Chapter XI — Permits for Marine Mammals 



In both cases, the Commission noted that, while the 

 drafts indicated that operation of the sound sources for 

 climate-related research would not be initiated until 

 the transmissions were determined to be safe for 

 marine mammals, sea turtles, and other marine biota, 

 they did not indicate what would be considered safe. 



With regard to the preceding point, the Commis- 

 sion noted that, if climate-related sound transmissions 

 resulted in the taking of marine mammals by harass- 

 ment or other means, the taking would have to be 

 authorized under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

 and, if endangered or threatened species are involved, 

 under the Endangered Species Act. The Commission 

 also noted that under the Marine Mammal Protection 

 Act, such taking might be authorized either by a 

 waiver of the Act's moratorium on taking or by a 

 small-take exemption authorizing unintentional taking 

 of small numbers of marine mammals as provided for 

 in section 101(a)(5) of the Act. The Commission 

 pointed out that authorization under section 101(a)(5) 

 would require that the Secretary of Commerce (1) 

 determine that the taking to be authorized would have 

 a negligible impact on the affected species or stock, 



(2) prescribe permissible methods of taking and means 

 for effecting the least practicable adverse impact on 

 the affected species or stocks and their habitat, and 



(3) specify requirements for monitoring and reporting 

 any taking. 



Given the referenced provisions of section 

 101(a)(5), the Commission indicated that in its view 

 the objectives of the ATOC-associated marine mam- 

 mal research program should be to determine whether 

 the planned climate-related sound transmissions could 

 result in the taking of marine mammals by harassment 

 or other means and, if so, (a) whether the taking 

 would have a negligible impact on the affected species 

 or stocks such that it could be authorized by a small- 

 take exemption, (b) what measures might be taken to 

 ensure that the transmissions have the least practicable 

 adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and 

 their habitat, and (c) what type of reporting and 

 monitoring programs would be required to verify that 

 the transmissions do in fact have negligible impacts on 

 marine mammals and their habitat. 



The Commission recommended that the final 

 environmental impact statements be expanded and 



revised to (1) explicitly note the relevant provisions of 

 section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection 

 Act, and (2) explain the rationale for believing that 

 the ATOC-associated marine mammal research 

 programs would provide the information necessary to 

 make a finding that any taking would have negligible 

 impacts and prescribe reporting and monitoring 

 requirements necessary to verify that the finding is 

 correct. 



The California Project — The National Oceanic 

 and Atmospheric Administration's National Ocean 

 Service provided comments on the draft environmental 

 impact statement for the California ATOC project by 

 letter of 6 February 1995. The letter indicated that, 

 based on information provided in the draft statement, 

 the Service had concluded it was not "appropriate to 

 locate the ATOC sound source — and thus the zone of 

 greatest ecological risk and uncertainty — within the 

 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary." It urged 

 the Advanced Research Projects Agency and the 

 Scripps Institution of Oceanography to select one of 

 two alternative sites in central California. 



Following receipt of the National Ocean Service's 

 comments, project personnel decided to switch the 

 location of the planned California sound generator 

 from Sur Ridge to the Pioneer Seamount, approxi- 

 mately 55 miles southwest of San Francisco. The 

 switch necessitated changes in the design of the 

 marine mammal research program and revision of the 

 environmental impact statement. 



A proposed revision of the marine mammal re- 

 search protocol was completed and forwarded early in 

 April 1995 to members of the program's advisory 

 board for comment. Board members, including the ex 

 officio representatives of the Commission and the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service, discussed the 

 proposed revision in a conference call on 5 April 

 1995. The board's recommendations regarding the 

 revised research protocol were transmitted to the 

 program's principal investigators in a 25 April 1995 

 memorandum. 



Among other things, the advisory board noted that, 

 while studies had been done to gather baseline infor- 

 mation on the distribution, abundance, and behavior 

 of marine mammals in the vicinity of the proposed 



195 



