180 dB and 

190 dB re 1 microPa rms, respectively. 

Since the data used in calculating the 

size of safety zones were from a much 

larger array, while the proposed seismic 

operations will use a smaller array in an 

area with poor conditions for sound 

transmission, NMFS believes that these 

safety zone radii are conservative. 

Additional data will be acquired to 

verify the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) 

distances for the airgun configurations 

during the proposed seismic operations, 

and the disturbance could be modified 

if NMFS finds that the level of take is 

being exceeded and resulting in higher 

than a negligible impact on the species 

or stocks in question. An independent 

marine acoustic firm, will be used to 

acquire the data. A scientifically valid 

sampling design will be followed to 

collect data at the beginning of the 

seismic program. The data will be used 

to calibrate the acoustic model and 

adjust the safety radii to match the field 

values for the 190, 180, and 160 dB 

distances for each array, if different 

from these estimated values. 

Safety zones will be surveyed and 

monitored prior to, during, and after the 

airgun seismic operations. A detailed 

description of marine mammal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17131 

monitoring is described in the 

Monitoring and Reporting section 

below. 

Speed and Course Alteration 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the safety radius and based on 

its position and the relative course of 

travel is likely to enter the safety zone, 

the vessel’s speed and/or direct course 

may, when practicable and safe, be 

changed to avoid the impacts to the 

animal. The marine mammal activities 

and movements relative to the seismic 

and support vessels must be closely 

monitored to ensure that the animal 

does not (1) approach the safety radius, 

or (2) enter the safety zone. If either of 

these scenarios occur, further mitigation 

measures must be taken (i.e., either 

further course alterations or power 

down or shut down of the airgun(s)). 

Power-down Procedures 

A power down involves decreasing 

the number of airguns in use so that the 

radius of the 180- or 190–dB zone is 

decreased to the extent that marine 

mammals are not in the safety zone. 

During a power-down, one airgun is 

operated. The continued operation of 

one airgun is intended to alert marine 

mammals to the presence of the seismic 

guns in the area. 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the safety zone but is likely to 

enter the safety zone, and if the vessel′s 

course and/or speed cannot be changed 

to avoid having the animal enter the 

safety radius, the airguns must be 

powered down before the animal is 

within the safety zone. 

Shut-down Procedures 

A shut-down occurs when all airgun 

activity is suspended. The operating 

airgun(s) must be shut down if a marine 

mammal approaches the applicable 

safety zone and a power down still 

would not likely to keep the animal 

outside the newly adjusted smaller 

safety zone. The operating airgun(s) 

must also be shut down completely if a 

marine mammal is found within the 

safety zone during the seismic 

operations. The shut-down procedure 

should be accomplished within several 

seconds (of a ‘‘one shot’’ period) of the 

determination that a marine mammal is 

within or about to enter the safety zone. 

Following a shut-down, airgun 

activity will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the safety zone. 

The animal will be considered to have 

cleared the safety zone if it is visually 

observed to have left the safety zone, or 

if it has not been seen within the safety 

zone for 30 minutes. 

Ramp-up Procedures 

Although marine mammals will be 

protected from Level A harassment by 

establishment of a safety zone at a SPL 

levels of 180 and 190 dB re 1 microPa 

rms for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 

respectively, mitigation may not be 100 

percent effective at all times in locating 

marine mammals. In order to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals near the project area by 

allowing marine mammals to vacate the 

area prior to receiving a potential injury, 

and to further reduce Level B 

harassment by startling marine 

mammals with a sudden intensive 

sound, CPAI and UOCC are required to 

implement ‘‘ramp-up’’ practice when 

starting up airgun arrays. Ramp-up will 

begin with the smallest airgun in the 

array that is being used for all subsets 

of the 6–gun array. Airguns will be 

added in a sequence such that the 

source level in the array will increase at 

a rate no greater than 6 dB per 5 

minutes. During the ramp-up, the safety 

zone for the full 6–airgun system will be 

maintained. 

Monitoring 

Vessel-based Monitoring 

Vessel based monitoring will be 

conducted by at least two qualified 

NMFS-approved MMOs. Reticle 

binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Bushnell or 

equivalent) and laser range finders 

(Leica LRF 1200 laser range finder or 

equivalent) would be standard 

equipment for the monitors. 

Vessel-based MMOs will begin marine 

mammals monitoring at least 30 

minutes prior to the planned start of 

airgun operations and during all periods 

of airgun operations. MMOs will survey 

the safety zone to ensure that no marine 

mammals are seen within the zone 

before a seismic survey begins. If marine 

mammals are found within the safety 

zone, seismic operations will be 

suspended until the marine mammal 

leaves the area. If a marine mammal is 

seen above the water and then dives 

below, the operator will wait 30 

minutes, and if no marine mammals are 

seen by the MMOs in that time it will 

be assumed that the animal has moved 

beyond the safety zone. Observations 

will also be conducted during all rampup procedures to ensure the 

effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation 

measure. When feasible, observations 

will also be made during transits, 

moving cable, and other operations 

when airguns are inactive. 

Data for each distinct marine mammal 

species observed in the proposed project 

area during the period of the seismic 

operations would be collected. Numbers 

of marine mammals observed, species 

identification if possible, frequency of 

observation, the time corresponding to 

the daily tidal cycle, and any behavioral 

changes due to the airgun operations 

will be recorded and entered into a 

custom database using a notebook 

computer. The accuracy of the data 

entry will be verified by computerized 

validity data 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, or other programs 

for further processing and archiving. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide: (1) Basis for 

real-time mitigation (airgun shut-down); 

(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; and (5) data on 

the behavior and movement patterns of 

marine mammals seen at times with and 

without seismic activity. 

Aerial Monitoring 

In addition to vessel monitoring, 

seismic surveys that will be conducted 

off the Beluga River between mid-March 

and mid-May by CPAI will also be 

required to conduct aerial monitoring. 

The aerial surveys will: (1) determine 

the presence and relative numbers of 

beluga whales between the west side of 

the Susitna River and North Foreland, 

(2) determine the location of belugas 

relative to seismic operations, and (3) 

record other marine mammals observed 

during the seismic surveys. 

The aerial monitoring area will be 

centered on the project area plus a 

buffer (from Susitna River to North 

Foreland) for detecting belugas before or 

after they pass through the project area. 

The boundary for the aerial survey 

extends approximately 7 mi (11 km) 

south of the project area to the North 

Foreland, approximately 7 mi (11 km) 

north to the Susitna River, West Fork, 

and 0.25 mi (0.4 km) from shore. The 

size of the survey area provides a design 

for observing whales before and during 

exposure to seismic sounds. 

Aerial monitoring will be conducted 

from a single engine helicopter, which 

will fly a single transect line paralleling 

the shoreline along the coast in the 

project area. The survey will begin from 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
17132 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 

the north and finish by returning to the 

Beluga Gas Field, which will be the base 

of helicopter operations. This pattern 

will be flown unless observation 

conditions (glare, etc) require flying 

from south to north depending on the 

effect of glare on observations. The 

helicopter will fly at 1,500 ft (457 m), 

due to glide path needs, and at a ground 

speed of 60 knot (111 km/h). This 

altitude should prevent disturbance of 

marine mammals and birds by the 

helicopter noise. 

Helicopter monitoring will be 

conducted at a frequency that reflects 

the monthly abundance of belugas in 

the project area (LGL, 2006). The 

helicopter will be flown once per week 

in March when few if any whales are 

expected in the project area. However, 

should belugas be observed (by 

helicopter or boat), helicopter will be 

flown daily until whales are not 

observed for two consecutive days. 

Once belugas are no longer observed for 

two consecutive days, helicopter will be 

flown once per week in March. Aerial 

monitoring will be increased to twice a 

week through mid-April, until such 

time as belugas are observed, when 

helicopter will be flown daily until 

whales are not observed for two 

consecutive days. After mid-April, 

aerial monitoring will be conducted 

daily when the number of belugas 

transiting through the project area to the 

upper Cook Inlet is anticipated to be 

higher. Aerial monitoring will fly 1 – 2 

transects shortly before and half (0.50) 

of a transect during seismic operations, 

which corresponds to the 3 – 4, 1–2 

hour slack tides each day. Half transects 

are flown during seismic operations to 

prevent noise interference on the 

surveys. Half transect flight direction 

will be determined by the relative 

position of activities to the helicopter 

landing location. Aerial monitoring will 

alternate over various tidal cycles when 

ever possible, since beluga distribution 

may vary during the tidal cycles (LGL, 

2006). 

To the extent consistent with 

applicable aviation regulation, aerial 

surveys will be conducted under the 

following conditions: (1) when the pilot 

considers it safe to do so; (2) during 

daylight hours; and (3) during good 

viewing conditions (ceiling height above 

1,500 ft (457 M) and Beaufort Sea States 

below 4. Flights will also be oriented to 

minimize sun glare on the observer. 

One NMFS-approved MMO will be on 

the helicopter observing and recording 

marine mammals, covering the 180o 

view in front of the helicopter. Space 

will be made available on the helicopter 

for NMFS staff to participate in surveys 

at least twice a month. 

Data from aerial monitoring will be 

recorded on the species, number, group 

size, location (latitude/longitude), time, 

date, direction of travel, angle from 

helicopter as determined by using a 

clinometer, ceiling height, Beaufort Sea 

State, glare, weather, tide, real time 

positions (latitude/longitude) of seismic 

survey vessel, shooting, and vessel 

activities. Marine mammal behavior 

data will be recorded when possible. 

Observation conditions will be recorded 

at the start and finish of each survey or 

whenever conditions change. All 

information collected during the marine 

mammal survey and/or reported to the 

vessel will be recorded on a field form. 

Land-based Monitoring 

Land-based monitoring will be 

conducted by the MMO during days 

when no aerial monitoring is 

practicable. Monitoring will be 

conducted at Ladd Landing, a site 

previously used for land-based 

observations (LGL, 2006). The MMO 

will use binoculars to regularly scan the 

area visible from the land site for marine 

mammals. Data recorded will include 

sighting, weather, sea state, glare, 

amount of viewable area visible, and 

seismic operation information. Sighting 

data will include species, number, 

group size, direction of travel, date, 

time, and distance from shore. 

Reporting 

Reports from aerial and land-based 

monitoring will be faxed or e-mailed to 

NMFS Anchorage Field Office on a 

daily basis. 

Reports from CPAI and UOCC will be 

submitted to NMFS within 90 days after 

the end of the respective projects. The 

reports will describe the operations that 

were conducted, the marine mammals 

that were detected near the operations, 

and provide full documentation of 

methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all monitoring. The reports 

will also include estimates of the 

amount and nature of potential ‘‘take’’

of marine mammals by harassment or in 

other ways. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

In January 2007, NMFS prepared a 

draft EA on the issuance of IHAs to 

CPAI and UOCC to take marine 

mammals by harassment incidental to 

conducting seismic operations in upper 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. The draft EA was 

released for public review and comment 

along with the applications and the 

proposed IHAs. During the 30–day 

public comment period NMFS received 

comments from the HSUS, CBD, WDCS, 

and AWI on the draft EA. All comments 

are addressed in full in the Comments 

and Responses section. Subsequently, 

NMFS finalized the draft EA and on 

March 30, 2007, issued a Finding of No 

Significant Impact on the proposed 

project. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Based on a review conducted by 

NMFS Alaska Regional Office biologists, 

it is not likely that any ESA-listed 

species would be affected due to the 

proposed seismic operations. Steller sea 

lions are recorded in these waters, but 

are considered uncommon in spring and 

early summer in the proposed project 

area. Therefore, NMFS has determined 

that section 7 consultation is not 

necessary. 

Determinations 

NMFS has determined that small 

numbers of beluga whales, Pacific 

harbor seals, and harbor porpoises may 

be taken incidental to seismic surveys, 

by no more than Level B harassment 

and that such taking will result in no 

more than a negligible impact on such 

species or stocks. In addition, NMFS has 

determined that Steller sea lions and 

killer whales, if present within the 

vicinity of the proposed activities could 

be taken incidentally, by no more than 

Level B harassment and that such taking 

would result in no more than a 

negligible impact on such species or 

stocks. Although there is no estimated 

take numbers for Steller sea lions or 

killer whales available due to their rare 

occurrence within the project areas. 

Regardless, given the infrequent 

occurrence of these species (or none at 

all), NMFS believes that any take would 

be significantly lower than those of 

beluga whales or harbor seals. 

While behavioral modifications, 

including temporarily vacating the area 

during the project period may be made 

by these species to avoid the resultant 

visual and acoustic disturbance, NMFS 

nonetheless finds that this action would 

result in no more than a negligible 

impact on these marine mammal species 

and/or stocks. NMFS also finds that the 

proposed action will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for subsistence uses. 

In addition, no take by Level A 

harassment (injury) or death is 

anticipated or authorized, and 

harassment takes should be at the 

lowest level practicable due to 

incorporation of the mitigation 

measures described in this document. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued IHAs to CPAI and 

UOCC for the potential harassment of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Notices 17133 

small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales, Pacific harbor seals and harbor 

porpoises incidental to conducting 

seismic operations in the northwestern 

Cook Inlet in Alaska, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. Likewise, NMFS has 

issued IHAs for potential harassment of 

Steller sea lions and killer whales 

incidental to conducting of seismic 

operations in the northwestern Cook 

Inlet in Alaska, provided that previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: March 30, 2007. 

Angela Somma, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6488 Filed 4–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 040307A] 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council’s Surfclam/Ocean 

Quahog and Tilefish Committee and 

Tilefish Advisory Panel will hold a 

public meeting. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Thursday, April 26, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 2 Harmon 

Plaza, Secaucus, NJ; telephone: (201) 

348–6900. 

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council; 300 S. New 

Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904, 

telephone: (302) 674–2331. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, 

Dover, DE 19904; telephone: (302) 674–

2331, extension 19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of this meeting is to review 

progress regarding Amendment 1 to the 

Tilefish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). It is expected that preferred 

management measures will be discussed 

and identified when possible. 

Amendment 1 to the Tilefish FMP 

addresses: (1) Possible implementation 

of an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 

management system for tilefish [initial 

IFQ allocation, IFQ transferability of 

ownership, IFQ share accumulation, 

fees and cost recovery, establish 

flexibility to revise/adjust IFQ program, 

establish IFQ reporting requirements, 

other]; (2) Possible implementation of 

recreational bag-size limit; (3) Possible 

implementation of recreational permits 

and reporting requirements; (4) 

Potential improvements for monitoring 

of tilefish commercial landings; (5) 

Potential revisions to current tilefish 

reporting requirements (Interactive 

Voice Response); (6) Possible expansion 

of and revision to the list of 

management measures that can be 

adjusted via the framework adjustment 

process; (7) Potential revisions to 

essential fish habitat (EFH) designation; 

(8) Potential revisions to habitat areas of 

particular concern (HAPC) designation; 

(9) Consideration of possible measures 

to reduce gear impacts on EFH; and, (10) 

other issues to be considered in 

Amendment 1. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Committee’s intent to 

take final action to address the 

emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to M. 

Jan Bryan at the Mid-Atlantic Council 

Office, (302) 674–2331 extension 18, at 

least 5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: April 3, 2007. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6428 Filed 4–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. /707A] 

Annual National Marine Fisheries 

Service/State Marine Fisheries 

Directors Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open public meetings. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of an 

annual meeting of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the State 

Marine Fisheries Directors. This annual 

meeting provides the opportunity for 

State and Federal fishery managers to 

discuss fishery management areas 

ofconcern. The meeting will be hosted 

by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission(PSMFC). All sessions will 

be open to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 

1 – May 3, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for dates, times, and 

agenda. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Hotel Del Coronado, 1500 Orange 

Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118, (800) 

HOTELDEL. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Moore, Chief, Partnerships and 

Communications Division, Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS; telephone: 

(301) 713–2379x165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

required by section 10(a) (2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App. 2, notice is hereby given of 

this meeting. This annual meeting 

provides the opportunity for State 

Marine Fisheries Directors and Federal 

fishery managers to discuss fishery 

management areas of concern. 

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 

8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. – Opening remarks 

and introductions will be presented by 

Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, and by Mr. 

Randy Fisher, Executive Director of 

PSMFC. 

8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. – Presentations 

by the three Interstate Marine Fisheries 

Commissions; overview of state 

activities, and Gulf States experience 

with natural disasters. 

10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. –

Implementation of Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Management and Conservation 

Act (MSA) will be presented; 

recreational fisheries registry and 

recreational fisheries data Marine 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES