Jump to main content.

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; An On-ice Marine Geophysical Research and Development Program in the Beaufort Sea

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: February 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 5421-5426]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06fe07-31]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 011807A]

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; An On-ice
Marine Geophysical Research and Development Program in the Beaufort Sea

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION:  Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental take
authorization; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  NMFS has received an application from Shell Offshore, Inc.
(SOI) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine
mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting an on-ice marine
geophysical research and development (R&D) program in the U.S. Beaufort
Sea from March to May, 2007. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an
authorization to SOI to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers
of three species of pinnipeds for a limited period of time this year.

DATES:  Comments and information must be received no later than March
8, 2007.

ADDRESSES:  Comments on the application should be addressed to P.
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one
of the contacts listed here. The mailbox address for providing email
comments is PR1.011807A@noaa.gov. Comments sent via e-mail, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the
application and other supporting material related to this proposed
action may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the
first contact person listed here and is also available at: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 137 or Brad Smith, Alaska Region,
NMFS, (907) 271-5006.

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 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 that 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 for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
    any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
[Level B harassment].
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS
review of an

[[Page 5422]]

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 January 17, 2007, NMFS received an application from SOI for the
taking, by harassment, of three species of marine mammals incidental to
conducting an on-ice marine geophysical R&D program. The proposed
seismic survey would occur on U.S. Beaufort Sea. Sources and receivers
would be placed above and below the ice in attempts to find pairings
that provide the best mitigation of seismic noise in a shallow marine
environment where conventional seismic vessels cannot operate. A
variety of instruments will be used to create a complete catalogue of
data for development of noise mitigation techniques. Sources include
standard and lightweight vibrators, accelerated weight drop (impact)
sources on the ice, and small volume airgun arrays deployed through
holes augered in the ice. Receivers will be deployed both on the ice
surface, as well as below the ice suspended in the water column and on
the ocean floor. The program will also require a temporary camp
facility geared to accommodate up to 100 people. The proposed program
is expected to begin in March and last till May, 2007.

Description of the Activity

    The proposed R&D program would occur on the U.S. Minerals
Management Service (MMS) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease blocks
located offshore from Oliktok Point, Milne Point, West Dock, or
Endeavor Islands, in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. This on-ice R&D will
consist of 35 linear miles (56 km) of surveying withing a 16 km\2 \(6.2
mi\2\) area. The prospective locations have been selected on the basis
of suitability for the scientific testing and proximity to facilities
to help minimize impact on the region. The water depth at each location
is less than 20 m (66 ft); deep enough that the ice is not grounded.
Ice condition within the proposed survey area will determine the area
selected, and SOI will consult with MMS and NMFS before the selection
is made.
    Surface sources will be a variety of industry-standard vehicles and
weigh drops. On-ice vibroseis will be conducted using 2 vibrators: a
68,000 lb gross vehicle weight (GVW) wheeled vibrator capable of 49,440
foot-pounds (ft-lbs) of force and a 14,400 lb GVW wheeled mini-vibrator
capable of 12,000 ft-lbs of force. A minimum ice thickness of 4 ft (1.2
m) is required in order to support the vibrators and recording
equipment. Impact sources to be used include 2 weigh drops: a Digipulse
1180 with peak force output of 1,200,000 ft-lbs at base plate, and a
Polaris Explorer 860 with peak force output of 866,000 ft-lbs at base
plate. Both weigh drop impact sources have dominant frequency ranges
from 10 to 90 Hz. No measurements of acoustic energy source levels have
been taken in industry using these equipments, however, in air and
underwater sound levels resulted from weigh drops will be measured and
monitored during the proposed survey.
    An airgun array with 1 or 2 210 in\3\ Generator/Injector (GI)
airguns would also be used and can produce between 345,000 and 560,000
ft-lbs of force at 2,000 and 3,000 pounds per square inch (PSI),
respectively. The source level of the airgun, measured at 1 m from the
source, ranges from 228 - 232 dB re: 1 microPa, when fired in open
water without sea ice coverage. The dominant frequency of the airgun is
below 188 Hz.
    The recording unit is comprised of 13 tracked vehicles for crew
transport and technical support, 2 tracked recording trailers, and 2
ice drilling units.
    The program will also require a temporary camp facility geared to
accommodate up to 200 people and will be composed of purpose-built
accommodations which are largely self-sufficient for normal operations.
Camp facilities may include as many as 35 sled trailers including
medical facilities, crew quarters, offices, kitchen and dining
facilities, laundry facilities, technical work spaces, generators, and
fuel storage units. Two tracked vehicles will be available for camp
site support and access trail maintenance. Prospective camp locations
will be chosen based on ice conditions and safety of access to ice. SOI
will consult with MMS and NMFS before moving camp location within the
proposed project area. Mobilization and demobilization will take place
from West Dock, Oliktok Point, Milne Point, or Endeavor Island. Given
the logistics, it is unlikely that the operations would utilize each of
the 4 prospective camp locations. The camp will be stationed on
grounded ice beside the access route. Kuukpik Veritas will begin
conducting surveys and ice checks and move the camp 7 to 12 days ahead
of the seismic survey along the route away from the mobilization point.
Re-supply operations will periodically be required for fuel and
provisions. These operations will be based out of West Dock, Oliktok
Point, Milne Point, or Endeavor Island.
    Camp mobilization is expected to begin on March 10, 2007. By March
15, the camp would be established and seismic acquisition will begin on
or about March 17. Data acquisition will continue until May 5 to 10,
followed by camp demobilization to Oliktok Point, Milne Point, West
Dock, or Endeavor Island. Operations are expected to be occurring 24
hours a day through the entire survey period. The program is projected
to take 30 to 40 days to acquire the necessary data.

Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

    Four marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed
survey area: ringed seal (Phoca hispida), bearded seal (Erignathus
barbatus), spotted seal (Phoca largha), and polar bear (Ursus
maritimus). None of these species are listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) as endangered or threatened species. Other marina
mammal species that seasonally inhabit the Beaufort Sea, but are not
anticipated to occur in the project area during the proposed R&D
program, include the bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) and beluga
whales (Delphinapterus leucas). SOI will seek a take Authorization from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the incidental taking of
polar bears because USFWS has management authority for this speciee. A
detailed description of these species can be found in Angliss and
Outlaw (2005), which is available at the following URL: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2005.pdf. Additional information
on the 3 pinniped species is presented below:

Ringed Seals

    Ringed seals are widely distributed throughout the Arctic basin,
Hudson Bay and Strait, and the Bering and Baltic seas. Ringed seals
inhabiting northern Alaska belong to the subspecies P. h. hispida, and
they are year-round residents in the Beaufort Sea.
    During winter and spring, ringed seals inhabit landfast ice and
offshore pack ice. Seal densities are highest on stable landfast ice
but significant numbers of ringed seals also occur in pack ice (Wiig et
al., 1999). Seals congregate at holes and along cracks or deformations
in the ice (Frost et al., 1999). Breathing holes are established in
landfast ice as the ice forms in autumn and are maintained by seals
throughout winter. Adult ringed seals maintain an average of 3.4 holes
per seal (Hammill and Smith, 1989).

[[Page 5423]]

Some holes may be abandoned as winter advances, probably in order for
seals to conserve energy by maintaining fewer holes (Brueggeman and
Grialou, 2001). As snow accumulates, ringed seals excavate lairs in
snowdrifts surrounding their breathing holes, which they use for
resting and for the birth and nursing of their single pups in late
March to May (McLaren, 1958; Smith and Stirling, 1975; Kelly and
Quakenbush, 1990). Pups have been observed to enter the water, dive to
over 10 m (33 ft), and return to the lair as early as 10 days after
birth (Brendan Kelly, pers comm to CPA, June 2002), suggesting pups can
survive the cold water temperatures at a very early age. Mating occurs
in late April and May. From mid-May through July, ringed seals haul out
in the open air at holes and along cracks to bask in the sun and molt.
    The seasonal distribution of ringed seals in the Beaufort Sea is
affected by a number of factors but a consistent pattern of seal use
has been documented since aerial survey monitoring began over 20 years
ago. Recent studies indicated that ringed seals showed a strong
seasonal and habitat component to structure use (Williams et al.,
2006), and habitat, temporal, and weather factors all had significant
effects on seal densities (Moulton et al., 2005). The studies also
showed that effects of oil and gas development on local distribution of
seals and seal lairs are no more than slight, and are small relative to
the effects of natural environmental factors (Moulton et al., 2005;
Williams et al., 2006).
    A reliable estimate for the entire Alaska stock of ringed seals is
currently not available (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). A minimum estimate
for the eastern Chukchi and Beaufort Sea is 249,000 seals, including
18,000 for the Beaufort Sea (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). The actual
numbers of ringed seals are substantially higher, since the estimate
did not include much of the geographic range of the stock, and the
estimate for the Alaska Beaufort Sea has not been corrected for animals
missed during the surveys used to derive the abundance estimate
(Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Estimates could be as high or approach the
past estimates of 1 - 3.6 million ringed seals in the Alaska stock
(Frost, 1985; Frost et al., 1988).
    Frost and Lowry (1999) reported an observed density of 0.61 ringed
seals/km\2\ on the fast ice from aerial surveys conducted in spring
1997 of an area (Sector B2) overlapping the activity area, which is in
the range of densities (0.28-0.66) reported for the Northstar
development from 1997 to 2001 (Moulton et al., 2001). This value (0.61)
was adjusted to account for seals hauled out but not sighted by
observers (x 1.22, based on Frost et al. (1988)) and seals not hauled
out during the surveys (x 2.33, based on Kelly and Quakenbush (1990))
to obtain the 1.73 seals/km\2\. This estimate covered an area from the
coast to about 2 - 20 miles beyond the activity area; and it assumed
that habitat conditions were uniform.

Bearded Seals

    The bearded seal has a circumpolar distribution in the Arctic, and
it is found in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Jefferson et
al., 1993). Bearded seals are predominately benthic feeders, and prefer
waters less than 200 m (656 ft) in depth. Bearded seals are generally
associated with pack ice and only rarely use shorefast ice (Jefferson
et al., 1993). Bearded seals occasionally have been observed
maintaining breathing holes in annual ice and even hauling out from
holes used by ringed seals (Mansfield, 1967; Stirling and Smith, 1977).
    Seasonal movements of bearded seals are directly related to the
advance and retreat of sea ice and to water depth (Kelly, 1988). During
winter they are most common in broken pack ice and in some areas also
inhabit shorefast ice (Smith and Hammill, 1981). In Alaska waters,
bearded seals are distributed over the continental shelf of the Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, but are more concentrated in the northern
part of the Bering Sea from January to April (Burns, 1981). Recent
spring surveys along the Alaskan coast indicate that bearded seals tend
to prefer areas of between 70 and 90 percent sea ice coverage, and are
typically more abundant greater than 20 nm (37 km) off shore, with the
exception of high concentrations nearshore to the south of Kivalina in
the Chukchi Sea (Bengtson et al., 2000; Simpkins et al., 2003). Since
bearded seals are normally found in broken ice that is unstable for on-
ice seismic operation, bearded seals will be rarely encountered during
seismic operations.
    There are no reliable population estimates for bearded seals in the
Beaufort Sea or in the proposed project area (Angliss and Outlaw,
2005). Aerial surveys conducted by MMS in fall 2000 and 2001 sighted a
total of 46 bearded seals during survey flights conducted between
September and October (Treacy, 2002a; 2002b). Bearded seal numbers are
considerably higher in the Bering and Chukchi seas, particularly during
winter and early spring. Early estimates of bearded seals in the Bering
and Chukchi seas range from 250,000 to 300,000 (Popov, 1976; Burns,
1981). Surveys flown from Shismaref to Barrow during May-June 1999 and
2000 resulted in an average density of 0.07 seals/km2 and 0.14 seals/
km2, respectively, with consistently high densities along the coast of
the south of Kivalina (Bengtson et al., 2005). These densities cannot
be used to develop an abundance estimate because no correction factor
is available.

Spotted Seals

    Spotted seals occur in the Beaufort, Chukchi, Bering, and Okhotsk
seas, and south to the northern Yellow Sea and western Sea of Japan
(Shaughnessy and Fay, 1977). Based on satellite tagging studies,
spotted seals migrate south from the Chukchi Sea in October and pass
through the Bering Strait in November and overwinter in the Bering Sea
along the ice edge (Lowry et al., 1998). In summer, the majority of
spotted seals are found in the Bering and Chukchi seas, but do range
into the Beaufort Sea (Rugh et al., 1997; Lowry et al., 1998) from July
until September. The seals are most commonly seen in bays, lagoons, and
estuaries and are typically not associated with pack ice at this time
of the year.
    A small number of spotted seal haul-outs are documented in the
central Beaufort Sea near the deltas of the Colville and Sagavanirktok
rivers (Johnson et al., 1999). Previous studies from 1996 to 2001
indicate that few spotted seals (a few tens) utilize the central Alaska
Beaufort Sea (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a; 2002b). In
total, there are probably no more than a few tens of spotted seals
along the coast of central Alaska Beaufort Sea.
    A reliable abundance estimate for spotted seal is not currently
available (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005), however, early estimates of the
size of the world population of spotted seals was 335,000 to 450,000
animals and the size of the Bering Sea population, including animals in
Russian waters, was estimated to be 200,000 to 250,000 animals (Burns,
1973). The total number of spotted seals in Alaskan waters is not known
(Angliss and Outlaw, 2005), but the estimate is most likely between
several thousand and several tens of thousands (Rugh et al., 1997).
Using maximum counts at known haulouts from 1992 (4,135 seals), and a
preliminary correction factor for missed seals developed by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (Lowry et al., 1998), an abundance estimate
of 59,214 was calculated for the Alaska stock (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005).

[[Page 5424]]

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    Seismic surveys using acoustic energy, such as airguns and weigh
drop impact sources, may have the potential to adversely impact marine
mammals in the vicinity of the activities (Gordon et al., 2004). The
sound source level of the GL airgun to be used in the proposed project
is 228 dB re: 1 microPa at 1 m, which is strong enough to cause hearing
threshold shift (TS) in pinnipeds when exposed for an extended duration
(Kastak et al., 1999).
    However, it is extremely unlikely that any animals would be exposed
to a sound level of this magnitude since acoustic energy is attenuated
as it propagates through the water column. Preliminary results of the
acoustic modeling, which did not take the ice effects into
consideration, shows that the received sound pressure levels (SPLs)
dropped down to 190, 180, and 160 dB re: 1 microPa root mean square
(RMS) at distances of 120 m (394 ft), 330 m (1,083 ft), and 2.22 km
(1.38 mi), respectively. However, with the sea ice dampening effects,
actually received SPLs at these distances are expected to be lower
(Richardson et al., 1995). In addition, most acoustic energy from an
airgun is directed downward, and the short duration of each pulse
limits the total energy (Richardson et al., 1995).
    Intense acoustic signals from seismic surveys are also known to
cause behavioral alteration in marine mammals such as reduced
vocalization rates (Goold, 1996), avoidance (Malme et al., 1986, 1988;
Richardson et al., 1995; Harris et al., 2001), and changes in blow
rates (Richardson et al., 1995) in several marine mammal species. One
controlled exposure experiment using small airguns (source level: 215
224 dB re 1 microPa peak-to-peak (p-p)) was conducted on harbor seals
(Phoca vitulina) and gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) that had been
fitted with telemetry devices showed fright responses in two harbor
seals when playback started (Thompson et al., 1998). Their heart rate
dropped dramatically from 35 45 beats/min to 5 10 beats/min. However,
these responses were short-lived and following a typical surfacing
tachycardia; there were no further dramatic drops in heart rate. Harbor
seals showed strong avoidance behavior, swimming rapidly away from the
source. Stomach temperature tags revealed that they ceased feeding
during this time. Only one seal showed no detectable response to the
airguns and approached to within 300 m (984 ft) of the sound source.
The behavior of harbor seals seemed to return to normal soon after the
end of each trial. Similar avoidance reponses were also documented in
gray seals. By contrast, sighting rates of ringed seals from a seismic
vessel in shallow Arctic waters showed no difference between periods
with the full array, partial array, or no airguns firing (Harris et
al., 2001).
    Incidental harassment to marine mammals could also result from
physical activities associated with on-ice seismic operations, which
have the potential to disturb and temporarily displace some seals. Pup
mortality could occur if any of these animals were nursing and
displacement were protracted. However, it is unlikely that a nursing
female would abandon her pup given the normal levels of disturbance
from the proposed activities, potential predators, and the typical
movement patterns of ringed seal pups among different holes. Seals also
use as many as four lairs spaced as far as 3,437 m (11,276 ft) apart.
In addition, seals have multiple breathing holes. Pups may use more
holes than adults, but the holes are generally closer together than
those used by adults. This indicates that adult seals and pups can move
away from seismic activities, particularly since the seismic equipment
does not remain in any specific area for a prolonged time. Given those
considerations, combined with the small proportion of the population
potentially disturbed by the proposed activity, impacts are expected to
be negligible for the ringed, bearded, and spotted seal populations.
    The seismic surveys would only introduce acoustic energy into the
water column and no objects would be released into the environment. In
addition, the total footprint of the proposed seismic survey area
covers approximately 16 km\2\ (6.2 mi\2\), which represents only a
small fraction of the Beaufort Sea pinniped habitat. Sea-ice surface
rehabilitation is often immediate, occurring during the first episode
of snow and wind that follows passage of the equipment over the ice.
     There is a relative lack of knowledge about the potential impacts
of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates. Available data
suggest that there may be physical impacts on eggs and on larval,
juvenile, and adult stages of fish at very close range (within meters)
to seismic energy source. Considering typical source levels associated
with seismic arrays, close proximity to the source would result in
exposure to very high energy levels. Where eggs and larval stages are
not able to escape such exposures, juvenile and adult fish most likely
would avoid them. In the cases of eggs and larvae, it is likely that
the numbers adversely affected by such exposure would be very small in
relation to natural mortality. Studies on fish confined in cages that
were exposed under intense sound for extended period showed physical or
physiological impacts (Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; McCauley et al.,
2003; Smith et al., 2004). While limited data on seismic surveys
regarding physiological effects on fish indicate that impacts are
short-term and are most apparent after exposure at very close range
(McCauley et al., 2000a; 2000b; Dalen et al., 1996), other studies have
demonstrated that seismic guns had little effect on the day-to-day
behavior of marine fish and invertebrates (Knudsen et al., 1992; Wardle
et al., 2001). It is more likely that fish will swim away upon hearing
the seismic impulses (Engas et al., 1996).
    Limited studies on physiological effects on marine invertebrates
showed that no significant adverse effects from seismic energy were
detected for Squid and cuttlefish (McCauley et al., 2000) or in snow
crabs (Christian et al., 2003).
    Based on the foregoing discussion, NMFS finds preliminarily that
the proposed seismic surveys would not cause any permanent impact on
the physical habitats and marine mammal prey species in the proposed
project area.

Number of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken

    NMFS estimates that up to 28 ringed seals and much fewer bearded
and spotted seals could be taken by Level B harassment as a result of
the proposed on-ice geophysical R&D program. The estimate take number
is based on consideration of the number of ringed seals that might be
disturbed within the 16 km\2\ proposed project area, calculated from
the adjusted ringed seal density of 1.73 seal per km\2\ (Kelly and
Quakenbush, 1990). This number represents less than 0.1 percent of the
total ringed seal population (estimated at 18,000) for the Beaufort Sea
(Angliss and Outlaw, 2005).
    Due to the unavailability of reliable bearded and spotted seals
densities within the proposed project area, NMFS is unable to estimate
take numbers for these two species. However, it is expected much fewer
bearded and spotted seals would subject to takes by Level B harassment
since their occurrence is much lower within the proposed project area,
especially during spring (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a;
2002b; Bengtson et al., 2005). Consequently, the levels of take of
these 2 pinniped species by Level B harassment within the proposed project

[[Page 5425]]

area would represent only small fractions of the total population sizes
of these species in Beaufort Sea.
    In addition, NMFS expected that the actual take of Level B
harassment by the proposed geophysical program would be much lower with
the implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures
discussed below. Therefore, NMFS believes that any potential impacts to
ringed, bearded, and spotted seals to the proposed on-ice geophysical
seismic program would be insignificant, and would be limited to distant
and transient exposure.

Potential Effects on Subsistence

    Residents of the village of Nuiqsut are the primary subsistence
users in the activity area. The subsistence harvest during winter and
spring is primarily ringed seals, but during the open-water period both
ringed and bearded seals are taken. Nuiqsut hunters may hunt year
round; however, most of the harvest has been in open water instead of
the more difficult hunting of seals at holes and lairs (McLaren, 1958;
Nelson, 1969). Subsistence patterns may be reflected through the
harvest data collected in 1992, when Nuiqsut hunters harvested 22 of 24
ringed seals and all 16 bearded seals during the open water season from
July to October (Fuller and George, 1997). Harvest data for 1994 and
1995 show 17 of 23 ringed seals were taken from June to August, while
there was no record of bearded seals being harvested during these years
(Brower and Opie, 1997). Only a small number of ringed seals was
harvested during the winter to early spring period, which corresponds
to the time of the proposed on-ice seismic operations.
    Based on harvest patterns and other factors, on-ice seismic
operations in the activity area are not expected to have an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses of ringed and bearded seals because:
    (1) Operations would end before the spring ice breakup, after which
subsistence hunters harvest most of their seals.
    (2) The area where seismic operations would be conducted is small
compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area associated
with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals.
    In order to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the
species and the subsistence use of ringed seals, SOI has notified and
provided the affected subsistence community with a draft plan of
cooperation. SOI held community meeting with the affected Beaufort Sea
communities in mid-October 2006 and will hold meetings again in early
2007 to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential conflicts
regarding any aspects of either the operation or the plan of cooperation.

Mitigation and Monitoring

    The following mitigation and monitoring measures are proposed for
the subject on-ice seismic surveys. All activities will be conducted as
far as practicable from any observed ringed seal lair and no energy
source will be placed over a seal lair.
    SOI will employee trained seal lair sniffing dogs to locate seal
structures under snow (subnivean) before the seismic program begins.
The recommended prospective area for the proposed project will be
surveys for the subnivean seal structures using 3 trained dogs running
together. Transects will be spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart and oriented
90[deg] to the prevailing wind direction. The search tracks of the dogs
will be recorded by GPS units on the dogs and the tracks will be
downloaded daily. Subnivean structures located will be probed by steel
rod to check if each is open (active), or frozen (abandoned).
Structures will be categorized by size, structure and odor to ascertain
whether the structure is a birth lair, resting lair, resting lair of
rutting male seals, or a breathing hole. Locations of seal structures
will be marked and monitored and adjustment to the seismic operation
will be made to avoid the lairs.
    Seismic sources for the program will be recorded into 5 sensor
groups: analog surface receivers, digital surface receivers,
hydrophones in the water column, and 3 different types of 4-component
ocean bottom sensors on the seafloor. Each source will be recorded into
the 5 receiver groups. Water column monitoring of sound levels will be
most directly accomplished by monitoring sound levels from the
hydrophones. Density of receivers is very high, with spacing of 5 m
(16.4 ft), so a detailed characterization of the sound levels can be
accomplished. A range of receiver offsets will be available up to the
maximum program offset of 4,000 m (13,123 ft). Additionally, the
surface and ocean bottom censors can be used as supplemental
information in the determination of source levels and propagation
distances for the experiment.
    NMFS and SOI are proposing a 500 m (1,640 ft) exclusion zone around
all located active subnivean seal structures, which no seismic or
impact surveys will be conducted. During active seismic and impact
source testing an on-ice 500 m (1,640 ft) safety zone will be
established. The size of the safety zone shall then be adjusted to
match the 190 dBrms re: 1 microPa isopleth based on seismic
source monitoring. On ice monitoring must be conducted by a trained,
NMFS-approved marine mammal observer (MMO) for entry by any marine
mammal. No seismic or impact surveys will be conducted if a marine
mammal is observed entering the monitored safety zone.
    To further reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals, SOI will
implement soft-start (ramp-up) procedure when starting operations of
the airgun or impact sources. Airgun and impact sources will be
initiated at 50 percent of its full level and slowly (not more than 6
dB per 5 minutes) increase their power to full capacity.

Reporting

    An annual report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of
completing the year's activities.The report must contain detail
description of the any marine mammal, by species, number, age class,
and sex if possible, that is sighted in the vicinity of the proposed
project area; whether the animal is harassment; and the context of
behavior change due to Level B harassment.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA will be affected by issuing an incidental
harassment authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to SOI
for the proposed on-ice seismic survey.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The information provided in the Final Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (EA) on the Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Seismic
Surveys - 2006 prepared by the Mineral Management Service (MMS) in June
2006 led NMFS to conclude that implementation of either the preferred
alternative or other alternatives identified in the EA would not have a
significant impact on the human environment. Therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement was not prepared. The proposed action
discussed in this document is not substantially different from the 2006
actions, and a reference search has indicated that no significant new
scientific information or analyses have been developed in the past
several years that would warrant new NEPA documentation.

Preliminary Conclusions

    The anticipated impact of the proposed on-ice seismic program on the

[[Page 5426]]

species or stock of ringed, bearded, and spotted seals is expected to
be negligible for the following reasons:
    (1) The proposed activity would only occur in a small area which
supports a small proportion (< 0.1 percent) of the ringed seal
populations in the Beaufort Sea. The numbers of bearded and spotted
seals within the proposed project area is expected to be even lower
than that of ringed seals.
    (2) The following mitigation and monitoring procedures will be
implemented: (a) using trained seal lair sniffing dogs to conduct pre-
operational survey and monitoring of ringed seal lairs and breathing
holes within the proposed action area; (b) conducting activities as far
away from any observed seal structures as possible; (c) establishing
safety zone based on isopleth of 190 dBrms re: 1 microPa and
(d); monitoring safety zones during operations of airgun and impact
sources by a trained MMO, and soft-start (ramp-up) procedure when
initiating airgun.
    As a result, NMFS believes the effects of on-ice geophysical R&D
program are expected to be limited to short-term and localized
behavioral changes involving relatively small numbers of ringed seals,
and may also potentially affect any bearded and spotted seals in the
vicinity. NMFS has preliminarily determined, based on information in
the application and supporting documents, that these changes in
behavior will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected
pinniped species and populations within the proposed action area. Also,
the potential effects of the proposed on-ice geophysical project during
2007 will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of
these species.

Proposed Authorization

    NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SOI for conducting on-ice
geophysical R&D program in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed
activity would result in the harassment of small numbers of ringed
seals, and potentially any bearded and spotted seals in the vicinity;
would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected pinniped
species and stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of seals for subsistence uses.

    Dated: January 31, 2007.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-1875 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.