[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 109 (Monday, June 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31806-31814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12811]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D.031204E]


Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Oceanographic Surveys in the Southern Gulf of California

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental take authorization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has 
issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine 
mammals by harassment incidental to conducting oceanographic surveys in 
the southern Gulf of California to Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
(Scripps).

DATES: Effective from May 12, 2004, through May 11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the application are available by 
writing to Mr. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West 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 this address or by 
telephoning the contact listed here and is also available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Small_Take/smalltake_info.htm#applications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2322, ext 128.

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 U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are 
made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to 
harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the 
public for review.
    Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a 
negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of 
taking and requirements pertaining to the 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. 
Under section 3(18)(A), 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; 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.
    The term ``Level A harassment'' means harassment described in 
subparagraph (A)(i). The term ``Level B harassment'' means harassment 
described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
    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 
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 December 8, 2003, NMFS received an application from Scripps for 
the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals 
incidental to conducting a seismic survey program. As presently 
scheduled, a seismic survey will be conducted in the Gulf of 
California. The Gulf of California research cruise will be in an area 
extending between 22o to 26.5o N and 106o to 111o W. The operations 
will partly take place in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Mexico.
    The purpose of the seismic survey is to improve the understanding 
of the tectonic history of the Gulf of California, and especially of 
how the transition from continental rifting to seafloor spreading 
occurred. This includes understanding the relationship between seafloor 
structures in the deep water of the Gulf and structures that have been 
mapped on land (mostly in Baja California Sur) and in shallow coastal 
waters. The data will be used to test alternative tectonic models of 
how continental rifting and shearing during the initial separation of 
the Baja California peninsula from the rest of Mexico determined the 
present pattern of seismically active faults and volcanically-active 
spreading centers. The Gulf was selected for this work because it is 
adjacent to the field areas previously studied and because the seafloor 
sediment is generally thinner than further north, allowing for better 
resolution of seabed structure.

Description of the Activity

    The seismic survey will involve one vessel, the R/V Roger Revelle 
(under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Navy, owner of the 
vessel). The Roger Revelle will deploy two airguns as an energy source, 
plus a single (450 m or 1,476.4 ft) towed streamer of hydrophones to 
receive the returning acoustic signals, that can be retrieved.

[[Page 31807]]

 The survey will take place in water depths greater than 400 m (1320 
ft).
    The procedures to be used for the seismic study will be similar to 
those used during previous seismic surveys by Scripps in the eastern 
tropical Pacific Ocean (68 FR 60916, October 24, 2003). The proposed 
seismic surveys will use conventional seismic methodology, with a pair 
of low-energy Generator-Injector (GI) airguns as the energy source and 
a towed hydrophone streamer as the receiver system. The energy to the 
airgun array is compressed air supplied by compressors on board the 
source vessel. During the airgun operations, the vessel will travel at 
11.1 km/hr (6 knots) and seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of 
6 to 10 sec. The 6- to 10-sec spacing corresponds to a shot interval of 
about 18.5 to 31 m (161 to 102 ft). The GI gun that will be responsible 
for introducing the sound pulse into the ocean is 45 in3. A larger (105 
in3) injector chamber injects air into the previously-generated GI 
airgun bubble to maintain its shape, and does not introduce more sound 
into the water. The two guns will be towed 8 m (26.2 ft) apart side by 
side, 21 m (68.9 ft) behind the Roger Revelle, at a depth of 2 m (6.6 
ft).
    For the 2 GI airguns, the sound pressure field has been modeled in 
relation to distance and direction from the airguns, and in relation to 
depth. The predicted radii from the source vessel are 54 m (177 ft) for 
180 dB and 17 m (56 ft) for 190 dB.
    In addition to the operation of the airgun array, a multi-beam 
sonar, 3.5 kHz sub-bottom profiler and passive geophysical sensors 
(gravimeter and magnetometer) will be operated during the seismic 
profiling, and continuously throughout the seismic survey cruise.
    Additional information on the work proposed is contained in the 
proposed authorization notice (69 FR 12832, March 18, 2004), and in the 
application and in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for 
oceanographic surveys in the Gulf of California (Scripps, 2003), which 
are available (see ADDRESSES).

Comments and Responses

    A notice of receipt of the Scripps Gulf of California application 
and proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 
2004 (69 FR 12832). During the comment period, NMFS received comments 
from The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Animal Welfare 
Institute (AWI), the Mexican Society for Marine Mammalogy (SOMEMMA), 
and from several individuals.
    Comment 1: The CBD believes NMFS has not demonstrated that the L-
DEO project will take only small numbers of marine mammals.
    Response: NMFS believes that the small numbers requirement has been 
satisfied. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
California held in NRDC v. Evans (Civil No. C-02-3805-EDL) that NMFS' 
regulatory definition of ``small numbers'' improperly conflates it with 
the ``negligible impact'' definition. Even if that is the case, NMFS 
has made a separate determination that the takes of the affected marine 
mammal species or stocks will be small. For example, the species or 
stock most likely to be harassed during the seismic survey is the 
common dolphin, with a ``best estimate'' of 1212 animals out of an 
estimated population size of 3,093,000 (Scripps, 2003). Although this 
absolute number may arguably not be small, it represents an estimated 
0.039 percent of the affected population and is, therefore, relatively 
small. Marine mammals not are expected to be seriously injured or 
killed, and no effects on reproduction and/or survival are anticipated.
    Comment 2: Noting that the surveys will take place only in waters 
greater than 400 m (1312 ft) deep, the CBD asserts that the Federal 
Register Notice for the proposed IHA does not adequately analyze the 
difference the depth of water has on the survey impacts to marine 
mammals or how the safety radii or other mitigation measures will be 
implemented in such waters.
    Response: For the 2 GI airguns, the sound pressure field has been 
modeled in relation to distance and direction from the airguns, and in 
relation to depth. Empirical data concerning the 180-, 170- and 160-dB 
distances have been acquired based on measurements during the acoustic 
verification study conducted by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-
DEO) in the northern Gulf of Mexico from 27 May to 3 June 2003 (Tolstoy 
et al., 2004). Although the results are limited, the data showed that 
radii around airguns where the received level would be 180 dB re 1 
microPa (rms), the safety criterion applicable to cetaceans (NMFS, 
2000), varies with water depth. Similar depth-related variation is 
likely in the 190-dB distances applicable to pinnipeds. For water 
depths between 100 m (328 ft) and 1000 m (3281 ft), these empirical 
measurements indicate that the model used by Scripps is conservative 
for protecting marine mammals at intermediate and deep water sites. 
Since the water depths in the area of this project are all greater than 
400 m (1312 ft), NMFS believes that the safety zones are appropriate 
for the size of the airguns and the water depth. These safety zones 
will be monitored by dedicated marine mammal observers, as discussed 
later in this document.
    In addition, the received levels of low-frequency underwater sounds 
diminish close to the surface (because of pressure-release and 
interference phenomena that occur at and near the surface (Urick, 1983; 
Richardson et al., 1995)). Paired measurements of received airgun 
sounds at depths of 3 m (9.8 ft) vs 9 m (29.5 ft) or 18 m (59 ft) have 
shown that received levels are typically several decibels lower at 3 m 
(9.8 ft) (Greene and Richardson, 1988). This characteristic provides 
additional protection to marine mammals while at the surface in the 
vicinity of the acoustic source, further indicating that the safety 
zones are conservative for protecting marine mammals.
    Comment 3: The CBD states that there is no mention of the 
compounded impact of the 20-airgun array's seismic output along with 
the two other acoustical data acquisition systems, the sonar and sub-
bottom profiler. CBD and the AWI state that despite the fact that all 
of these sources will be operating, the Federal Register Notice 
provides no estimate of take from the sonar and profiler individually 
or from all three sources collectively and instead, it assumes that any 
marine mammals close enough to be affected by the multibeam sonar would 
already be affected by the airguns. Therefore, no additional allowance 
is included for animals that might be affected by the multibeam sonar. 
CBD believes that this explanation does not account for times when all 
three sources may not be operating simultaneously or provide any 
discussion of the enhanced impact of multiple acoustic sources when 
operating together.
    Response: As NMFS indicated in the Federal Register notice of the 
proposed IHA, as well as in other Federal Register notices regarding 
seismic surveys, the multibeam sonar has an anticipated radius of 
influence significantly less than that for the airgun array. NMFS 
further stated that marine mammals close enough to be affected by the 
multibeam sonar would already be affected by the airguns. Therefore, no 
additional allowance is included for animals that might be affected by 
the sonar. There is no enhanced impact of using the multibeam when 
operating it together with the airgun array. The sub-bottom profiler 
would not enhance impacts, since the radii of influence are smaller for 
the profiler than those of the airgun array.

[[Page 31808]]

    It is true that there are no estimates of take for times when the 
multibeam sonar and/or sub-bottom profiler are operated without 
airguns. This is because the 160-dB and 180-dB isopleths of the sub-
bottom profiler and multibeam are either small or the beams are very 
narrow, making the duration of the exposure and the potential for 
taking very small. As provided in the Scripps application, the 160-dB 
and 180-dB radii in the horizontal direction for the sub-bottom 
profiler are estimated to be near 20 m (66 ft) and 8 m (26 ft), 
respectively. In the vertical direction, the 160-dB and 180-dB radii 
are 180 m (591 ft) and 18 m (59 ft) directly below the hull-mounted 
transducer. The multibeam sonar has a beam width of 1 degree, fore-and-
aft and images the seafloor over a 120 to 140 degree-wide swath 
(approximately 1.4 to 2.2 km (2.2 to 3.5 mi) in 1000 m (3281 ft) in 
depth). It uses very short (15 millisecond) transmit pulses with a 10- 
to 20-second repetition rate and a 11.25 to 12.60 kHz frequency sweep. 
The maximum source level is 240 dB rms when the instrument is operating 
in water depths greater than 10,000 m (32808 ft). However, the actual 
level is reduced by the instrument based on detecting water depth, and 
in the relatively shallow Gulf of California, it will always be much 
lower than at maximum level.
    Because NMFS treats harassment or injury from pulsed sound as a 
function of total energy received, the actual harassment or injury 
threshold for multibeam sonar signals would be at a much higher dB 
level than that for longer duration pulses such as seismic or military 
sonar signals. As a result, NMFS believes that marine mammals are 
unlikely to be harassed or injured from the multibeam sonar or the sub-
bottom profiler.
    NMFS believes that other than to voluntarily ride the bow wave of 
the vessel (an indication that the animal is not annoyed), it is 
unlikely that a marine mammal would approach a moving vessel that 
close. If one did, the duration of exposure and of behavioral responses 
to these downward-directed sources would be very brief, and, NMFS 
believes, this brief behavioral response would not rise to the level of 
take.
    Comment 4: The CBD states that NMFS' analysis of mitigation 
measures to ensure least practicable impact is flawed because it lacks 
an analysis for a larger safety radius. CBD states that larger safety 
radii have been used in past seismic surveys on the R/V Maurice Ewing 
and argues that these larger safety radii should be applied to this 
seismic survey.
    Response: See response to comment 2. Scripps will use a pair of 
low-energy GI airguns for this survey. These airguns have a capacity of 
45-cubic inches each. As a safety radius established at 180 dB re 1 
microPa (rms) is already conservative for preventing Level A harassment 
(injury), imposing a much larger safety radius based on the sound 
intensity from airgun arrays 3050 in3 (20 airguns) is not warranted.
    Comment 5: CBD suggests that Scripps incorporates the use of a 
passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) system as a mitigation measure.
    Response: A requirement to use the PAM system is not warranted 
onboard the R/V Roger Revelle because the 180-dB safety radii (and 
shutdown areas) are simply too small to use it effectively. L-DEO is 
utilizing and continues to evaluate one of the few production models 
configured for current seismic operations and models for the same 
vessel on the R/V Maurice Ewing. L-DEO will report the effectiveness of 
the PAM system and NMFS will then determine if the PAM system can be 
applied to other seismic surveys.
    Comment 6: CBD states that NMFS should require dedicated night 
observers rather than using bridge personnel to watch for marine 
mammals during night-time operations.
    Response: It should be noted that dedicated marine mammal observers 
are not required to be on the bridge at all times during the night, but 
at least one observer must be available on-call during night-time 
hours. However, unless the safety zone is lighted, trained marine 
mammal observers using night vision devices (NVDs) must be on watch 
during periods prior to and during ramp-up from a power-down situation 
at night. They will also be on watch at other periods during the night, 
particularly if marine mammals are sighted in the seismic area during 
the day.
    At other times during the night, extra (non-NMFS-approved) 
observers will be available. The safety radius is small enough to be 
adequately lighted and monitored at night.
    Comment 7: CBD and SOMEMMA both suggest that Scripps incorporate 
aerial surveys as a monitoring measure to improve the likeliness of 
finding a stranded animal.
    Response: NMFS agrees that aerial surveys may be useful in 
detecting marine mammals near the safety radii and detecting adverse 
reactions to the seismic surveys and increasing the likelihood that 
such adverse reactions could be avoided. However, NMFS believes that 
the work proposed by Scripps will affect only a very small area of the 
ocean (510 m (1673 ft)) and the area that might result in marine 
mammals being exposed to noise levels that might result in injury or 
mortality would be even smaller (54 m (177 ft)). As a result, requiring 
aerial surveys of Mexican beaches and offshore waters to look for 
stranded marine mammals is not warranted for this activity. Moreover, 
aerial surveys are not practicable because the ships will not be close 
to shore and because it is difficult to get a flight clearance in a 
foreign country. NMFS believes that the safety zone can be adequately 
monitored due to the number of marine mammal observers and because the 
safety radius is relatively small.
    Comment 8: The CBD states that NMFS must initiate a section 7 
consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and expresses 
particular concern with the project's potential impacts on sea turtles.
    Response: NMFS has completed consultation under section 7 of the 
ESA. NMFS issued a biological opinion regarding the effects of this 
action on ESA-listed species and critical habitat. That biological 
opinion concluded that this action is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat. In addition, NMFS is 
requiring that all mitigation and monitoring measures for marine 
mammals be applied to sea turtles.
    Comment 9: The CBD believes that in order for NMFS to comply with 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), it must demonstrate that 
it has fully analyzed the impacts of, alternatives to, and mitigation 
measures for the project prior to issuing an IHA for the L-DEO project. 
NMFS must assess the cumulative impacts of the project in conjunction 
with other actions on the environment.
    Response: NMFS closely follows NEPA regulations and NOAA 
Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for 
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999) 
before making a determination on whether it will adopt another Federal 
agency's NEPA document, or prepare its own. Critical to this 
determination is the quality of another agency's NEPA document, whether 
it fully addresses the action proposed by NMFS, and whether NMFS' 
proposed action is significant as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27 and NAO 
216-6, section 6.01. As noted in the proposed authorization notice (68 
FR 60086, October 21, 2003), an EA was prepared by the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) and released to the

[[Page 31809]]

public by NMFS. That EA contained a complete description of the 
proposed action and identified alternatives to that action; a 
description of the affected environment; an assessment of impacts, 
including unavoidable impacts, indirect impacts and cumulative impacts; 
and the measures proposed to reduce impacts to the lowest level 
practicable. In accordance with NAO 216-6, NMFS has reviewed the 
information contained in NSF's EA and determined that it accurately and 
completely describes the proposed action alternative, reasonable 
additional alternatives, and the potential impacts on marine mammals, 
endangered species, and other marine life that could be impacted by the 
preferred alternative and the other alternatives. Additional mitigation 
measures have been identified and are reflected in the final IHA and 
the NMFS Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Therefore, 
preparation of an environmental impact statement on this action is not 
required. A copy of the NSF EA and FONSI are available upon request 
(see ADDRESSES).
    Comment 10: The AWI objects to the issuance of the Scripps IHA 
because the research on plate tectonics is not worth the impact on the 
creatures that live in the ocean.
    Response: The MMPA allows for the taking (by harassment, injury and 
mortality) of marine mammals by otherwise lawful activities provided 
that the total taking by the activity will not have more than a 
negligible impact on affected marine mammal stocks, and will not have 
an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those marine 
mammal stocks for subsistence uses. For the proposed activity, the 
requisite findings have been made, as explained in this document.
    Comment 11: SOMEMMA believes that with current knowledge it is 
impossible to determine the nature and extent of the damage on 
individual animals and the number of animals that might be affected by 
seismic sources. It is possible that the seismic survey could have 
other unknown effects on marine mammals, such as delayed mortality as a 
consequence of damage to the hearing system or the number of 
pregnancies that could be terminated, therefore reducing the year's 
births. For these reasons, SOMEMMA believes that the surveys should be 
conducted acknowledging that they may cause some undetermined damage to 
marine mammal individuals and possibly some populations.
    Response: Although marine mammals have only relatively recently 
been exposed to anthropogenic noise sources, roughly 90 percent of 
which is from commercial shipping, long-term empirical research on this 
aspect of taking has not been conducted to date. It should be noted 
that marine mammals evolved and continue to exist in a noisy 
environment. However, even in areas with high anthropogenic noise 
levels, such as southern California and the Mississippi Delta, many 
marine mammal populations appear healthy and, where assessments have 
been conducted over time, appear to be increasing in size. As a result, 
NMFS believes that the short-term activity proposed here, which 
includes mitigation measures to prevent injury to marine mammals, when 
combined with general behavior of marine mammals to avoid areas with 
annoying levels of sound, will result in small numbers of marine 
mammals being harassed (Level B harassment) and will have a negligible 
impact on affected marine mammal species.
    Comment 12: SOMEMMA states that the extent of damage, the number of 
individuals that could be affected, and the impact on specific stocks 
could be severely biased because some of the estimates of stock size do 
not include the Gulf of California, which could include distinct 
independent stocks. There is an underestimation of the species that 
could be affected, in particular those that are very sensitive, the 
northern right whale and the Guadalupe fur seal.
    Response: NMFS believes that its determination on the level of 
impact on marine mammals, whether listed under the ESA or not, is based 
on the best scientific information available. That information was 
provided in the Scripps' application and NSF's EA and also in other 
documents referenced in the proposed authorization Federal Register 
notice. No additional information regarding marine mammal abundance or 
stock structure for Gulf of California populations was provided during 
the public review period and no significant new information has been 
found since that Federal Register publication. However, whenever 
information is lacking to define a particular population or stock of 
marine mammals then NMFS assesses impacts with respect to the species 
as a whole (54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989). As indicated in the L-DEO 
application, NSF EA and this document, that is what was done here.
    Comment 13: SOMEMMA recommends that in the event of mortalities 
that could potentially be attributed to the survey, a plan must be 
established to recover carcasses and to transport them to appropriate 
facilities where experts can determine the cause of death and any other 
damage attributable to the survey and that knowledge obtained from the 
necropsies should be shared between the United States and Mexican 
authorities and scientific communities.
    Response: NMFS believes that the work proposed by Scripps will 
affect only a very small area of the ocean (510 m (1673 ft)) and the 
area that might result in marine mammals being exposed to noise levels 
that might result in injury or mortality would be even smaller (54 m 
(177 ft)). As a result, requiring necropsies to be conducted on all 
strandings along the Gulf of California coast is not warranted for this 
activity.
    Comment 14: An individual states that in order to mitigate the 
impact of airgun operations, onboard marine mammal observers should 
work with land-based observers and monitoring networks.
    Response: See response to comment 13. It is extremely unlikely that 
any marine mammals would be injured, killed, or startled to such a 
level that strandings would occur as a result of the sound levels from 
the 2 GI-guns. The airguns being used in this survey are low-intensity 
and small-capacity airguns and should not be compared with much larger 
airguns used by the offshore oil and gas industry or by other 
scientific activities.
    Comment 15: An individual recommends that observers be contracted 
out by an independent contractor rather than hired by Scripps and that 
all data collection and reporting should be independent from Scripps.
    Response: NMFS has not found a problem with an IHA holder either 
directly hiring approved biological observers for a specific cruise or 
contracting with an independent firm that specializes in providing 
observers for shipboard monitoring. NMFS has supplied Scripps with a 
list of NMFS-approved marine mammal observers who are independent 
contractors. Scripps has also hired students from the University of 
California, San Diego, as well as citizens from Mexico to work as 
marine mammal observers. NMFS requires holders of IHAs to submit a 
report within 90 days of completion of the survey cruise that describes 
the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were 
detected. The report must provide full documentation of methods, 
results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks, and 
summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, marine mammal 
sightings (dates, times, locations, activities,

[[Page 31810]]

associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and 
nature of potential take of marine mammals by harassment or in other 
ways, all of which is recorded by the marine mammal observers. This 
information should be provided to Scripps by the marine mammal 
observers so that Scripps may submit a formal report within the 90 
days.
    Comment 16: NMFS should require only NMFS-approved marine mammal 
observers.
    Response: NMFS normally requires IHA holders to hire at least one 
NMFS-approved marine mammal observer whenever operating under an IHA. 
This observer may in turn train others to implement the required 
monitoring program. IHA applicants must contact the regional NMFS 
office to obtain a list of NMFS-approved observers. Scripps has 
fulfilled this requirement by hiring four NMFS-approved marine mammal 
observers.
    Comment 17: Reporting requirements should be fulfilled by the 
observer team rather than by Scripps, ensuring that NMFS receives all 
data recorded by the observers.
    Response: Since Scripps is the holder of the IHA, Scripps, rather 
than the observers, is required to submit a 90-day report. As an entity 
responsible for completion of the 90-day report, it is the holder's 
decision whether to contract out the report writing. This 90-day report 
must describe all operations that were conducted and the marine mammals 
that were detected.
    Comment 18: NMFS should not allow night-time operations due to the 
sub-standard monitoring conditions.
    Response: While NMFS agrees that the effectiveness of night-time 
visual monitoring is limited, it believes that the safety zones are 
small enough to be adequately monitored at night. In addition, as 
mentioned in previous authorization notices, Scripps believes that 
night-time operations are necessary due to cost considerations. The 
daily cost to the Federal Government to operate vessels such as Roger 
Revelle is approximately $33,000 to $35,000/day (Ljunngren, pers. comm. 
May 28, 2003). If the vessel was prohibited from operating during 
night-time, it is possible that each trip would require an additional 3 
to 5 days to complete the work, or up to $175,000 more per vessel per 
cruise, depending on average daylight at the time of work.
    If a seismic survey vessel is limited to daylight seismic 
operations (12-13 hours during April/May at this location), efficiency 
would be much reduced. Without commenting specifically on how that 
would affect the present project, for seismic operators in general, a 
daylight-only requirement would be expected to result in one or more of 
the following outcomes: cancellation of potentially valuable seismic 
surveys; reduction in the total number of seismic cruises annually due 
to longer cruise durations; a need for additional vessels to conduct 
the seismic operations; or work conducted by non-U.S. operators or non-
U.S. vessels when in waters not subject to U.S. law. Because of the 
need to keep a vessel at-speed in order to successfully tow the 
hydrophone streamers, the vessel would need to be underway throughout 
the night whether or not the airguns are fired at night. Additional 
down-time can be anticipated each day as the vessel maneuvers all night 
to come back to the shut-down location 30 minutes after daylight. This 
is unlikely to be successful very often and will likely result in 
additional time needed for surveys to be completed.
    For this survey, trained marine mammal observers using night vision 
devices (NVDs) will be on watch during periods prior to and during 
ramp-up from a power-down situation at night. They will also be on 
watch at other periods during the night, particularly if marine mammals 
are sighted in the seismic area during the day.
    At other times during the night, extra [non-NMFS-approved] 
observers will be available. Also, the safety radius is small enough to 
be adequately lighted and monitored at night, if Scripps chooses to do 
so. Finally, for reasons mentioned elsewhere in this document, marine 
mammals are unlikely to be seriously injured or killed by the noise 
from approaching GI airguns. Thus, limiting seismic shooting except 
during daylight hours is unnecessary and unlikely to result in less 
level B harassment to marine mammals than would conducting 24-hour 
survey operations.
    Recently, L-DEO completed two tests of the effectiveness of using 
NVDs (Smultea and Holst, 2003, Appendix C; Holst 2004, Appendix B). 
Results of those tests indicated that the Night Quest NQ220 NVD is 
effective at least to 150 to 200 m (492 to 656 ft) away under certain 
conditions. As the predicted radii from the source vessel are 54 m (177 
ft) for 180 dB, that is sufficiently within the range of the NVDs to 
allow some chance of detecting marine mammals visually within the area 
of potential TTS during ramp-up.
    In reviewing L-DEO's report for the Hess Deep (Smultea and Holst, 
2003), it is apparent that few marine mammals would have been exposed 
to sound levels [gteqt] 180-dB (rms) even if there had been no visual 
observations or power-downs. In the Hess Deep study for example, only a 
single whale (probably a beaked whale) was sighted near the outer 
perimeter of the safety zone. As a result, NMFS believes that a 
substantial proportion of the marine mammals that might be within that 
distance would be expected to move away either during ramp-up or, if 
the airguns were already operating, as the vessel approaches.
    As noted in recent Federal Register notices, taking into 
consideration the additional costs of prohibiting night-time 
operations, the additional observers at night, and the likely low 
impact of the activity (given the required mitigation and monitoring), 
NMFS has determined that the IHA's requirements will ensure that the 
activity will have the least practicable impact on the affected species 
or stocks for the following reasons. (1) Marine mammals will have 
sufficient notice of a vessel approaching with operating seismic 
airguns, thereby giving them an opportunity to avoid the approaching 
array. (2) If ramp-up is required after a power-down, at least two 
marine mammal observers will be required to monitor the safety radius 
using NVDs, when necessary to improve vision, for 30 minutes before 
ramp-up begins and verify that no marine mammals are in or approaching 
the safety radius. (3) Ramp-up may not begin unless the entire 180-dB 
safety radius is visible (i.e., no ramp-up can begin in heavy fog or 
high sea states) and ramp-up may occur at night only if one airgun with 
a sound pressure level of at least 160 dB has been maintained during 
interruption of seismic activity. Therefore, the 2-gun array will not 
be ramped-up from a shut-down at night.
    Comment 19: NMFS must verify the 54-m (177-ft) safety zone used for 
the shut-down procedures and should require outside expertise in the 
establishment of what is a safe distance for marine mammals and sea 
turtles.
    Response: The safety radii have been calculated based on depth-
specific data for the 2 GI-gun proposed to be used during this research 
cruise. Scripps contracted LGL Ltd., environmental research associates, 
to model and calculate the 160-, 170-, 180- and 190-dB isopleths (lines 
of equal pressure). NMFS has reviewed the proposed mitigation measures 
and believes that the mitigation measures that will be undertaken by 
Scripps ensure the least practicable impacts on potentially affected 
marine mammals.
    Comment 20: An individual states that NMFS should establish a 
protocol for assessing behavioral responses to the operational 
procedures.

[[Page 31811]]

    Response: NMFS is currently working to develop noise exposure 
criteria, which will further define behavioral responses to noise.
    Comment 21: An individual states that NMFS should develop 
mitigation for the use of the multi-beam sonar and the sub-bottom 
profiler.
    Response: Please see the response to comment 3.

Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

    A detailed description of the Gulf of California near the and its 
associated marine mammals can be found in the Scripps application and a 
number of documents referenced in the Scripps application, and is not 
repeated here. In the Gulf of California area, 31 marine mammal species 
are known to occur. The cetacean species are the sperm whale (Physeter 
macrocephalus), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), dwarf sperm whale 
(Kogia sima), Baird's beaked whale (Berardius bairdii), Cuvier's beaked 
whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Pygmy beaked whale (Mesoplodon 
peruvianus), Perrin's beaked whale (Mesoplodon perrini), Ginkgo-toothed 
beaked whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 
bredanensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), pantropical 
spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), spinner dolphin (Stenella 
longirostris), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), short-beaked 
common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), long-beaked common dolphin 
(Delphinus capensis), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 
obliquidens), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), melon-headed whale 
(Peponocephala electra), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), false 
killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), killer whale (Orcinus orca), 
short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), gray whale 
(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke 
whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni), 
fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), and blue whale (Balaenoptera 
musculus). Also, three species of pinnipeds, the California sea lion 
(Zalophus californianus), Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), 
and northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) could potentially 
be encountered during the proposed seismic surveys. Five of these 
species are listed as endangered under the ESA: sperm, humpback, fin, 
blue whales, and Guadalupe fur seals. Additional information on most of 
these species is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals

    NMFS' August 26, 2003, Federal Register notice for a Scripps survey 
(68 FR 51240) describes the anticipated effects of the Roger Revelle's 
airguns, multibeam sonar, and the sub-bottom profiler on marine 
mammals, including masking, behavioral disturbance, and potential 
hearing impairment and other physical effects. A discussion on 
potential impacts on marine mammals was provided in the Federal 
Register notice at 69 FR 12832 (March 18, 2004) and in the Scripps 
application, and is not repeated here.

Mitigation

    The following mitigation measures are required for the subject 
seismic surveys, provided that they do not compromise operational 
safety requirements: (1) Speed and course alteration; (2) ramp-up and 
shut-down procedures; (3) no start up at night; (4) avoidance of any 
state or national parks by at least 10 km (6.2 mi); (5) avoidance of 
sea lion rookeries by at least 10 km (6.2 mi); and (6) operation of 
airguns only in water greater than 400 m (1312 ft) deep. Mitigation 
also includes marine mammal monitoring in the vicinity of the arrays. 
These measures also apply to sea turtles. These mitigation measures are 
further described here.
    These mitigation measures will incorporate use of established 
safety radii that are 17 m (56 ft) and 54 m (177 ft) from the arrays, 
where sound levels [gteqt]190 and 180 dB re 1 microPa rms (the criteria 
for onset of Level A harassment for pinnipeds and cetaceans 
respectively) are predicted to be received. The small size of the two 
GI airguns to be used in this project is also an important mitigating 
factor. The airguns will each be 45 in\3\.

Speed and Course Alteration

    If a marine mammal or sea turtle is detected outside the 
appropriate safety radius and, based on its position and the relative 
motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or 
direct course will be changed in a manner that also minimizes the 
effect to the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities 
and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored 
to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the safety 
radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius, 
further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course 
alterations or shutdown of the airguns.

Shut-down Procedures

    Airgun operations will be shutdown immediately when cetaceans or 
pinnipeds are seen within or about to enter the appropriate safety 
radius. If a marine mammal is detected outside of but is likely to 
enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot 
be changed to avoid having the marine mammal enter the safety radius, 
the airguns will be shutdown before the mammal is within the safety 
radius. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the safety zone when 
first detected, the airguns will be shutdown immediately.
    The mammal or sea turtle has cleared the safety radius if it is 
visually observed to have left the safety radius, or if it has not been 
seen within the zone for 15 minutes (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) 
or 30 minutes (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy 
sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked and bottlenose whales).

Ramp-up Procedure

    When airgun operations with the 2-GI airguns first start or 
commence after a certain period without airgun operations, the number 
of guns firing will be increased gradually, or ``ramped up'' (also 
described as a ``soft start''). Guns will be added in sequence such 
that the source level of the array will increase in steps over a 5-
minute period. Throughout the ramp-up procedure, the safety zone will 
be maintained.
    Ramp-up will not occur if the safety radius has not been visible 
for at least 30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight 
or nighttime. If the safety radius has not been visible for that 30 
minute period (e.g., during darkness or fog), ramp-up will not commence 
unless at least one airgun has been firing continuously during the 
interruption of seismic activity.

Other Mitigation Factors

    In order to keep take numbers to the lowest level practicable, the 
seismic survey vessel will avoid by at least 10 km (6.2 mi) the two 
protected areas, Loreto Bay National Park and Cabo Pulmo Marine Park, 
and four California sea lion rookeries that are near the seismic survey 
area while shooting the GI guns. The GI guns will not be fired in water 
depths less than 400 m (1312 ft) because noise levels may be higher due 
to reverberation between the seafloor and the surface. Scripps will 
also not start-up the GI guns at night and will ramp-up only if one gun 
has been maintained in operation.
    Scripps is confident that they will be able to effectively visually 
monitor the

[[Page 31812]]

180- and 190-dB safety radii at night because it is fairly small in 
size and, therefore, close to the vessel. Taking into consideration the 
additional costs associated with prohibiting nighttime operations and 
the likely impact of the activity (including all mitigation and 
monitoring), NMFS has determined that the proposed mitigation ensures 
that the activity will have the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks. NMFS believes that marine mammals will have 
sufficient notice of a vessel approaching with operating GI airguns (at 
least one hour in advance), thereby giving them an opportunity to avoid 
the approaching array; if ramp-up is required after an extended power-
down, two marine mammal observers will be required to monitor the 
safety radii using night vision devices for 30 minutes before ramp-up 
begins and verify that no marine mammals are in or approaching the 
safety radii; ramp-up may not begin unless the entire safety radii are 
visible; and ramp-up may occur at night only if one airgun with a sound 
pressure level of at least 180 dB has been maintained during 
interruption of seismic activity.

Marine Mammal Monitoring

    Scripps must have at least four NMFS-approved observers on board 
the vessel. At least two observers will monitor marine mammals near the 
seismic source vessel during all daytime airgun operations and during 
any nighttime ramp-ups of the airguns. During daylight, vessel-based 
observers will watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel during 
periods with shooting (including ramp-ups), and for 30 minutes prior to 
the planned start of airgun operations after an extended shut-down.
    The observers will be on duty in shifts of no longer than 4 hours. 
Use of two simultaneous observers will increase the likelihood that 
marine mammals near the source vessel are detected. Scripps bridge 
personnel and other observers will also assist in detecting marine 
mammals and implementing mitigation requirements whenever possible 
(they will be given instruction on how to do so), especially during 
ongoing operations at night when the designated observers are not on 
duty.
    The observers will watch for marine mammals from the second level 
on the vessel, which is approximately 10.4 m (34 ft) above the 
waterline which allows for a 240-degree view. From the bridge of the 
Roger Revelle, the observer's eye level will be approximately 15 m (49 
ft). The observer(s) will systematically scan the area around the 
vessel with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 X 50 Fujinon) and with the 
naked eye during the daytime. Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica LRF 
1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with 
distance estimation. Big Eye binoculars will also be mounted from the 
bridge of the Roger Revelle. The observers will be used to determine 
when a marine mammal is in or near the safety radii so that the 
required mitigation measures, such as course alteration and shut-down, 
can be implemented. If the airguns are shut down, observers will 
maintain watch to determine when the animal is outside the appropriate 
safety radius.
    If the airguns are ramped-up at night, two marine mammal observers 
will monitor for marine mammals for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and 
during the ramp-up using night vision equipment that will be available 
(ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular image intensifier or 
equivalent).

Reporting

    Scripps will submit a report to NMFS within 90 days after the end 
of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were 
conducted and the marine mammals that were detected. The report must 
provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation 
pertaining to all monitoring tasks. The report will summarize the dates 
and locations of seismic operations, marine mammal sightings (dates, 
times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), 
and estimates of the amount and nature of potential take of marine 
mammals by harassment or in other ways.

Estimates of Take for the Gulf of California

    NMFS' current criterion for onset of Level A harassment of 
cetaceans from impulse sound is 180 re 1 mPa root-mean-squared (rms). 
The rms pressure is an average over the pulse duration. The rms level 
of a seismic pulse is typically about 10 dB less than its peak level 
(Greene, 1997; McCauley et al., 1998, 2000a). The criterion for Level B 
harassment onset is 160 dB.
    Given the proposed mitigation, all anticipated takes are expected 
to involve a temporary change in behavior that may constitute Level B 
harassment. The proposed mitigation measures will minimize the 
possibility of Level A harassment to the lowest level practicable.
    Scripps has calculated the ``best estimates'' for the numbers of 
animals that could be taken by level B harassment during the proposed 
seismic survey in the Gulf of California using data on marine mammal 
abundance from a previous survey region. These estimates are based on a 
consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be exposed to 
sound levels equal to or greater than 160 dB, the criterion for the 
onset of Level B harassment, by operations with the 20-gun array 
planned to be used for this project. The anticipated radius of 
influence of the multibeam sonar is less than that for the airgun 
array, so it is assumed that any marine mammals close enough to be 
affected by the multibeam sonar would already be affected by the 
airguns. Therefore, no additional incidental takings are included for 
animals that might be affected by the multibeam sonar.
    The following table explains best estimate of the numbers of each 
species that would be exposed to seismic sounds greater than or equal 
to 160 dB.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          ``Best Estimate'' of the
                        Species                            Number of Exposures to      Regional Population Size
                                                         Sound Levels [gteqt]160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physeteridae..........................................  ...........................  ...........................
Sperm whale...........................................                            6                        26053
Dwarf sperm whale.....................................                           87                        11200
Pygmy sperm whale.....................................                           15                          N/A
Ziphiidae.............................................  ...........................  ...........................
Cuvier's beaked whale.................................                           57                        20000
Baird's beaked whale..................................                            0                          N/A
Pygmy beaked whale....................................                            0                          N/A
Delphiniade...........................................  ...........................  ...........................
Bottlenose dolphin....................................                          893                       243500
Spinner dolphin.......................................                            6                      1651100

[[Page 31813]]

 
Spotted dolphin.......................................                         1022                      2059100
Pacific white-sided dolphin...........................                            0                       931000
Striped dolphin.......................................                          227                      1918000
Common dolphin........................................                         1212                      3093000
Fraser'e dolphin......................................                            0                          N/A
Risso's dolphin.......................................                          902                       175800
Melon-headed whale....................................                            0                          N/A
Pygmy killer whale....................................                            0                        38900
False killer whale....................................                            0                        38800
Killer whale..........................................                            0                         8500
Short-finned pilot whale..............................                           34                       160200
Mysticetes............................................  ...........................  ...........................
Humpback whale........................................                            1                         1177
Minke whale...........................................                            0                          N/A
Bryde's whale.........................................                           17                        13000
Sei whale.............................................                            0                          N/A
Fin whale.............................................                           10                         1851
Blue whale............................................                            0                         1400
Pinniped..............................................  ...........................  ...........................
Guadalupe fur seal....................................                            2                       127000
Northern elephant seal................................                            2                        13000
California sea lion...................................                           50                       209000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusions

    NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the seismic 
survey in the Gulf of California will result, at worst, in a temporary 
modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals. This 
activity is expected to result in no more than a negligible impact on 
the affected species or stocks.
    While the number of potential incidental harassment takes 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. In addition, no take by injury and/or 
death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent 
hearing impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation 
of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. In addition, the 
proposed seismic program is not expected to interfere with any 
subsistence hunts, since operations in the whaling and sealing areas 
will be limited or nonexistent.

Conclusions- Effects on Cetaceans

    Strong avoidance reactions by several species of mysticetes to 
seismic vessels have been observed at ranges up to 8 km (4.3 nm) and 
occasionally as far as 30 km (16.2 nm) from the source vessel. In 
Arctic waters, some bowhead whales avoided waters within 30 km (16.2 
nm) of the seismic operation. However, reactions at such long distances 
appear to be atypical of other species of mysticetes and, even for 
bowheads, may only apply during migration. The small size of the two GI 
airguns used in this project will restrict the exposure to strong noise 
to much closer distances relative to the source vessel. The predicted 
radii from the source vessel are 54 m (177 ft) for 180 dB and 17 m (56 
ft) for 190 dB.
    Odontocete reactions to seismic pulses, or at least those of 
dolphins, are expected to extend to lesser distances than are those of 
mysticetes. Odontocete low-frequency hearing is less sensitive than 
that of mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen in the vicinity of 
seismic vessels. There are documented instances of dolphins approaching 
active seismic vessels. However, dolphins as well as some other types 
of odontocetes will sometimes show avoidance responses and/or other 
changes in behavior when near operating seismic vessels.
    Taking account of the mitigation measures that are planned, effects 
on cetaceans are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the 
area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, 
falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment.
    The numbers of odontocetes that may be harassed by the proposed 
activities are small relative to the population sizes of the affected 
stocks. The best estimates for common, spotted, Risso's, and bottlenose 
dolphins are 1212, 1022, 902, and 893, respectively, which are the most 
abundant cetaceans in the proposed survey area. These best estimates 
represent 0.039, 0.050, 0.513, and 0.367 percent of the regional 
populations for each of these species. For other odontocetes, numbers 
exposed to greater than 160 dB will be smaller (all of the affected 
animals represent less than 1 percent of their regional population).
    In light of the type of take expected and the relatively small 
numbers of affected cetaceans, the action is expected to have no more 
than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine 
mammals. In addition, mitigation measures such as controlled vessel 
speed, course alteration, look-outs, ramp-ups, and power-downs when 
marine mammals are seen within defined ranges (see Mitigation) should 
further reduce short-term reactions to disturbance, and minimize any 
effects on hearing sensitivity.

Conclusions- Effects on Pinnipeds

    California sea lions are the most likely pinniped species to be 
encountered during the proposed seismic survey in the southern Gulf of 
California. It is estimated that 50 sea lions (out of a population of 
209000) may be exposed to noise levels greater than 160 dB during the 
proposed survey. It is unlikely that northern elephant seals or 
Guadalupe fur seals will be encountered. If members of either of those 
species are encountered, they will be extralimital individuals. A 
precautionary estimate of 2 northern elephant seals and 2 Guadalupe fur 
seals may be encountered. The proposed seismic survey would have, at 
most, a short-term effect on their behavior and no long-term impacts on 
individual pinnipeds or their populations. Responses of pinnipeds to 
acoustic disturbances are variable, but usually quite limited. Effects 
are expected to be limited to short-term and localized

[[Page 31814]]

behavioral changes falling within the MMPA definition of Level B 
harassment.
    In light of the type of take expected and the relatively small 
numbers of affected pinnipeds, the action is expected to have no more 
than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine 
mammals. In addition, mitigation measures such as controlled vessel 
speed, course alteration, look-outs, ramp-ups, and power-downs when 
marine mammals are seen within defined ranges (see Mitigation) should 
further reduce short-term reactions to disturbance, and minimize any 
effects on hearing sensitivity.

ESA

    NMFS issued a biological opinion regarding the effects of this 
action on ESA-listed species and critical habitat. That biological 
opinion concluded that this action is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat. A copy of the Biological 
Opinion is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The NSF made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 
determination on October 2, 2003, based on information contained within 
its EA, that implementation of the subject action is not a major 
Federal action having significant effects on the environment within the 
meaning of Executive Order 12114. NSF determined therefore, that an 
environmental impact statement would not be prepared. On March 18, 2004 
(69 FR 12832), NMFS noted that the NSF had prepared an EA for the Gulf 
of California surveys and made this EA available upon request. In 
accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review 
Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 
20, 1999), NMFS has reviewed the information contained in NSF's EA and 
determined that the NSF EA accurately and completely describes the 
proposed action alternative, reasonable additional alternatives, and 
the potential impacts on marine mammals, endangered species, and other 
marine life that could be impacted by the preferred alternative and the 
other alternatives. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue a new EA, 
supplemental EA or an environmental impact statement for the issuance 
of an IHA to Scripps for this activity. Based on this review and 
analysis, NMFS is adopting the NSF EA under 40 CFR 1506.3 and has made 
its own FONSI. A copy of the NSF EA and the NMFS FONSI for this 
activity is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to take marine mammals, by harassment, 
incidental to conducting seismic surveys in the Gulf of California to 
Scripps for a 1-year period, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements are undertaken.

    Dated: May 28, 2004.
Laurie K. Allen,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-12811 Filed 6-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S