64996 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

Each sector must be adequately 

represented, and the intent is to have a 

group that, as a whole, reflects an 

appropriate and equitable balance and 

mix of interests given the 

responsibilities of the HMS AP. Criteria 

for membership include one or more of 

the following: (1) Experience in the 

HMS recreational fishing industry; (2) 

experience in the HMS commercial 

fishing industry; (3) experience in 

fishery-related industries (e.g., marinas, 

bait and tackle shops); (4) experience in 

the scientific community working with 

HMS; and/or (5) representation of a 

private, non-governmental, regional, 

national, or international organization 

representing marine fisheries; or 

environmental, governmental, or 

academic interests dealing with HMS. 

Five additional members on the HMS 

AP include one member representing 

each of the following Councils: New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council, 

and the Caribbean Fishery Management 

Council. The HMS AP also includes 22 

ex-officio participants: 20 

representatives of the coastal states and 

two representatives of the interstate 

commissions (the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission and the Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commission). 

NMFS will provide the necessary 

administrative support, including 

technical assistance, for the HMS AP. 

However, NMFS will not compensate 

participants with monetary support of 

any kind. Depending on availability of 

funds, members may be reimbursed for 

travel costs related to the HMS AP 

meetings. 

C. Meeting Schedule 

Meetings of the HMS AP will be held 

as frequently as necessary but are 

routinely held twice each year in the 

spring and fall. The meetings may be 

held in conjunction with public 

hearings. 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26478 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ60 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the Eastern 

Tropical Pacific Ocean, October 

Through November 2010 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

take authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulations, notification is 

hereby given that NMFS has issued an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography (SIO), a part of the 

University of California, to take small 

numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to conducting a 

marine geophysical survey in the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), 

October through November, 2010. 

DATES: Effective October 19, 2010, 

through November 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and 

application are available by writing to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

or by telephoning the contacts listed 

here. A copy of the application 

containing a list of the references used 

in this document may be obtained by 

writing to the above address, 

telephoning the contact listed here (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or 

visiting the Internet at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications. The 

following associated documents are also 

available at the same Internet address: 

SIO’s application, the Environmental 

Assessment (EA) prepared by NMFS, 

and the finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI). The NMFS Biological Opinion 

will be available online at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/consultation/ 

opinions.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may be viewed, by appointment, 

during regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws or Candace Nachman, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713– 

2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

Secretary of Commerce to authorize, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals of a species or 

population stock, by United States 

citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and, if the 

taking is limited to harassment, a notice 

of a proposed authorization is provided 

to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals shall 

be granted if NMFS finds that the taking 

will have a negligible impact on the 

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

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses. The authorization 

must set forth the permissible methods 

of taking, other means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

species or stock and its habitat, and 

monitoring and reporting of such 

takings. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘* * * an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. 

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

establishes a 45-day time limit for 

NMFS’ review of an application 

followed by a 30-day public notice and 

comment period on any proposed 

authorizations for the incidental 

harassment of small numbers of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the public comment period, NMFS 

must either issue or deny the 

authorization. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: 

Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

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

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 64997 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received an application on 

May 28, 2010 from SIO for the taking, 

by harassment, of marine mammals, 

incidental to conducting a marine 

geophysical survey in the ETP. SIO, 

with research funding from the U.S. 

National Science Foundation (NSF), 

plans to conduct a marine seismic 

survey in the ETP, from October through 

November 2010. 

SIO plans to use one source vessel, 

the R/V Melville (Melville), with a 

seismic airgun array to conduct a 

geophysical survey in the ETP. In 

addition to the operations of the seismic 

airgun array, SIO intends to operate a 

multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a 

sub-bottom profiler (SBP) continuously 

throughout the survey. The purpose of 

this project is to better understand how 

marine sediments record paleooceanographic information. 

Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased 

underwater sound) generated during the 

operation of the seismic airgun array 

may have the potential to cause marine 

mammals in the survey area to be 

behaviorally disturbed in a manner that 

NMFS considers to be Level B 

harassment. This is the principal means 

of marine mammal taking associated 

with these activities and SIO has 

requested an authorization for the 

incidental take, by Level B harassment 

only, of up to 21 species of marine 

mammals. These species include: 

Bryde’s whale; blue whale; sperm 

whale; humpback whale; Cuvier’s 

beaked whale; Blainville’s beaked 

whale; pygmy beaked whale; gingkotoothed beaked whale; rough-toothed 

dolphin; bottlenose dolphin; 

pantropical spotted dolphin; spinner 

dolphin; striped dolphin; Fraser’s 

dolphin; short-beaked common dolphin; 

Risso’s dolphin; melon-headed whale; 

pygmy killer whale; false killer whale; 

killer whale; and short-finned pilot 

whale. Blainville’s beaked whale, 

pygmy beaked whale, and gingkotoothed beaked whale are hereafter 

grouped as Mesoplodon sp., as these 

species are expected to be encountered 

only infrequently and are difficult to 

distinguish from one another. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

The Melville is expected to depart 

Puntarenas, Costa Rica, on October 19, 

2010, and spend approximately fifteen 

days conducting seismic surveys, ten 

days collecting water and core samples, 

and approximately two days in transit, 

arriving at Arica, Chile, on November 

14, 2010. The proposed survey will 

encompass the area from approximately 

8° N–12° S and 80–91° W, off the coasts 

of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, 

Ecuador, and Peru, in the high seas and 

within the Exclusive Economic Zones 

(EEZs) of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, 

and Ecuador. At each of four sites (see 

Figure 1 of SIO’s application), seismic 

operations will be conducted for 

approximately two days, and each water 

sampling and coring station will be 

occupied for one to two days. SIO will 

operate the Melville to deploy an airgun 

array and tow a hydrophone streamer to 

complete the survey. Some minor 

deviation from these dates is possible, 

depending on logistics and weather. 

Therefore, NMFS plans to issue an 

authorization that extends to November 

30, 2010. 

The Melville will deploy a pair of lowenergy generator-injector (GI) airguns as 

an energy source at a depth of 2 m (each 

with a discharge volume of 45 in 3), plus 

either of two towed hydrophone 

streamers, one 725 m (2,378.6 ft) long 

with 40 channels, and the other 350 m 

(1,148.3 ft) long with 16 channels. 

Hydrophone streamers are towed at 

adjustable depth to afford best reception 

of returning seismic signals, depending 

upon surface conditions, but are 

typically towed at approximately 10 m. 

The energy to the GI airgun is 

compressed air supplied by compressors 

onboard the source vessel. As the GI 

airgun is towed along the survey lines, 

the receiving systems will receive the 

returning acoustic signals. The study 

(e.g., equipment testing, startup, line 

changes, repeat coverage of any areas) 

will take place in waters deeper than 

1,000 m (3,280 ft). All planned 

geophysical data acquisition activities 

will be conducted by SIO with on-board 

assistance by the scientists who have 

proposed the study. The Chief Scientist 

is Dr. Franco Marcantonio of Texas 

A&M University. The vessel will be selfcontained, and the crew will live aboard 

the vessel for the entire cruise. 

NMFS outlined the purpose of the 

program in a previous notice for the 

proposed IHA (75 FR 54095, September 

3, 2010). The activities to be conducted 

have not changed between the proposed 

IHA notice and this final notice 

announcing the issuance of the IHA. For 

a more detailed description of the 

authorized action, including vessel and 

acoustic source specifications, the 

reader should refer to the 

aforementioned proposed IHA notice. 

Several errors found in the notice for 

the proposed IHA (75 FR 54095, 

September 3, 2010) have been corrected 

in this document. These errors are as 

follows: 

• The notice for proposed IHA 

referenced 40, 16, and 12 channel 

hydrophone streamers. The 12 channel 

streamer was referenced in error; 40 and 

16 channel streamers will be utilized as 

discussed in this document. 

• Several errors were corrected with 

regard to exposure estimates and the 

resulting take authorization (see 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals by 

Incidental Harassment and Table 2 of 

this document). 

Æ Take estimate for sperm whales 

(Physeter macrocephalus) was 

presented as 23 due to a calculation 

error and has been revised to 22. 

Æ Take estimate for striped dolphins 

(Stenella coeruleoalba) was presented as 

six, due to the erroneous use of Fraser’s 

dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) density 

estimates. Take estimate, as well as 

density estimate, for striped dolphin has 

been corrected to 192. 

Æ Exposure estimates and take 

authorization numbers have been 

corrected for several species by 

rounding up rather than down. As there 

can be no portion of an individual in 

estimating take, NMFS has rounded up 

in all cases where exposure estimates 

have some non-negligible portion of a 

whole (see Table 2 in this document). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of the SIO 

application and proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 3, 2010 (75 FR 54095). 

During the comment period, NMFS 

received comments from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission). 

The public comments can be found 

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

permits/incidental.htm. Following are 

their comments and NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require the 

applicant to use location-specific 

environmental parameters to re-estimate 

safety zones and then recalculate 

associated exposures. The Commission 

further suggests that the applicant 

should be required to use in-situ 

measurements to verify and, if need be, 

refine the safety zones prior to or at the 

beginning of the survey, and that the 

applicant should be required to 

determine actual exposures based on 

refined safety zones, sightability, and 

relevant detection functions. 

Response: NMFS is confident in the 

peer-reviewed results of the LamontDoherty Earth Observatory seismic 

equipment calibration studies which, 

although viewed as conservative, are 

used to determine cruise-specific 

exclusion zones and which factor into 

exposure estimates. With the expected 

low density of marine mammals, 

combined with the remote, deep-water 

survey location, NMFS has determined 

that the exclusion zones identified in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
64998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

the IHA are appropriate for the survey 

and that additional field measurement is 

not necessary at this time. While 

exposures of marine mammals to 

acoustic stimuli are difficult to estimate, 

NMFS is confident that the levels of 

take authorized herein are estimated 

based upon the best available scientific 

information and estimation 

methodology. The safety zones used to 

estimate exposure are appropriate and 

sufficient. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS provide 

additional justification for its 

preliminary determination that the 

planned monitoring program will be 

sufficient to detect, with a high level of 

confidence, all marine mammals within 

or entering the identified safety zones. 

Response: As discussed in the 

proposed rule, combined with the fact 

that a portion of marine mammals 

would be expected to avoid exposure to 

the higher levels of sound present 

within the designated safety zone, as 

well as the comparatively small size of 

the safety zone, NMFS believes that the 

planned monitoring program will be 

sufficient to, with reasonable certainty, 

minimize the exposure of marine 

mammals to sound within the identified 

exclusion zones (EZ). This monitoring, 

along with the required mitigation 

measures, will help ensure the 

authorized taking effects the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. Until proven 

technological advances are made, 

nighttime mitigation measures during 

operations include combinations of the 

use of protected species observers 

(PSOs) and night vision devices. In the 

event of a complete shut-down of the 

airgun array, for mitigation or repairs, 

airgun operations will be suspended 

until nautical twilight-dawn (when 

PSOs are able to clear the EZ). Airgun 

operations will not begin until the entire 

EZ radius is visible for at least 30 

minutes. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS propose to SIO 

that it revise its study design to include 

collection of meaningful baseline data 

on the distribution and behavior of 

marine mammals. 

Response: The purpose of this cruise 

is for marine geophysical research, not 

to conduct a dedicated marine mammal 

research survey. Extending or altering 

the survey is not practicable from either 

an operational or research standpoint 

for the applicant. Due to the remote 

location of the survey and the length of 

time needed to conduct the requested 

research, there may be little time left for 

the vessel to operate without the need 

for refueling and servicing. 

During the cruise, there will be 

significant amounts of transit time preand post-survey during which PSOs will 

be on watch (e.g., prior to and after the 

seismic portions of the survey). The 

collection of this observational data by 

PSOs may provide meaningful baseline 

data on marine mammals, but it is 

unlikely that the information would 

result in any statistically robust 

conclusions for this particular seismic 

survey. As the monitoring program is 

currently devised, one PSO (at 

minimum) will be on watch not only 

during all daylight airgun operations, or 

start-up of airguns at any time, but at all 

times when effective observation is 

possible. Any further revisions of study 

design are impractical. 

In addition, SIO is not responsible for 

the study design. Through a cooperative 

agreement with the NSF, SIO is the 

operator of the Melville, which hosts the 

field research program. The study is 

designed by the Principal Investigator 

and is submitted to NSF as a proposal 

for funding consideration and 

subsequently reviewed by a merit 

review panel. This study was selected 

based on its scientific merits, and 

extension or modification of the field 

component would require scientific 

justification and NSF approval and 

potentially further merit review. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS extend the 

monitoring period to at least one hour 

before initiation of seismic activities 

and at least one hour before the 

resumption of airgun activities after a 

power-down because of a marine 

mammal sighting within a safety zone. 

Response: As the Commission points 

out, several species of deep-diving 

cetaceans are capable of remaining 

underwater for more than 30 minutes, 

however, for the following reasons 

NMFS believes that 30 minutes is an 

adequate length for the monitoring 

period prior to the start-up of airguns: 

(1) In most cases PSOs are making 

observations during times when seismic 

sources are not being operated and will 

actually be observing prior to the 30 min 

observation period anyway, (2) the 

majority of the species that may be 

exposed do not stay underwater more 

than 30 minutes, and (3) if deep-diving 

individuals happened to be in the area 

in the short time immediately prior to 

the pre-start-up monitoring and if an 

animal’s maximum underwater time is 

45 min, there is only a one in three 

chance that the last random surfacing 

would be prior to the beginning of the 

required 30 min monitoring period. 

Also, seismic vessels are moving 

continuously (because of the long, 

towed array) and NMFS believes that 

unless the animal submerges and 

follows at the speed of the vessel (highly 

unlikely, especially when considering 

that a significant part of their 

movements is vertical [deep-diving]), 

the vessel will be far beyond the length 

of the safety radii within 30 min, and 

therefore it will be safe to resume 

acquisition. Finally, due to the nature of 

the seismic source to be used during the 

survey, power-down (as mentioned in 

the Commission’s comment) will not be 

used as a mitigation measure. 

In addition, mitigation measures are 

required to be ‘‘practicable.’’ NMFS 

believes that the framework for visual 

monitoring will (1) be effective at 

spotting almost all species for which 

take is requested; and (2) that imposing 

additional requirements, such as those 

suggested by the Commission, would 

not meaningfully increase the 

effectiveness of observing marine 

mammals approaching or entering the 

exclusion zones. The Commission’s 

recommendation would cause 

additional impact on the science 

mission, limiting acquisition 

opportunity without dramatically 

increasing overall effectiveness of visual 

monitoring. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS continue to 

require ramp-up and power-down 

procedures as a mitigation measure 

pending the outcome of a meeting to 

discuss these procedures. 

Response: NMFS will continue to 

require ramp-up and power-down 

procedures as mitigation measures, 

when applicable, unless or until these 

measures are proven to be ineffective or 

other measures are proven to be more 

effective. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS not include 

detailed information and analyses for 

species that are not expected to be in the 

proposed survey area in future Federal 

Register notices. 

Response: NMFS agrees that detailed 

information and analyses for species 

that are not expected to be in the 

proposed survey area should not be 

included in Federal Register notices. 

NMFS considers the information 

included in the Federal Register notice 

of proposed IHA (75 FR 54095, 

September 3, 2010) in this case to be 

necessary justification for 

determinations to not authorize take for 

certain species. 

In closing, NMFS is planning to meet 

with the Commission to further discuss 

the broad issues raised in their 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 64999 

comments, which relate to more than 

just the IHA contemplated here. 

Description of the Marine Mammals in 

the Area of the Specified Activity 

Forty-three species of marine 

mammals, including 29 odontocetes, 7 

mysticetes, 6 pinnipeds, and the marine 

sea otter (Enhydra lutris), are known to 

occur in the ETP. Of these, 21 cetacean 

species are likely to occur in the 

proposed survey areas in the ETP during 

October-November (see Table 2 in this 

document), and are considered further 

here. Three of these cetacean species are 

listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) as Endangered: The sperm 

(Physeter macrocephalus), humpback 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), and blue 

(Balaenoptera musculus) whales. 

NMFS has presented a more detailed 

discussion of the status of these stocks 

and their occurrence in the ETP in the 

notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 

54095, September 3, 2010). 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

Summary of Potential Effects of Airgun 

Sounds 

Level B harassment of cetaceans has 

the potential to occur during the seismic 

survey due to acoustic stimuli caused by 

the firing of airguns, which introduces 

sound into the marine environment. The 

effects of sounds from airguns might 

include one or more of the following: 

tolerance, masking of natural sounds, 

behavioral disturbance, temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, or nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon 

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

Southall et al., 2007). Permanent 

hearing impairment, in the unlikely 

event that it occurred, would constitute 

injury, but temporary threshold shift 

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

2007). Although the possibility cannot 

be entirely excluded, it is unlikely that 

the project would result in any cases of 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, or any significant nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects. Some behavioral disturbance is 

expected, but NMFS expects the 

disturbance to be localized and shortterm. 

The notice of the proposed IHA (75 

FR 54095, September 3, 2010) included 

a discussion of the effects of sounds 

from airguns on mysticetes and 

odontocetes, including tolerance, 

masking, behavioral disturbance, 

hearing impairment, and other nonauditory physical effects. Additional 

information on the behavioral reactions 

(or lack thereof) by all types of marine 

mammals to seismic vessels can be 

found in SIO’s application and NMFS’ 

EA. The notice of the proposed IHA also 

included a discussion of the potential 

effects of the multibeam echosounder 

(MBES) and the sub-bottom profiler 

(SBP). Because of the shape of the 

beams of these sources and their power, 

NMFS believes it unlikely that marine 

mammals will be exposed to either the 

MBES or the SBP at levels at or above 

those likely to cause harassment. 

Further, NMFS believes that the brief 

exposure of cetaceans to a few signals 

from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar 

system is not likely to result in the 

harassment of marine mammals. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

A detailed discussion of the potential 

effects of this action on marine mammal 

habitat, including physiological and 

behavioral effects on marine fish and 

invertebrates was included in the 

proposed IHA (75 FR 54095, September 

3, 2010). Based on the discussion in the 

proposed IHA notice and the nature of 

the activities (limited duration), the 

authorized operations are not expected 

to result in any permanent impact on 

habitats used by marine mammals, 

including the food sources they use. The 

main impact associated with the activity 

will be temporarily elevated noise levels 

and the associated direct effects on 

marine mammals. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under sections 

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

NMFS must, where applicable, set forth 

the permissible methods of taking 

pursuant to such activity, and other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on such species or stock 

and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(where relevant). 

Mitigation and monitoring measures 

to be implemented for the seismic 

survey have been developed and refined 

during previous SIO seismic studies and 

associated EAs, IHA applications, and 

IHAs. The mitigation and monitoring 

measures described herein represent a 

combination of procedures required by 

past IHAs for other similar projects and 

on best practices recommended in 

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

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

The measures are described in detail 

below. 

Mitigation measures to be 

implemented by SIO during the survey 

include (1) visual monitoring by 

protected species observers (discussed 

later in this document), (2) 

establishment of an exclusion zone (EZ), 

(3) speed or course alteration, provided 

that doing so will not compromise 

operational safety requirements, (4) GI 

airgun shut down procedures, and (5) 

ramp-up procedures. Although powerdown procedures are often standard 

operating practice for seismic surveys, 

they will not be used here because 

powering down from two airguns to one 

airgun would make only a small 

difference in the 180-dB safety radius. 

The difference is not enough to allow 

continued one-airgun operations if a 

mammal came within the safety radius 

for two airguns. 

Exclusion Zones—As discussed 

previously in this document, NMFS has 

determined that for acoustic effects, 

using acoustic thresholds in 

combination with corresponding safety 

radii is an effective way to consistently 

apply measures to avoid or minimize 

the impacts of an action. Thresholds are 

used to establish a mitigation shutdown, or exclusion, zone, i.e., if an 

animal enters an area calculated to be 

ensonified above the level of an 

established threshold, a sound source is 

shut down. 

As a matter of past practice and based 

on the best available information at the 

time regarding the effects of marine 

sound, NMFS estimates that Level A 

harassment from acoustic sources may 

occur when cetaceans are exposed to 

levels above 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) level. 

NMFS also considers 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) as the criterion for estimating the 

onset of Level B harassment from 

acoustic sources producing impulse 

sounds, as in this seismic survey. 

Empirical data concerning the 180– 

and 160–dB distances have been 

acquired based on measurements during 

the acoustic verification study 

conducted by L–DEO in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico from May 27–June 3, 

2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004). The 

empirical data indicate that, for this 

survey, the assumed 180– and 160–dB 

radii are 40 m (131.2 ft) and 400 m 

(1,312.3 ft), respectively (see Table 1 in 

this document). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

TABLE 1—PREDICTED DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS ≥190, 180 AND 160 DB RE 1 μPA (RMS) MIGHT BE RECEIVED FROM TWO 45 IN3 GI AIRGUNS THAT WILL BE USED DURING THE SEISMIC SURVEYS IN THE EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC OCEAN DURING OCTOBER–NOVEMBER 2010 

[Distances are based on model results provided by L–DEO.] 

Source and volume Tow depth 

(m) Water depth 

Estimated Distances at Received 

Levels (m) 

180 dB 160 dB 

Two GI airguns, 45 in3 each ................. 2 Deep (>1,000 m) 40 400 

Speed or Course Alteration—If a 

marine mammal is detected outside the 

EZ but is likely to enter it based on 

relative movement of the vessel and the 

animal, and if safety and scientific 

objectives allow, the vessel speed and/ 

or course will be adjusted to minimize 

the likelihood of the animal entering the 

EZ. In the event that safety and/or 

scientific objectives do not allow for 

alteration of speed and/or course as a 

needed mitigation measure, shut-down 

procedures will still be utilized (see 

below). Major course and speed 

adjustments are often impractical when 

towing long seismic streamers and large 

source arrays but are possible in this 

case because only a small source and 

short streamers will be used. 

Shut-down Procedures—If a marine 

mammal is detected by PSOs outside 

the EZ but is likely to enter the EZ, and 

if the vessel’s speed and/or course 

cannot be changed to avoid having the 

animal enter the EZ, the airgun array, 

MBES, and SBP will be shut down 

before the animal is within the EZ. 

Likewise, if a marine mammal is already 

within the EZ when first detected, the 

airgun array, MBES, and SBP will be 

shut down immediately. Following a 

shut down, seismic activity will not 

resume until the marine mammal has 

cleared the EZ. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the EZ if it 

(a) is visually observed to have left the 

EZ, or (b) has not been seen within the 

EZ for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes, or has not been seen 

within the EZ for 30 min in the case of 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm and beaked whales. 

Ramp-up Procedures—A ramp-up 

procedure will be followed when the GI 

airguns begin operating after a specified 

period without GI airgun operations. It 

is proposed that, for the present cruise, 

this period would be approximately 1– 

2 min. This period is based on the 180– 

dB radii for the GI airguns (see Table 1 

in this document) in relation to the 

planned speed of the Melville while 

shooting. Ramp-up will begin with a 

single GI airgun (45 in3). The second GI 

airgun (45 in3) will be added after 5 

min. During ramp up, the PSOs will 

monitor the exclusion zone, and, if 

marine mammals are sighted, a shutdown will be implemented as though 

both GI airguns were operational. 

If the complete EZ has not been 

visible for at least 30 min prior to the 

start of operations in either daylight or 

nighttime, ramp-up will not commence. 

If one GI airgun has operated, ramp-up 

to full power will be permissible at 

night or in poor visibility on the 

assumption that marine mammals will 

be alerted to the approaching seismic 

vessel by the sounds from the single GI 

airgun and could move away if they 

choose. A ramp-up from a shut-down 

may occur at night, but only when the 

entire EZ is visible, and it has been 

determined from the pre-ramp up watch 

that the EZ is clear of marine mammals. 

Ramp-up of the GI airguns will not be 

initiated if a marine mammal is sighted 

within or near the applicable EZ during 

day or night. 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

NMFS prescribes the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation 

of potential measures included 

consideration of the following factors in 

relation to one another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for IHAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the action 

area. 

SIO will sponsor marine mammal 

monitoring during the present project, 

in order to implement the mitigation 

measures that require real-time 

monitoring, and to satisfy the 

monitoring requirements of the IHA. 

SIO’s Monitoring Plan is described 

below this section and was planned as 

a self-contained project independent of 

any other related monitoring projects 

that may be occurring simultaneously in 

the same regions. SIO is prepared to 

discuss coordination of its monitoring 

program with any related work that 

might be done by other groups insofar 

as this is practical. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

Three protected species observers 

(PSOs) will be based aboard the seismic 

source vessel for the duration of the 

cruise and will watch for marine 

mammals near the vessel during 

daytime airgun operations and during 

start-up of airguns at any time. Watches 

will be conducted by at least one 

observer 100% of the time during 

seismic surveys in daylight hours. 

Daylight observation by at least one 

observer will continue during nonseismic periods, as long as weather 

conditions make observations 

meaningful, for comparison of sighting 

rates and animal behavior during 

periods with vs. without airgun 

operations. PSOs will be appointed by 

SIO with NMFS concurrence after a 

review of their qualifications. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 65001 

The Melville is a suitable platform for 

marine mammal observations. The 

observer platform is located one deck 

below and forward of the bridge (12.46 

meters (40.88 ft) above the waterline), 

affording a relatively unobstructed 180- 

degree forward view. Aft views can be 

obtained along the port and starboard 

decks. During daytime hours, the 

observer(s) will scan the area 

systematically using reticulated 25 × 

150 big-eye binoculars and 7 × 50 handheld binoculars to determine bearing 

and distance of sightings. A clinometer 

is used to determine distances of 

animals in close proximity to the vessel. 

Hand-held fixed rangefinders and 

distance marks on the ship’s side rails 

are used to measure the exact location 

of the safety zone. Laser rangefinders, 

which have proven to be less reliable for 

open water sighting, are also provided. 

During darkness, night-vision 

equipment will be available. The PSOs 

will be in wireless communication with 

ship’s officers on the bridge and 

scientists in the vessel’s operations 

laboratory, so they can advise promptly 

of the need for avoidance maneuvers or 

GI airgun shut down. 

Before commencing seismic 

operations during daylight hours, two 

observers will maintain a 360-degree 

watch for all marine mammals for at 

least 30 minutes prior to the start of 

seismic operations after an extended 

shutdown of the airguns (1–2 minutes, 

depending on vessel speed). If no 

marine mammals are observed within 

the EZ during this time, the observers 

will notify the seismic personnel of an 

‘‘all clear’’ status. Watch periods are 

scheduled as a 2-hour rotation. The 

observers continually scan the water 

from the horizon to the ship’s hull, and 

forward of 90 degrees from the port and 

starboard beams. Based on PSO 

observations, the GI airgun(s) will be 

shut down (as described earlier in this 

document) when marine mammals are 

detected within or about to enter a 

designated EZ that corresponds to the 

180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth. The 

PSOs will continue to maintain watch to 

determine when the animal(s) are 

outside the EZ, and airgun operations 

will not resume until the animal has left 

that EZ. The predicted distance for the 

180-dB EZ is listed in Table 1 earlier in 

this document. Seismic operations will 

resume only after the animals are seen 

to exit the safety radius or after no 

further visual detection of the animal for 

15 minutes (for small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (for mysticetes 

and large odontocetes, including beaked 

whales). 

The bridge officers and other crew 

will be instructed to alert the observer 

on watch of any suspected marine 

mammal sighting. If needed, the bridge 

will be contacted in order to maneuver 

the ship to avoid interception with 

approaching marine mammals. 

PSO Data and Documentation 

PSOs will record data to estimate the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

various received sound levels and to 

document reactions or lack thereof. Data 

will be used to estimate numbers of 

animals potentially ‘‘taken’’ by 

harassment (as defined in the MMPA). 

They will also provide information 

needed to order a shutdown of the 

seismic source when a marine mammal 

is within or near the EZ. When a 

sighting is made, the following 

information about the sighting will be 

recorded: 

• Species, group size, and age/size/ 

sex categories (if determinable); 

behavior when first sighted and after 

initial sighting; heading (if consistent), 

bearing and distance from seismic 

vessel; sighting cue, apparent reaction to 

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

avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.); 

and behavioral pace; and 

• Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. 

The data will also be recorded at the 

start and end of each observation watch 

and during a watch whenever there is a 

change in one or more of the variables. 

All observations, as well as 

information regarding seismic source 

shutdown, will be recorded in a 

standardized format. Data collection 

procedures are adapted from the linetransect protocols developed by the 

SWFSC for their marine mammal 

abundance research cruises. A laptop 

computer is located on the observer 

platform for ease of data entry. The 

computer is connected to the ship’s 

Global Positioning System, which 

allows a record of time and position to 

be made at 3-minute intervals and for 

each event entered (such as sightings, 

weather updates and effort changes). 

Data accuracy will be verified by the 

PSOs at sea and preliminary reports will 

be prepared during the field program 

and summaries forwarded to the SIO’s 

shore facility and to NSF weekly or 

more frequently. PSO observations will 

provide the following information: 

• The basis for decisions about 

shutting down the airgun arrays; 

• Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

‘‘taken by harassment’’, which will be 

reported to NMFS; 

• Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted; and 

• Data on the behavior and movement 

patterns of marine mammals seen at 

times with and without seismic activity. 

A report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report will be submitted 

to NMFS, providing full documentation 

of methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day 

report will summarize the dates and 

locations of seismic operations and all 

marine mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). The report will also 

include estimates of the amount and 

nature of potential ‘‘take’’ of marine 

mammals by harassment or in other 

ways. 

All injured or dead marine mammals 

(regardless of cause) will be reported to 

NMFS as soon as practicable. The report 

should include species or description of 

animal, condition of animal, location, 

time first found, observed behaviors (if 

alive), and photo or video, if available. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals by 

Incidental Harassment 

With respect to the activities 

described 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]. 

All anticipated takes will be by Level 

B harassment, involving temporary 

changes in behavior. The mitigation and 

monitoring measures described herein 

are expected to minimize the possibility 

of injurious or lethal takes such that 

take by Level A harassment, serious 

injury or mortality is considered remote. 

However, as noted earlier, there is no 

specific information demonstrating that 

injurious or lethal ‘‘takes’’ would occur 

even in the absence of the planned 

mitigation and monitoring measures. 

The sections here describe methods to 

estimate ‘‘take by Level B harassment’’ 

and present estimates of the numbers of 

marine mammals that might be affected 

during the proposed seismic program. 

The estimates of ‘‘take’’ are based on data 

collected in the ETP by NMFS SWFSC 

during 12 ship-based cetacean and 

ecosystem assessment surveys 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

conducted during July–December from 

1986–2006. 

It is assumed that, during 

simultaneous operations of the seismic 

sources and the other sources, any 

marine mammals close enough to be 

affected by the MBES or SBP would 

already be affected by the seismic 

sources. However, whether or not the 

seismic sources are operating 

simultaneously with the other sources, 

marine mammals are expected to exhibit 

no more than short-term and 

inconsequential responses to the MBES 

and SBP given their characteristics (e.g., 

narrow downward-directed beam) and 

other considerations described above, 

such as the unlikelihood of being 

exposed to the source at higher levels 

and the fact that it would likely only be 

for one or two pulses. Such reactions are 

not considered to constitute ‘‘taking’’ 

(NMFS, 2001). Therefore, no additional 

allowance is included for animals that 

might be affected by sound sources 

other than the seismic sources (i.e., 

airguns). 

Extensive systematic ship-based 

surveys have been conducted by NMFS 

SWFSC for marine mammals in the ETP. 

SWFSC has recently developed habitat 

modeling as a method to estimate 

cetacean densities on a finer spatial 

scale than traditional line-transect 

analyses by using a continuous function 

of habitat variables, e.g., sea surface 

temperature, depth, distance from shore, 

and prey density (Barlow et al., 2009). 

The models have been incorporated into 

a web-based Geographic Information 

System (GIS) developed by Duke 

University’s Department of Defense 

Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program (SERDP) team in 

close collaboration with the SWFSC 

SERDP team (Read et al., 2009). The GIS 

was used to obtain densities for the 10 

cetaceans in the model (Bryde’s whale, 

blue whale, Mesoplodon spp., roughtoothed, bottlenose, pantropical spotted, 

spinner, striped, and short-beaked 

common dolphins, and short-finned 

pilot whale) in each of eight areas: The 

four proposed survey areas (see Figure 

1 in SIO’s application), and corridors 1° 

wide and centered on the tracklines 

between the survey areas and from the 

southernmost survey area to the EEZ of 

Peru. For species sighted in SWFSC 

surveys whose sample sizes were too 

small to model density (sperm whale, 

humpback whale, Cuvier’s beaked 

whale, Fraser’s dolphin, Risso’s 

dolphin, melon-headed, pygmy killer, 

false killer, and killer whales), SIO used 

densities from the surveys conducted 

during summer and fall 1986–1996, as 

summarized by Ferguson and Barlow 

(2001). Densities were calculated from 

Ferguson and Barlow (2003) for 5° x 5° 

blocks that include the proposed survey 

areas and corridors. Those blocks 

included 27,275 km (16,947.9 mi) of 

survey effort in Beaufort sea states 0–5 

and 2,564 km (1,593.2 mi) of survey 

effort in Beaufort sea states 0–2. 

Densities were obtained for an 

additional eight species that were 

sighted in one or more of those blocks. 

Oceanographic conditions, including 

occasional El Nino and La Nina events, 

influence the distribution and numbers 

of marine mammals present in the ETP, 

resulting in considerable year-to-year 

variation in the distribution and 

abundance of many marine mammal 

species (Escorza-Trevino, 2009). Thus, 

for some species, the densities derived 

from recent surveys may not be 

representative of the densities that will 

be encountered during the proposed 

seismic survey. 

Table 3 in SIO’s application gives the 

average (or ‘‘best’’) and maximum 

densities for each species of cetacean 

likely to occur in the study area, i.e., 

species for which densities were 

obtained or assigned. These densities 

have been corrected for both 

detectability and availability bias by the 

study authors. Detectability bias is 

associated with diminishing sightability 

with increasing lateral distance from the 

trackline. Availability bias refers to the 

fact that there is less than 100 percent 

probability of sighting an animal that is 

present along the survey trackline. The 

estimated numbers of individuals 

potentially exposed are presented next 

based on the 160-dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

Level B harassment criterion for all 

cetaceans. It is assumed that marine 

mammals exposed to airgun sounds at 

that level might change their behavior 

sufficiently to be considered ‘‘taken by 

harassment’’. 

It should be noted that the following 

estimates of ‘‘takes by harassment’’ 

assume that the surveys will be 

undertaken and completed; in fact, the 

planned number of line-kilometers has 

been increased to accommodate lines 

that may need to be repeated, 

equipment testing, etc. As is typical on 

offshore ship surveys, inclement 

weather and equipment malfunctions 

are likely to cause delays and may limit 

the number of useful line-kilometers of 

seismic operations that can be 

undertaken. Furthermore, any marine 

mammal sightings within or near the 

designated EZ will result in the 

shutdown of seismic operations as a 

mitigation measure. Thus, the following 

estimates of the numbers of marine 

mammals potentially exposed to 160-dB 

re 1 μPa (rms) sounds are precautionary 

and probably overestimate the actual 

numbers of marine mammals that might 

be taken. These estimates assume that 

there will be no weather, equipment, or 

mitigation delays, which is highly 

unlikely. There is some uncertainty 

about the representativeness of the data 

and the assumptions used in the 

calculations presented here. However, 

the approach used here is believed to be 

the best available approach. 

The number of different individuals 

that may be exposed to GI airgun sounds 

with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) on one or more occasions was 

estimated by considering the total 

marine area that would be within the 

160-dB radius around the operating 

airgun array on at least one occasion, 

along with the expected density of 

animals in the area. The proposed 

seismic lines do not run parallel to each 

other in close proximity, which 

minimizes the number of times an 

individual mammal may be exposed 

during the survey; in this case, an 

individual could be exposed 1.01 times 

on average. The numbers of different 

individuals potentially exposed to ≥160 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) were calculated by 

multiplying the expected species 

density, times the anticipated area to be 

ensonified to that level during GI airgun 

operations. 

The area expected to be ensonified 

was determined by entering the planned 

survey lines into a MapInfo GIS, using 

the GIS to identify the relevant areas by 

‘‘drawing’’ the applicable 160-dB buffer 

(see Table 1 in this document) around 

each seismic line, and then calculating 

the total area within the buffers. Areas 

where overlap occurred (because of 

intersecting lines) were included only 

once when estimating the number of 

individuals exposed. 

Applying the approach described 

here, approximately 4,340 km2 (1,675.7 

mi2) would be within the 160-dB 

isopleth on one or more occasions 

during the surveys. In calculating 

exposure estimates, this figure was 

increased by 25% (i.e., to 5,425 km2) in 

order to account for the potential need 

to re-survey lines or other contingency. 

This approach does not allow for 

turnover in the mammal populations in 

the study area during the course of the 

survey. That might underestimate actual 

numbers of individuals exposed, 

although the conservative distances 

used to calculate the area may offset 

this. In addition, the approach assumes 

that no cetaceans will move away or 

toward the trackline as the Melville 

approaches in response to increasing 

sound levels prior to the time the levels 

reach 160 dB. Another way of 

interpreting the estimates that follow 

(Table 2 in this document) is that they 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 65003 

represent the number of individuals that 

are expected (in the absence of a seismic 

program) to occur in the waters that will 

be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

The take estimates presented here do 

not take the proposed mitigation 

measures into consideration and thus 

are likely to be overestimates. 

TABLE 2—THE ESTIMATES OF THE POSSIBLE NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS EXPOSED TO SOUND LEVELS GREATER

THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 DB DURING SIO’S PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC OCEAN

IN OCT–NOV 2010. THE PROPOSED SOUND SOURCE IS A PAIR OF GI AIRGUNS. RECEIVED LEVELS ARE EXPRESSED

IN DB RE 1 μPA (RMS) (AVERAGED OVER PULSE DURATION), CONSISTENT WITH NMFS’ PRACTICE. NOT ALL MARINE

MAMMALS WILL CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR WHEN EXPOSED TO THESE SOUND LEVELS, BUT SOME MAY ALTER THEIR

BEHAVIOR WHEN LEVELS ARE LOWER (SEE TEXT). SEE TABLES 2–4 IN SIO’S APPLICATION FOR FURTHER DETAIL. 

Species 

Number of 

individuals 

exposed 

(best) 1

Approx. % 

regional 

population 

(best) 2

Take 

authorization 

Mysticetes 

Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) ............................................................................... 3 0.02 3 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) .............................................................................. **2 0.05 2 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) .................................................................. **2 3 NA 2 

Odontocetes 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) ........................................................................ 22 0.09 22 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) .................................................................... 10 0.05 10 

Mesoplodon sp. (unidentified) ......................................................................................... **2 <0.01 **2 

Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) ................................................................... 9 0.01 *15 

Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) ............................................................ **68 0.01 *131 

Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) ............................................................................. 21 <0.01 *109 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) .......................................................................... **83 0.02 **83 

Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) .......................................................................... 192 <0.01 192 

Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) .......................................................................... 6 <0.01 *440 

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) ....................................................... 777 0.02 777 

Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) ............................................................................ **4 0.01 *30 

Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) ............................................................... **16 0.03 *258 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ................................................................................. **56 0.05 **56 

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) ...................................................................... **3 0.01 *11 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) .............................................................................................. 5 0.05 5 

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) ................................................. **35 0.01 **35 

* Requested take authorization increased from ‘best’ exposure estimate to mean group size as reported in Ferguson et al. (2006). 

** Rounded-up, where proposed IHA (75 FR 54095, September 3, 2010) presented figures rounded down. See Description of the Specified Activity in this document for discussion. 1Best (mean) estimate density are from Table 3 of SIO’s application. Humpback whale estimates calculated independently using methodology 

described previously. 2 Regional population size estimates are from Table 2 in the proposed IHA (75 FR 54095, September 3, 2010). 

3Southern Hemisphere population sizes are poorly understood. However, the number of individuals potentially exposed is low relative to regional population. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘* * * an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, NMFS considers: 

(1) The number of anticipated 

mortalities; 

(2) The number and nature of 

anticipated injuries; 

(3) The number, nature, and intensity, 

and duration of Level B harassment; and 

(4) The context in which the takes 

occur. 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that 21 species of marine 

mammals (including three species 

categorized as Mesoplodon sp.) could be 

potentially affected by Level B 

harassment over the course of the IHA. 

For each species, these numbers are 

small (each, less than one percent) 

relative to the population size. 

No takes by (Level A harassment), 

serious injury, or mortality are 

anticipated to occur as a result of the 

SIO’s marine geophysical survey, and 

none are authorized. Only short-term 

behavioral disturbance is anticipated to 

occur due to the brief and sporadic 

duration of the survey activities, and 

these takes are not expected to occur in 

a place that is of specific biological 

importance to marine mammals, such as 

in a known breeding, calving, or feeding 

area, as no such times or places are 

known for the project location or time. 

If such a place, previously unknown, 

does exist in the project area, NMFS 

would still anticipate that the impacts 

would be negligible due to their 

temporary nature in space and time. 

Due to the nature, degree, and context 

of the behavioral harassment 

anticipated, the activity is not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

For reasons stated previously, the 

specified activities associated with the 

survey are not likely to cause TTS, PTS 

or other non-auditory injury, serious 

injury, or death to affected marine 

mammals because: 

(1) The likelihood that, given 

sufficient notice through relatively slow 

ship speed, marine mammals are 

expected to move away from a noise 

source that is annoying prior to its 

becoming potentially injurious; 

(2) The fact that cetaceans would have 

to be closer than 40 m (0.025 mi) in 

deep water when the full array is in use 

at a 2 m (6.6 ft) tow depth from the 

vessel to be exposed to levels of sound 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

believed to have even a minimal chance 

of causing PTS; 

(3) The fact that marine mammals 

would have to be closer than 400 m 

(0.25 mi) in deep water when the full 

array is in use at a 2 m (6.6 ft) tow depth 

from the vessel to be exposed to levels 

of sound (160 dB) believed to have even 

a minimal chance at causing TTS; and 

(4) The likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

observers is high at that short distance 

from the vessel; 

(5) The incorporation of other 

required mitigation measures (i.e., 

ramp-up, shut-down, temporal and 

spatial avoidance, and additional 

mitigation measures); and 

(7) The relatively limited duration 

and geographically widespread 

distances of the seismic survey 

(approximately 15 days). 

As a result, no take by injury, serious 

injury, or death is anticipated or 

authorized, and the potential for 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment is very low and will be 

avoided through the incorporation of 

the monitoring and mitigation measures. 

While the number of marine 

mammals potentially incidentally 

harassed will depend on the 

distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the survey 

activity, the number of potential Level 

B incidental harassment takings (see 

Table 2) is estimated to be small, less 

than one percent of any of the estimated 

population sizes based on the data 

disclosed in Table 2 of this notice, and 

has been mitigated to the lowest level 

practicable through incorporation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

mentioned previously in this document. 

Also, there are no known important 

reproductive or feeding areas in the 

action area. 

NMFS has determined, provided that 

the aforementioned mitigation and 

monitoring measures are implemented, 

that the impact of conducting a marine 

geophysical survey in the ETP, October 

through November 2010, may result, at 

worst, in a temporary modification in 

behavior and/or low-level physiological 

effects (Level B harassment) of small 

numbers of certain species of marine 

mammals. 

While behavioral modifications, 

including temporarily vacating the area 

during the operation of the airgun(s), 

may be made by these species to avoid 

the resultant acoustic disturbance, the 

availability of alternate areas within 

these areas and the short and sporadic 

duration of the research activities, have 

led NMFS to determine that this action 

will have a negligible impact on the 

species in the specified geographic 

region. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS finds that SIO’s planned research 

activities, will result in the incidental 

take of small numbers of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

and that the total taking from the marine 

geophysical survey will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. 

Endangered Species Act 

Of the 21 species of marine mammals 

that may occur in the survey area, three 

are listed as endangered under the ESA, 

including the humpback, blue, and 

sperm whales. Under Section 7 of the 

ESA, NSF had initiated formal 

consultation with the NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, Endangered 

Species Division, on this seismic 

survey. NMFS’ Office of Protected 

Resources, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, also initiated formal 

consultation under Section 7 of the ESA 

with NMFS’ Office of Protected 

Resources, Endangered Species 

Division, to obtain a Biological Opinion 

(BiOp) evaluating the effects of issuing 

the IHA on threatened and endangered 

marine mammals and, consistent with 

the requirements for mitigation and 

monitoring set forth in the IHA, 

authorizing incidental take. On October 

15, 2010, NMFS concluded formal 

Section 7 consultation with itself and 

issued a BiOp which concluded that the 

proposed action and issuance of the IHA 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the humpback, 

blue, and sperm whales and leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia 

mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), 

hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and 

olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea 

turtles. The BiOp also concluded that 

designated critical habitat for these 

species does not occur in the action area 

and would not be affected by the survey. 

SIO must comply with the Relevant 

Terms and Conditions of the Incidental 

Take Statement corresponding to NMFS’ 

BiOp issued to both NSF and NMFS’ 

Office of Protected Resources. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

To meet NMFS’ National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requirements for the 

issuance of an IHA to SIO, NMFS has 

prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) titled ‘‘Issuance of an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization to the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography to 

Take Marine Mammals by Harassment 

Incidental to a Marine Geophysical 

Survey off of Central and South 

America in the Eastern Tropical Pacific 

Ocean, October-November 2010’’. This 

EA incorporates by reference the NSF’s 

Environmental Analysis Pursuant To 

Executive Order 12114 (NSF, 2010) and 

an associated report (Report) prepared 

by LGL Limited Environmental 

Research Associates (LGL) for NSF, 

titled, ‘‘Environmental Assessment of a 

Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V 

Melville in the Pacific Ocean off Central 

and South America, October-November 

2010’’ (LGL, 2010) by reference pursuant 

to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

1502.21 and NOAA Administrative 

Order (NAO) 216–6 § 5.09(d). NMFS’ EA 

analyzes the direct, indirect and 

cumulative environmental impacts of 

the specified activities on marine 

mammals including those listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. NMFS also evaluated and 

considered comments provided by the 

public in finalizing the EA and 

addressing the intensity of impacts to 

marine mammals 

The NMFS has made a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) and, 

therefore, will not prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

issuance of an IHA to SIO for this 

activity. The EA and the NMFS FONSI 

for this activity are available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Determinations 

NMFS has determined that the impact 

of conducting the specific seismic 

survey activities described in this notice 

and the IHA request in the specific 

geographic region in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean may result, at worst, in a 

temporary modification in behavior 

(Level B harassment) of small numbers 

of marine mammals. Further, this 

activity is expected to result in a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals. The 

provision requiring that the activity not 

have an unmitigable impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stock of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses is not implicated for 

this action. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 65005 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SIO 

for conducting a marine geophysical 

survey in the eastern tropical Pacific 

Ocean, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

The duration of the IHA would not 

exceed one year from the date of its 

issuance. 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26547 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ53 

Taking and Importing of Marine 

Mammals 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; annual affirmative 

finding renewal. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant 

Administrator) has renewed the 

affirmative finding for the Government 

of El Salvador under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This 

affirmative finding will allow yellowfin 

tuna harvested in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with 

the International Dolphin Conservation 

Program (IDCP) by El Salvadorian-flag 

purse seine vessels or purse seine 

vessels operating under El Salvadorian 

jurisdiction to be imported into the 

United States. The affirmative finding 

was based on review of documentary 

evidence submitted by the Government 

of El Salvador and obtained from the 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission (IATTC) and the U.S. 

Department of State. 

DATES: The affirmative finding renewal 

is effective from April 1, 2010, through 

March 31, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Wilkin, Southwest Region, NMFS, 

501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, 

Long Beach, CA 90802–4213; phone 

562–980–3230; fax 562–980–4027. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows 

the entry into the United States of 

yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine 

vessels in the ETP under certain 

conditions. If requested by the 

harvesting nation, the Assistant 

Administrator will determine whether 

to make an affirmative finding based 

upon documentary evidence provided 

by the government of the harvesting 

nation, the IATTC, or the Department of 

State. 

The affirmative finding process 

requires that the harvesting nation is 

meeting its obligations under the IDCP 

and obligations of membership in the 

IATTC. Every 5 years, the government of 

the harvesting nation must request an 

affirmative finding and submit the 

required documentary evidence directly 

to the Assistant Administrator. On an 

annual basis, NMFS will review the 

affirmative finding and determine 

whether the harvesting nation continues 

to meet the requirements. A nation may 

provide information related to 

compliance with IDCP and IATTC 

measures directly to NMFS on an 

annual basis or may authorize the 

IATTC to release the information to 

NMFS to annually renew an affirmative 

finding determination without an 

application from the harvesting nation. 

An affirmative finding will be 

terminated, in consultation with the 

Secretary of State, if the Assistant 

Administrator determines that the 

requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no 

longer being met or that a nation is 

consistently failing to take enforcement 

actions on violations, thereby 

diminishing the effectiveness of the 

IDCP. 

As a part of the affirmative finding 

process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the 

Assistant Administrator considered 

documentary evidence submitted by the 

Republic of El Salvador or obtained 

from the IATTC and the Department of 

State and has determined that El 

Salvador has met the MMPA’s 

requirements to receive an annual 

affirmative finding renewal. 

After consultation with the 

Department of State, the Assistant 

Administrator issued the Republic of El 

Salvador’s annual affirmative finding 

renewal, allowing the continued 

importation into the United States of 

yellowfin tuna and products derived 

from yellowfin tuna harvested in the 

ETP by El Salvadorian-flag purse seine 

vessels or purse seine vessels operating 

under El Salvadorian jurisdiction. This 

annual renewal of El Salvador’s 

affirmative finding will remain valid 

through March 31, 2011. 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26652 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Intent To Prepare a Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(SEIS), Mississippi Barrier Island 

Restoration, Mississippi Coastal 

Improvements Program (MsCIP) for 

Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson 

Counties, MS 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Mobile District, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 

intends to prepare a Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(DSEIS) to the MsCIP Comprehensive 

Plan and Integrated Programmatic EIS, 

prepared in June 2009, which evaluated 

comprehensive water resource 

improvements associated with 

hurricane and storm damage risk 

reduction, shoreline erosion, salt water 

intrusion and fish and wildlife 

preservation in three coastal counties of 

Mississippi. As described in the 

Comprehensive Plan, the SEIS will 

address potential impacts associated 

with the comprehensive restoration of 

the Mississippi barrier islands. These 

actions are related to the consequences 

of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 

2005 and will be used as a basis for 

ensuring compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

ADDRESSES: Questions about the 

proposed action and the DSEIS should 

be addressed to Mr. Larry Parson, or Dr. 

Susan Ivester Rees, Planning and 

Environmental Division, Mobile 

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, AL 36628–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Larry Parson, (251) 694–3139 or e-mail 

at larry.e.parson@usace.army.mil or Dr. 

Susan Ivester Rees, (251) 694–414, or email at susan.i.rees@usace.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Hurricane Katrina made landfall in 

Mississippi on August 29, 2005 causing 

catastrophic damage to lives, property, 

and natural resources throughout 

coastal Mississippi. In response, the 

U.S. Congress directed the Secretary of 

the Army through the Corps of 

Engineers (the Corps) to conduct an 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES