Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34715 

parties. Submissions (original and 3 

copies) shall be addressed to the Board’s 

Executive Secretary at the address 

below. The closing period for their 

receipt is September 15, 2009. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period (to September 30, 2009). 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board, Room 

2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s 

website, which is accessible via 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Kathleen Boyce at 

KathleenlBoyce@ita.doc.gov or 202– 

482–1346. 

Dated: July 8, 2009. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–17076 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO71 

Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals 

During Specified Activities; LowEnergy Marine Seismic Survey in the 

Northeast Pacific Ocean, July 2009 

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 San Diego 

(UCSD), for the take of small numbers 

of marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment only, incidental to 

conducting a marine seismic survey in 

the Northeast Pacific Ocean during July 

2009. 

DATES: Effective July 14, 2009, through 

August 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the 

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 

20910–3225 or by telephoning the 

contact listed here. A copy of the 

application containing a list of the 

references used in this document may 

be obtained by writing to the address 

specified above, telephoning the contact 

listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the 

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

pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at the aforementioned 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Ken Hollingshead, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–713–2289. 

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 marine mammals 

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 either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization for incidental taking 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

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

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses, and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

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

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ 

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’’]. 

16 U.S.C. 1362(18). 

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 March 9, 2009, NMFS received an 

application from SIO for the taking, by 

Level B harassment only, of small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental 

to conducting, under cooperative 

agreement with the National Science 

Foundation (NSF), a low-energy marine 

seismic survey in the Northeast Pacific 

Ocean. The funding for the survey is 

provided by the NSF. The proposed 

survey will occur in an overall area 

between approximately 44° and 45° N. 

and 124.5° and 126° W. within the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the 

U.S.A., and is scheduled to occur from 

July 14–20, 2009. The survey will use a 

single Generator Injector (GI) airgun 

with a discharge volume of 45 in3. Some 

minor deviation from these dates is 

possible, depending on logistics and 

weather. 

The survey is virtually identical to 

one conducted by SIO in 2007 under an 

IHA issued in September 2007 (NMFS, 

2007). The SIO 2009 IHA application 

contains minor updates to the project 

description, updated marine mammal 

population sizes based on the most 

recent NMFS annual stock assessment, 

an assessment of the relevance of the 

marine mammal density and 

distribution data contained in the SIO 

2007 IHA application based on cruise 

reports from the NMFS SWFSC 

ORCAWHALE 2008 cruise, and updated 

information on effects of airguns on 

marine mammals (see Appendix A of 

SIO’s application). 

Description of the Specified Activity 

SIO plans to conduct an ocean bottom 

seismograph (OBS) deployment and a 

magnetic, bathymetric, and seismic 

survey. The planned survey will involve 

one source vessel, the R/V Wecoma 

(Wecoma), and will occur in the 

Northeast Pacific Ocean off the coast of 

Oregon. 

The purpose of the research program 

is to record micro-earthquakes in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34716 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

forearc to determine whether seismicity 

on the plate boundary is characteristic 

of a locked or a freely slipping fault 

plane. Several earthquakes large enough 

to be recorded on land-based seismic 

nets have occurred along this segment 

in the past several years. The occurrence 

of ‘‘repeating earthquakes’’ (earthquakes 

with identical waveforms indicating 

repeated rupture of almost the same 

fault patch) suggests that this region is 

at a boundary between a freely slipping 

and a locked portion of the fault. Some 

models suggest that the forearc basin 

north of the seismically active zone may 

be locked; others suggest that portion of 

the fault is slipping freely. OBSs have 

been deployed for a year, and a seismic 

survey will be used to characterize the 

shallow sediment structure around the 

instruments. Also, included in the 

research is the use of a magnetometer 

and sub-bottom profiler. 

The source vessel, the Wecoma, will 

deploy a single low-energy GI airgun as 

an energy source (with a discharge 

volume of 45 in3) and a 300 m (984 ft), 

16 channel, towed hydrophone 

streamer. Sixteen OBSs were deployed 

in July and September, 2008. They will 

continue to acquire data during this 

cruise, and will be recovered before 

returning to port. 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 seismic program will consist of 

approximately 21 km (13 mi) of surveys 

over each of the 16 OBSs (see Figure 1 

of SIO’s application). Water depths at 

the seismic survey locations rang from 

just less than 100 m (328 ft) to almost 

3,000 m (9,842 ft) (see Figure 1 of SIO’s 

application). The GI airgun will be 

operated on a small grid for 

approximately two hours at each of the 

16 OBS sites. There will be additional 

seismic operations associated with 

equipment testing, start-ups, and repeat 

coverage of any areas where initial data 

quality is substandard. 

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. Anne Trehu of 

Oregon State University. The vessel will 

be self-contained, and the crew will live 

aboard the vessel for the entire cruise. 

In addition to the seismic operations 

of the single GI airgun, a 3.5 and 12 kHz 

sub-bottom profiler will be used 

continuously throughout the cruise, and 

a magnetometer may be run on the 

transit between OBS locations. 

Vessel Specifications 

The Wecoma has a length of 56.4 m 

(185 ft), a beam of 10.1 m (33.1 ft), and 

a maximum draft of 5.6 m (18.4 ft). The 

ship is powered by a single 3,000-hp 

EMD diesel engine driving a single, 

controllable-pitch propeller through a 

clutch and reduction gear, and an 

electric 350-hp azimuthing bow 

thruster. An operations speed of 11.1 

km/hour (6 knots) will be used during 

seismic acquisition. When not towing 

seismic survey gear, the Wecoma cruises 

at 22.2 km/hour (12 knots) and has a 

maximum speed of 26 km/hour (14 

knots). It has a normal operating range 

of approximately 13,300 km. The 

Wecoma will also serve as the platform 

from which vessel-based Marine 

Mammal Visual Observers (MMVO) will 

watch for animals before and during GI 

airgun operations. 

Acoustic Source Specifications 

Seismic Airguns 

During the proposed survey, the 

Wecoma will tow a single GI airgun, 

with a volume of 45 in3, and a 300 m 

long streamer containing hydrophones 

along predetermined lines. Seismic 

pulses will be emitted at intervals of 10 

seconds. At a speed of 6 knots (11.1 km/ 

hour), the 10 second shot spacing 

corresponds to a shot interval of 

approximately 31 m (101.7 ft). 

The generator chamber of the GI 

airgun, the one responsible for 

introducing the sound pulse into the 

ocean, is 45 in3. The larger (105 in3) 

injector chamber injects air into the 

previously-generated bubble to maintain 

its shape, and does not introduce more 

sound into the water. The 45 in3 GI 

airgun will be towed 21 m (68.9 ft) 

behind the Wecoma at a depth of 4 m 

(13.1 ft). The sound pressure field of 

that GI airgun variation at a tow depth 

of 2.5 m has been modeled by LamontDoherty Earth Observatory (L–DEO) in 

relation to distance and direction for the 

GI airgun. 

As the GI airgun is towed along the 

survey line, the towed hydrophone 

array in the 300 m streamer receives the 

reflected signals and transfers the data 

on the on-board processing system. 

Given the relatively short streamer 

length behind the vessel, the turning 

rate of the vessel while the gear is 

deployed is much higher than the limit 

of five degrees per minute for a seismic 

vessel towing a streamer of more typical 

length (much greater than 1 km). Thus, 

the maneuverability of the vessel is not 

limited much during operations. 

The root mean square (rms) received 

levels that are used as impact criteria for 

marine mammals are not directly 

comparable to the peak (pk or 0-pk) or 

peak-to-peak (pk-pk) values normally 

used to characterize source levels of 

airgun arrays. The measurement units 

used to describe airgun sources, peak or 

peak-to-peak decibels, are always higher 

than the ‘‘root mean square’’ (rms) 

decibels referred to in biological 

literature. A measured received level of 

160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in the far field 

would typically correspond to a peak 

measurement of approximately 170 to 

172 dB, and to a peak-to-peak 

measurement of approximately 176 to 

178 dB, as measured for the same pulse 

received at the same location (Greene, 

1997; McCauley et al., 1998, 2000). The 

precise difference between rms and 

peak or peak-to-peak values depends on 

the frequency content and duration of 

the pulse, among other factors. 

However, the rms level is always lower 

than the peak or peak-to-peak level for 

an airgun-type source. 

Received sound levels have been 

modeled by L–DEO for a number of 

airgun configurations, including one 45 

in3 GI airgun, in relation to distance 

from the airgun(s) (see Figure 2 of SIO’s 

application). The model does not allow 

for bottom interactions, and is most 

directly applicable to deep water. Based 

on modeling, estimates of the maximum 

distances from the GI airgun where 

sound levels of 190, 180, and 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms) are predicted to be received 

in deep (>1,000 m) water are shown in 

this Federal Register notice (reprinted 

from Table 1 of SIO’s application). 

Because the model results are for a 2.5 

m tow depth, the distances in Table 1 

slightly underestimate the distances for 

the 45 in3 GI airgun towed at 4 m depth. 

Sub-bottom Profiler 

Along with the GI airgun operations, 

one additional acoustical data 

acquisition system will be operated 

throughout the cruise. The ocean floor 

will be mapped with a Knudsen 

Engineering Model 320BR 12 kHz and 

3.5 kHz sub-bottom profiler (SBP). 

Multi-beam sonar will not be used. 

The Knudsen Engineering Model 

320BR SBP is a dual-frequency 

transceiver designed to operate at 3.5 

and/or 12 kHz. It is used to provide data 

about the sedimentary features that 

occur below the sea floor. The energy 

from the sub-bottom profiler is directed 

downward via a 12 kHz transducer 

(EDO 323B) or a 3.5 kHz array of 16 ORE 

137D transducers in a 4x4 arrangement. 

The maximum power output of the 

320BR is 10 kilowatts for the 3.5 kHz 

section and 2 kilowatts for the 12 kHz 

section. 

The pulse length for the 3.5 kHz 

section of the 320 BR is 0.8–24 ms, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34717 

controlled by the system operator in 

regards to water depth and reflectivity 

of the bottom sediments, and will 

usually be 12 or 24 ms in this survey. 

The system produces one sound pulse 

and then waits for its return before 

transmitting again. Thus, the pulse 

interval is directly dependent upon 

water depth, and in this survey is 4.5– 

8 seconds. Using the Sonar Equations 

and assuming 100 percent efficiency in 

the system (impractical in real world 

applications), the source level for the 

320BR is calculated to be 211 dB re 1 

Pam. In practical operation, the 3.5 kHz 

array is seldom driven at more than 80 

percent of maximum, usually less than 

50 percent. 

Safety Radii 

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, and to quantitatively estimate 

the effects of an action. Thresholds are 

used in two ways: (1) To establish a 

mitigation shut-down or power-down 

zone, i.e., if an animal enters an area 

calculated to be ensonified above the 

level of an established threshold, a 

sound source is powered down or shut 

down; and (2) to calculate take, in that 

a model may be used to calculate the 

area around the sound source that will 

be ensonified to that level or above, 

then, based on the estimated density of 

animals and the distance that the sound 

source moves, NMFS can estimate the 

number of marine mammals that may be 

‘‘taken.’’ 

As a matter of past practice and based 

on the best available information at the 

time regarding the effects of marine 

sound compiled over the past decade, 

NMFS has used conservative numerical 

estimates to approximate where Level A 

harassment from acoustic sources 

begins: 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) level for 

cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for 

pinnipeds. A review of the available 

scientific data using an application of 

science-based extrapolation procedures 

(Southall et al., 2007) strongly suggests 

that Level A harassment (as well as 

TTS) from single sound exposure 

impulse events may occur at much 

higher levels than the levels previously 

estimated using very limited data. 

However, for purposes of this proposed 

action, SIO’s application sets forth, and 

NMFS is using, the more conservative 

180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) criteria. 

NMFS also considers 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) as the criterion for estimating the 

onset of Level B harassment from 

acoustic sources like impulse sounds 

used in the 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 to June 3, 

2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004). Although the 

results are limited the data showed that 

radii around the airguns where the 

received level would be 180 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms), the safety criterion applicable to 

cetaceans (NMFS, 2000), vary with 

water depth. Similar depth-related 

variation is likely in the 190 dB 

distances applicable to pinnipeds. 

Correction factors were developed for 

water depths 100–1,000 m and <100 m. 

The empirical data indicate that, for 

deep water (>1,000 m), the L–DEO 

model tends to overestimate the 

received sound levels at a given 

distance (Tolstoy et al., 2004). However, 

to be precautionary pending acquisition 

of additional empirical data, it is 

proposed that safety radii during GI 

airgun operations in deep water will be 

values predicted by L–DEO’s model (see 

Table 1 below). Therefore, the assumed 

180 and 190 dB radii are 23 m (75.5 ft) 

and 8 m (26 ft), respectively. 

Empirical measurements indicated 

that in shallow water (<100 m), the L– 

DEO model underestimates actual 

levels. In previous L–DEO projects, the 

exclusion zones were typically based on 

measured values and ranged from 1.3 to 

15x higher than the modeled values 

depending on the size of the airgun 

array and the sound level measured 

(Tolstoy et al., 2004). During the 

proposed cruise, similar factors will be 

applied to derive appropriate shallow 

water radii from the modeled deep 

water radii for the GI airgun (see Table 

1 below). 

Empirical measurements were not 

conducted for intermediate depths 

(100–1,000 m). On the expectation that 

results will be intermediate between 

those from shallow and deep water, a 

1.5x correction factor is applied to the 

estimates provided by the model for 

deep water situations. This is the same 

factor that was applied to the model 

estimates during L–DEO cruises in 2003. 

The assumed 180 and 190 dB radii in 

intermediate depth water are 35 m (115 

ft) and 12 m (39.4 ft), respectively (see 

Table 1 below). 

TABLE 1—PREDICTED DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS ≥190, 180, AND 160 DB RE 1 μPA MIGHT BE RECEIVED IN

SHALLOW (<100 M; 328 FT), INTERMEDIATE (100–1,000 M; 328–3,280 FT), AND DEEP (>1,000 M; 3,280 FT) WATER

FROM THE SINGLE 45 IN3 GI AIRGUN USED DURING THE SEISMIC SURVEYS IN THE NORTHEASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN

DURING JULY 2009 

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

Source and volume Tow depth (m) Water depth 

Predicted RMS distances (m) 

190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 

Single GI airgun 45 in3 ..................... 4 Deep (>1,000 m) .............................. 8 23 220 

Intermediate (100–1,000 m) ............. 12 35 330 

Shallow (<100 m) ............................. 95 150 570 

Dates, Duration, and Region of Activity 

The Wecoma is scheduled to depart 

from Newport, Oregon, on July 14, 2009, 

and to return on July 20, 2009. The GI 

airgun will be used for approximately 

two hours at each of 16 OBS locations. 

The program will consist of 

approximately 7 days of seismic 

acquisition. The exact dates of the 

activities may vary by a few days 

because of weather conditions, 

repositioning, streamer operations, and 

adjustments, GI airgun deployment, or 

the need to repeat some lines if data 

quality is substandard. The seismic 

surveys will take place off the Oregon 

coast in the northeastern Pacific Ocean 

(see Figure 1 of SIO’s application). The 

overall area within which the seismic 

surveys will occur is located between 

approximately 44° and 45° N. and 

124.5° and 126° W. (see Figure 1 of 

SIO’s application). The surveys will take 

place in water depths just less than 100 

m and to almost 3,000 m, entirely 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34718 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

within the Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) of the U.S. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of the SIO 

application and proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 26, 2009 (74 FR 24799). During the 

comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission). Following 

are comments from the Commission and 

NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that the NMFS issue the 

requested authorization provided that 

the authorization includes all of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures to minimize the likelihood of 

serious injury to the potentially affected 

marine mammal species. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Commission’s recommendations and 

has included requirements to these 

effects in the IHA. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that the NMFS issue the 

requested authorization provided that 

the NMFS clarify when the use of night 

vision devices (NVDs) will be required 

and provide additional justification for 

its implied conclusion that observers 

will be able to achieve a high nighttime 

detection rate. 

Response: NVDs are used at night and 

during some low-light conditions. 

Though it depends on the lights on the 

ship, the sea state, and thermal factors, 

MMVOs estimated that visual detection 

is effective out to between 150 and 250 

m (492 to 820 ft) using NVDs and about 

30 m (98 ft) with the naked eye. 

Depending on water depth, the relevant 

safety zones for this survey range from 

8 m to 150 m (26 to 492 ft) (see Table 

1 above) and NMFS believes that 

MMVOs are effective at visually 

detecting marine mammals within these 

distances. 

Marine seismic surveys may continue 

into night and low-light hours if such 

segment(s) of the survey is initiated 

when the entire relevant safety zones 

are visible and can be effectively 

monitored. No initiation of airgun array 

operations is permitted from a shutdown position at night or during lowlight hours (such as in dense fog or 

heavy rain) when the entire relevant 

safety zone cannot be effectively 

monitored by MMVOs on duty aboard 

the Wecoma. NMFS has included a 

requirement to this effect in the IHA 

issued to SIO. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommends that the NMFS issue the 

requested authorization provided that 

the authorization requires that 

operations be suspended immediately, 

pending review by the NMFS, if a dead 

or seriously injured marine mammal is 

found in the vicinity of the operations 

and the death or injury could have 

occurred incidental to the seismic 

survey. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Commission’s recommendations and 

has included a requirement to this effect 

in the IHA. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Proposed Activity Area 

A total of 32 marine mammal species 

may occur or have been documented to 

occur in the marine waters off Oregon 

and Washington, excluding extralimital 

sightings or strandings (Fiscus and 

Niggol, 1965; Green et al., 1992, 1993; 

Barlow, 1997, 2003; Mangels and 

Gerrodette, 1994; Von Saunder and 

Barlow, 1999; Barlow and Taylor, 2001; 

Buchanan et al., 2001; Calambokidis et 

al., 2004; Calambokidis and Barlow, 

2004). The species include 19 

odontocetes (toothed cetaceans, such as 

dolphins), 7 mysticetes (baleen whales), 

5 pinnipeds, and sea otters. Six of the 

species that may occur in the project 

area are listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) as Endangered, 

including sperm, humpback, sei, fin, 

blue, and North Pacific right whales. 

Another species, the Steller sea lion, is 

listed as Threatened and may occur in 

the project area. 

The study area is located 

approximately 25 to 110 km (15.5 to 

68.4 mi) offshore from Oregon over 

water depths from just less than 100 m 

to almost 3,000 m. Two of the 32 

species, gray whales and sea otters, are 

not expected in the project area because 

their occurrence off Oregon is limited to 

very shallow, coastal waters. Three 

other species, California sea lions, 

Steller sea lions, and harbor seals, are 

mainly coastal, and would be rare at 

most at the OBS locations. Information 

on the habitat, abundance, and 

conservation status of the species that 

may occur in the study area is given in 

Table 2 (below, see Table 2 of SIO’s 

application). Vagrant ringed seals, 

hooded seals, and ribbon seals have 

been sighted or stranded on the coast of 

California (see Mead, 1981; Reeves et 

al., 2002) and presumably passed 

through Oregon waters. A vagrant 

beluga whale was seen off the coast of 

Washington (Reeves et al., 2002). Those 

seven species are not addressed in detail 

in the summaries in SIO’s application. 

The six species of marine mammals 

expected to be most common in the 

deep pelagic or slope waters of the 

project area, where most of the survey 

sites are located, include the Pacific 

white-sided dolphin, northern right 

whale dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, short 

beaked common dolphin, Dall’s 

porpoise, and northern fur seal (Green et 

al., 1992, 1993; Buchanan et al., 2001; 

Barlow, 2003; Barlow and Forney, 2007; 

Carretta et al., 2007). The fin whale, 

Dall’s porpoise, and the northern 

elephant seal were the species sighted 

most often off Oregon and Washington 

during the ORCAWALE 2008 surveys 

(NMFS, 2008). 

Table 2 below outlines the marine 

mammal species, their habitat, 

abundance, density, and conservation 

status in the proposed project area. 

Additional information regarding the 

distribution of these species expected to 

be found in the project area and how the 

estimated densities were calculated was 

included in the notice of the proposed 

IHA (74 FR 24799, May 26, 2009) and 

may be found in SIO’s application. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34719 

TABLE 2—THE OCCURRENCE, HABITAT, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, BEST AND MAXIMUM DENSITY ESTIMATES, NUMBER OF

MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD BE EXPOSED TO SOUND LEVEL AT OR ABOVE 160DB RE 1μPA, BEST ESTIMATE OF

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED, AND BEST ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EXPOSURES PER MARINE MAMMAL IN OR

NEAR THE PROPOSED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN

[See Tables 2–4 in SIO’s application for further detail] 

Species Habitat Regional population size e

Density/1000 

km2 (best) b

Density/1000 

km2 (max) c

Number of 

indiv. exposed 

to ≥160 dB 

Percent of estimated population exposed 

to ≥160 dB 

Mysticetes 

Eastern Pacific gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus).

Coastal ............. 17,752 .............. NA NA 0 0 

North Pacific right whale 

(Eubalaena japonica).

Pelagic and 

coastal.

NA (Probably 

less than 

100)f.

0 0 0 0 

Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Mainly nearshore waters 

and banks.

1,396 ................ 0 .69 1 .50 1 0 .07 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Pelagic and 

coastal.

898 ................... 0 .68 1 .1 0 0 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Primarily offshore, pelagic.43 ..................... 0 .13 0 .5 1 2 .33 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus).

Continental 

slope, mostly 

pelagic.

3,454 ................ 0 .95 1 .3 1 0 .03 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus).

Pelagic and 

coastal.

1,186 ................ 0 .19 0 .4 1 0 .08 

Odontocetes 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

Usually pelagic 

and deep 

seas.

2,265 ................ 1 .39 0 .58 1 0 .04 

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia 

breviceps).

Deep waters off 

shelf.

NA .................... 1 .24 2 .8 1 NA 

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Deep waters off 

the shelf.

NA ..................... 0 0 0 0 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris).

Pelagic .............. 2,171 ................ 0 0 0 0 

Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius 

bairdii).

Pelagic .............. 313 ................... 1 .64 0 .60 0 0 

Blainville’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon densirostris).

Slope, offshore 1,024 g .............. 0 0 0 0 

Hubb’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon carlhubbsi).

Slope, offshore 1,024 g .............. 0 0 0 0 

Stejneger’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon stejnegeri).

Slope, offshore 1,024 g .............. 0 0 0 0 

Offshore bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus).

Offshore, slope 3,257 ................ 0 0 0 0 

Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba).

Off continental 

shelf.

23,883 .............. 0 .04 0 .1 0 0 

Short-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis).

Shelf and pelagic, 

seamounts.

487,622 ............ 14 .14 35 4 <0 .01 

Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens).

Offshore, slope 25,233 .............. 24 .84 33 .2 6 0 .02 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

Shelf, slope, 

seamounts.

12,093 .............. 12 .91 17 .3 3 0 .02 

Northern right whale dolphin 

(Lissodelphis borealis).

Slope, offshore 

waters.

15,305 .............. 19 .39 26 .7 5 0 .03 

False killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens).

Pelagic, occasionally 

inshore.

NA .................... 0 0 0 0 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) .......... Widely distributed.422 (Offshore) .. 1 .62 2 .7 0 0 

Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus).

Mostly pelagic, 

high-relief topography.

245 ................... 0 0 0 0 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena).

Coastal and inland waters.37,745 (OR/WA) NA NA 0 0 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34720 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

TABLE 2—THE OCCURRENCE, HABITAT, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, BEST AND MAXIMUM DENSITY ESTIMATES, NUMBER OF

MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD BE EXPOSED TO SOUND LEVEL AT OR ABOVE 160DB RE 1μPA, BEST ESTIMATE OF

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED, AND BEST ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EXPOSURES PER MARINE MAMMAL IN OR

NEAR THE PROPOSED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

[See Tables 2–4 in SIO’s application for further detail] 

Species Habitat Regional population size e

Density/1000 

km2 (best) b

Density/1000 

km2 (max) c

Number of 

indiv. exposed 

to ≥160 dB 

Percent of estimated population exposed 

to ≥160 dB 

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides 

dalli).

Shelf, slope, offshore.57,549 .............. 150 .17 250 .9 39 0 .07 

Pinnipeds 

Northern fur seal (Callorhinus 

ursinus).

Pelagic, offshore 721,935 f ........... 10 100 3 <0 .01 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus).

Coastal, shelf ... 238,000 ............ NA NA 2 <0 .01 

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 

richardsi).

Coastal ............. 24,732 (OR/WA) 13 NA 1 <0 .01 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus).

Coastal, shelf .... 48,519 Eastern 

U.S. f

.

11 NA 1 <0 .01 

Northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris).

Coastal, pelagic 

when migrating.

124,000 (CA) .... 20 200 5 0 .01 

NA—Data not available or species status was not assessed, CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington. 

a U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = Not listed. 

bBest estimate as listed in Table 3 of the application. 

c Maximum estimate as listed in Table 3 of the application. 

dThe numbers of at-sea sightings of California sea lions and northern elephant seals were too small to provide meaningful density estimates 

(Bonnell et al., 1992); density of northern elephant seals was estimated based on sightings during the ORCAWALE 2008 surveys. eAbundance given for U.S. Eastern North Pacific, or CA/OR/WA stock, whichever is included in the 2007 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments (Carretta et al., 2007), unless otherwise stated. fAngliss and Outlaw (2008). 

gAll mesoplodont whales. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

Potential Effects of Airguns 

The effects of sounds from airguns 

might result in one or more of the 

following: Tolerance, masking of natural 

sounds, behavioral disturbances, 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, and non-auditory 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). With the possible 

exception of some cases of temporary 

threshold shift in harbor seals, it is 

unlikely that the project would result in 

any cases of temporary or especially 

permanent hearing impairment, or any 

significant non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects. Some behavioral 

disturbance is expected, but this would 

be localized and short-term. 

The notice of the proposed IHA (74 

FR 24799, May 26, 2009) included a 

discussion of the effects of sounds from 

airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and 

pinnipeds, 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 

associated EA. 

The notice of the proposed IHA also 

included a discussion of the potential 

effects of the sub-bottom profiler. 

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 

sub-bottom profiler 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 sub-bottom profiler sonar 

system is not likely to result in the 

harassment of marine mammals. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

The notice of the proposed IHA (74 

FR 24799, May 26, 2009) included an 

in-depth discussion of the methods used 

to calculate the densities of the marine 

mammals in the area of the seismic 

survey and the take estimates. 

Additional information was included in 

SIO’s application. A summary is 

included here. 

All anticipated takes would be ‘‘takes 

by harassment,’’ involving temporary 

changes in behavior. The monitoring 

and mitigation measures are expected to 

minimize the possibility of injurious 

takes. (However, as noted earlier, there 

is no specific information demonstrating 

that injurious ‘‘takes’’ would occur even 

in the absence of the planned 

monitoring and mitigation measures.) 

The sections below describe methods to 

estimate ‘‘take by harassment’’, and 

present estimates of the numbers of 

marine mammals that might be affected 

during the proposed seismic program. 

The estimates of ‘‘take by harassment’’ 

are based on (1) data concerning marine 

mammal densities (numbers per unit 

area) obtained during surveys off 

Oregon and Washington during 1996, 

2001, and 2005 (cetaceans), or 1989 to 

1990 (pinnipeds) by NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), and 

(2) estimates of the size of the 160 dB 

isolpeths where takes could potentially 

occur from the proposed seismic survey 

off the coast of Oregon in the 

northeastern Pacific Ocean. 

Extensive systematic aircraft and 

ship-based surveys have been 

conducted for marine mammals offshore 

of Oregon and Washington (Bonnell et 

al., 1992; Green et al., 1992, 1993; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34721 

Barlow 1997, 2003; Barlow and Taylor, 

2001; Calambokidis and Barlow, 2004; 

Barlow and Forney in prep.). The most 

comprehensive and recent density data 

available for cetacean species in slope 

and offshore waters of Oregon are from 

the 1996, 2001, and 2005 NMFS SWFSC 

‘‘ORCAWALE’’ or ‘‘CSCAPE’’ ship 

surveys as synthesized by Barlow and 

Forney (2007). The surveys were 

conducted up to approximately 550 km 

(342 mi) offshore from June or July to 

November or December. Systematic, 

offshore, at-sea survey data for 

pinnipeds are more limited. The most 

comprehensive such studies are 

reported by Bonnell et al. (1992) based 

on systematic aerial surveys conducted 

in 1989–1990. 

Oceanographic conditions, including 

occasional El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a events, 

influence the distribution and numbers 

of marine mammals present in the 

Northeast Pacific Ocean, including 

Oregon, resulting in considerable yearto-year variation in the distribution and 

abundance of many marine mammal 

species (Forney and Barlow, 1998; 

Buchanan et al., 2001; Escorza-Trevin ̃ o, 

2002; Ferrero et al., 2002; Philbrick et 

al., 2003). 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. For 

this IHA application, cruise reports from 

the ORCAWALE 2008 surveys (NMFS, 

2008) were inspected to assess whether 

there were any observable changes from 

the previous surveys of the same area. 

Table 3 of SIO’s application (reprinted 

as Table 2 in this Federal Register 

notice) gives the average and maximum 

densities for each species of cetacean 

reported off Oregon and Washington, 

corrected for effort, based on the 

densities reported for the 1996, 2001, 

and 2005 surveys (Barlow and Forney, 

2007). The densities from those studies 

had been corrected by the original 

authors for both detectability bias and 

availability bias. Detectability bias is 

associated with diminishing sightability 

with increasing lateral distance from the 

trackline. Availability bias refers to the 

fact that there is <100 percent 

probability of sighting an animal that is 

present along the survey trackline. 

Table 3 of SIO’s application (Table 2 

in this Federal Register notice) also 

includes mean density information for 

three of the five pinniped species that 

occur off Oregon and Washington and 

mean and maximum densities for one of 

those species, from Bonnell et al. (1992). 

Densities were not calculated for the 

other two species because of the small 

number of sightings on systematic 

transect surveys. One of those, the 

northern elephant seal, was the 

dominant seal sighted during the 

ORCAWALE 2008 surveys (29 of 33 

pinnipeds sighted off Oregon and 

Washington), so it was included at a 

density set at twice that of the northern 

fur seal, the other species sighted during 

the ORCAWALE 2008 surveys. 

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 kms has been 

increased by 25 percent 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 kms of seismic 

operations that can be undertaken. 

Furthermore, any marine mammal 

sightings within or near the designated 

safety zones 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 

are precautionary, and probably 

overestimate the actual numbers of 

marine mammals that might be 

involved. 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 

assumption used in the calculations. 

However, the approach used is believed 

to be the best available approach. Also, 

to provide some allowance for these 

uncertainties ‘‘maximum estimates’’ as 

well as ‘‘best estimates’’ of the numbers 

potentially affected have been derived. 

Best and maximum estimates are based 

on the average and maximum estimates 

of densities reported primarily by 

Barlow and Forney (2007) and Bonnell 

et al. (1992) described above. The 

estimated numbers of potential 

individuals exposed are presented 

below based on the 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) Level B harassment criterion for 

all cetaceans and pinnipeds. It is 

assumed that a marine mammal exposed 

to airgun sounds this strong might 

change their behavior sufficiently to be 

considered ‘‘taken by harassment.’’ 

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. 

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. The best estimates in 

this section are based on the averages of 

the densities from the 1996, 2001, and 

2005 NMFS surveys, and maximum 

estimates are based on the highest of the 

three densities. Table 4 of SIO’s 

application and Table 2 of this Federal 

Register notice show the best and 

maximum estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that could potentially 

be affected during the seismic survey. 

The number of different individuals 

potentially exposed to received levels 

≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) was calculated 

by multiplying: 

• The expected species density, either 

‘‘mean’’ (i.e., best estimate) or 

‘‘maximum,’’ times; and 

• The area anticipated 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 Geographic 

Information System (GIS), using the GIS 

to identify the relevant areas by 

‘‘drawing’’ the applicable 160 dB buffer 

around each seismic line (depending on 

water and tow depth) and then 

calculating the total area within the 

buffers. Areas where overlap occurred 

(because of intersecting lines) were 

included only once to determine the 

area expected to be ensonified. In the 

proposed survey, there is minimal 

overlap (5 percent for 160 dB), so 

virtually no marine mammal would be 

ensonified above those thresholds more 

than once. 

Applying the approach described 

above, approximately 208 km2 (80.3 

mi2) would be within the 160 dB 

isopleth on one or more occasions 

during the surveys at all 16 OBS 

locations. For inshore OBS locations, 

approximately 60 km2 (23 mi2) would 

be within the 160 dB isopleths; that area 

was used for calculations for the 

pinniped species that could occur only 

at those locations. This approach does 

not allow for turnover in the mammal 

populations in the study area during the 

course of the surveys. 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 Wecoma approaches, in response to 

increasing sound levels prior to the time 

the levels reach 160 dB. Another way of 

interpreting the estimates that follow in 

Table 3 (below) is that they 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). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34722 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

Table 3 (see below) outlines the 

species, estimated stock population 

(minimum and best), and estimated 

percentage of the stock exposed to 

seismic pulses in the project area. 

Additional information regarding the 

status, abundance, and distribution of 

the marine mammals in the area and 

how densities were calculated was 

included in Table 2 (see above), the 

notice of the proposed IHA (74 FR 

24799, May 26, 2009) and may be found 

in SIO’s application. 

TABLE 3—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 OFF OREGON IN JULY 2009. THE PROPOSED SOUND SOURCE IS A SINGLE GI AIRGUN. 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

Number of 

individuals 

exposed 

(max) 1

Approx. % 

Regional 

Population 

(best) 2

Mysticetes 

Eastern Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) .................................................................. 0 0 0 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) ........................................................................ 0 0 0 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) ............................................................................ 1 2 0 .07 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ............................................................................................ 1 0 2 .33 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ........................................................................................... 1 1 0 .03 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ........................................................................................ 1 1 0 .08 

Odontocetes 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) .................................................................................. 1 8 0 .04 

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) ..................................................................................... 0 1 NA 

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) .............................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) .............................................................................. 0 0 0 

Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius bairdii) ................................................................................... 0 1 0 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) ................................................................ 0 0 0 

Hubb’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon carlhubbsi) ....................................................................... 0 0 0 

Stejneger’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri) ................................................................. 0 0 0 

Mesoplodon sp. (unidentified) 3 ................................................................................................. 0 1 0 

Offshore bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ..................................................................... 0 0 0 

Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) .................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) ................................................................. 4 9 <0 .01 

Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) ....................................................... 6 9 0 .02 

Northern right-whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) ................................................................ 5 7 0 .02 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ........................................................................................... 3 4 0 .03 

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) ................................................................................ 0 0 NA 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ........................................................................................................ 0 1 0 

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) ........................................................... 0 0 0 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) .................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) ......................................................................................... 39 65 0 .07 

Pinnipeds 

Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) ..................................................................................... 3 26 <0 .01 

California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) .............................................................................. 2 NA <0 .01 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) ........................................................................................ 1 NA <0 .01 

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) ....................................................................................... 1 NA <0 .01 

Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) ..................................................................... 5 52 0 .01 

NA—Data not available or species status was not assessed. 

1Best estimate and maximum estimate density are from Table 3 of SIO’s application. 

2 Regional population size estimates are from Table 2 (above). 

Table 4 of SIO’s application (Table 3 

in this Federal Register notice) shows 

the best and maximum estimates of the 

number of exposures and the number of 

individual marine mammals that 

potentially could be exposed to greater 

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

during the different legs of the seismic 

survey if no animals move away from 

the survey vessel. 

The ‘‘best’’ of the number of 

individual marine mammals that could 

be exposed to seismic sounds with 

received levels greater than or equal to 

160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (but below Level 

A harassment thresholds) during the 

survey is shown in Table 4 of SIO’s 

application and Table 3 (shown above). 

The maximum estimates have been 

requested by SIO. The ‘‘best estimate’’ 

total includes 4 baleen whale 

individuals. These estimates were 

derived from the best density estimates 

calculated for these species in the area 

(see Table 4 of SIO’s application). In 

addition, 1 sperm whale (0.35 percent of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34723 

the regional population) as well as 0 

beaked whales (0 percent of the regional 

population). Based on the best 

estimates, most (93 percent) of the 

marine mammals potentially exposed 

are dolphins and porpoises; shortbeaked common, Pacific white-sided, 

Northern right-whale, Risso’s dolphins 

and Dall’s porpoises are estimated to be 

the most common species in the area, 

with best estimates of 4 (<0.01 percent 

of the regional population), 6 (0.02 

percent), 5 (0.03 percent), 3 (0.02 

percent), and 39 (0.07 percent) exposed 

to greater than or equal to 160 dB re μPa 

(rms), respectively. The remainder of 

the marine mammals that may be 

potentially exposed are pinnipeds; 

Northern fur, harbor, and Northern 

elephant seals, and Steller sea lions are 

estimated to be the most common 

species in the area, with best estimates 

of 3 (<0.01 percent), 1 (<0.01 percent), 

5 (0.01 percent), and 1 (<0.01 percent) 

exposed to greater than or equal to 160 

dB re μPa (rms), respectively. Haul-outs 

of California sea lions and harbor seals 

are known to be located in the Newport, 

Oregon area. All of these numbers are 

considered small relative to the 

population sizes of the affected species 

or stocks. 

Potential Effects on 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 (74 FR 24799, May 26, 

2009). Based on the discussion in the 

proposed IHA notice and the nature of 

the activities (limited duration), the 

authorized operations are not expected 

to have any habitat-related effects that 

could cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations or stocks. 

Similarly, any effects to food resources 

are expected to be negligible. 

The SIO seismic survey will not result 

in any permanent impact on habitats 

used by marine mammals, or on the 

food sources they use. The main impact 

issue associated with the proposed 

activity will be temporarily elevated 

noise levels and the associated direct 

effects on marine mammals, as 

described above. 

Subsistence Activities 

There is no subsistence hunting for 

marine mammals in the waters off of the 

coast of Oregon that implicates MMPA 

Section 101(a)(5)(D). 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

Mitigation and monitoring measures 

for the seismic survey have been 

developed and refined during previous 

SIO and NSF-funded seismic studies 

and associated environmental 

assessments (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 recommended best 

practices in Richardson et al. (1995), 

Pierson et al. (1998), and Weir and 

Dolman (2007). The measures are 

described in detail below. 

Mitigation measures that will be 

adopted during the proposed survey 

include: 

(1) Speed or course alteration, 

provided that doing so will not 

compromise operational safety 

requirements; 

(2) GI airgun shut-down procedures; 

(3) Special procedures for situations 

or species of particular concern, e.g., 

emergency shut-down procedures for 

North Pacific right whales, avoidance of 

concentrations of beaked whales (if 

visually sighted), and minimization of 

approaches to slopes, if possible, to 

avoid beaked whale habitat; and 

(4) Additional mitigation measures 

(see ‘‘additional mitigation measures’’ 

below). 

Two other common mitigation 

measures, airgun array power-down and 

airgun array ramp-up, are not possible 

because only one, low-volume GI airgun 

will be used for the surveys. The 

thresholds for estimating Level A 

harassment take are also used in 

connection with proposed mitigation. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

Marine Mammal Visual Observers 

(MMVOs) will be based aboard the 

seismic source vessel and will watch for 

marine mammals near the vessel during 

daytime airgun operations and during 

start-ups of airguns at night. MMVOs 

will also watch for marine mammals 

near the seismic vessel for at least 30 

minutes prior to the start of airgun 

operations and after an extended shut 

down of the airguns. When feasible 

MMVOs will also make observations 

during daytime periods when the 

seismic system is not operating for 

comparison of sighting rates and animal 

behavior with vs. without airgun 

operations. Based on MMVO 

observations, the GI airgun will be shut 

down (see below) when marine 

mammals are detected within or about 

to enter a designated EZ that 

corresponds to the 180 or 190 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) isopleths, depending on 

whether the animal is a cetacean or a 

pinniped. The MMVOs 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 

distances for the 180 and 190 dB EZs are 

listed according to the water depth in 

Table 1 above. 

During seismic operations off of the 

coast of Oregon, at least two MMVOs 

will be based aboard the Wecoma. 

MMVOs will be appointed by SIO with 

NMFS concurrence. At least one MMVO 

will monitor the EZ for marine 

mammals during ongoing daytime GI 

airgun operations and nighttime 

startups of the airguns. MMVO(s) will 

be on duty in shifts no longer than 4 

hours duration. The vessel crew will 

also be instructed to assist in detecting 

marine mammals and implementing 

mitigation measures (if practical). Before 

the start of the seismic survey the crew 

will be given additional instruction 

regarding how to do so. 

The Wecoma is a suitable platform for 

marine mammal observations. 

Observing stations will be on the bridge 

wings, with observers’ eyes 

approximately 6.5 m (21.3 ft) above the 

waterline and a 180 degree view 

outboard from either side, on the 

whaleback deck in front of the bridge, 

with observers’ eyes approximately 7 m 

(23 ft) above the waterline and 

approximately 200 degrees view 

forward, and on the aft control station, 

with observer’s eyes approximately 5.5 

m (18 ft) above the waterline and a 

approximately 180 degree view aft that 

includes the 40 m (131 ft) (180 dB) 

radius area around the GI airgun. The 

eyes of the bridge watch will be at a 

height of approximately 6.5 m; MMOs 

will move to the enclosed bridge during 

any inclement weather. 

During the daytime, the MMVO(s) 

will scan the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7x50), Big-eye binoculars (25x150), 

optical range finders, and with the 

naked eye. During darkness, night 

vision devices will be available, when 

required. The MMVOs 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. 

Speed or Course Alteration—If a 

marine mammal is detected outside the 

EZ but is likely to enter based on its 

position and the relative movement of 

the vessel and animal, and if safety and 

scientific objectives allow, the vessel 

speed and/or course may be adjusted to 

minimize the likelihood of the animal 

entering the EZ. Typically, during 

seismic operations, major course and 

speed adjustments are often impractical 

when towing long seismic streamers and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34724 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

large source arrays, but are possible in 

this case because only one GI airgun and 

a short streamer will be used. 

Shut-down Procedures—The 

operating airguns(s) will be shut-down 

if a marine mammal is detected within 

or approaching the EZ for the single GI 

airgun source. Following a shut-down, 

GI airgun activity will not resume until 

the marine mammal is outside the EZ 

for the full array. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the EZ if it: 

• Is visually observed to have left the 

EZ; 

• Has not been seen within the EZ for 

15 min in the case of species with 

shorter dive durations—small 

odontocetes (i.e., dolphins) and 

pinnipeds; and 

• Has not been seen within the EZ for 

30 min in the case of species with 

longer dive durations—mysticetes and 

large odontocetes (i.e., sperm, pygmy 

sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked 

whales). 

Procedures for Situations or Species 

of Particular Concern—Special 

mitigation procedures will be used for 

certain situations and species as 

follows: 

(1) The GI airgun will be shut-down 

if a North Pacific right whale is sighted 

at any distance from the vessel; 

(2) To avoid beaked whale habitat, 

approach to slopes will be minimized, 

if possible, during the proposed survey. 

Avoidance of airgun operations over or 

near submarine canyons has become a 

standard mitigation measure, but there 

are none within or near the study area. 

Four of the 16 OBS locations are on the 

continental slope, but the GI airgun is 

low volume and it will operate only for 

a short time (approximately 2 hours at 

each location). 

(3) If visually sighted, avoidance of 

concentrations of beaked whales. 

Additional Mitigation Measures 

(1) To the maximum extent 

practicable, SIO will schedule seismic 

operations in inshore or shallow waters 

during daylight hours, and OBS 

operations during nighttime hours. 

SIO and NSF will coordinate the 

planned marine mammal monitoring 

program associated with the seismic 

survey off the coast of Oregon with 

applicable U.S. agencies (e.g., NMFS), 

and will comply with their 

requirements. 

Reporting 

MMVO Data and Documentation 

MMVOs will record data to estimate 

the numbers of marine mammals 

exposed to various received sound 

levels and to document apparent 

disturbance reactions or lack thereof. 

Data will be used to estimate numbers 

of animals potentially ‘taken’ by 

harassment (as defined in the MMPA). 

They will also provide information 

needed to order a shutdown of the 

seismic source when a marine mammal 

or sea turtle is within or near the EZ. 

When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

will be recorded: 

(1) 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. 

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. 

The data listed (time, location, etc.) 

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 

shut-down, will be recorded in a 

standardized format. Data accuracy will 

be verified by the MMVOs at sea, and 

preliminary reports will be prepared 

during the field program and summaries 

forwarded to the operating institution’s 

shore facility and to NSF weekly or 

more frequently. MMVO observations 

will provide the following information: 

(1) The basis for decisions about 

shutting down airgun arrays. 

(2) Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

‘taken by harassment.’ These data will 

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) 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. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, NSF 

has consulted with the NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, Endangered 

Species Division on this seismic survey. 

NMFS has also consulted internally 

pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on the 

issuance of an IHA under section 

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

activity. On July 13, 2009, NMFS 

concluded consultation with NMFS and 

NSF, and issued a Biological Opinion 

(BiOp), which concluded that the 

proposed action and issuance of an IHA 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of North Pacific 

right, blue, fin, sei, humpback, and 

sperm whales, and leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia 

mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), 

hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricate), 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. 

Relevant Terms and Conditions of the 

Incidental Take Statement in the BiOp 

have been incorporated into the IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NSF prepared an Environmental 

Assessment titled ‘‘Marine Seismic 

Survey in the Northeast Pacific, July 

2009.’’ NSF’s draft EA incorporates an 

‘‘Environmental Assessment (EA) of a 

Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic 

Survey by the Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography in the Northeast Pacific 

Ocean, July 2009,’’ prepared by LGL 

Limited, Environmental Research 

Associates, on behalf of NSF and SIO. 

NMFS adopted NSF’s EA and prepared 

a Finding of No Significant Impact on 

the issuance of the IHA. 

Determinations 

NMFS has determined that the impact 

of conducting the low-energy marine 

seismic survey in the Northeast 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. The provision requiring that 

the activity not have an unmitigable 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34725 

impact on the availability of the affected 

species or stock for subsistence uses is 

not implicated for this action. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document, the negligible impact 

determination is supported by: 

(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 23 m (75 ft) in deep 

water, 35 m (115 ft) in intermediate 

depths, and 150 m (492 ft) in shallow 

water when the GI airgun is in use from 

the vessel to be exposed to levels of 

sound (180 dB) believed to have even a 

minimal chance of causing PTS; 

(3) The fact that pinnipeds would 

have to be closer than 8 m (26 ft) in deep 

water, 12 m (39 ft) in intermediate 

depths, and 95 m (312 ft) in shallow 

water when the GI airgun is in use from 

the vessel to be exposed to levels of 

sound (190 dB) believed to have even a 

minimal chance of causing PTS; 

(4) The fact that marine mammals 

would have to be closer than 220 m (ft) 

in deep water, 330 m at intermediate 

depths, and 570 m (ft) in shallow water 

when the GI airgun is in use from the 

vessel to be exposed to levels of sound 

(160 dB) believed to have even a 

minimal chance at causing TTS; and 

(5) The likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

observers is high at that short distance 

from the vessel, enabling the 

implementation of shut-downs to avoid 

injury, serious injury, or mortality. As a 

result, no take by injury or death is 

anticipated, and the potential for 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment is very low and will be 

avoided through the incorporation of 

the proposed 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 

harassment takings is estimated to be 

small, less than one percent of any of 

the estimated population sizes, and has 

been mitigated to the lowest level 

practicable through incorporation of the 

measures mentioned previously in this 

document. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS issued an IHA to SIO for 

conducting a low-energy marine seismic 

survey in the Northeast Pacific Ocean in 

July, 2009, including the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: July 13, 2009. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–17067 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

RIN 0648–XF79 

Marine Mammals and Endangered 

Species; National Marine Fisheries 

Service File No. 932–1905; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service File No. MA– 

009526 

AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce; Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the NMFS Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program 

(MMHSRP), Silver Spring, MD (Dr. Teri 

Rowles, Principal Investigator), has been 

issued a permit to conduct enhancement 

and research activities on marine 

mammals. 

ADDRESSES: The permit and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East–West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Management Authority, 

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, 

Arlington, VA 22203 (1–800–358–2104). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sloan or Kristy Beard, NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources, (301) 

713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit has been issued under 

the authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.); the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

parts 18 and 216); the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the regulations 

governing the taking, importing, and 

exporting of endangered and threatened 

species (50 CFR parts 17 and 222–226); 

and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.). 

Permit No. 932–1905/MA–009526 

authorizes the MMHSRP to: (1) Carry 

out response, rescue, rehabilitation, and 

release of threatened and endangered 

marine mammals under NMFS 

jurisdiction [Cetacea and Pinnipedia 

(excluding walrus)] under sections 

109(h) and 112(c) and Title IV of the 

MMPA; and carry out such activities as 

enhancement under section 10 the ESA; 

(2) Conduct health–related scientific 

research studies on marine mammals 

and marine mammal parts under NMFS 

jurisdiction under section 104 of the 

MMPA and section 10 of the ESA; (3) 

Conduct Level B harassment on marine 

mammals under NMFS and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

jurisdiction [West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus), walrus 

(Odobenus rosmarus), polar bear (Ursus 

maritimus), and sea otters (Enhydra 

lutris)] incidental to all MMHSRP 

activities in the United States; (4) 

Collect, salvage, receive, possess, 

transfer, import, export, analyze, and 

curate marine mammal specimens 

under NMFS jurisdiction for purposes 

delineated in numbers (1) and (2) above; 

and (5) Salvage (from dead stranded 

animals), receive, possess, transfer, 

import, export, analyze, and curate 

marine mammal specimens under 

USFWS jurisdiction [including dugong 

and manatees (Sirenia), walrus, polar 

bear, marine otter (Lontra felina), sea 

otter] for purposes consistent with Title 

IV of the MMPA and section 10 of the 

ESA. The permit has been issued for a 

5-year period. 

The NMFS MMHSRP has prepared a 

Final Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (FPEIS) in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.), 

which covers the entirety of the 

MMHSRP program’s activities, 

including those covered by the issued 

permit. The FPEIS was published on 

March 6, 2009 (74 FR 9817). The ROD 

was signed on April 21, 2009. The 

FPEIS is available on the following web 

site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

health/eis.htm. 

Issuance of this permit, as required by 

the ESA, was based on a finding that 

such permit: (1) Was applied for in good 

faith; (2) will not operate to the 

disadvantage of such endangered 

species; and (3) is consistent with the 

purposes and policies set forth in 

section 2 of the ESA. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES