[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60174-60203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24335]
[[Page 60173]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities; Marine
Seismic Survey in the Arctic Ocean, August to September, 2010; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010
/ Notices
[[Page 60174]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XW05
Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities;
Marine Seismic Survey in the Arctic Ocean, August to September, 2010
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS issued an
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) for the take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B
harassment, incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey in the
Arctic Ocean during August to September, 2010.
DATES: Effective August 11, 2010, through October 21, 2010.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and application are available by writing
to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by
telephoning the contact listed here.
A copy of the application containing a list of the references used
in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified
above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this
notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at
the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-713-2289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request,
the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by United States (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.
An authorization for incidental taking of small numbers of marine
mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking
and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting
of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact''
in 50 CFR 216.103 as `` * * * an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization
not to exceed one year to incidentally take small numbers of marine
mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not
pertinent here, the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [``Level A harassment'']; or (ii) has the potential to disturb
a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
[``Level B harassment''].
16 U.S.C. 1362(18)
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS'
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment
period for 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 the authorization.
Summary of Request
On March 9, 2010, NMFS received an IHA application and a draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) from USGS for the taking, by Level B
harassment only, of small numbers of several species of marine mammals
incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean
during August to September, 2010. NMFS received a revised IHA
application on June 1, 2010, and a final EA on August 6, 2010.
Description of the Specified Activity
USGS is conducting a marine geophysical (seismic reflection/
refraction) and bathymetric survey in the Arctic Ocean in August and
September, 2010 (see Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 3 of the IHA
application). The survey is being conducted from the Canadian Coast
Guard (CCG) vessel CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent (St. Laurent) which will
be accompanied by the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy, both of
which are polar-class icebreakers. Descriptions of the vessels and
their specifications are presented in Appendix A of the IHA
application. The two vessels operate in tandem in the presence of ice
but may diverge and operate independently in open water. Some minor
deviation of the dates is possible, depending on logistics and weather
(i.e., the cruise may depart earlier or be extended due to poor
weather; there could be extra days of seismic operations if collected
data are of sub-standard quality).
One CCG helicopter is available for deployment from the St. Laurent
for ice reconnaissance and crew transfers between the vessels during
survey operations. Helicopter transfer of crew from the Healy is also
planned for approximately one day during a ship-to-shore crew change at
Barrow, Alaska at the end of the survey. The helicopter operations in
Barrow will be conducted under Department of Interior (DOI) contract.
Daily helicopter operations are anticipated pending weather conditions.
Spot bathymetry will also be conducted from the helicopter outside U.S.
waters.
Acoustic sources onboard the St. Laurent include an airgun array
comprised of three Sercel G-airguns and a Knudsen 320BR ``Chirp'' pulse
echosounder operating at 12 kHz. The St. Laurent also tows a 3 to 5 kHz
sub-bottom profiler while in open water and when not working with the
Healy. The airgun array consists of two 500 in\3\ and one 150 in\3\
airguns for an overall discharge of 1,150 in\3\. Table 2 of the IHA
application presents different sound pressure level (SPL) radii of the
airgun array. Acoustic sources being operated on the St. Laurent are
described in detail in Section VII and Appendix B in the IHA
application. The seismic array and a hydrophone streamer towed from the
St. Laurent operate under the provisions of a Canadian authorization
based on Canada's environmental assessment of the proposed survey while
in Canadian or international waters, and under the provisions of an IHA
issued to the USGS by NMFS in U.S. waters. NMFS cannot issue an IHA
directly to a non-U.S.
[[Page 60175]]
citizen, however, the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) has written a
Categorical Declaration stating that ``while in U.S. waters (i.e., the
U.S. 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone), the GSC will comply with any
and all environmental mitigation measures required by the U.S. NMFS
and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.'' The St. Laurent follows
the lead of the Healy. The Healy breaks and clears ice approximately
1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to 2 miles [mi]) in advance of the St. Laurent. In
situations where the array (and hydrophone streamer) cannot be towed
safely due to ice cover, the St. Laurent may escort the Healy. The
Healy uses a multi-beam echosounder (Kongsberg EM122), a sub-bottom
profiler (Knudsen 3.5 kHz Chirp), and a ``piloting'' echosounder (ODEC
1500) continuously when underway and during the seismic profiling.
Acoustic Doppler current profilers (75 kHz and 150 kHz) may also be
used on the Healy. The Healy's acoustic systems are described in
further detail in Section VII and Appendix B of the IHA application.
In addition to the hydrophone streamer, marine sonobuoys are
deployed to acquire wide angle reflection and refraction data for
velocity determination to convert seismic reflection travel time to
depth. Sonobuoys are deployed off the stern of the St. Laurent
approximately every eight hours during seismic operations with as many
as three deployments per day. The sonobuoy's hydrophone activates at a
water depth of approximately 60 m (196.9 ft) and seismic signals are
communicated via radio to the St. Laurent. The sonobuoys are pre-set to
scuttle (i.e., deliberately sink) eight hours after activation.
The program within U.S. waters consists of approximately 806 km
(500.8 mi) of survey transect line, not including transits when the
airguns are not operating (see Figure 1 and Table 1 of the IHA
application). U.S. priorities include another 997 km (619.5 mi) of
survey lines north of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), for a
total of 1,804 km (1,121 mi) of tracklines of interest to the U.S.
Table 1 of the IHA application lists all U.S. priority tracklines;
Figure 1 of the IHA application includes all U.S. priority tracks and
the area of interest to Canada near the proposed U.S. tracklines. Water
depths within the U.S. study area range from approximately 1,900 to
4,000 m (6,233.5 to 13,123.4 ft) (see Figure 1 of the IHA application).
There may be additional seismic operations associated with airgun
testing, start-up, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data
quality is sub-standard. The tracklines being surveyed in U.S. waters
include the southern 263.8 km (164 mi) of the line that runs North-
South in the western EEZ, the southern 264.5 km (164.4 mi) of the line
that runs North--South in the central EEZ, and 277.7 km (172.6 mi) of
trackline that connects the two (see Table 1 here and in Figure 1 of
the IHA application). The IHA application requested the authorization
of incidental takes of marine mammals for activities within U.S.
waters. The survey line nearest to shore in U.S. waters is
approximately 116 km (63 nmi) offshore at its closest point.
Table 1--U.S. Priority Tracklines for USGS and Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) 2010 Extended Continental Shelf
Survey in the Northern Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time (Hour
Location End point 1 End point 2 Kilometer Nautical mile [hr]) @ 4 nmi/
(km) (nmi) hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS in central EEZ (south).... 71.22[deg] 72.27[deg] 118 64 16
North; North;
145.17[deg] 145.41[deg]
West. West.
NS in central EEZ (north).... 72.27[deg] 73.92[deg] 183 100 25
North; North;
145.41[deg] 145.30[deg]
West. West.
Central-western EEZ connector 73.92[deg] 71.84[deg] 317 171 43
North; North;
145.30[deg] 151.82[deg]
West. West.
NS in western EEZ............ 71.84[deg] 74.32[deg] 281 152 39
North; North;
151.82[deg] 150.30[deg]
West. West.
South Northwind Ridge........ 74.32[deg] 74.96[deg] 239 129 32
North; North;
150.30[deg] 158.01[deg]
West. West.
Northwind Ridge connector.... 74.96[deg] 76.30[deg] 161 87 22
North; North;
158.01[deg] 155.88[deg]
West. West.
Mid-Northwind Ridge.......... 76.30[deg] 75.41[deg] 274 148 37
North; North;
155.88[deg] 146.50[deg]
West. West.
Northwind Ridge connector.... 75.41[deg] 76.57[deg] 129 70 17
North; North;
146.50[deg] 146.82[deg]
West. West.
Mid-Northwind Ridge.......... 76.57[deg] 76.49[deg] 102 55 14
North; North;
146.82[deg] 150.73[deg]
West. West.
-----------------------------------------------
Totals................... ................ ............... 1,804 976 245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two vessels operate cooperatively during the seismic survey.
The St. Laurent conducts seismic operations using an airgun array and
also operates a 12 kHz Chirp echosounder. The St. Laurent also operates
a 3 to 5 kHz sub-bottom profiler in open water when not working with
the Healy. The Healy normally escorts the St. Laurent in ice cover, and
continuously operates a bathymetric multi-beam echosounder, a 3.5 kHz
Chirp sub-bottom profiler, a piloting echosounder, and two acoustic
Doppler current profilers.
The St. Laurent accessed the survey area from Canada and
rendezvoused with the Healy on approximately August 10, 2010; the Healy
approached the survey area from the Bering Straits. The St. Laurent
deploys a relatively small airgun array comprised of three G-airguns
and a single hydrophone streamer approximately 300 m (984 ft) in
length. The airgun array consists of two 500 in \3\ and one 150 in \3\
airguns for an overall discharge of 1,150 in \3\. The St. Laurent
follows the lead of the Healy which operates approximately 1.9 to 3.8
km (1 to 2 nmi) ahead of the St. Laurent. In ice conditions where
seismic gear cannot be safely towed, the St. Laurent escorts the Healy
to optimize multi-beam bathymetry data collection. If extended open-
water conditions are encountered, Healy and St. Laurent may operate
independently. After completion of the survey the St. Laurent will
return to port in Canada, and the Healy will change crew at Barrow via
helicopter or surface conveyance before continuing on another project.
Vessel Specifications
The CCGS St. Laurent was built in 1969 by Canadian Vickers Ltd. in
Montreal, Quebec, and underwent an extensive modernization in Halifax,
Nova Scotia between 1988 to 1993. The St. Laurent is based at CCG Base
Dartmouth in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Current vessel activities involve
summer voyages to the Canadian Arctic for sealifts to various coastal
communities and scientific expeditions. A description of the St.
Laurent with vessel specifications is presented in Appendix A of the
IHA application and is available online at: http://www.ccg-
[[Page 60176]]
gcc.gc.ca/eng/Fleet/Vessels?id=1111&info=5&subinfo.
The Healy is designed to conduct a wide range of research
activities, providing more than 390.2 m \2\ (4,200 ft \2\) of
scientific laboratory space, numerous electronic sensor systems,
oceanographic winches, and accommodations for up to 50 scientists. The
Healy is designed to break 1.4 m (4.5 ft) of ice continuously at 5.6
km/hour (three knots) and can operate in temperatures as low as -45.6 C
(-50 degrees F). The Healy is a USCG icebreaker, capable of traveling
at 5.6 km/hour (three knots) through 1.4 m (4.5 ft) of ice. A ``Central
Power Plant,'' four Sultzer 12Z AU40S diesel generators, provides
electric power for propulsion and ship's services through a 60 Hz,
three-phase common bus distribution system. Propulsion power is
provided by two electric AC Synchronous, 11.2 MW drive motors, fed from
the common bus through a Cycloconverter system, that turn two fixed-
pitch, four-bladed propellers.
The science community provided invaluable input on lab lay-outs and
science capabilities during design and construction of the ship. The
Healy is also a capable platform for supporting other potential
missions in the polar regions, including logistics, search and rescue,
ship escort, environmental protection, and enforcement of laws and
treaties, and will also serve as the platform from which vessel-based
Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will watch for marine mammals before
and during airgun operations. Other details of the Healy can be found
in Appendix A of the IHA application.
NMFS believes that the realistic possibility of a ship-strike of a
marine mammal by the vessel during research operations and in-transit
during the proposed survey is discountable. The probability of a ship
strike resulting in an injury or mortality of an animal has been
associated with ship speed; however, it is highly unlikely that the
proposed seismic survey would increase the rate of injury, serious
injury, or mortality given the St. Laurent and Healy's slow survey
speed.
Acoustic Source Specifications--Seismic Airguns and Radii
The seismic source for the seismic survey is comprised of three
Sercel G-airguns with a total volume of 1,150 in \3\. The three-airgun
array is comprised of two 500 in \3\ and one 150 in \3\ G-airguns in a
triangular configuration (see Figure B-1 in the IHA application). The
single 150 in \3\ G-airgun is used if a power-down is necessary for
mitigation. The G-airgun array is towed behind the St. Laurent at a
depth of approximately 11 m (36.1 ft) (see Figure B-2 in the IHA
application) along predetermined lines in water depths ranging from
1,900 to 4,000 m (6,233.6 to 13,123.4 ft). One streamer approximately
232 m (761.2 ft) in length with a single hydrophone is towed behind the
airgun array at a depth of approximately 9 to 30 m (29.5 to 98.4 ft).
A square wave trigger signal is supplied to the firing system
hardware by a FEI-Zyfer GPStarplus Clock model 565, based on GPS time
(typically at approximately 14 to 20 sec intervals). Vessel speed is
approximately 10.2 km/hour (5.5 knots) resulting in a shot interval
ranging from approximately 39 to 56 m (128 to 183.7 ft). G-airgun
firing and synchronization are controlled by a RealTime Systems
LongShot fire controller, which sends a voltage to the airgun solenoid
to trigger firing with approximately 54.8 ms delay between trigger and
fire point.
Pressurized air for the pneumatic G-airguns is supplied by two
Hurricane compressors, model 6T-276-44SB/2500. These are air cooled,
containerized compressor systems. Each compressor is powered by a C13
Caterpillar engine which turns a rotary screw first stage compressor
and a three stage piston compressor capable of developing a total air
volume of 600 SCFM @ 2,500 pounds per square inch (PSI). The seismic
system is operated at 1,950 PSI and one compressor could easily supply
sufficient volume of air under appropriate pressure.
Seismic acquisition requires a watchkeeper in the seismic lab and
another in the compressor container. The seismic lab watchkeeper is
responsible for data acquisition/recording, watching over-the-side
equipment, airgun firing and log keeping. A remote screen permits
monitoring of compressor pressures and alerts, as well as communication
with the compressor watchkeeper. The compressor watchkeeper is required
to monitor the compressor for any emergency shut-down and provide
general maintenance that might be required during operations.
Sound level radii for the proposed three airgun array were measured
in 2009 during a seismic calibration (Mosher et al., 2009; Roth and
Schmidt, 2010). A transmission loss model was then constructed assuming
spherical (20LogR) spreading and using the source level estimate 235 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 0-peak; 225 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) from the
measurements. The use of 20LogR spreading fit the data well out to
approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) where variability in measured vales
increased (see Appendix B in the IHA application for more details and a
figure of the transmission loss model compared to the measurement
data). Additionally, the Gundalf modeling package was used to model the
airgun array and estimated a source level output of 236.7 dB 0-peak
(226.7 dB [rms]). Using this slightly stronger source level estimate
and a 20LogR spreading the 180 and 190 dB (rms) radii are estimated to
be 216 m (708.7 ft) and 68 m (223.1 ft), respectively. As a
conservative measure for the proposed safety radii, the sound level
radii indicated by the empirical data and source models have been
increased to 500 m (1,640.4 ft) for the 180 dB isopleths and to 100 m
(328 ft) of the 190 dB isopleths.
The rms received levels that are used as impact criteria for marine
mammals are not directly comparable to the peak or peak-to-peak values
normally used to characterize source levels of airguns. The measurement
units used above to describe the airgun source, peak or peak-to-peak
dB, are always higher than the rms dB referred to in much of the
biological literature. A measured received level of 160 dB (rms) in the
far field would typically correspond to a peak measurement of about 170
to 172 dB, at the same location (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al., 1998,
2000). The precise difference between rms and peak or peak-to-peak
values for a given pulse depends on the frequency content and duration
of the pulse, among other factors. However, the rms level is always
lower than the peak or peak-to-peak level for an airgun-type source.
[[Page 60177]]
Table 2--Distances to Which Sound Levels Greater Than or Equal to 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) Could
Be Received in Deep (Greater Than 1,000 m) Water During the Survey in the Arctic Ocean, August 7, to September
3, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tow depth Predicted received RMS distances (m)
Source and volume (m) ice/ Water depth --------------------------------------
open water 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Mitigation Airgun (150 in\3\) 11/6-7 Deep (>1,000 m)....... 30 75 750
Three G-airguns (1,150 in\3\)....... 11/6-7 Deep (>1,000 m)....... 100 500 2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic Source Specifications--Multibeam Echosounders (MBES), Sub-
Bottom Profilers (SBP) and Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP)
Along with the airgun operations, additional acoustic systems that
are operated during the cruise include a 12 kHz Chirp echosounder and a
3-5 kHz SBP from the St. Laurent. The Healy operates a 12 kHz Kongsberg
MBES, a Knudsen 320BR profiler, a piloting echosounder, and two ADCPs.
These sources are operated throughout most of the cruise to map
bathymetry, as necessary, to meet the geophysical science objectives.
During seismic operations, these sources are deployed from the St.
Laurent and the Healy and generally operate simultaneously with the
airgun array deployed from the St. Laurent.
The Knudsen 320BR echosounder provides information on depth and
bottom profile. The Knudsen 320BR is a dual-frequency system with
operating frequencies of 3.5 and 12 kHz, however, the unit functions at
the higher frequency, 12 kHz, because the 3.5 kHz transducer is not
installed.
While the Knudsen 320BR operates at 12 kHz, its calculated maximum
source level (downward) is 215 dB re [mu]Pa at 1 m. The pulse duration
is typically 1.5 to 5 ms with a bandwidth of 3 kHz (FM sweep from 3 kHz
to 6 kHz). The repetition rate is range dependent, but the maximum is a
one percent duty cycle. Typical repetition rate is between \1/2\ s (in
shallow water) to 8 s in deep water. A single 12 kHz transducer (sub-
bottom) array, consisting of 16 elements in a 4x4 array will be used
for the Knudsen 320BR. The 12 kHz transducer (TC-12/34) emits a conical
beam with a width of 30[deg].
The 3-5 kHz chirp SBP is towed by and operated from the St. Laurent
in open water when the St. Laurent is not working in tandem with the
Healy. The SBP provides information about sedimentary features and
bottom topography. The chirp system has a maximum 7.2 kW transmit
capacity into the towed array. The energy from the towed unit is
directed downward by an array of eight transducers in a conical
beamwidth of 80 degrees. The interval between pulses is no less than
one pulse per second. SBPs of that frequency can produce sound levels
200 to 230 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995).
The Kongsberg EM 122 MBES operates at 10.5 to 13 (usually 12) kHz
and is hull-mounted on the Healy. The transmitting beamwidth is 1[deg]
or 2[deg] fore-aft and 150[deg] athwartship. The maximum source level
is 242 dB re 1 [mu]Pam (rms). Each ``ping'' consists of eight (in water
greater than 1,000 m deep) or four (less than 1,000 m) successive fan-
shaped transmissions, each ensonifying a sector that extends 1[deg]
fore-aft. Continuous-wave (CW) pulses increase from two to 15 ms long
in water depths up to 2,600 m (8,530 ft), and FM chirp pulses up to 100
ms long are used in water greater than 2,600 m (8,530 ft). The
successive transmissions span an overall cross-track angular extent of
about 150[deg], with 2 ms gaps between pulses for successive sectors.
The Knudsen 320BR hydrographic SBP provides information on
sedimentary layering, down to between 20 and 70 m (65.6 to 229.7 ft),
depending on bottom type and slope. The Knudsen 320 BR is a dual-
frequency system with operating frequencies of 3.5 and 12 kHz; only the
low frequency is being used during this survey. At 3.5 kHz, the maximum
output power into the transducer array, as wired on the Healy (where
the array impedance is approximately 125 ohms), is approximately 6,000
watts (electrical), which results in a maximum source level of 221 dB
re 1 [micro]Pa at 1 m downward. Pulse lengths range from 1.5 to 24 ms
with a bandwidth of 3 kHz (FM sweep from 3 kHz to 6 kHz). The
repetition rate is range dependent, but the maximum is a one percent
duty cycle. Typical repetition rate is between \1/2\ s (in shallow
water) to 8 s in deep water. The 3.5 kHz transducer array on the Healy,
consisting of 16 (TR109) elements in a 4x4 array, is being used for the
Knudsen 320BR. At 3.5 kHz the SBP emits a downward conical beam with a
width of approximately 26[deg].
The piloting echosounder on the Healy is an Ocean Data Equipment
Corporation (ODEC) Bathy-1500 that provides information on water depth
below the vessel. The ODEC system has a maximum 2 kW transmit capacity
into the transducer and has two operating modes, single or interleaved
dual frequency, with available frequencies of 12, 24, 33, 40, 100, and
200 kHz.
The 150 kHz ADCP has a minimum ping rate of 0.65 ms. There are four
beam sectors and each beamwidth is 3[deg]. The pointing angle for each
beam is 30[deg] off from vertical with one each to port, starboard,
forward, and aft. The four beams do not overlap. The 150 kHz ADCP's
maximum depth range is 300 m (984.3 ft).
The Ocean Surveyor 75 is an ADCP operating at a frequency of 75
kHz, producing a ping every 1.4 s. The system is a four-beam phased
array with a beam angle of 30[deg]. Each beam has a width of 4[deg] and
there is no overlap. Maximum output power is 1 kW with a maximum depth
range of 700 m (2,296.6 ft).
Acoustic Source Specifications--Icebreaking
Icebreaking is considered by NMFS to be a continuous sound and NMFS
estimates that harassment occurs when marine mammals are exposed to
continuous sounds at a received sound level of 120 dB SPL or above.
Potential takes of marine mammals may ensue from icebreaking activity
in which the Healy is expected to engage outside of U.S. waters, i.e.,
north of approximately 74.1[deg] North. While breaking ice, the noise
from the ship, including impact with ice, engine noise, and propeller
cavitation, will exceed 120 dB (rms) continuously. If icebreaking does
occur in U.S. waters, USGS expects it will occur during seismic
operations. The exclusion zone (EZ) for the marine mammal Level B
harassment threshold during the proposed seismic activities is greater
than the calculated radius during icebreaking. Therefore, if the Healy
breaks ice during seismic operations within the U.S. waters, the
greater radius, i.e., that for seismic operations, supersedes that for
icebreaking, so no
[[Page 60178]]
additional takes have been estimated within U.S. waters.
Dates, Duration, and Specific Geographic Area
The seismic survey is being conducted for approximately 36 days
from approximately August 2 to September 6, 2010. The approximately 806
km (501 mi) of tracklines within U.S. waters will be surveyed first.
These survey lines are expected to be completed by approximately August
19, 2010. The seismic vessel St. Laurent departed from Kugluktuk,
Nunavut, Canada on August 6, 2010 and returned to the same port on
approximately September 15, 2010. The Healy departed from Dutch Harbor,
Alaska on August 2, 2010, to meet the St. Laurent on August 10, 2010.
After completion of this survey, the Healy is changing crew through
Barrow via helicopter or surface vessel on September 6, 2010 (see Table
3 of the IHA application). The entire survey area will be bounded
approximately by 145[deg] to 158[deg] West longitude and 71[deg] to
84[deg] North latitude in water depths ranging from approximately 1,900
to 4,000 m (6,234 to 13,123 ft) (see Figure 1 and Table 1 of the IHA
application). Ice conditions are expected to range from open water to
10/10 ice cover. See Table 3 of the IHA application for a synopsis of
the 2010 St. Laurent and Healy Extended Continental Shelf expeditions
in the Arctic Ocean, August 2 to September 15, 2010.
Icebreaking outside U.S. waters will occur between the latitudes of
approximately 74[deg] to 84[deg] North. Vessel operations and ice
conditions from similar survey activities and timing in 2008 and 2009
were used to estimate the amount of icebreaking (in trackline km) that
is likely to occur in 2010. USGS expects that the St. Laurent and the
Healy will be working in tandem through the ice for a maximum of 23 to
25 days while outside of U.S. waters. The average distance travelled in
2008 and 2009 when the Healy broke ice for the St. Laurent was 135 km/
day (83.9 mi/day). Based on the 23 to 25 day period of icebreaking,
USGS calculated that, at most approximately 3,102 to 3,372 km (1,927.5
to 2,095.3 mi) of vessel trackline may involve icebreaking. This
calculation is likely an overestimation because icebreakers often
follow leads when they are available and thus do not break ice at all
times.
Table 3--Projected 2010 Icebreaking Effort for USGS/GSC 2010 Extended Continental Shelf Survey in the Northern
Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-Ship Two-Ship
operations operations km/day
(days) (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................................ 19 2,469 130
2009............................................................ 27 37,744 140
Average 2008 to 2009............................................ 23 3,122 135
Projected 2010.................................................. 23-25 3,102-3,372 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and Responses
A Notice of Receipt of the USGS application and proposed IHA was
published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336). During
the comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission), the North Slope Borough (NSB) Office of the
Mayor, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). The public
comments can be found online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The following are their comments, and NMFS's responses.
Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the
requested IHA, provided NMFS ascertain who will be responsible for
operating the Canadian vessel and the airguns and other instruments
deployed from the St. Laurent and issue an IHA for these activities
only if a U.S. agency or U.S. citizen(s) will be conducting those
operations.
Response: USGS's EA has clarified the roles and responsibilities of
the Canadian vessel St. Laurent while operating within and outside U.S.
waters:
``The activity that the USGS is funding and undertaking in both the
U.S. waters (maritime zones) and the high seas is to collect multi-
beam, associated chirp sub-bottom data, and possibly sediment and rock
samples both within and outside the 370.4 km (200 nmi) limit, as well
as to break ice for the St. Laurent during operations in ice-covered
area. The St. Laurent is a vessel entitled to sovereign immunity under
international law, operated by the CCG with a seismic system owned and
operated by Natural Resources Canada, and therefore not under the
jurisdiction of U.S. laws or regulations outside the U.S. maritime
zones where the U.S. has exclusive rights and jurisdiction. The USGS is
acting as the responsible agency for MMPA, ESA, and NEPA for the St.
Laurent while the St. Laurent is collecting seismic data within the
U.S. EEZ. The operators of the seismic equipment on the St. Laurent
have written a Categorical Declaration that, for operations in U.S.
waters (i.e., within the U.S. EEZ), they will comply with any and all
environmental mitigation measures required by NMFS and/or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (see Appendix C of the EA). There are no
U.S. Federal funds that are supporting the costs of operating St.
Laurent, or its seismic gear'' (see p. 2 to 3 of the EA).
The GSC is collecting seismic data in U.S. waters at the request of
the U.S. and would not otherwise be operating in U.S. waters. Dr.
Jonathan Childs, USGS liaison aboard the St. Laurent, will be
responsible for establishing the start and end points of the lines
within U.S. waters and for compliance with conditions of the IHA. The
Categorical Declaration from Natural Resources Canada, United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Program (see p. 116 in
Appendix C of the EA) further states:
``While in U.S. waters (i.e., the U.S. EEZ), the GSC operators will
comply with any and all environmental mitigation measures required by
the NMFS and/or USFWS. A NMFS approved PSO and a U.S. liaison aboard
the St. Laurent will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation
measures required by NMFS and/or USFWS are implemented while the St.
Laurent operates in U.S. waters.''
``While operating in U.S. waters, the GSC operators of the seismic
profiling system categorically consent to comply with all applicable
U.S. laws, including the MMPA and the ESA, as well as any terms and
conditions that may be required under an IHA issued by NMFS and any
measures that may arise from
[[Page 60179]]
ESA consultations with NMFS and/or USFWS. Operation of the seismic
profiling system includes conditions under which the system will be
turned on and operation continued or ceased in the presence of marine
mammals (including polar bears), and the diversion of scientific
tracklines for avoidance of observed wildlife. This declaration should
in no way be constructed to influence or alter the safe operation of
the vessel which is at the sole discretion of the CCG and its
Commanding Officer.''
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the
requested IHA, provided NMFS work with the applicant to re-estimate
exposures for ice-breaking activities based upon the total area that
may be exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1
[mu]Pa (rms).
Response: The Commission's concerns are that the USGS application
states that an area of water 4,109 km\2\ (1,586.5 mi\2\) will be
exposed to sound levels >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) but that the marine
mammal ``takes'' are estimated using a larger number of 5,137 km\2\
(1,983.4 mi\2\) to allow for turns, repetition of certain tracklines
because of poor data quality or minor changes in survey design (this
larger number represents an uncertainty estimate of approximately 20
percent). A critical clarification is that the 4,109 km\2\ and 5,137
km\2\ numbers are for estimating the area of takes within U.S. waters
based on seismic operations, using a radius of approximately 2,500 m
(8,202 ft) (see page 69 of the EA) for the >=160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa
(rms) isopleths, and not on the area ensonified by continuous noise of
icebreaking at >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). This approach was taken
because the area of take for the seismic source >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms), estimated at approximately a 2,500 m (8,202 ft) radius was
greater than that estimated for >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) of
continuous sound from icebreaking, estimated at 1,750 m (5,741.5 ft)
radius (see page 213 of the EA). The estimated area ensonified for
icebreaking outside of U.S. waters is 11,802 km\2\ (4,556.8 mi\2\) (see
p. 213 of the EA).
A point of confusion in this clarification is that the original
request from NMFS was to estimate takes from icebreaking, rather than
the total area exposed to sound levels >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). The
addendum on icebreaking (see Appendix J of the EA) only estimated takes
for the Healy breaking ice outside of U.S. waters because there would
be no additional takes for the sound of icebreaking within U.S. waters
beyond those estimated for the seismic source.
One can calculate the area of potential icebreaking within U.S.
waters by using the estimated track length (approximately 806 km [500.8
mi], page 69 of the EA) and the >=120 dB [mu]Pa (rms) radius, estimated
at 1,750 m (5,741.5 ft) (see page 213 of the EA), to get an ensonified
area of 2,821 km\2\ (1,089.2 mi\2\), which, with an additional
uncertainty estimate of 20 percent totals 3,385 km\2\ (1,307 mi\2\).
This number is still smaller than either the 4,109 km\2\ or 5,137 km\2\
numbers cited in the comments from the Commission.
It is important to also clarify that (a) the USGS estimated
icebreaking assuming that maximum noise of icebreaking would occur
along the total length of tracklines. The preferred strategy operating
in the ice is to follow leads whenever possible, which reduces the
total icebreaking effort. Canadian and U.S. ice observers and analysts
are aboard both vessels to select paths through the ice to minimize
icebreaking; (b) for some part of the cruise, depending on ice
conditions, the St. Laurent will be leading Healy so that high-quality
multi-beam data can be collected, further reducing the amount of
icebreaking the Healy will be doing (and therefore reducing the area of
ensonfication for >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa [rms]). The estimates of the
area of ensonification in the EA and IHA do not include a correction
for this type of data acquisition. Hence the area of ensonification is
likely to be overestimated; (c) the tracklines are laid out to enable
flexibility in where the ship may navigate through the ice, maximizing
the opportunities to follow leads and reduce the requirement for
icebreaking and therefore minimize the noise of icebreaking. Under
international law as reflected in Article 76 of UNCLOS, the ECS outer
limit points are to be no more than 111.1 km (60 nmi) apart. The cruise
tracks are planned 92.6 km (50 nmi) apart or less so that the vessels
can deviate approximately 18.5 km (10 nmi) either side of the track to
follow leads; and (d) based on the latest ice imagery for August 3,
2010, there will probably be no need to break ice within U.S. waters.
As of August 3, 2010, http;//arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png shows the ice extent in the area
north of the Alaska coast to be mostly open water. The PSOs aboard the
Healy will be monitoring actual takes from icebreaking during the
cruise, which can be compared with takes estimated and authorized in
the IHA.
Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the
requested IHA, provided NMFS advise the applicant to consult with the
USFWS regarding the need for a separate incidental taking authorization
for walruses and polar bears.
Response: On May 7, 2010, USGS requested that the USFWS review the
operations for the summer 2010 Arctic Ocean geophysical experiment for
potential impacts on Pacific walruses and polar bears. Given the
USFWS's understanding of polar bear and walrus distribution, the
planned travel routes and locations of the activity, the USFWS believe
that it is unlikely the proposed studies will result in any major
disturbances or impacts to individual polar bears or walruses.
Considering the relatively low likelihood of encountering polar bears
or walruses, along with the limited impact and anticipated responses of
affected animals that would likely ensue from an encounter with either
or both vessels, the USFWS has determined that an incidental take
authorization is not necessary for this project. See the USFWS's
informal ESA Section 7 consultation letter regarding walruses and polar
bears in Appendix E of the EA (p. 128 to 132).
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the
requested IHA, provided NMFS provide additional justification for its
preliminary determination that the planned monitoring program will be
sufficient to detect, with a high level of confidence, all marine
mammals within or entering the identified exclusion zones (EZs). At a
minimum, such justification should (1) identify those species that it
believes can be detected with a high degree of confidence using visual
monitoring only, (2) describe detection probability as a function of
distance from the vessel, (3) describe changes in detection probability
under various sea state and weather conditions and at night, and (4)
explain how close to the vessel marine mammals must be for observer to
achieve the anticipated high nighttime detection rate.
Response: NMFS believes that the planned monitoring program will be
sufficient to visually detect, with reasonable certainty, most marine
mammals within or entering identified EZs. This monitoring, along with
the required mitigation measures, will help ensure the authorized
taking effects the least practicable adverse impact on the affected
species or stocks and will have a negligible impact on the affected
species or stocks.
Until proven technological advances are made, nighttime mitigation
measures during operations include combinations of the use of PSOs and
[[Page 60180]]
night vision devices (NVDs). Should the airgun array be powered-down,
it is believed that the operation of a single airgun continues to serve
as a sound source deterrent to marine mammals. In the event of a
complete shut-down of the airgun array, for mitigation or repairs,
airgun operations are suspended until nautical twilight-dawn (when PSOs
are able to clear the EZ). Airgun operations do not begin until the
entire EZ radius is visible for at least 30 minutes. In all likelihood
there will be no nighttime start-ups for the time that the seismic data
are collected in U.S. waters (mid-August), when 24 hour daylight is
still occurring.
Comment 5: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the
requested IHA, provided NMFS clarify the meaning of the qualifiers
``when practical,'' ``if practical,'' and ``when feasible'' to indicate
how often and under what specific conditions the applicant expects to
use (1) two Protected Species Observer (PSOs) to monitor the EZ for
marine mammals during daytime operations and nighttime start-ups of the
airguns, (2) crew members to assist PSOs in detecting marine mammals
and implementing mitigation requirements, and (3) PSOs during daytime
periods to compare sighting rates and animal behavior during times when
seismic airguns are and are not operating.
Response: The St. Laurent and Healy will carry trained, NMFS-
qualified and experienced PSOs for the seismic study involving the use
of airguns and icebreaking for the upcoming proposed project. PSOs are
appointed by USGS with NMFS concurrence. USGS will utilize vessel-based
PSOs to watch for and monitor marine mammals near the icebreaking and
seismic source vessels during all daytime airgun operations and before
and during start-ups of the airguns day or night. PSOs will have access
to reticle binoculars and NVDs to scan the area around each vessel.
PSOs will alternate between binoculars and the naked eye to avoid eye
fatigue. During all monitoring periods, PSOs will be on duty from
observation locations that allow for optimal monitoring capabilities.
During meal times and restroom breaks it is sometime difficult to have
the full complement of PSOs on effort, but at least one PSO will be on
watch during those brief times. The complement of PSOs rotates shifts,
with duty shift lasting generally one to four hours.
Regarding the Commission's sub-comment (1), the intention and
requirement is for two PSOs to stand watch during all seismic
operations in U.S. waters, including cold start and ramp-ups. Only one
PSO is on watch during daylight non-seismic operations. Two U.S. PSOs
will join the St. Laurent before seismic operations begin in U.S.
waters so that there will be five PSOs aboard the St. Laurent for all
seismic data collected in U.S. waters. The restriction on the U.S. PSOs
not standing watch for more than four hours at a time and the as yet
unknown schedules of the Canadian watches makes actual schedules at
this time unknown, hence the qualifiers ``when practical,'' etc., are
used to account for this uncertainty. There may also be short periods
of time, for example during mandatory fire and boat safety drills, when
the PSOs on watch must leave their observing stations. It is the
responsibility of the U.S. liaison aboard the St. Laurent working with
the Canadian counterparts to develop a watch schedule consistent with
the requirements of the IHA, especially for the ramp-ups, whether
during the day or night. In all likelihood there will be no nighttime
start-ups for the time that the seismic data are collected in U.S.
waters (mid-August), when 24 hour daylight is still occurring.
Canada will follow its own permitting requirements for watches and
start-ups when operating outside of U.S. waters. The two U.S. PSOs
aboard the St. Laurent during the time the St. Laurent is in U.S.
waters will return to the Healy after the U.S. waters portion of the
survey is completed and stand watch on the Healy to aid in sighting
marine mammals and alert the PSOs aboard the St. Laurent of their
sightings during the two ships' operations.
Regarding the Commission's sub-comment (2), the qualifiers to this
condition refer to the situations in which (a) other members of the
ship's or scientific crew on either vessel notice a marine mammal near
the vessel and report it to the bridge or the PSOs; (b) the bridge
watch can assist in marine mammal observations during the night when
the PSO is not required to be on the bridge; or (c) the bridge watch
aboard the Healy (in the steering station above the bridge, which is
the highest and best vantage point for making observations) sees marine
mammals. It is impossible to predict the frequency that these
situations will occur, only that many more eyes are available to spot
marine mammals than those of the PSOs, and that these additional eyes
should be used whenever possible, practical, or feasible. It is not the
intention in any of these situations for the crew or the bridge to
implement mitigation requirements because that authority is with the
PSOs. However, the bridge often acts as a central point of
communication among science crew, ship's crew, and PSOs, and therefore
plays a vital role in ensuring that the PSOs can implement appropriate
mitigation procedures at the appropriate times.
Regarding the Commission's sub-comment (3), the U.S. PSOs aboard
the Healy (or when aboard the St. Laurent) will be on watch collecting
marine mammal observation data whether the airguns are operating or
not. When the Healy is operating independently of the St. Laurent
(e.g., steaming north from Dutch Harbor or for operations at the
beginning of the survey when in open water--and therefore independently
surveying), the data collected by the PSOs is baseline data. For the
seismic survey within U.S. waters, the St. Laurent will be steaming to
the start of the tracks from the east and will have the U.S. PSOs
aboard to record baseline observations during the steaming time. Both
U.S. and Canadian observers will be recording baseline information for
at least 30 min on site prior to initial start-up and ramp-ups of the
airgun operations during the survey. If the St. Laurent is operating
independently in either international or Canadian waters, it is the
responsibility of the Canadian Chief Scientist, using the conditions
set forth in the Canadian permits to determine whether the Canadian
observers will stand watch to collect baseline information. When the
ships are operating together in international or Canadian waters, the
PSOs aboard the Healy will be making observations either in front of
the St. Laurent (during seismic operations) or behind the St. Laurent
(during multi-beam operations). It is neither practical nor economical
to pre-survey all tracks for the presence of marine mammals (and
baseline behavior) prior to conducting seismic operations because of
the huge area covered by the joint expedition, so the most likely
baseline information to be collected will be at breaks in lines for
repair or maintenance of the seismic gear and at the start of the
survey. Using the experience of 2008 and 2009, halts in seismic
acquisition for equipment maintenance generally occurred every 48 to 72
hours and lasted from 6 to 48 hours. Marine mammal observations made
aboard the Healy cruise will allow the PSOs to collect baseline
information whenever the seismic equipment is not operating.
Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the
requested IHA, provided NMFS propose to USGS that it revise its study
design to collect meaningful baseline data on sighting rates for marine
mammals. Such information is essential for a
[[Page 60181]]
realistic assessment of impacts from the proposed activities and
recovery from those impacts.
Response: NMFS is unclear about the Commission's recommendation
regarding the revision of USGS's ``study design.'' Please clarify if
you are referring to USGS overall study design or more specifically to
the monitoring plan required under the MMPA. The purpose of the USGS's
project is for marine geophysical research, not to conduct a dedicated
marine mammal research survey. Extending the survey is not practicable
from an operational standpoint for the applicant. Due to the remote
location of the survey and the length of time needed to conduct the
requested science experiment, there may be little time left for the
vessel to operate without the need for refueling and servicing.
During the cruise, there will be significant amounts of transit
time pre- and post-survey during which PSOs will be on watch (e.g.,
prior to and after the seismic portions of the survey). The collection
of this observational data by PSOs may provide meaningful baseline data
for marine mammals, but it is unlikely that the information would
result in any statistically robust conclusions for this particular
seismic survey. See NMFS responses to comments above.
To augment detection and baseline observations, the U.S. liaison
aboard the St. Laurent will request that prior to the start of seismic
activities in U.S. waters, the GSC operators deploy a sonobuoy that can
be monitored through an audio channel for the presence of whales for at
least the 30 min time period that the vessel is on site before
commencing seismic operations. Detected vocalizations can be used to
augment visual observations. The sonobuoy audio information is only
intended to be used to identify the presence or absence of animals
because the relative direction and distance to vocalizing animals
cannot be determined from these sounds. The sonobuoy information is not
intended to be used for mitigation purposes. As stated in the IHA,
seismic operations will not begin if any bowhead whales are seen or
heard. Use of sonobuoys is contingent upon concurrence by GSC
operators, who are generally supportive of collecting additional data
in support of marine mammal observations.
In addition, USGS proposes that the sonobuoy data from the
refraction part of the experiment will be made available to an
appropriate biologist or acoustician for analysis for the presence of
marine mammals. The data is recorded continuously for approximately
eight hours, and the sonobuoy records sounds not only from the airguns,
but ambient noise and any other sounds long after the vessel has left
the area. Although no noise trains that might be interpreted as marine
mammal sounds have been definitively identified on the sonobuoys
examined during 2008 and 2009 joint expeditions (Chian, pers. comm.),
the sonobuoys are a source of information available for closer
scrutiny.
Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the
requested IHA, provided NMFS require the applicant to collect
information to evaluate the assumption that 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) is
the appropriate threshold at which harassment occurs for all marine
mammals in the survey area. This assumption can and should be tested
using in-situ measurements of sound propagation concurrent with
observations of the responses of marine mammals exposed to such sounds.
Such tests should be conducted using species-specific data, and test
results should be used to inform decision makers regarding the
applicability of the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold for specific
species and to improve future mitigation measures.
Response: Behavioral responses to sound are context specific and
can vary by species and other factors. However, there are not currently
enough species-specific data showing how marine mammals respond to
sound to support the development of separate harassment thresholds for
every species. Therefore, NMFS uses the best available applicable data,
which includes studies of several different species, to predict at what
levels marine mammals are likely to be harassed and NMFS believes that
the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold remains appropriate for the
species in this project area.
Regarding testing these behavioral harassment assumption, NMFS
primarily relies on scientific research advances, and applicable
monitoring results (where appropriate) to inform them. Behavioral
response field studies that are able to definitively track what an
animal is doing for some period of time (a baseline), expose it to a
known received sound level, and record its behavior afterwards until it
goes back to baseline are expensive and challenging to execute and
while a few are currently underway, relatively few have been completed.
Separately, in required monitoring measures, PSOs are required to make
behavioral observations during seismic activities, however, while they
can very effectively detect a marine mammal, identify it, and record
its behavior at the surface for the moments that it is within view of
the moving vessel--this information is typically not enough to support
the development of a harassment threshold. Alternatively, there has
been one longer-term (i.e., associated with a five year rulemaking)
monitoring study that has generated numerous data of a robust and
measureable nature through the deployment of an extensive hydrophone
array.
Regarding bowhead whales specifically, some published articles
indicate that they may avoid seismic vessels at levels below 160 dB
(rms), NMFS does not believe that these responses rise to the level of
a take. Miller et al. (1999) indicated that some bowhead whales may
have started to be deflected from their migratory path at 35 km (21.7
mi) from the seismic vessel, during migration, however, as described in
MMS' 2006 Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA), this
response has not been seen at other times of the year and during other
activities. To show the contextual nature of this minor behavioral
modification, recent monitoring studies of Canadian seismic operations
indicated that feeding, non-migratory bowhead whales do not move away
from a noise source at an SPL of 160 dB. NMFS therefore continues to
estimate ``takings'' under the MMPA from impulse noises, such as
seismic, as occurring at 160 dB (re 1 [mu]Pa [rms]).
Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the
requested IHA, provided NMFS require the applicant to make observations
during all ramp-up procedures to gather the data needed to analyze and
report on their effectiveness as mitigation. As it has noted in past
correspondence, the Commission would be pleased to discuss with NMFS
the collection and analysis of such data and the design of such
experiments to promote a better understanding of the utility and
shortcomings of ramp-up as a mitigation measure.
Response: The IHA requires that PSOs on the St. Laurent and Healy
make observations for 30 min prior to ramp-up, during all ramp-ups, and
during all daytime seismic operations and record the following
information when a marine mammal is sighted:
(i) Species group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable),
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue,
apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance,
approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and
behavioral pace; and
[[Page 60182]]
(ii) Time, location, heading, speed activity of the vessel
(including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up
or power-down), Beaufort wind force and sea state, visibility, and sun
glare.
One of the primary purposes of monitoring is to result in
``increased knowledge of the species'' and the effectiveness of
monitoring and mitigation measures; marine mammal reactions to ramp-up
would be useful information in this regard. NMFS has asked USGS to
gather all data that could potentially provide information regarding
the effectiveness of ramp-ups as a mitigation measure. However,
considering the low numbers of marine mammal sightings and low number
of ramp-ups, it is unlikely that the information will result in any
statistically robust conclusions for this particular seismic survey.
Over the long term, these requirements may provide information
regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure,
provided animals are detected during ramp-up.
A study investigating the efficacy of ramp-up has been jointly
funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (BOEMRE) and the Joint Industry Programme (JIP). Post-
cruise monitoring reports for numerous seismic surveys are currently
available on the NMFS MMPA Incidental Take Program Web site should
there be interest in further analysis of this data by the public.
Comment 9: The NSB and its residents as well as the AEWC are
concerned about potential health impacts to the environment associated
with offshore development (i.e., industrial and commercial activities)
on the North Slope. Activities allowed by the proposed authorization
pose direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on species (especially
marine mammals) that are critical to the subsistence harvesting
villages the AEWC represents and the NSB people's subsistence harvest.
Response: NMFS is unclear about the specific meaning of the term
``health impacts'' as used in the public comments. The USGS and NMFS
are making every effort to minimize the direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts through the federal NEPA, MMPA, and ESA process, as
well as consulting with the Native communities. Cumulative impact
assessments are USGS and NMFS responsibility under NEPA. The revised EA
has addressed concerns about potential impacts using the best available
science. In evaluating the severity of the impacts, it is important to
realize that the proposed seismic activity within the U.S. EEZ is more
than 100 km (54 nmi) offshore in a region well away from the main
migration routes of the bowhead whale and will occur at a time prior to
the bowhead whales beginning their fall migration from the Canadian
Beaufort. Although a single individual bowhead whale has been
identified in this region from tagging, there is little evidence to
suggest that the location or timing of the survey overlaps with or
interferes with bowhead whaling activities. As noted in the EA,
``available information * * * does not indicate that marine and seismic
surveys for oil and gas exploration activities has had detectable long-
term adverse population-level effects on the overall health, current
status, or recovery of marine mammal species and populations in the
Arctic region. For example, data indicated that the Bering-Chukchi-
Beaufort (BCB) bowhead whale population has continued to increase over
the timeframe that oil and gas activities have occurred. There is no
long-term displacement from habitat (although studies have not
specifically focused on addressing this issue) * * * monitoring studies
indicate that most fall migrating whales avoid an area with a radius of
about 20 to 30 km (12.4 to 18.6 mi) around a seismic vessel operating
in nearshore waters (Miller et al., 2002). USGS is not aware of data,
however that indicate that such avoidance is long-lasting after
cessation of the activity'' (EA, p. 81 to 82). Seismic survey
activities in the Canadian and Russian Arctic occur in different
geographical areas, therefore, they are not analyzed.
NMFS does not allow activities in the Arctic, NMFS only authorizes
the take of marine mammals incidental to an otherwise legal specified
activity in a specified geographic area.
Comment 10: The NSB is concerned that NSB communities are being
overwhelmed by multiple planning processes both because of the
constraints on time and expertise of communities and individuals and
because of the seeming inability to meaningfully influence the
decisions being made.
Response: It is unfortunate that the NSB communities feel
overwhelmed by the multiple planning processes, time constraints, and
other issues. Because of the statutory timelines associated with the
MMPA IHA process (which include the 30-day public review period), NMFS
is also forced to work within challenging time constraints. However,
NMFS has encouraged Arctic applicants to apply earlier than required by
the regulations, which allows NMFS, NSB, BOEMRE, and the affected
communities time to review the applications prior to meeting in Spring
at the Open Water Meeting to discuss the applications. If the NSB has
process recommendations that could make things easier for the
communities while still allowing NMFS to meet our regulatory
requirements, NMFS would be glad to discuss them. Separately, NMFS
makes every effort to incorporate input from the NSB communities, where
appropriate given our regulatory requirements.
USGS included a statement about environmental justice in the EA,
``the proposed action complies with EO 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income Populations
and EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks. USGS solicited public comment on their Draft EA and
published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 11,
2010 (75 FR 33326). NMFS published a Notice of Receipt of the USGS
application and proposed IHA in the Federal Register on July 8, 2010
(75 FR 39336). The public comments were considered by USGS in
developing the EA and by NMFS in developing the IHA. ``As part of its
Plan of Cooperation, USGS is hiring an Alaska native to be a member of
the science crew, serve as an observer, and provide communication with
the subsistence communities.''
Comment 11: The NSB and AEWC recognize the efforts made by the USGS
to meet with representatives of their communities and to provide
information on the proposed seismic survey work planned for this
summer. The AEWC appreciate the opportunity to receive information
directly from the Federal agency planning the activities, and those
efforts have helped to provide the AEWC with a better understanding of
the proposed seismic surveys. The AEWC looks forward to further
dialogue in the future should the Federal government continue with
similar work in the Arctic, AEWC wishes to emphasize that, given the
willingness of the USGS to work with the AEWC. The NSB and AEWC do no
object to the issuance of an IHA for these operations, despite the
serious process concerns raised in their public comments.
Response: NMFS has issued an IHA to USGS for conducting a marine
seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean from August to September, 2010,
which includes the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
described below.
Comment 12: The NSB and AEWC objects to the ongoing flawed public
process employed by the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), in
which it purports to accept and consider
[[Page 60183]]
public comment (from local communities in regulating activities in the
Arctic) on requests for Incidental Harassment Authorizations and in
regulating activities in the Arctic. The AEWC strenuously objects to a
public comment process that fails to provide an opportunity for
meaningful input before the activities are scheduled to occur. Congress
intended that the local impacted communities have an opportunity to
provide substantive feedback to the Federal government before decisions
are made and before any harassment takes place. The AEWC states that
the people on the North Slope feel like they have no opportunity to
influence government decisionmaking and therefore do not feel like
NMFS' decisions reflect the interests or input of the local whaling
captains, who have invaluable observations and direct experience,
developed over hundreds of generations, to offer.
This particular case provides a stark example of how and why OPR's
process is flawed to the point of being irrelevant for the local
impacted communities on the North Slope and must be wholly
reformulated. The AEWC states that these issues have plagued OPR's
program for years, and despite many lessons learned in the offshore
context over the past several years, nothing at OPR has changed for the
better. The AEWC welcomes the opportunity to work with OPR leadership
to improve upon this important regulatory program if NMFS and OPR are
willing to make substantive changes to ensure adequate public
participation and adequate protection of their local communities and
the marine mammals upon which they depend.
Response: In order to issue an authorization pursuant to Section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must determine that the taking by
harassment of small numbers of marine mammals species or stocks will
have a negligible impact on affected species or stocks, and will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of affected
species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. If NMFS is able to
make these findings, the Secretary is required to issue an IHA. As
required by the MMPA and its implementing regulations, NMFS published a
Notice of Receipt of the USGS application and proposed IHA in the
Federal Register on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336). All substantive public
comments were considered by NMFS in developing the IHA and responses to
those public comments can be found here in this notice. NMFS determined
that it was able to make the required MMPA findings.
For many years, NMFS has conducted the Arctic Open Water Meeting,
which brings together the Federal agencies, the oil and gas industry,
and affected Alaska Native organizations to discuss the proposed
activities and monitoring plans. Local and traditional knowledge is
considered at these times, and it is not too late for that knowledge to
serve a useful purpose. These communities are also afforded an
opportunity to submit comments on the IHA application and proposed IHA
notice, which are then considered by NMFS before making a final
determination on whether or not to issue an IHA.
Comment 13: The AEWC states that in implementing the MMPA, NMFS has
done everything in its power to gut Congress' expressed intent to
provide meaningful public participation. The way in which NMFS
sequences the IHA applications and the public notices renders the
public comment process ineffective and irrelevant for NMFS's decision-
making process.
The NSB and AEWC state that in this action the proposed seismic
activities were scheduled to begin at least two days before the public
comment period closed. NMFS requested that comments be received by
August 9, 2010, and the agency then supposedly has 45 days within which
to analyze the comments and issue a final IHA. In the Federal Register
notice, however, NMFS clarifies that USGS's two ships intend to
rendezvous in the survey area on August 7, 2010. The obvious problem is
that the ships have been deployed, the crews have been informed of
their operational restrictions, and seismic activities have likely
commenced before NMFS receives public comment or issues the final IHA.
As a result, the AEWC cannot possibly provide meaningful input into the
operations or how they should be regulated. While the AEWC are being
forced to write detailed comments on a lengthy IHA application and
Federal Register notice, the ships are already out in the water adding
noise to the marine environment and transiting the Chukchi Sea. The
AEWC states that it is absolutely insulting for the activities to
commence before the public comment deadline has even been closed.
The AEWC states that it is readily apparent from this sequencing
that NMFS is actually allowing the USGS to operate without an IHA (or
simply looking the other way) during a significant portion of the
planned activities. Based on past experiences, it has taken NMFS
several weeks to review public comments and issue a final IHA. Here,
USGS plans to operate during August and September, and yet the public
comment period did not close until August 9. It's very likely in this
situation that USGS will therefore complete a majority of its planned
operations before even receiving from NMFS the actual IHA, which spells
out specific mitigation requirements such as monitoring of EZs and
shut-down and ramp-up procedures. In its responses to comments, the
AEWC requests explicit clarification from NMFS on whether and to what
extent NMFS knew of or allowed USGS to conduct seismic activities
before the IHA was issued. The AEWC also requests explicit
clarification on whether USGS or NMFS was in violation of any
provisions of the MMPA as a result.
Response: NMFS received a revised IHA application from USGS that
was deemed adequate and complete on June 1, 2010. NMFS published a
Notice of Receipt of the USGS application and proposed IHA in the
Federal Register on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336), but due to the close of
the 30 day public comment period falling on a weekend, the closing date
was calculated as August 9, 2010 in the Federal Register. USGS was
notified of the delayed closing date by NMFS. While it usually takes
several weeks to address public comments, NMFS worked especially
diligently to review and consider the comments in a timely manner such
that NMFS could make a final decision in a time frame that would allow
USGS and GSC to conduct the proposed seismic operations if NMFS did
issue an IHA. NMFS does not authorize USGS to conduct seismic
activities, NMFS authorizes the take of marine mammals incidental to an
otherwise legal specific activity in a specified geographic area.
While beginning seismic work in the U.S. EEZ on approximately
August 7, 2010, was the optimum plan for the two-icebreaker experiment,
experiments this large always have contingency plans for unexpected
conditions (such as weather, ice conditions, equipment maintenance,
ship maintenance, other emergencies, etc.). In the case of this
experiment, the St. Laurent had approximately 10 days of work planned
inside the Canadian EEZ after the two-icebreaker experiment ended. This
Canadian survey work was started to account for the delay in obtaining
the IHA. Likewise, the Healy had contingency multi-beam survey work
planned on the Beaufort margin that could be conducted independently of
the St. Laurent in case open water would allow the vessels to operate
independently. The Healy began this work and continued doing this
survey
[[Page 60184]]
work until the St. Laurent entered the ice on her way north. The Healy
and St. Laurent did not begin any activities that NMFS believes would
result in the potential take of marine mammals until after they
received the IHA on August 11, 2010.
Below is the sequence of dates and events of interactions between
NMFS, USGS, and the GSC regarding the IHA and seismic survey:
August 2, 2010--Healy departed Dutch Harbor, Alaska.
August 6, 2010--St. Laurent underway from Kugluktuk,
Nunavut, Canada.
August 8, 2010--Healy commenced hydrographic survey of
U.S./Canada disputed zone.
August 9, 2010--Healy finished hydrographic survey of
U.S./Canada disputed zone.
August 10, 2010--Healy and St. Laurent rendezvous,
transfer personnel, and proceed in convoy toward U.S. EEZ.
August 11, 2010--Healy proceeds alone within U.S. EEZ for
sampling program. IHA received via email and MSR received to conduct
science operations in U.S. EEZ.
August 12, 2010--St. Laurent begins seismic operations
(line 6) in the U.S. EEZ.
August 13, 2010--Healy joins the St. Laurent for seismic
operations (line 7).
While USGS has yet to submit its draft 90 day monitoring report,
NMFS is not aware of any incidences of non-compliance or violations of
the MMPA.
Comment 14: The AEWC states that the authorization itself must
prescribe certain requirements such as ``permissible methods for taking
by harassment,'' ``means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species,'' measures to ``ensure no unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence
use,'' requirements pertaining to ``monitoring and reporting,'' and for
``independent peer review'' of such monitoring and reporting if the
taking may affect subsistence use. Indeed, NMFS' regulations further
provide that ``any preliminary finding of `negligible impact' and `no
unmitigable adverse impact' shall be proposed for public comment along
with the proposed IHA.'' Without understanding exactly how the IHA
incorporates these requirements through specific language, the public
is foreclosed from providing input on how the activities will be
regulated.
Response: The July 8, 2010, proposed IHA notice (75 FR 39336)
contained all the relevant information needed by the public to provide
comments on the proposed authorization itself. The notice contained the
permissible methods of taking by harassment, means of effecting the
least practicable impact on such species or stocks (i.e., mitigation),
information that ensures no unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use,
and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such
taking. The notice provided detail on all of these points and, in NMFS
view, allowed the public to comment on the proposed authorization and
inform NMFS' final decision. Additionally, the notice contained NMFS'
preliminary findings of small numbers, negligible impact, and no
unmitigable adverse impact.
NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.108(d) state that an
independent peer review of a monitoring plan is required if the
activity may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine
mammals for taking for subsistence purposes. The independent peer
review of monitoring plans for ITA applications is not required for
activities that occur outside of Arctic waters or in Arctic waters if
it is determined that the activity will not affect the availability of
a species or stock of marine mammals for taking for subsistence
purposes. The USGS provided NMFS with a draft IHA application in early
March, 2010, which included information on the timing and location of
its proposed seismic lines. The USGS application stated that the
proposed survey will begin inside the U.S. EEZ and then move further
and further offshore and eventually outside the U.S. EEZ for the
majority of the survey. The lines inside U.S. waters were approximately
96.6 km (60 mi) from Barrow and will be surveyed for five days, planned
for mid-August. If equipment or weather malfunctions cause some delays,
the USGS had indicated to NMFS that they will be outside of the U.S.
EEZ by August 25, which has been the typical shut-down date in the
Beaufort Sea so that villages could begin to prepare for the fall
bowhead hunt. This whaling shut-down date especially applies to
activities occurring near Kaktovik and Cross Island. This survey will
be occurring west of those two communities' hunts.
Based on this information, NMFS preliminarily determined that the
proposed USGS seismic survey would not affect the availability of
bowhead whales for taking for subsistence purposes. Belugas are not
hunted at this time of the year in this particular part of the Arctic.
Additionally, while seal hunting can occur year round in the Beaufort
Sea, it most commonly occurs from October until June (outside of the
time frame of the USGS's activity). Moreover, most seal hunting does
not occur this far offshore.
Therefore, since NMFS preliminarily determined (based on the
information contained in the draft IHA application) that the USGS's
activity would not affect the availability of a species or stock of
marine mammals for taking for subsistence purposes, NMFS determined
that their activity did not trigger the requirement for independent
peer review of the monitoring plan. The trigger for needing an
independent peer review of the monitoring plan is slightly different
than the ``no unmitigable adverse impact'' determination that NMFS must
make prior to the issuance of an IHA. If the AEWC or other interested
parties wish to have the opportunity to make comments on the monitoring
proposed by the USGS for its seismic survey, comments may be provided
to NMFS for consideration during the 30-day public comment period for
the proposed IHA announced in the Federal Register notice.
Comment 15: The Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) contains
protective measures that should have been applied to USGS's operations
to ensure effective communication between the ships and AEWC whaling
captains and to ensure that those ships adhere to travel routes through
the Chukchi that AEWC whaling captains have designated. The AEWC is
particularly concerned because the Federal Register notice and the IHA
application make clear that the USGS intends to transit the Healy
through the Bering Strait, across the Chukchi Sea, and into the survey
area in the Beaufort Sea during the first week of August, 2010. The NSB
and AEWC states that vessel transit across the Chukchi, a major issue
of concern for their whaling community and a focus of the Open Water
Season CAA, was to begin even earlier. The NSB and AEWC also reiterates
that NMFS should be imposing the mitigation measures developed in the
CAA to ensure that regulated activities do not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence activities. In this case, the USGS plans
to transit the Chukchi Sea in early August and the CAA speaks directly
to this issue, with those provisions having been developed by whaling
captains and offshore operators over several seasons. Neither USGS nor
NMFS discusses in the IHA application or the Federal Register notice
the potential impacts resulting from vessel transit or the protective
measures developed by the AEWC, which have been approved by the local
whaling
[[Page 60185]]
captains. The AEWC asks for clarification from NMFS as to whether it
views the USGS's vessel transit as an activity that potentially results
in take of marine mammals or adverse impacts to subsistence activities.
The AEWC is concerned that NMFS failed to consider at all the potential
impacts of vessel traffic to and from the survey area. A simple and
straightforward manner to address these issues would be to adopt the
provisions of the CAA or simply require the USGS the CAA as a basis for
making the statutorily required findings of no unmitigable adverse
impacts to subsistence activities. The AEWC states that it is extremely
unfortunate that the AEWC are only being given an opportunity to
comment on these activities as they are already occurring or have
already occurred.
Response: USGS, in the comments matrix of the EA, responded to the
overall concern about complying with the CAA as follows ``the CAA is
intended primarily for oil and gas activities in the nearshore (see
scope statement, p. 4 of CAA, industry funding of communication centers
p. 14 of CAA, etc.).'' To the extent the proposed activity of this EA
is to conduct work greater than 100 km (62.1 mi) offshore, primarily
for scientific research, the CAA is not directly applicable.
However, USGS is following the spirit of the CAA through their Plan
of Cooperation. Through discussions with the NSB and AEWC about
conducting the seismic lines within the U.S. EEZ, i.e., the lines
closest to the locations of the potential migration pathway of the
bowhead whale and subsistence hunting activities, USGS has agreed to
conduct these tracks at the beginning of the survey (early to mid
August) when it should pose no interference or potential to interfere
with the Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, or Barrow whaling seasons.
Part of the Plan of Cooperation is for the Healy to also carry as
part of the science party an Alaska Native community observer to ensure
that communications with the subsistence community are maintained. Both
the Healy and St. Laurent will have PSOs as part of the proposed
strategy for monitoring and mitigation.
With regards to the concern about the Healy in the Chukchi Sea, the
Healy was on transit through the Chukchi Sea to begin work in the
Beaufort Sea. The CAA requests that transiting vessels ``should remain
as far offshore as weather and ice conditions allow and at all times at
least 8 km (5 mi) during transit.'' During transit, the Healy remained
more than 48.3 km (30 mi) offshore during its transit through the
Chukchi Sea. USGS also has hired a member of the Alaska Native
community as an observer and communicator aboard the Healy. Therefore,
although USGS has not specifically mentioned the CAA in the EA (and the
CAA, which focuses on industry activities, is not directly relevant to
the proposed USGS activity), USGS is following the spirit of the
agreement. Location of the Healy's transit track through the Chukchi
Sea, as monitored by the sailwx.info organization can be found online
at: http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=NEPP.
The signing of a CAA is not a requirement to obtain an IHA. The CAA
is a document that is negotiated between and signed by the industry
participant, AEWC, and the Village Whaling Captains' Associations. NMFS
has no role in the development or execution of this agreement. Although
the contents of a CAA may inform NMFS' no unmitigable adverse impact
determination for bowhead and beluga whales and ice seals, the signing
of it is not a requirement. Despite the lack of a signed CAA for USGS
activities, NMFS is confident that USGS's survey and the measures
contained in the IHA will ensure no unmitigable adverse impact to
subsistence users.
Comment 16: The NSB and AEWC reiterates earlier comments they have
made with respect to previous IHA applications and proposed IHAs for
this open water season, namely that OPR lacks an adequate scientific
and legal basis for issuing the proposed IHAs. As an example, OPR
continues to operate under flawed monitoring and mitigation measures
that fail to provide adequate protections against takes for Level A
harassment and do not adhere to the best available science. And, OPR
similarly fails entirely to consider the impacts of this project in the
context of all other oil and gas activities planned for the Arctic
Ocean. As opposed to restating those comments, the NSB and AEWC
incorporates them by reference and asks that NMFS give serious
consideration to the concerns set forth in those earlier documents.
Response: NMFS has addressed the NSB's and AEWC's comments
submitted regarding earlier proposed IHAs for this open water season,
see NMFS' responses in the Notice of Issuance of IHAs for Shell
Offshore, Inc. (75 FR 49710) and Statoil USA E&P (75 FR 49760),
published in the Federal Register. NMFS believes that USGS' monitoring
and mitigation measures are adequate (see Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting sections below), and NMFS has determined that USGS'
activities will not result in Level A harassment (injury) or mortality
of marine mammals, and no injury or mortality is authorized under the
IHA.
A number of public comments about the accuracy of data were raised
in the EA and are addressed in the comment matrix (p. 228 to 232).
USGS's final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact can be found
online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1117/. Included in the comment
matrix are a response to questions about associations between seismic
activity and to Level A harassment, strandings and mortality. USGS
agrees that more data are required, but ``nearly all cases have shown
clear evidence of harm or cause of death by something other than
underwater sounds.'' The EA also expanded the section on cumulative
impacts to address similar concerns raised in comments on the draft EA.
Comment 17: The AEWC reiterates how this proposed project
demonstrates the flawed nature of NMFS' mitigation measures as they
relate to EZs. As plain logic and the best available science tell us,
EZs are only as effective as the people who monitor those areas for
marine mammals. NMFS has stated that the PSO will not be on duty during
nighttime operations and yet seismic operations will be allowed to
continue 24 hours per day (75 FR 39369). USGS survey crews will
encounter as much as 8.5 hours of darkness per day during the survey
operations. During those times, NMFS states that bridge personnel will
keep watch for marine mammals ``insofar as practical.'' This
requirement is meaningless, as anyone who has spent time on the water
will tell you that no bridge personnel can identify marine mammals at
night in Arctic conditions. It is absolutely unacceptable for NMFS to
simply look the other way while vessels shoot seismic in the Arctic
without any monitoring at all to prevent take by Level A harassment.
Given the fact that the proposed operations will emit sounds well in
excess of 190 dB (rms), and the fact that USGS will be operating
without any observers for much of the time, AEWC fails to see how NMFS
could possibly rule out the potential for take by Level A harassment.
This determination simply has no basis in science or law.
Response: It will be continuous daylight during most of the survey,
which will accommodate 24 hour/day monitoring by PSOs during most of
the survey. The IHA, which authorizes Level B harassment, is only valid
for the St. Laurent and Healy's activities associated with seismic
survey operations within the EEZ of the U.S. and the Healy's
icebreaking operations
[[Page 60186]]
in international waters. The GSC has written a Categorical Declaration
stating that ``while in U.S. waters, the GSC operators will comply with
any and all environmental mitigation measures required by NMFS.'' The
two icebreakers work cooperatively in U.S. waters for only a small
portion (approximately 5 days) of the seismic survey. NMFS has
determined that USGS' activities will not result in injury or mortality
of marine mammals, and no injury or mortality is authorized under the
IHA.
Comment 18: Because the AEWC is responsible for protecting their
bowhead subsistence hunt, that is the cornerstone of their subsistence
livelihood and way of life, they take very seriously the changes and
impacts the AEWC are seeing in their waters and the need for vigilant
Federal regulatory oversight of potential impacts. The AEWC hope that
NMFS and NOAA will take seriously the lessons being learned at the
Department of the Interior regarding the costs of lax regulatory
oversight, in the wake of the Deep Water Horizon disaster. Similarly,
the AEWC hopes that these agencies will take seriously the legal risk
their communities face in the context of an increasingly irrational
process at the International Whaling Commission.
Response: USGS and NMFS conducted a thorough analysis of the
potential impacts of this proposed activity (with a focus on sound from
geophysical surveys and icebreaking) on marine mammals; a cumulative
impact analysis was also done under NEPA. Multiple studies and research
have been cited that support NMFS' MMPA and NEPA determinations that
the localized and short-term disturbance from seismic surveys, with
strict mitigation and monitoring measures implemented, is likely to
result in negligible impacts to marine mammals and no significant
impact to the human environment, respectively. NMFS does not have any
direct role in issuing permits for offshore drilling other than
evaluating impacts of leasing and other activities under the MMPA and
ESA. NOAA has been in communication with the BOEMRE regarding
activities on the outer continental shelf.
Comment 19: The AEWC states that they are forced to write comments
to NMFS expressing their concerns about impacts to their marine mammal
species from operations that are supposedly regulated by NMFS that are
already occurring out in the water. Rather than consult with the
directly affected communities, as it has agreed to do, NMFS ignores the
AEWC, allowing applicants to commence operations before reviewing their
public comments submitted as part of the general public process, before
responding to their comments, or even before the IHA has been issued.
AEWC states that this is no more than a simple exercise in paper
shuffling without any substantive and meaningful opportunity for input
from the local community.
Response: NMFS does not authorize operations in Arctic waters; NMFS
authorizes the take of marine mammals incidental to an otherwise legal
specific activity in a specified geographic area. NMFS disagrees with
the AEWC's statement regarding ignoring the review of their public
comments submitted as part of the general public process. The AEWC
submitted comments on the USGS IHA application and proposed IHA to NMFS
OPR via email after the close of business on August 11, 2010 and were
reviewed by NMFS OPR on August 12, 2010. The public comment period for
the USGS proposed IHA closed on August 9, 2010, and the IHA was issued
to USGS on August 11, 2010, after reviewing and responding to
substantive comments from the Commission and NSB. See other NMFS
responses to comments in this notice regarding opportunities for
substantive and meaningful input from the local community.
Comment 20: AEWC states that NMFS is in plain violation of the MMPA
by failing to provide to the public a ``proposed IHA.'' Instead of
providing a draft of the authorization itself, NMFS publishes a Federal
Register notice that describes the application and the basis for the
agency's proposed statutory findings. Because the IHA is the specific
authorization that governs the harassing activities, it is imperative
that the AEWC be allowed input into the actual draft authorization and
not simply be given a description of the mitigation measures and
proposed findings. In a functional governmental system, NMFS would
publish a draft authorization and take public comment on that document
well in advance so that AEWC whaling captains could provide meaningful
input. In the alternative and in the event of a timing issue, NMFS
would consult directly with AEWC under the NMFS/NOAA-AEWC Cooperative
Agreement. Because the ships have already been deployed, it would be
impossible for NMFS to consult with us or review the AEWC comments and,
for instance, require USGS to implement more rigorous monitoring
protocols. That is now impossible or impractical because the ships have
already left port. This is but one example of NMFS disregard of its
regulatory responsibilities and its utter lack of concern for the local
impacts it is charged with preventing.
Response: The July 8, 2010, proposed IHA notice (75 FR 39336)
contained all the relevant information needed by the public to provide
comments on the proposed authorization itself. The notice contained the
permissible methods of taking by harassment, means of effecting the
least practicable impact on such species or stocks (i.e., mitigation),
information that ensures no unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use,
and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such
taking. The notice provided detail on all of these points and, in NMFS
view, allowed the public to comment on the proposed authorization and
inform NMFS' final decision.
Also, for many years, NMFS has conducted the Arctic Open Water
Meeting, which brings together the Federal agencies, the oil and gas
industry, and affected Alaska Native organizations to discuss the
proposed activities and monitoring plans. Local knowledge is considered
at these times, and it is not too late for that knowledge to serve a
useful purpose. These communities are also afforded the opportunity to
submit comments on the application and proposed IHA notice, which are
then considered by NMFS before making a final determination on whether
or not to issue an IHA.
NOAA and the AEWC co-manage bowhead whales pursuant to a
cooperative agreement. This agreement has allowed the AEWC to play a
significant role in the management of a valuable resource by affording
Alaska Natives the opportunity to protect bowhead whales and the Eskimo
culture and to promote scientific investigation, among other purposes.
NMFS works closely with Alaska Natives when considering whether to
permit the take of marine mammals incidental to operations in the
Arctic. NMFS has met repeatedly over the years with Alaska Native
representatives to discuss concerns related to NMFS' MMPA program in
the Arctic, and has also taken into account recommended monitoring and
mitigation measures to reduce the impact of operations on marine
mammals and to ensure the availability of marine mammals for taking for
subsistence uses. NMFS has participated in Alaska Native community
meetings in the past and will continue to do so.
Comment 21: The AEWC states that NMFS has a long track record of
publishing its response to AEWC public comments many weeks and months
after the IHA has been issued and after the activities have commenced
(and in
[[Page 60187]]
many times concluded). This issue again convinces us that the AEWC
comments are not given serious consideration by the agency before its
decision has been made. If the agency cannot articulate a rationale
response to public comments, it should not grant the requested
authorization. Moreover, if activities are going to commence in AEWC
waters, potentially interfering with subsistence activities or the
migration of the AEWC's marine mammals, the government owes us a
reasoned response to their concerns before allowing the activities to
proceed. Again, as the AEWC writes their comments, they know that the
boats are already in the water, the activities will begin in a matter
of days, and NMFS will not bother to respond to the AEWC's concerns
until well after the harmful activities have taken place. This is
little more than an exercise in paper shuffling with the agency already
having made up its mind or simply turning a blind eye to activities
that will occur without coverage from a valid IHA.
The AEWC states that NMFS' public process is fundamentally broken
and must be reformulated. NMFS should not allow USGS to commence
operations until the AEWC has had the statutorily required opportunity
to comment on the draft authorization and NMFS has published responses
to those comments. Time and again, NMFS has requested input from the
AEWC and other stakeholders into how the agency can better respond to
the AEWC's concerns. At bare minimum, the AEWC asks that NMFS
reformulate its public participation process to provide meaningful
opportunities for the local community. As it stands now, the agency has
given every indication that it does not give serious consideration to
the AEWC's concerns.
Response: NMFS does not agree with AEWC's statement that NMFS'
failure to release its response to comments until after an IHA has been
issued or activities have commenced casts doubt on the validity of
NMFS' public involvement process, or the underlying analysis of impacts
to subsistence activities and marine mammals. All substantive public
comments received during the 30 day comment period on proposed IHAs are
seriously considered before NMFS' decides whether to issue IHAs. The
decision to issue an IHA to USGS for its proposed marine surveys in the
Arctic Ocean is based in large part on NMFS' definitions of
``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact,'' the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures, the scope of activities proposed to
be conducted, including time of year, location, and presence of marine
mammals in the project area, extensive research and studies on
potential impacts of anthropogenic sounds to marine mammals, marine
mammal behavior, distribution, and movements in the vicinity of USGS's
proposed project area, USGS's Plan of Cooperation, and on public
comments received during the commenting period. The reason that NMFS
was not able to publish its response to comments on proposed IHA
activities for USGS's until the end of the survey activities was
largely due to travel and workload issues. NMFS will continue to ensure
that all public comments are considered in full and strive to publish
responses at the time IHAs or LOAs are issued.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Activity Area
Regarding marine mammals, a total of nine cetacean species,
including four odontocete species (dolphins, porpoises, and small- and
large-toothed whales), five mysticete species (baleen whales), and five
pinniped species (seals, sea lions, and walrus) and the polar bear are
known to occur in the area affected by the specified activities
associated with the proposed Arctic Ocean marine seismic survey (see
Table 3 of USGS's application). Cetaceans and pinnipeds, which are the
subject of this IHA application, are protected by the MMPA and managed
by NMFS in accordance with its requirements. In the U.S., the walrus
and polar bear are managed under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and are
not considered further in this analysis. Information on the occurrence,
distribution, population size, and conservation status for each of the
14 marine mammal species that may occur in the proposed project area is
presented in the Table 4 of USGS's application as well as here in the
table below (Table 4). Several marine mammal species that may be
affected by the proposed IHA are listed as Endangered or Threatened
under Section 4 of the ESA, including the bowhead, fin and humpback
whale, and polar bear. The bowhead whale is common in the Arctic, but
unlikely in the survey area. Based on a small number of sightings in
the Chukchi Sea, the fin whale is unlikely to be encountered along the
planned trackline in the Arctic Ocean. Humpback whales are uncommon in
the Chukchi Sea and normally do not occur in the Beaufort Sea. Several
humpback sightings were recorded during vessel-based surveys in the
Chukchi Sea in 2007 (three sightings) and 2008 (one sighting; Haley et
al., 2009). The only known occurrence of humpback whale in the Beaufort
Sea was a single sighting of a cow and calf reported and photographed
in 2007 (Green et al., 2007). Based on the low number of sightings in
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, humpback whales would be unlikely to
occur in the vicinity of the proposed geophysical activities.
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to
occur in the seismic survey area include two cetacean species (beluga
and bowhead whales), and two pinniped species (ringed and bearded
seals). These species however, will likely occur in low numbers and
most sightings will likely occur in locations within 100 km (62 mi) of
shore where no seismic work is planned. The marine mammal most likely
to be encountered throughout the cruise is the ringed seal.
Five additional cetacean species--narwhal, killer whale, harbor
porpoise, gray whale, and minke whale--could occur in the project area.
Gray whales occur regularly in continental shelf waters along the
Chukchi Sea coast in summer and to a lesser extent along the Beaufort
Sea coast. Recent evidence from monitoring activities in the Chukchi
and Beaufort seas during industry seismic surveys suggests that harbor
porpoise and minke whales, which have been considered uncommon or rare
in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, may be increasing in numbers in these
areas (Funk et al., 2009). Small numbers of killer whales have also
been recorded during these industry surveys, along with a few sightings
of fin and humpback whales. The narwhal occurs in Canadian waters and
occasionally in the Beaufort Sea, but is rare there and not expected to
be encountered. Each of these species is uncommon or rare in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and relatively few if any encounters with
these species are expected during the seismic program.
Additional pinniped species that could be encountered during the
proposed seismic survey include spotted and ribbon seals, and Pacific
walrus. Spotted seals are more abundant in the Chukchi Sea and occur in
small numbers in the Beaufort Sea. The ribbon seal is uncommon in the
Chukchi Sea and there are few sightings in the Beaufort Sea. The
Pacific walrus is common in the Chukchi Sea, but uncommon in the
Beaufort Sea and not likely to occur in the deep waters of the proposed
survey area. None of these species would likely be encountered during
the proposed cruise other than perhaps transit periods to and from the
survey area.
Table 4 below outlines the marine mammal species, their habitat and
[[Page 60188]]
abundance in the proposed project area, their conservation status, and
density. Additional information regarding the distribution of these
species expected to be found in the project area and how the estimated
densities were calculated may be found in USGS's IHA application and
was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39336, July 8,
2010).
Table 4--The Habitat, Regional Abundance, Conservation Status, and Best and Maximum Density Estimates of Marine Mammals That Could Occur in or Near the
Seismic Survey Area in the Arctic Ocean. See Table 4 and 5 in USGS's Application for Further Detail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best \b\
density Max \c\ density
(/ (/
Species Habitat Abundance/regional ESA \a\ MMPA \o\ km\2\) open km\2\) open
population size water, ice water, ice
margin, polar margin, polar
pack pack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes:
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus Offshore, coastal, ice 3,710 \d\............. NL NC................... 0.0354 0.0709
leucas). edges. 39,257 \e\............ D--Cook Inlet........ 0.0354 0.0709
0.0035 0.0071
Narwhal (Monodon monocerus).... Offshore, ice edge.... Rare \f\.............. NL N.A.................. 0.0000 0.0001
0.0000 0.0002
0.0000 0.0001
Killer whale (Orcinus orca).... Widely distributed.... Rare.................. NL NC................... 0.0000 0.0001
D--AT1 Transient 0.0000 0.0001
Population, Southern 0.0000 0.0001
Resident Population.
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena Coastal, inland Common (Chukchi)...... NL NC................... 0.0000 0.0001
phocoena). waters, shallow Uncommon (Beaufort)... 0.0000 0.0001
offshore waters. 0.0001 0.0001
Mysticetes:
Bowhead whale (Balaena Pack ice and coastal.. 10,545 \g\............ EN D.................... N.A. N.A.
mysticetus).
Eastern Pacific gray whale Coastal, lagoons...... 488 \h\............... NL NC................... 0.0000 0.0001
(Eschrichtius robustus). 17,500 \i\............ D--Western North 0.0000 0.0001
Pacific Population. 0.0000 0.0001
Minke whale (Balaenoptera Shelf, coastal........ Small numbers......... NL NC................... 0.0000 0.0001
acutorostrata). 0.0000 0.0001
0.0000 0.0001
Fin whale (Balaenoptera Slope, mostly pelagic. Rare (Chukchi)........ E D.................... 0.0000 0.0001
physalus). 0.0000 0.0001
0.0000 0.0001
Humpback whale (Megaptera Shelf, coastal........ Rare.................. EN D.................... 0.0000 0.0001
novaeangliae). 0.0000 0.0001
0.0000 0.0001
Pinnipeds:
Bearded seal (Erignathus Pack ice, open water.. 300,000--450,000 \j\.. C NC................... 0.0096 0.0384
barbatus). 0.0128 0.0512
0.0013 0.0051
Spotted seal (Phoca largha).... Pack ice, open water, 59,214 \k\............ P-T NC................... 0.0001 0.0004
coastal haul-outs. 0.0001 0.0004
0.0000 0.0000
Ringed seal (Phoca hispida).... Landfast and pack ice, 18,000 \l\............ C NC................... 0.1883 0.7530
open water. 208,000-252,000 \m\... 0.2510 1.0040
0.0251 0.1004
Ribbon seal (Histriophoca Pack ice, open water.. 90,000-100,000 \n\.... NL NC................... N.A. N.A.
fasciata).
Pacific walrus (Odobenus Ice, coastal.......... N.A................... NL S--Pacific........... N.A. N.A.
rosmarus divergens).
Carnivores: Polar bear (Ursus Ice, coastal.......... N.A................... T S--Chukchi/Bearing N.A. N.A.
maritimus marinus) Sea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.A.--Data not available or species status was not assessed.
\a\ U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate, P = Proposed, NL = Not listed.
\b\ Best estimate as listed in Table 5 and Add-3 of the application.
\c\ Maximum estimate as listed in Table 5 and Add-3 of the application.
\d\ Eastern Chukchi Sea stock based on 1989 to 1991 surveys with a correction factor (Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\e\ Beaufort Sea stock based on surveys in 1992 (Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\f\ DFO (2004) states the population in Baffin Bay and the Canadian Arctic archipelago is approximately 60,000; very few of these enter the Beaufort
Sea.
\g\ Abundance of bowhead whales surveyed near Barrow, as of 2001 (George et al., 2004). Revised to 10,545 by Zeh and Punt (2005).
\h\ Southern Chukchi Sea and northern Bering Sea (Clarks and Moore, 2002)
[[Page 60189]]
\i\ Eastern North Pacific gray whale population (Rugh et al., 2008)
\j\ Based on earlier estimates, no current population estimate available (Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\k\ Alaska stock based on aerial surveys in 1992 (Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\l\ Beaufort Sea minimum estimate with no correction factor based on aerial surveys in 1996 to 1999 (Frost et al., 2002 in Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\m\ Eastern Chukchi Sea population (Bengston et al., 2005)
\n\ Bering Sea population (Burns, 1981a in Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\o\ U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: NC = Not Classified, D = Depleted, S = Strategic.
Within the latitudes of the proposed survey when the Healy will be
breaking ice outside of U.S. waters, no cetaceans were observed by PSOs
along approximately 21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) of effort during projects
in 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 (Haley and Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006;
Jackson and DesRoches, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009). The estimated
maximum amount of icebreaking outside of U.S. waters for this project,
i.e., 3,372 line km (2,095.3 mi), is considerably less than the
combined trackline for the aforementioned projects. At least one PSO
will stand watch at all times while the Healy is breaking ice for the
St. Laurent. USGS does not expect that PSOs will observe any cetaceans
during the proposed survey. Seals were reported by PSOs during the
2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 effort within the latitudes of the proposed
survey.
Table 5--Number of Pinnipeds Reported During 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009
Projects Within the Latitudes Where the Healy Will Be Breaking ice
Outside of U.S. Waters for the Proposed Arctic Ocean Survey (Haley and
Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006, GSC Unpublished Data, 2008; Mosher et al.,
2009)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Pinniped species sightings individuals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal............................. 116 125
Bearded seal............................ 24 26
Unidentified seal....................... 128 140
-------------------------------
Totals.............................. 268 291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals
Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds
The effects of sounds from airguns might result in one or more of
the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral
disturbances, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-
auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al., 1995;
Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007).
Permanent hearing impairment, in the unlikely event that it occurred,
would constitute injury, but temporary threshold shift (TTS) is not an
injury (Southall et al., 2007). Although the possibility cannot be
entirely excluded, it is unlikely that the project would result in any
cases of temporary or especially permanent hearing impairment, or any
significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Some
behavioral disturbance is expected, but this would be localized and
short-term.
The notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39336, July 8, 2010) included
a discussion of the effects of sound from airguns on mysticetes,
odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including tolerance, masking, behavioral
disturbance, hearing impairment, and other non-auditory physical
effects. Additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack
thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found
in USGS's application and associated EA.
The notice of the proposed IHA also included a discussion of the
potential effects of the multi-beam echosounders (MBES), sub-bottom
profilers (SBP), acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP), and
icebreaking activities. Because of the shape of the beams of these
sources (i.e., MBES, SBP, and ADCP), NMFS believes it unlikely that
marine mammals will be exposed to sound levels at or above those likely
to cause Level B harassment.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals by Incidental Harassment
The notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39336, July 8, 2010) included
an in-depth discussion of the methods used to calculate the densities
of the marine mammals in the area of the seismic survey and the take
estimates. Additional information was included in USGS's application. A
summary is included here.
All anticipated takes would be ``takes by Level B harassment,''
involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures are expected to minimize the possibility of
injurious takes or mortality. However, as noted earlier, there is no
specific information demonstrating that injurious ``takes'' or
mortality would occur even in the absence of the planned monitoring and
mitigation measures. NMFS believes, therefore, that injurious take or
mortality to the affected species marine mammals is extremely unlikely
to occur as a result of the specified activities within the specified
geographic area for which USGS seeks the IHA. The sections below
describe methods to estimate ``take by harassment,'' and present
estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could be affected
during the seismic study in the Arctic Ocean. The estimates of ``take
by harassment'' are based on data obtained during marine mammal surveys
in and near the Arctic Ocean by Stirling et al. (1982), Kingsley
(1986), Moore et al. (2000b), Haley and Ireland (2006), Haley (2006),
GSC unpublished data (2008), and Mosher et al. (2009), Bowhead Whale
Aerial Survey Program (BWASP), and on estimates of the sizes of the
areas where effects could potentially occur. In some cases these
estimates were made from data collected from regions and habitats that
differed from the proposed project area.
Detectability bias, quantified in part by [fnof](0), is associated
with diminishing sightability with increasing lateral distance from the
trackline. Availability bias (g[0]) refers to the fact that there is
less than 100 percent probability of sighting an animal that is present
along the survey trackline. Some sources of densities used below
included these correction factors in their reported densities. In other
cases the best densities used below included these
[[Page 60190]]
correction factors in their reported densities. In other cases the best
available correction factors were applied to reported results when they
had not been included in the reported data (Moore et al., 2000b).
Adjustments to reported population or density estimates were made on a
case by case basis to take into account differences between the source
data and the general information on the distribution and abundance of
the species in the proposed project area.
Although several systematic surveys of marine mammals have been
conducted in the southern Beaufort Sea, few data (systematic or
otherwise) are available on the distribution and numbers of marine
mammals in the northern Beaufort Sea or offshore water of the Arctic
Ocean. The main sources of distributional and numerical data used in
deriving the estimates are described in the next subsection. Both
``maximum estimates'' as well as ``best estimates'' of marine mammal
densities (see Table 5 of the IHA application) and the numbers of
marine mammals potentially exposed to underwater sound (see Table 6 of
the IHA application) were calculated as described below. The best (or
average) estimate is based on available distribution and abundance data
and represents the most likely number of animals that may be
encountered during the survey, assuming no avoidance of the airguns or
vessel. The maximum estimate is either the highest estimate from
applicable distribution and abundance data or the average estimate
increased by a multiplier intended to produce a very conservative
(over) estimate of the number of animals that may be present in the
survey area. There is some uncertainty about how representative the
available data are and the assumptions used below to estimate the
potential ``take by harassment.'' However, the approach used here is
accepted by NMFS as the best available at this time.
USGS has calculated exposures to marine mammals within U.S. waters
only. After the St. Laurent (a Canadian icebreaker) exits U.S. waters,
their activities no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or
the MMPA.
The following estimates are based on a consideration of the number
of marine mammals that might be disturbed appreciably over the
approximately 806 line km (501 mi) of seismic surveys within U.S.
waters across the Arctic Ocean. An assumed total of 1,007.5 km (626 mi)
of trackline includes a 25 percent allowance over and above the planned
approximately 806 km to allow for turns, lines that might have to be
repeated because of poor data quality, or for minor changes to the
survey design.
The anticipated radii of influence of the lower energy sound
sources including Chirp echosounder (on the St. Laurent) and
bathymetric echosounder (on the Healy) are less than that for the
airgun configuration. It is assumed that during simultaneous operation
of the airgun array and echosounder, any marine mammals close enough to
be affected by the MBES, SBP, and ADCP would already be affected by the
airguns. However, whether or not the airguns are operating
simultaneously with the other sound sources, marine mammals are
expected to exhibit no more than short-term and inconsequential
responses to the MBES, SBP, and ADCP sounder given its characteristics
(e.g., narrow downward-directed beam) and other considerations
described in the IHA application. Similar responses are expected from
marine mammals exposed to the Healy's bathymetric profiler. Such
reactions are not considered to constitute ``taking'' as defined by
NMFS (NMFS, 2001). Therefore, no additional allowance is included for
animals that might be exposed to sound sources other than the airguns
and icebreaking.
Marine Mammal Density Estimates
Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially
disturbed are estimated based on available data about marine mammal
distribution and densities in the Arctic Ocean study area during the
summer. ``Take by harassment'' is calculated by multiplying expected
densities of marine mammals likely to occur in the survey area by the
area of water potentially ensonified to sound levels >=160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) for the airgun operations and >=120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa
(rms) for icebreaking activities. Estimates for icebreaking are based
on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be
disturbed appreciably over the approximately 3,102 to 3,372 line km
(1,927.5 to 2,095.3 mi) of icebreaking that may occur during the
proposed project. This section provides descriptions of the estimated
densities of marine mammals that may occur in the proposed survey area.
The area of water that may be ensonified to the indicated sound level
is described further below. There is no evidence that avoidance at
received sound levels >=160 dB would have significant effects on
individual animals or that the subtle changes in behavior or movements
would rise to the level of taking according to guidance by NMFS (NMFS,
2001).
Some surveys of marine mammals have been conducted near the
southern end of the proposed project area, but few data are available
on the species and abundance of marine mammals in the northern Beaufort
Sea and the Arctic Ocean. No published densities of marine mammals are
available for the region of the proposed survey (including between
74[deg] and 84[deg] North where the Healy will be breaking ice outside
U.S. waters), although vessel-based surveys through the general area in
2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 encountered few marine mammals. A total of
two polar bears, 36 seals, and a single beluga whale sighting(s) were
recorded along approximately 2,299 km (1,429 mi) of monitored trackline
between 71[deg] North and 74[deg] North (Haley and Ireland, 2006;
Haley, 2006; GSC unpublished data, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009). PSOs
recorded 268 sightings of 291 individual seals along approximately
21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) of monitored trackline between 74[deg] and
84[deg] North (Haley and Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006; GSC unpublished
data, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009). No cetaceans were observed during the
surveys between 74[deg] and 84[deg] North. Given the few sightings of
marine mammals along the 21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) vessel trackline in
previous years, USGS estimate that the densities of marine mammals
encountered while breaking ice will be 1/10 of the estimated densities
of marine mammals encountered within the ice margin habitat described
in the original application.
Given that the survey lines within U.S. waters extend from
latitudes 71[deg] to 74[deg] North, it is likely that seismic
operations will be conducted in both open-water and sea-ice conditions.
Because densities of marine mammals often differ between open-water and
pack-ice areas, the likely extent of the pack-ice at the time of the
survey was estimated. Images of average monthly sea ice concentration
for August from 2005 through 2009, available from the National Snow and
Ice Data Center (NSIDC), were used to identify 74[deg] North latitude
as a reasonable ice-edge boundary applicable to the proposed study
period and location. Based on these satellite data, the majority of the
survey in U.S. waters will be conducted in open water and
unconsolidated pack ice, in the southern latitudes of the survey area.
This region will include the ice margin where the highest densities of
cetaceans and pinnipeds are likely to be encountered. The proposed
survey lines within U.S. waters reach approximately 74.10[deg] North,
extending
[[Page 60191]]
within the estimated ice-edge boundary for August, 2010 by
approximately 19 km (10 nmi). This comprises less than 3 percent of the
total trackline within U.S. waters. USGS has divided the survey effort
between the two habitat zones of open water and ice margin based on the
2005 to 2009 NSIDC satellite data described above and the planed
location of the tracklines. NSIDC data from 2005 to 2009 suggests
little ice will be present south of 74[deg] North, although data from
the 2009 cruise (Mosher et al., 2009) shows that inter-annual
variability could result in a greater amount of ice being encountered
than expected. As a conservative measure, USGS estimated that, within
U.S. waters, 80 percent of the survey tracklines will occur in open
water and 20 percent of the tracklines will occur within the ice
margin.
The NSIDC (2009) reported that more Arctic sea ice cover in 2009
remained after the summer than in the record-setting low years of 2007
and 2008. USGS expects that sea ice density and extent in 2010 will be
closer to the density and extent of sea ice in 2009 rather than the
record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. All animals observed during
the 2009 survey (Mosher et al., 2009) were north of the proposed
seismic survey area, i.e., north of 74[deg] North.
Cetaceans--Average and maximum densities for each cetacean species
or species group reported to occur in U.S. waters of the Arctic Ocean,
within the study area, are presented in Table 5 of the IHA application.
Densities were calculated based on the sightings and effort data from
available survey reports. No cetaceans were observed during surveys
near the proposed study area in August/September, 2005 (Haley and
Ireland, 2006), August, 2006 (Haley, 2006), August/September, 2008 (GSC
unpublished data, 2008) or August/September, 2009 (Mosher et al.,
2009).
Seasonal (summer and fall) differences in cetacean densities along
the north coast of Alaska have been documented by Moore et al. (2000b).
The proposed survey will be conducted in U.S. waters from approximately
August 6 to 12, 2010, and is considered to occur during the summer
season.
The summer beluga density (see Table 5 of the IHA application) was
based on 41 sightings along 9,022 km (5,606 mi) of on-transect effort
that occurred over water greater than 2,000 m (6,561.7 ft) during the
summer in the Beaufort Sea (Moore et al., 2000b; see Table 2 of the IHA
application). A mean group size of 2.8 derived from BWASP data of
August beluga sightings in the Beaufort Sea in water depths greater
than 2,000 m was used in the density calculation. A [fnof](0) value of
2.326 from Innes et al. (1996) and a g(0) value of 0.419 from Innes et
al. (1996) and Harwood et al. (1996) were also used in the density
computation. The CV associated with group size was used to select an
inflation factor of 2 to estimate the maximum density that may occur in
the proposed study area within U.S. waters. Most Moore et al. (2000b)
sightings were south of the proposed seismic survey. However, Moore et
al. (2000b) found that beluga whales were associated with both light (1
to 10 percent) and heavy (70 to 100 percent) ice cover. Five of 23
beluga whales that Suydam et al. (2005) tagged in Kaseglauk Lagoon
(northeast Chukchi Sea) traveled to 79 to 80[deg] North into the pack
ice and within the region of the proposed survey. These and other
tagged whales moved into areas as far as 1,100 km (594 nmi) offshore
between Barrow and the Mackenzie River delta, spending time in water
with 90 percent ice coverage. Therefore, we applied the observed
density calculated from the Moore et al. (2000b) sightings as the
average density for both ``open water'' and ``ice margin'' habitats.
Because no beluga whales were sighted during surveys in the proposed
survey area (Harwood et al., 2005; Haley and Ireland, 2006; Haley,
2006; GSC unpublished data, 2008; and Mosher et al., 2009) the
densities in Table 5 of the IHA application are probably higher than
densities likely to be encountered.
By the time the survey begins in early August, most bowhead whales
have typically traveled east of the proposed project area to summer in
the eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf. Industry aerial surveys of
the continental shelf near Camden Bay in 2008 recorded eastward
migrating bowhead whales until July 12 (Lyons and Christie, 2009). No
bowhead sightings were recorded again despite continued flights until
August 19, 2010. A summer bowhead whale density was derived from 9,022
km (5,606 mi) of summer (July/August) aerial survey effort reported by
Moore et al. (2000b) in the Alaska Beaufort Sea during which six
sightings of bowhead whales were documented in water greater than 2,000
m (6,561.7 ft). A mean group size of bowhead whale sightings in
September, in waters greater than 2,000 m deep, was calculated to be
1.14 (CV = 0.4) from BWASP data. A [fnof](0) value of 2.33 and g(0)
value of 0.073, both from Thomas et al. (2002) were used to estimate a
summer density for bowhead whales of 0.0122 whales/km\2\. This density
falls within the range of densities, i.e., 0.0099 to 0.0717 whales/
km\2\, reported by Lyons and Christie (2009) based on data from three
July, 2008 surveys.
Treacy et al. (2006) reported that in years of heavy ice
conditions, bowhead whales occur farther offshore than in years of
light to moderate ice. NSIDC (2009) reported that September, 2009 had
the third lowest sea ice extent since the start of their satellite
records in 1979. The extent of sea ice at the end of the 2009 Arctic
summer, however, was greater than in 2007 or 2008. USGS does not expect
2010 to be a heavy ice year during which bowhead whales might occur
farther offshore in the area of the proposed survey. During the lowest
ice-cover year on record (2007), BWASP reported no bowhead whale
sightings in the greater than 2,000 m depth waters far offshore.
Because few bowhead whales have been documented in the deep offshore
waters of the proposed survey area, half of the bowhead whale density
estimate from size and standard error reported in Thomas et al. (2002)
for [fnof](0) and g(0) correction factors suggest that an inflation
factor of two is appropriate for estimating the maximum density from
the average density. NSIDC did not forecast that 2010 would be a heavy
ice year and USGS anticipates that bowheads will remain relatively
close to shore, and in areas of light ice coverage. Therefore, USGS has
applied the same density for bowheads to the open-water and ice-margin
categories. Bowhead whales were not sighted during recent surveys in
the Arctic Ocean (Haley and Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006; GSC unpublished
data, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009), suggesting that the bowhead whale
densities shown in Table 5 are likely higher than actual densities in
the survey area.
For other cetacean species that may be encountered in the Beaufort
Sea, densities are likely to be very low in the summer when the survey
is scheduled. Fin and humpback whales are unlikely to occur in the
Beaufort Sea. No gray whales were observed in the Beaufort Sea by Moore
et al. (2000b) during summer aerial surveys in water greater than 2,000
m. Gray whales were not recorded in water greater than 2,000 m by the
BWASP during August in 29 years of survey operation. Harbor porpoises
are not expected to be present in large numbers in the Beaufort Sea
during the fall although small numbers may be encountered during the
summer. Neither gray whales nor harbor porpoises are likely to occur in
the far-offshore waters of the proposed survey area (Table 5 of the IHA
application). Narwhals are not expected to be encountered within the
survey area
[[Page 60192]]
although a few individuals could be present if ice is nearby. Because
these species occur so infrequently in the Beaufort Sea, little to no
data are available for the calculation of densities. Minimal cetacean
densities have therefore been assigned to these three species for
calculation purposes and to allow for chance encounters (see Table 5 of
the IHA application). Those densities include ``0'' for the average and
0.0001 individuals/km\2\ for the maximum.
Pinnipeds--Extensive surveys of ringed and bearded seals have been
conducted in the Beaufort Sea, but most surveys were conducted over the
landfast ice during aerial surveys, and few seal surveys have occurred
in open water or in the pack ice. Kingsley (1986) conducted ringed seal
surveys of the offshore pack ice in the central and eastern Beaufort
Sea during the late spring (late June). These surveys provide the most
relevant information on densities of ringed seals in the ice margin
zone of the Beaufort Sea. The density estimate in Kingsley (1986) was
used as the average density of ringed seals that may be encountered in
the ice-margin area of the proposed survey (see Table 5 of the IHA
application). The average density was multiplied by four to estimate
maximum density, as was done for all seal species likely to occur
within the survey area. Ringed seals are closely associated with sea
ice therefore the ice-margin densities were multiplied by a factor of
0.75 to estimate a summer open-water ringed-seal density for locations
with water depth greater than 2,000 m (6,561.7 ft).
Densities of bearded seals were estimated by multiplying the ringed
seal densities by 0.051 based on the proportion of bearded seals to
ringed seals reported in Stirling et al., (1982; see Table 6-3 of IHA
application). Because bearded seals are associated with the pack ice
edge and shallow water, their estimated summer ice-margin density was
also multiplied by a factor of 0.75 for the open-water density
estimate. Minimal values were used to estimate spotted seal densities
because they are uncommon offshore in the Beaufort Sea and are not
likely to be encountered.
Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially
disturbed are estimated below based on available data about marine
mammal distribution and densities in the three different habitats
during the summer as described in Table 5 of the IHA application.
The number of individuals of each species potentially exposed to
received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms)
(for seismic airgun operations) or 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) (for
icebreaking) was estimated by multiplying:
The anticipated area to be ensonified to the specified
sound level in both open water, the ice margin, and polar pack by
The expected species density.
Some of the animals estimated to be exposed to sound levels greater
than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) or 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa
(rms), particularly migrating bowhead whales, might show avoidance
reactions before actual exposure to this sound level (see Appendix D of
the IHA application). Thus, these calculations actually estimate the
number of individuals potentially exposed to greater than or equal to
160 dB (rms) or 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) that would occur if there
were no avoidance of the area ensonified to that level.
Estimated Area Exposed to >=160 dB (rms)
The area of water potentially exposed to received levels greater
than or equal to 160 dB by the proposed operations was calculated by
multiplying the planned trackline distance within U.S. waters by the
cross-track distance of the sound propagation. The airgun array of two
500 in\3\ and one 150 in\3\ G-airguns that will be used for the
proposed 2010 survey within U.S. waters was measured during a 2009
project in the Arctic Ocean. The propagation experiment took place at
74[deg]50.4' North; 156[deg]34.31' West, in 3,863 m (12,674 ft) of
water. The location was near the northern end of the two proposed
survey lines in U.S. waters. USGS expects the sound propagation by the
airgun array in the planned 2010 survey will be the same as that
measured in 2009, because of the similar water depths and relative
locations of the test site and proposed survey area. The greater than
or equal to 160 dB (rms) sound level radius was estimated to be
approximately 2,500 m (8,202.1 ft) based on modeling of the 0 to peak
energy of the airgun array (Roth and Schmidt, 2010). The 0 to peak
values were corrected to rms by subtracting 10 dB.
Closely spaced survey lines and large cross-track distances of the
greater than or equal to 160 dB radii can result in repeated exposure
of the same area of water. Excessive amounts of repeated exposure can
lead to overestimation of the number of animals potentially exposed
through double counting. The trackline for the proposed USGS survey in
U.S. waters, however, covers a large geographic area without adjacent
tracklines and the potential for multiple or repeated exposure is
unlikely to be a concern.
The USGS 2010 geophysical survey is planned to occur approximately
108 km (67.1 mi) offshore, along approximately 806 km (501 mi) of
survey lines in U.S. waters, during the first half of August exposing a
total of approximately 4,109 km\2\ (1,586.5 mi\2\) of water to sound
levels of greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms). USGS included an
additional 25 percent allowance over and above the planned tracklines
within U.S. waters to allow for turns, lines that might have to be
repeated because of poor data quality, or for minor changes to the
survey design. The resulting estimate of 5,136.5 km\2\ (1,983.2 mi\2\)
was used to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to
underwater sound levels greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms).
Based on the operational plans and marine mammal densities
described in Table 5 of the IHA application, the estimates of marine
mammals potentially exposed to sounds greater than or equal to 160 dB
(rms) in the proposed survey area within U.S. waters are presented in
Table 6 of the IHA application. For the common species, the requested
numbers are calculated as described above and based on the average
densities from the data reported in the different studies mentioned
above. For less common species, estimates were set to minimal values to
allow for chance encounters. Discussion of the number of potential
exposures is summarized by species in the following subsections.
Cetaceans--Based on density estimates and area ensonified, one
endangered cetacean species (bowhead whale) is expected by USGS to be
exposed to received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB, unless
bowheads avoid the survey vessel before the received levels reach 160
dB. Migrating bowheads are likely to do so, though many of the bowheads
engaged in other activities, particularly feeding and socializing may
not. The USGS estimated the number of bowhead whales potentially
exposed to sound levels >=160 dB (rms) in the portion of the survey
area in U.S. waters to be between 31 and 63 (see Table 6 of the IHA
application). NMFS subsequently did an analysis and found that bowhead
whales are unlikely to be exposed to sound levels >=160 dB (rms).
Although take was calculated based on density estimates in the proposed
action area, the proposed seismic survey will be conducted during the
fall migration for bowhead whales, but at locations starting at greater
than 185.2 km (100 nmi) offshore, well north of the known
[[Page 60193]]
bowhead migration corridor and well beyond distances (20 to 30 km [12.4
to 18.6], Miller et al., 1999; Richardson et al., 1999) known to
potentially affect this species. Other endangered cetacean species that
may be encountered in the area are fin and humpback whales; both are
unlikely to be exposed given their minimal density in the area.
The only other cetacean species likely to occur in the proposed
survey area is the beluga whale. Average (best) and maximum estimates
of the number of exposures of belugas to sound levels greater than or
equal to 160 dB (rms) are 182 and 364, respectively. Estimates for
other cetacean species are minimal (see Table 6 of the IHA
application).
Pinnipeds--The ringed seal is the most widespread and abundant
pinniped in ice-covered arctic waters, and there is a great deal of
annual variation in abundance and distribution of these marine mammals.
Ringed seals account for the vast majority of marine mammals expected
to be encountered, and hence exposed to airgun sounds with received
levels greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) during the proposed marine
seismic survey. The average (best and maximum number of exposures of
ringed seals to sound levels greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) were
estimated to be 1,031 and 4,126, respectively.
Two additional pinniped species (other than the Pacific walrus) are
likely to occur in the proposed project area. The average and maximum
numbers of exposures of bearded seals to sound levels greater than or
equal to 160 dB (rms) were estimated to be 53 and 210, respectively.
The ribbon seal is unlikely to be encountered in the survey area, but a
chance encounter could occur.
Estimated Area Exposed to >=120 dB (rms)
The area potentially exposed to received levels greater than or
equal to 120 dB (rms) due to icebreaking operations was estimated by
multiplying the anticipated trackline distance breaking ice by the
estimated cross-track distance to received levels of 120 dB caused by
icebreaking.
In 2008, acousticians from Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Marine Physical Laboratory and University of New Hampshire Center for
Coastal and Ocean Mapping conducted measurements of SPLs of Healy
icebreaking under various conditions (Roth and Schmidt, 2010). The
results indicated that the highest mean SPL (185 dB [rms]) was measured
at survey speeds of 4 to 4.5 knots in conditions of \ 5/10\ ice and
greater. Mean SPL under conditions where the ship was breaking heavy
ice by backing and ramming was actually lower (180 dB). In addition,
when backing and ramming, the vessel is essentially stationary, so the
ensonified area is limited for a short period (on the order of minutes
to tens of minutes) to the immediate vicinity of the boat until the
ship breaks free and once again makes headway.
Although the report by Roth and Schmidt has not yet been reviewed
externally nor peer-reviewed for publication, the SPL results reported
are consistent with previous studies (Thiele, 1981, 1988; LGL and
Greenridge, 1986; Richardson et al., 1995).
The existing threshold for Level B harassment for continuous sounds
is a received sound level of 120 dB SPL. Using a spherical spreading
model, a source level of 185 dB decays to 120 dB in about 1,750 m
(5,741.5 ft). This model is corroborated by Roth and Schmidt (2010).
Therefore, as the ship travels through the ice, a swath 3,500 m (11,483
ft) wide would be subjected to sound levels greater than or equal to
120 dB (rms). This results in the potential exposure of 11,802 km\2\
(4,557.8 mi\2\) to sounds greater than or equal to 120 dB (rms) from
icebreaking.
Based on the operational plans and marine mammal densities
described above, the estimates of marine mammals exposed to sounds
greater than or equal to 120 dB (rms) during the maximum estimation of
icebreaking outside of U.S. waters (3,372 km [2,095.3 mi]) are
presented in Table Add-4 of the IHA application. For the common marine
mammal species, the requested numbers are calculated as described above
and based on the average densities from the data reported in the
different studies mentioned above. For less common species, estimates
were set to minimal values to allow for chance encounters.
Based on models, bowhead whales likely would respond to the sound
of the icebreakers at distances of 2 to 25 km (1.2 to 15.5 mi) from the
icebreakers (Miles et al., 1987). This study predicts that roughly half
of the bowhead whales show avoidance responses to an icebreaker
underway in open water at a range of 2 to 12 km (1.3 to 7.5 mi) when
the sound-to-noise ratio is 30 dB (rms). The study also predicts that
roughly half of the bowhead whales would show avoidance response to an
icebreaker pushing ice at a range of 4.6 to 6.2 km (2.9 to 12.4 mi)
when the sound-to-noise ratio is 30 dB.
Richardson et al. (1995b) found that bowheads migrating in the
nearshore lead during the spring migration often tolerated exposure to
playbacks of recorded icebreaker sounds at received levels up to 20 dB
or more above the natural ambient noise levels at corresponding
frequencies. The source level of an actual icebreaker is much higher
than that of the projectors (projecting the recorded sound) used in
this study (median difference 34 dB over the frequency range 40 Hz to
6.3 kHz). Over the two-season period (1991 and 1994) when icebreaker
playbacks were attempted, an estimated 93 bowheads (80 groups) were
seen near the ice camp when the projectors were transmitting icebreaker
sounds into the water, and approximately 158 bowheads (116 groups) were
seen near there during quiet periods. Some bowheads diverted from their
course when exposed to levels of projected icebreaker sound greater
than 20 dB above the natural ambient noise level in the \1/3\ octave
band of the strongest icebreaker noise. However, not all bowheads
diverted at that sound-to-noise ratio, and a minority of whales
apparently diverted at a lower sound-to-noise ratio. The study
concluded that exposure to a single playback of variable icebreaker
sounds can cause statistically, but probably not biologically
significant effects on movements and behavior of migrating whales in
the lead system during the spring migration east of Point Barrow,
Alaska. The study indicated the predicted response distances for
bowheads around an actual icebreaker would be highly variable; however,
for typical traveling bowheads, detectable effects on movements and
behavior are predicted to extend commonly out to radii of 10 to 30 km
(6.2 to 18.6 mi). Predicting the distance a whale would respond to an
icebreaker like the Healy is difficult because of propagation
conditions and because ambient noise varies with time and with
location. However, because the closest survey activities and
icebreaking are approximately 116 km (72.1 mi) away and are of limited
duration (5 days), and the next closest survey activities are 397 km
(246.7 mi) away to the north and west in the Arctic ocean, NMFS does
not anticipate that icebreaking activities would have biologically
significant effects on the movements and behavior of bowhead whales.
Table 6 (see below) outlines the species, estimated stock
population (minimum and best), and estimated percentage of the regional
population or stock exposed to seismic pulses and icebreaking
activities in the project area. Additional information regarding the
status, abundance, and distribution of the marine mammals in the action
area and how densities were calculated was included in Table 4 (see
above), the
[[Page 60194]]
notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39337, July 8, 2010) and may be found
in USGS's application.
Table 6--The Estimates of the Possible Numbers of Marine Mammals Exposed to Sound Levels Greater Than or Equal
to 120 dB (rms) (For Icebreaking) or 160 dB (rms) (For Seismic Airgun Operations) During USGS's Proposed Seismic
Survey in U.S. Waters in the Northern Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean, in August 2010. Received Levels Are
Expressed in dB Re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) (Averaged Over Pulse Duration), Consistent With NMFS' Practice. Not All Marine
Mammals Will Change Their Behavior When Exposed to These Sound Levels, But Some May Alter Their Behavior When
Levels Are Lower (See Text). See Tables 4 to 5 and Add-3 and Add-4 in USGS's Application for Further Detail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of of
individuals individuals Approx.
exposed exposed Total percent of
Species (best) \1\ (max) \2\ (best) regional
open water, open water, population
ice margin, ice margin, (best) \2\
polar pack polar pack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes:
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas).................... 146 291 224 0.57
36 73 ........... ...........
42 84 ........... ...........
Narwhal (Monodon monocerus)............................. 0 1 0 0
0 1 ........... ...........
0 1 ........... ...........
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)............................. 0 0 0 0
0 0 ........... ...........
0 1 ........... ...........
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)..................... 0 0 0 0
0 0 ........... ...........
0 1 ........... ...........
Mysticetes:
Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)...................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Eastern Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)...... 0 0 0 0
0 0 ........... ...........
0 1 ........... ...........
Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)................ 0 0 0 0
0 0 ........... ...........
0 1 ........... ...........
1Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)...................... 0 0 0 0
0 0 ........... ...........
0 1 ........... ...........
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)................. 0 0 0 0
0 0 ........... ...........
0 0 ........... ...........
Pinnipeds:
Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus)...................... 39 158 67 0.02
13 53 ........... ...........
15 60 ........... ...........
Spotted seal (Phoca largha)............................. 0 2 0 0
0 0 ........... ...........
0 0 ........... ...........
Ringed seal (Phoca hispida)............................. 774 3,094 1,328 7.38
258 1,031 ........... ...........
296 1,185 ........... ...........
Ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata)..................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)............ N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Carnivores:
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus marinus).................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.A.--Data not available or species status was not assessed.
\1\ Best estimate and maximum density estimates are from Table 5 and Table Add-3 of USGS's application.
\2\ Regional population size estimates are from Table 4.
Conclusions--Bowhead whales are considered by NMFS to be disturbed
after exposure to underwater sound levels greater than or equal to 160
dB (rms) for impulse sources and 120 dB (rms) for continuous sources.
The relatively small airgun array proposed for use in this survey
limits the size of the 160 dB (rms) EZ around the vessel and is not
expected to result in any bowhead whale exposures to underwater sound
levels sufficient to reach the disturbance criterion as defined by
NMFS.
Odontocete reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually assumed
to be limited to lesser distances from the airgun(s) than are those of
mysticetes, probably in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. However, at
least when in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be
fairly responsive to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10
to 20 km (6.2 to 12.4 mi) of seismic vessels during aerial surveys
(Miller et al.,
[[Page 60195]]
2005). Belugas will likely occur in small numbers in the project area
within U.S. waters during the survey period. Most belugas will likely
avoid the vicinity of the survey activities and few will likely be
affected.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned,
effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to
avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term
changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B
harassment.'' Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially
exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause appreciable disturbance are
very low percentages of the population sizes in the Bering-Chukchi-
Beaufort Seas.
Based on the >=160 dB disturbance criterion, the best estimates of
the numbers of cetacean exposures to sounds >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
represent less than one percent of the populations of each species in
the Chukchi Sea and adjacent waters. For species listed as Endangered
under the ESA, USGS estimates suggest it is unlikely that fin whales,
or humpback whales will be exposed to received levels >=160 dB and/or
>=120 dB, but that approximately 38 bowheads (0.36 percent of the
regional population) may be exposed at this level. The latter is less
than one percent of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population of greater
than 14,247 animals assuming 3.4 percent population growth from the
2001 estimate of greater than 10,545 animals (Zeh and Punt, 2005). NMFS
subsequently did an analysis, and found that bowheads are unlikely to
be exposed to sound levels >=160 dB (rms) from airgun operations and/or
>=120 dB (rms) from icebreaking activities. NMFS does not anticipate
bowhead whales to be potentially affected by the proposed survey
activities due to its location far offshore of the bowhead fall
migration pathway.
Some monodontids may be exposed to sounds produced by the airgun
arrays during the proposed survey, and the numbers potentially affected
are small relative to the population sizes (see Table 6 of the IHA
application). The best estimate of the number of belugas (224 animals)
that might be exposed to >=160 dB and/or >=120 dB represents less than
one percent (0.57 percent) of their regional population.
The many reported cases of apparent tolerance by cetaceans of
seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and some other human activities
show that co-existence is possible. Monitoring and mitigation measures
such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated PSOs, non-pursuit, shut-
downs or power-downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges
will further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on
hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be
short-term, with no lasting biological consequence.
Several pinniped species may be encountered in the study area, but
the ringed seal is by far the most abundant marine mammal species in
the survey area. The best (average) estimates of the numbers of
individual seals exposed to airgun sounds at received levels >=160 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) and/or >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for icebreaking
during the marine survey are as follows: Ringed seals (1,328 animals;
7.4 percent of the regional population), bearded seals (67 animals;
0.02 percent of the regional population), and spotted seals (0 animals,
0 percent of the regional population), representing less than a few
percent of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort populations for each species. It
is probable that only a small percentage of the pinnipeds exposed to
sound level >=160 dB (rms) or 120 dB (rms) would actually be disturbed.
The short-term exposures of pinnipeds to airgun sounds are not expected
to result in any long-term negative consequences for the individuals or
their populations.
Potential Effects on Habitat
The proposed USGS seismic survey will not result in any permanent
impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including the food sources
they use. The proposed activities will be of short duration in any
particular area at any given time; thus any effects would be localized
and short-term. The main impact associated with the proposed activity
will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct
effects on marine mammals, as described above.
Icebreaking could alter ice conditions in the immediate area around
the vessels. However, ice conditions at this time of year are typically
highly variable and relatively unstable in most locations the survey
will take place. Although there is the potential for the destruction of
ringed seal lairs or polar bear dens due to icebreaking, these animals
will not be using lairs or dens at the time of the planned survey.
One of the reasons for the adoption of airguns as the standard
energy source for marine seismic surveys was that, unlike explosives,
they do not result in any appreciable fish kill. However, the existing
body of information relating to the impacts of seismic on marine fish
and invertebrate species, the primary food sources of pinnipeds and
belugas, is very limited.
In water, acute injury and death of organisms exposed to seismic
energy depends primarily on two features of the sound source: (1) The
received peak pressure, and (2) the time required for the pressure to
rise and decay (Hubbs and Rechnitzer, 1952; Wardle et al., 2001).
Generally, the higher the received pressure and less time required for
the pressure to rise and decay, the greater the chance of acute
pathological effects. Considering the peak pressure and rise/decay time
characteristics of seismic airgun arrays used today, the pathological
zone for fish and invertebrates would be expected to be within a few
meters of the seismic source (Buchanan et al., 2004). For the proposed
survey, any injurious effects on fish would be limited to very short
distances from the sound source and well away from the nearshore waters
where most subsistence fishing activities occur.
The survey off of northern Alaska will occur in an area designated
as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Arctic cod (Arctogadus glacialis)
(NPFMC, 2009). The approximately 806 km (435 nmi) of seismic survey
lines that will be conducted in U.S. waters represents the maximum
possible extent of potential EFH that would be ensonified during the
project; the border of the U.S. EEZ defines the potential Arctic cod
EFH boundary for Arctic cod. Effects on managed EFH species (Arctic
cod) by the seismic operations assessed here would be temporary and
minor. The main effect would be short-term disturbance that might lead
to temporary and localized relocation of the EFH species or their food.
The actual physical and chemical properties of the EFH will not be
impacted. The only other designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
species that may occur in the area of the project during the seismic
survey are salmon (adult), and their occurrence in waters north of the
Alaska coast is limited. Adult fish near seismic operations are likely
to avoid the immediate vicinity of the source, thereby avoiding injury
(see Appendix E of the IHA application). No EFH species will be present
as very early life stages when they would be unable to avoid seismic
exposure that could otherwise result in minimal mortality.
Studies have been conducted on the effects of seismic activities on
fish larvae and a few other invertebrate animals. Generally, seismic
was found to only have potential harmful effects to larvae and
invertebrates that are in direct proximity (a few meters) of an active
airgun array (see Appendix E and F of the IHA application). The
proposed Arctic Sea seismic program for 2010 is
[[Page 60196]]
predicted to have negligible to low physical effects on the various
life stages of fish and invertebrates. Therefore, physical effects of
the proposed program on fish and invertebrates would not be
significant.
The Healy is designed for continuous passage at 5.6 km (3 knots)
through ice 1.4 m (4.6 ft) thick. During this project the Healy will
typically encounter first- or second-year ice while avoiding thick ice
floes, particularly large intact multi-year ice, whenever possible. In
addition, the icebreaker will follow leads when possible while
following the survey route. As the icebreaker passes through the ice,
the ship causes the ice to part and travel alongside the hull. This ice
typically returns to fill the wake as the ship passes. The effects are
transitory, i.e., hours at most, and localized, i.e., constrained to a
relatively narrow swath perhaps 10 m (32.8 ft) to each side of the
vessel.
The Healy's maximum beam is 25 m (82 ft). Applying the maximum
estimated amount of icebreaking, i.e., 3,372 km (2,095.3 mi), to the
corridor opened by the ship, USGS anticipates that a maximum of
approximately 152 km\2\ (58.7 mi\2\) of ice may be disturbed. This
encompasses an insignificant amount (less than 0.005 percent) of the
total Arctic ice extent in August and September of 2008 and 2009 which
ranged from 3.24 million to 4.1 million km\2\ (1,235,527 to 1,583,019
mi\2\).
Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
A detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on
marine mammal habitat, including physiological and behavioral effects
on marine fish and invertebrates was included in the proposed IHA (75
FR 39336, July 8, 2010). Based on the discussion in the proposed IHA
notice and the nature of the activities (limited duration), the
authorized operations are not expected to have any habitat-related
effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for
individual marine mammals or their populations or stocks. Similarly,
any effects to food sources are expected to be negligible.
The airgun operations will not result in any permanent impact on
habitats used by marine mammals, or to the food sources they use. The
main impact issue associated with the activities will be temporarily
elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine
mammals, as well as the potential effects of icebreaking, as described
above. The potential effects of icebreaking include locally altered ice
conditions which may temporarily alter the haul-out pattern of seals in
the immediate vicinity of the vessel. The destruction of ringed seal
lairs or polar bear dens is not expected to be a concern at this time
of year.
Mitigation
In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) for small
numbers of marine mammals under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS
must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for
taking for certain subsistence uses. For the proposed seismic survey in
the Arctic Ocean, USGS will deploy an airgun array of three G-airguns.
The source will be relatively small in size and source level, relative
to airgun arrays typically used for industry seismic surveys. Important
mitigation factors built into the design of the survey include the
following:
In deep offshore waters (where the survey will occur),
sound from the airguns is expected to attenuate relatively rapidly as
compared with attenuation in shallower waters;
The airguns comprising the array will be clustered with
only limited horizontal separation (see Appendix B of the IHA
application), so the arrays will be less directional than is typically
the case with larger airgun arrays. This will result in less downward
directivity than is often present during seismic surveys, and more
horizontal propagation of sound; and
Airgun operations will be limited to offshore waters, far
from areas where there is subsistence hunting or fishing, and in waters
where marine mammal densities are generally low.
In addition to the mitigation measures that are built into the
general project design, several specific mitigation measures will be
implemented to avoid or minimize effects on marine mammals encountered
along the tracklines. These include ramping-up the airguns at the
beginning of operations, and power-downs or shut-downs when marine
mammals are detected within specified distances from the source. The
GSC has written a Categorical Declaration (see Appendix C of the IHA
application) stating that: ``While in U.S. waters (i.e., the U.S. 200
mile EEZ), the GSC operators will comply with any and all environmental
mitigation measures required by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).''
Received sound fields were measured for the airgun configuration,
in relation to distance and direction from the airgun(s). The proposed
radii around the airgun(s) where received levels would be 180 and 190
dB (rms) are shown in Table 2 of the IHA application. The 180 and 190
dB (rms) levels are used to initiate a power-down or, if necessary,
shut-down criteria applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively,
as specified by NMFS (2000).
Vessel-based PSOs will watch for marine mammals near the airgun(s)
when they are in use. Mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be
implemented for the seismic survey have been developed and refined in
cooperation with NMFS during previous seismic studies in the Arctic and
described in associated EAs, IHA applications, and IHAs. The mitigation
and monitoring measures described herein represent a combination of the
procedures required by past IHAs for Arctic projects.
Some cetacean species (such as bowhead whales) may be feeding or
migrating in the Beaufort Sea during August and September. However,
most of the proposed geophysical activities will occur north of the
main migration corridor and the number of individual animals expected
to closely approach the vicinity of the proposed activity will be small
in relation to regional population sizes. With the monitoring, ramp-up,
power-down, and shut-down provisions (see below), any effects on
individuals are expected to be limited to behavioral disturbance. The
following subsections provide more detailed information about the
mitigation measures that are an integral part of the planned activity.
Exclusion Zones (EZ)
Mosher et al. (2009) collected received sound level data for the
airgun configuration that will be used in the proposed survey in
similar water depths, i.e., greater than 2,000 m (6,561.7 ft). The
empirical data were plotted in relation to distance and direction from
the three airguns by Roth and Schmidt (2010; see Figure B-3). Based on
model fit to the measured received levels and source modeling estimates
from Gundalf, the 180 and 190 dB (rms) EZ are estimated to be 216 m
(708.7 ft) and 68 m (223.1 ft), respectively. As a conservative measure
for the proposed EZ, the sound-level EZ indicated by the empirical data
have been increased to 500 m (1,640.4 ft) for the 180 dB isopleths and
to 100 m (328 ft) for the 190 dB isopleths (see Table 2
[[Page 60197]]
of the IHA application). The 180 and 190 dB levels are shut-down
criteria applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, as
specified by NMFS (2000); these levels were used to establish the EZs.
If the PSO detects marine mammal(s) within or about to enter the
appropriate EZ, the airguns will be powered-down (or shut-down if
necessary) immediately (see below).
Detailed recommendations for new science-based noise exposure
criteria were published in early 2008 (Southall et al., 2007). USGS
will be prepared to revise its procedures for estimating numbers of
mammals ``taken,'' EZs, etc., as may be required by any new guidelines
that result. As yet, NMFS has not specified a new procedure for
determining EZs. Such procedures, if applicable would be implemented
through a modification to the IHA if issued.
In addition to monitoring, mitigation measures that will be adopted
during the Arctic Ocean survey include:
(1) Speed or course alteration, provided that doing so will not
comprise operational safety requirements;
(2) Power-down procedures;
(3) Shut-down procedures; and
(4) Ramp-up procedures.
No start-up of airgun operations would be permitted unless the full
180 dB (rms) EZ is visible for at least 30 min during day or night.
Other proposed provisions associated with operations at night or in
periods of poor visibility include the following:
During foggy conditions or darkness (which may be
encountered starting in late August), the full 180 dB (rms) EZ may not
be visible. In that case, the airguns could not start-up after a full
shut-down until the entire 180 dB (rms) radius was visible.
During any nighttime operations, if the entire 180 dB
(rms) EZ is visible using vessel lights, then start-up of the airgun
array may occur following a 30 min period of observation without
sighting marine mammals in the EZ.
If one or more airguns have been operational before
nightfall, they can remain operational throughout the night, even
though the entire EZ may not be visible.
Speed or Course Alteration--If a marine mammal (in water) is
detected outside the EZ and, based on its position and relative motion,
is likely to enter the EZ, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may,
when practical and safe, be changed in a manner that also minimizes the
effect on 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 EZ. If
the mammal appears likely to enter the EZ, further mitigative actions
will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or power-down or
shut-down of the airgun(s).
Power-down Procedures--A power-down involves reducing the number of
airguns in use such that the radius of the 180 dB or 190 dB (rms) EZ
are decreased to the extent that marine mammals are no longer in or
about to enter the EZ. A power-down of the airgun array can also occur
when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. During a
power-down for mitigation, one airgun (or some other number of airguns
less than the full airgun array) will be operated. The continued
operation of one airgun is intended to alert (1) marine mammals to the
presence of the seismic vessel in the area, and (2) retain the option
of initiating a ramp-up to full operations under poor visibility
conditions. In contrast, a shut-down occurs when all airgun activity is
suspended.
If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ but is likely to
enter the EZ, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed
to avoid having the marine mammal enter the EZ, the airguns (as an
alternative to a complete shut-down) will be powered-down to a single
airgun before the animal is within the EZ. Likewise, if a mammal is
already within the EZ when first detected, the airguns will be powered-
down immediately if this is a reasonable alternative to a complete
shut-down. During a power-down of the airgun array, the number of
operating airguns will be reduced to a single 150 in\3\ G-airgun. The
180 dB (rms) EZ for the power-down sound source has been estimated to
be 62 m (203 ft); the proposed distance for use by PSOs is 75 m (246
ft). If a marine mammal is detected within or near the smaller EZ
around that single 150 in\3\ airgun (see Table 2 of USGS's application
and Table 2 above), all airguns will be shut-down (see next
subsection).
Following a power-down, operation of the full airgun array will not
resume until the marine mammal is outside the EZ for the full array.
The animal will be considered to have cleared the EZ if it:
(1) Is visually observed to have left the EZ, or
(2) Has not been seen within the EZ for 15 minutes in the case for
species with shorter dive durations (e.g., small odontocetes and
pinnipeds); or
(3) Has not been seen within the EZ for 30 minutes in the case for
species with longer dive durations (e.g., mysticetes and large
odontocetes, including killer whales).
During airgun operations following a power-down (or shut-down)
whose duration has exceeded the limits specified above and subsequent
animal departures, the airgun array will be ramped-up gradually. Ramp-
up procedures are described below.
Shut-down Procedures--The operating airguns(s) will be shut-down if
a marine mammal is detected within or approaching the EZ for a single
airgun source (i.e., a power-down is not practical or adequate to
reduce exposure to less than 190 or 180 dB (rms), as appropriate).
Shut-downs will be implemented (1) if an animal approaches or enters
the EZ of the single airgun after a power-down has been initiated, or
(2) if an animal is initially seen within the EZ of a single airgun
when more than one airgun (typically the full array) is operating.
Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the
EZ, or until the PSO is confident that the animal has left the vicinity
of the vessel (or the PSO not observing the animal[s] within the EZ for
15 or 30 min depending upon the species). Criteria for judging that the
animal has cleared the EZ will be as described in the preceding
subsection. Ramp-up procedures will be followed during resumption of
full seismic operations after a shut-down of the airgun array.
Ramp-up Procedures--A ramp-up procedure will be followed when the
airgun array begins operating after a specified period without airgun
operations or when a power-down (or reduced airgun operations) has
exceeded that specified duration period. The specified period depends
on the speed of the source vessel, the size of the airgun array that is
being used, and the size of the EZ, but is often about 10 min. NMFS
normally requires that, once ramp-up commences, the rate of ramp-up be
no more than 6 dB per 5 min period. Ramp-up will begin with a single
airgun (the smallest airgun in the array). Airguns will be added in a
sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps
not exceeding 6 dB per 5 min period over a total duration of
approximately 10 minutes. During ramp-up, the PSOs will monitor the EZ,
and if marine mammals are sighted, a power-down or shut-down will be
implemented as though the full array were operational.
If the complete 180 dB (rms) EZ has not been visible for at least
30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight or
nighttime, ramp-up will not commence unless at least one airgun (150
in\3\ or similar) has been operating
[[Page 60198]]
during the interruption of seismic survey operations. Given these
provisions, it is likely that the three G-airgun array will not be
ramped-up from a complete shut-down at night or in thick fog, because
the outer part of the EZ for that array will not be visible during
those conditions. If the entire EZ is visible using vessel lights, then
start-up of the airguns from a complete shut-down may occur at night.
If one airgun has operated during a power-down period, ramp-up to full
power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the
assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching
seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away
if they choose. Given the responsiveness of bowhead and beluga whales
to airgun sounds, it can be assumed that those species in particular
will move away during a ramp-up. Ramp-up of the airguns will not be
initiated during the day or at night if a marine mammal is sighted
within or near the applicable EZ during the previous 15 or 30 min, as
applicable.
Helicopter Flights--The use of a helicopter to conduct ice
reconnaissance flights and vessel-to-vessel personnel transfers is
likely to occur during survey activities in U.S. waters. However,
collection of spot bathymetry data or on-ice landings, both of which
required low altitude flight patterns, will not occur in U.S. waters.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) require that requests for IHAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present.
USGS will sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the proposed
project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require
real-time monitoring, to satisfy the anticipated monitoring
requirements of the IHA, and to meet any monitoring requirements agreed
to as part of the Plan of Cooperation. USGS's Monitoring Plan is
described below as well as in their IHA application.
The monitoring work described here has been planned as a self-
contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects
that may be occurring simultaneously in the same regions. USGS is
prepared to discuss coordination of its monitoring program with any
related work that might be done by other groups insofar as this is
practical and desirable.
Vessel-based Visual Monitoring
Vessel-based Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will monitor for
marine mammals near the seismic source vessel during all daytime airgun
operations and during any nighttime start-ups of the airguns. The
survey area within U.S. waters is located within high latitudes
(approximately 72[deg] to 74[deg] North) and the project will take
place during the summer when little darkness will be encountered (see
Table 9 of the IHA application). Some periods of darkness will be
encountered towards the end of the survey when there will be several
hours between sunset and sunrise.
The PSO's observations will provide the real-time data needed to
implement the key mitigation measures. Airgun operations will be
powered-down or (if necessary) shut-down when marine mammals are
observed within, or about to enter, a designated EZ where there is a
possibility of effects on hearing or other physical effects. Vessel-
based PSOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel
for at least 30 min prior to the planned start of airgun operations
after an extended shut-down of the airgun. When feasible, observations
will also be made during daytime periods without seismic operations
(e.g., during transits).
Table 7--The Daylight Times and Periods Within the Proposed Project Area From Beginning (August 7, 2010) to End
(September 3, 2010) of the Planned Survey Activities Within Latitudes of the Planned Survey Within U.S. Waters.
Time is in Alaska Daylight Time (AKDT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72[deg] North
74[deg] North
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date............................................ August 7 September 3 August 7 September 3
Sunrise......................................... 09:29 12:14 -- 12:00
Sunset.......................................... 06:42 03:45 -- 03:59
Period of daylight (hours)...................... 21:13 15:31 24:00 15:59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During daylight, vessel-based PSOs will watch for marine
mammals near the seismic vessel during all periods of airgun activity
and for a minimum of 30 min prior to the planned start of airgun
operations after an extended shut-down.
Although there will be only a brief period during the
survey when darkness will be encountered in U.S. waters, USGS proposes
to conduct nighttime as well as daytime operations. PSOs dedicated to
protected species observations are proposed not to be on duty during
ongoing seismic operations at night, given the very limited
effectiveness of visual observation at night. At night, bridge
personnel will watch for marine mammals (insofar as practical at night)
and will call for the airguns to be shut-down if marine mammals are
observed in or about to enter the EZ.
PSOs will be stationed aboard both the seismic source vessel (St.
Laurent) and Healy during the proposed survey. The vessels will
typically work together in tandem while making way through heavy ice
with the Healy in the lead breaking ice and collecting multi-beam data.
The St. Laurent will follow collecting seismic reflection and
refraction data. In light ice conditions, the vessels will separate to
maximize data collection. ``Real-time'' communication between the two
vessels regarding marine mammal detections will be available through
VHF radio.
During operations in U.S. EEZ waters, a complement of five PSOs
will work on the source vessel, the St. Laurent, and two will be
stationed on the Healy. Three trained PSOs will board the St. Laurent
in Kagluktuk, Nunavut, Canada. Three experienced PSOs and one Alaska
Native community observer will be aboard the Healy at the outset of the
project. Before survey operations begin in U.S. waters, two of the PSOs
on the Healy will transfer to the St. Laurent to provide additional
observers during airgun operations. When not surveying in U.S. waters,
the distribution of PSOs
[[Page 60199]]
will return to three on the St. Laurent and four on the Healy.
PSOs on the St. Laurent will monitor for marine mammals during all
daylight airgun operations. Airgun operations will be shut-down when
marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, a designated EZ
(see below) where there may be a possibility of significant effects on
hearing or other physical effects. PSOs on both the source vessel and
the Healy will also watch for marine mammals within or near the EZ for
at least 30 min prior to the planned start of airgun operations after
an extended shut-down of the airgun array. When feasible, observations
will also be made during periods without seismic operations (e.g.,
during transits). Environmental conditions will be recorded every half
hour during PSO watch.
The PSOs aboard the Healy will also watch for marine mammals during
daylight seismic activities conducted in both U.S. and international
waters. They will maximize their time on watch but will not watch
continuously, as will those on the St. Laurent, because they will not
have mitigation duties and there will be only two PSOs aboard the
Healy. The Healy PSOs will report sightings to the PSOs on the St.
Laurent to alert them of possible needs for mitigation.
In U.S. waters, at least one observer, and when practical two
observers, will monitor for marine mammals from the St. Laurent during
ongoing daytime operations and nighttime start-ups (when darkness is
encountered). Use of two simultaneous observers will increase the
proportion of the animals present near the source vessel that are
detected. PSOs will normally be on duty in shifts of no longer than
four hours duration although more than one hour shift may be worked per
day with a maximum of 12 hours of daily watch time. During seismic
operations in international waters, PSOs aboard the St. Laurent will
conduct eight hour watches. This schedule accommodates 24 hour/day
monitoring by three PSOs which will be necessary during most of the
survey when daylight will be continuous. Healy PSOs will limit watches
to four hours in U.S. waters.
The St. Laurent crew will be instructed to assist in detecting
marine mammals and implementing required mitigation (if practical). The
crew will be given instruction on mitigation requirements and
procedures for implementation of mitigation prior to the start of the
seismic survey. Members of the Healy crew will be trained to monitor
for marine mammals and asked to contact the Healy observers for
sightings that occur while the PSOs are off-watch.
The St. Laurent and Healy are suitable platforms for observations
for marine mammals. When stationed on the flying bridge, eye level will
be approximately 15.4 m (51 ft) above sea level on the St. Laurent and
approximately 24 m (78.7 ft) above sea level on the Healy. On both
vessels the PSO will have an unobstructed view around the entire vessel
from the flying bridge. If surveying from the bridge of the St. Laurent
or the Healy the PSO's eye level will be approximately 12.1 m (40 ft)
above sea level or 21.2 m (69 ft) above sea level, respectively. The
PSO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with laser
range finding binoculars and with the unaided eye.
The survey will be conducted at high latitudes and continuous
daylight will persist through much of the proposed survey area through
the month of August. Day length will decrease to approximately 18 hours
in the northern portion of the survey area by about early September.
Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or
equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation; this
equipment is useful in training observers to estimate distances
visually, but is generally not useful in measuring distances to animals
directly.
When marine mammals are detected within or about to enter the
designated EZ, the airgun(s) will be powered-down or shut-down
immediately. The distinction between power-downs and shut-downs is
described above and in the IHA application. Channels of communication
between the PSOs and the airgun technicians will be established to
assure prompt implementation of shut-downs when necessary as has been
done in other recent seismic survey operations in the Arctic (e.g.,
Haley, 2006). During power-downs and shut-downs, PSOs will continue to
maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the EZ.
Airgun operations will not resume until the animal is outside the EZ.
The animal will be considered to have cleared the EZ if it is visually
observed to have left the EZ. Alternatively, in U.S. waters the EZ will
be considered clear if the animal has not been seen within the EZ for
15 min for small odontocetes and pinnipeds or 30 min for mysticetes.
Within international waters the PSOs will apply a 30 min period for all
species.
PSO Data and Documentation
PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals
exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent
disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate
numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the
MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a power-down
or shut-down of the seismic source when a marine mammal is within or
near the EZ.
When a sighting is made, the following information about the
sighting will be recorded:
(1) Species, group size, and age/size/sex categories (if
determinable); behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting;
heading (if consistent), bearing, and distance from seismic vessel;
sighting cue; apparent reaction to the seismic source or vessel (e.g.,
none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.); and behavioral pace.
(2) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea
state, visibility, and sun glare.
The data listed under (2) above will also be recorded at the start
and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is
a change in one or more of the variables.
All observations, as well as information regarding seismic source
power-downs and shut-downs, will be recorded in a standardized format.
Data will be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer.
The accuracy of data entry will be verified by computerized data
validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual
checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries
of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and
will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, and
other programs for further processing and archiving.
Results for the vessel-based observations will provide:
(1) The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power-down or shut-
down).
(2) Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals
potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS per
terms of MMPA authorizations or regulations.
(3) Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine
mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.
(4) Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine
mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic
activity.
(5) Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals
seen at times with and without seismic activity.
A report on USGS activities and on the relevant monitoring and
mitigation
[[Page 60200]]
results will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the
cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and
sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will be
submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results,
and interpretation pertaining to all acoustic characterization work and
vessel-based monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and
locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings
(dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey
activities). The number and circumstances of ramp-ups, power-downs,
shut-downs, and other mitigation measures will be reported. Sample size
permitting, the report will also include estimates of the amount and
nature of potential ``take'' of marine mammals.
All injured or dead marine mammals (regardless of cause) will be
reported to NMFS as soon as practicable. The report will include
species or description of animal, condition of animal, location, time
first found, observed behaviors (if alive) and photo or video, if
available.
Encouraging and Coordinating Research
USGS will coordinate the planned marine mammal monitoring program
associated with the seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean with other
parties that may have an interest in this area and/or be conducting
marine mammal studies in the same region during operations. No other
marine mammal studies are expected to occur in the main (northern)
parts of the study area at the proposed time. However, other industry-
funded seismic surveys may be occurring in the northeast Chukchi and/or
western Beaufort Sea closer to shore, and those projects are likely to
involve marine mammal monitoring. USGS has coordinated, and will
continue to coordinate, with other applicable Federal, State and
Borough agencies, and will comply with their requirements.
Negligible Impact and Small Numbers of Marine Mammals Analysis and
Determination
The Secretary, in accordance with paragraph 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA, shall authorize the take of small numbers of marine mammals
incidental to specified activities other than commercial fishing within
a specific geographic region if, among other things, he determines that
the authorized incidental take will have a ``negligible impact'' on
species or stocks affected by the authorization. NMFS implementing
regulations codified at 50 CFR 216.103 states that a ``negligible
impact is 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.''
Based on the analysis contained herein, of the likely effects of
the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat within the
specific area of study for the Arctic Ocean marine geophysical survey,
and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and
monitoring measures NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, found that USGS's
proposed activities would result in the incidental take of small
numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the
total taking from the proposed seismic survey would have a negligible
impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. As a basis
for its small numbers determination, NMFS evaluated the number of
individuals taken by Level B harassment relative to the size of the
stock or population.
While the number of marine mammals potentially incidentally
harassed will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine
mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential
Level B incidental harassment takings (see Table 6 above) is estimated
to be small, less than a few percent of any of the estimated population
sizes based on the data disclosed in Tables 4 and 6 of this notice, and
has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the
incorporation of the monitoring and mitigation measures mentioned
previously in this document. Tables 4 and 6 in this notice disclose the
habitat regional abundance, conservation status, density, and the
number of individuals exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to
120 dB (rms) (for icebreaking) or 160 dB (rms) (for seismic airgun
operations). Also, there are no known important reproductive or feeding
areas in the proposed action area.
For reasons stated previously in this document, the specified
activities associated with the proposed survey are not likely to cause
TTS, PTS or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death to
affected marine mammals because:
(1) The likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively
slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise
source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
(2) The fact that cetaceans and pinnipeds would have to be closer
than 500 m (1,640.4 ft) and 30 m (98.4 ft), in deep water when the full
array is in use at tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of
sound (180 dB and 190 dB, respectively) believed to have even a minimal
chance of causing PTS;
(3) The fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 2,500
m (8,202.1 ft) in deep water when the full array is in use at tow depth
from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (160 dB) believed to
have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; and
(4) The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained
observers is high at that short distance from the vessel.
As a result, no take by injury, serious injury, or death is
anticipated or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent
hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the
incorporation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures.
In making a negligible impact determination NMFS evaluated factors
such as: no anticipated injury, serious injury or mortality; the
number, nature, intensity and duration of harassment (all relatively
limited); the low probability that take will likely result in effects
to annual rates of recruitment of survival; the context in which it
occurs (i.e., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local
populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account
successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data); the
status of stock or species of marine mammal (i.e., depleted, not
depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size
of the population); impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/
survival; and the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There is subsistence hunting for marine mammals in the waters off
of the coast of Alaska, in the Arctic Ocean, that implicates MMPA
Section 101(a)(5)(D). Subsistence hunting and fishing continue to be
prominent in the household economies and social welfare of some Alaska
residents, particularly among those living in small, rural villages
(Wolfe and Walker, 1987; Braund and Kruse, 2009). Subsistence remains
the basis for Alaska Native culture and community. In rural Alaska,
subsistence activities are often central to many aspects of human
existence, including patterns of family life, artistic expression, and
community religious and celebratory activities.
[[Page 60201]]
Subsistence Hunting
Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by coastal
Alaska Natives; species hunted include bowhead and beluga whales;
ringed, spotted, and bearded seals; walruses, and polar bears. The
importance of each of the various species varies among the communities
based largely on availability. Bowhead whales, belugas, and walruses
are the marine mammal species primarily harvested during the time of
the proposed seismic survey. Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska
Native culture and community, and subsistence activities are often
central to many aspects of human existence, including patterns of
family life, artistic expression, and community religious and
celebratory activities.
Bowhead whale hunting is a key activity in the subsistence
economies of Barrow and other Native communities along the Beaufort Sea
coast. The whale harvests have a great influence on social relations by
strengthening the sense of Inupiat culture and heritage in addition to
reinforcing family and community ties.
An overall quota system for the hunting of bowhead whales was
established by the International Whaling Commission in 1977. The quota
is now regulated through an agreement between NMFS and the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) which extends to 2012 (NMFS, 2008b).
The AEWC allocates the number of bowhead whales that each whaling
community may harvest annually during five-year periods (USDI/BLM,
2005; NMFS, 2008).
The community of Barrow hunts bowhead whales in both the spring and
fall during the whales' seasonal migration along the coast (see Figure
2 of the IHA application). Often the bulk of the Barrow bowhead harvest
is taken during the spring hunt. However, with larger quotas in recent
years, it is common for a substantial fraction of the annual Barrow
quota to remain available for the fall hunt (see Table 7 of the IHA
application). The communities of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik participate only
in the fall bowhead harvest. The fall migration of bowhead whales that
summer in the eastern Beaufort Sea typically begins in late August or
September. Fall migration into Alaskan waters is primarily during
September and October. However, in recent years a small number of
bowheads have been seen or heard offshore from the Prudhoe Bay region
during the last week of August (Treacy, 1993; LGL and Greenridge, 1996;
Greene, 1997; Greene et al., 1999; Blackwell et al., 2004).
Table 8--Number of Bowhead Whale Landing by Year at Barrow, Cross Island (Nuiqsut), and Kaktovik, 1993 to 2008.
Barrow Numbers Include the Total Number of Whales Landed for the Year Followed by the Numbers Landed During the
Fall Hunt in Parentheses. Cross Island (Nuiqsut) and Kaktovik Landings are in Autumn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Hope Wainwright Barrow Cross Island Kaktovik
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.................................. 2 5 23 (7) 3 3
1994.................................. 5 4 16 (1) 0 3
1995.................................. 1 5 19 (11) 4 4
1996.................................. 3 3 24 (19) 2 1
1997.................................. 4 3 30 (21) 3 4
1998.................................. 3 3 25 (16) 4 3
1999.................................. 2 5 24 (6) 3 3
2000.................................. 3 5 18 (13) 4 3
2001.................................. 4 6 27 (7) 3 4
2002.................................. 0 1 22 (17) 4 3
2003.................................. 4 5 16 (6) 4 3
2004.................................. 3 4 21 (14) 3 3
2005.................................. 7 4 29 (13) 1 3
2006.................................. 0 2 22 (19) 4 3
2007.................................. 3 4 20 (7) 3 3
2008.................................. 2 2 21 (12) 4 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: USDI/BLM and references therein; Burns et al., 1993; Koski et al., 2005; Suydam et al., 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
The spring hunt at Barrow occurs after leads open due to the
deterioration of pack ice; the spring hunt typically occurs from early
April until the first week of June. The location of the fall
subsistence hunt depends on ice conditions and (in some years)
industrial activities that influence the bowheads as they move west
(Brower, 1996). In the fall, subsistence hunters use aluminum or
fiberglass boats with outboards. Hunters prefer to take bowheads close
to shore to avoid a long tow during which the meat can spoil, but
Braund and Moorehead (1995) report that crews may (rarely) pursue
whales as far as 80 km (49.7 mi). The fall hunts begin in late August
or early September in Kaktovik and at Cross Island. At Barrow the fall
hunt usually begins in mid-September, and mainly occurs in the waters
east and northeast of Point Barrow in the Chukchi Sea (Suydam et al.,
2008). The whales have usually left the Beaufort Sea by late October
(Treacey, 2002a, b).
The scheduling of this seismic survey has been discussed with
representatives of those concerned with the subsistence bowhead hunt,
most notably the AEWC, the Barrow Whaling Captains' Association, and
the North Slope Borough (NSB) Department of Wildlife Management. The
timing of the proposed seismic survey in early to mid-August will
affect neither the spring nor the fall bowhead hunt. The Healy is
planning to change crew after the completion of the seismic survey
through Barrow via helicopter or boat. That crew change is scheduled
for approximately September 4 to 5, 2010, well before the fall bowhead
whaling which typically begins late September or early October. All of
the proposed geophysical activities will occur offshore between 71[deg]
and 84[deg] North latitude well north of Beaufort Sea whaling
activities.
Beluga whales are available to subsistence hunters at Barrow in the
spring when pack-ice conditions deteriorate and leads open up. Belugas
may remain in the area through June and sometimes into July and August
in ice-free waters. Hunters usually wait until after the spring bowhead
whale
[[Page 60202]]
hunt is finished before turning their attention to hunting belugas. The
average annual harvest of beluga whales taken by Barrow for 1962 to
1982 was five (MMS, 1996). The Alaska Beluga Whale Committee recorded
that 23 beluga whales had been harvested by Barrow hunters from 1987 to
2002, ranging from zero in 1987, 1988 and 1995 to the high of eight in
1997 (Fuller and George, 1997; Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, 2002 in
USDI/BLM, 2005). The proposed seismic survey is unlikely to overlap
with the beluga harvest, and the survey initiates well outside the area
where impacts to beluga hunting by Barrow villagers could occur.
Ringed seals are hunted mainly from October through June. Hunting
for these smaller mammals is concentrated during winter because bowhead
whales, bearded seals, and caribou are available through other seasons.
In winter, leads and cracks in the ice off points of land and along
barrier islands are used for hunting ringed seals. The average annual
ringed seal harvest by the community of Barrow from the 1960s through
much of the 1980s has been estimated as 394 (see Table 8 of the IHA
application). More recently Bacon et al. (2009) estimated that 586,
287, and 413 ringed seals were harvest by villagers at Barrow in 2000,
2001, and 2003, respectively. Although ringed seals are available year-
round, the seismic survey will not occur during the primary period when
these seals are typically harvested. Also, the seismic survey will be
largely in offshore waters where the activities will not influence
ringed seals in the nearshore areas where they are hunted.
The spotted seal subsistence hunt peaks in July and August, as
indicated by data from 1987 to 1990, but involves few animals. Spotted
seals typically migrate south by October to overwinter in the Bering
Sea, Admiralty Bay, less than 60 km (37.3 mi) to the east of Barrow, is
a location where spotted seals are harvested. Spotted seals are also
occasionally hunted in the area off Point Barrow and along the barrier
islands of Elson Lagoon to the east (USDI/BLM, 2005). The average
annual spotted seal harvest by the community of Barrow from 1987 to
1990 was one animal (Braund et al., 1993; see Table 7 of the IHA
application). More recently however, Bacon et al. (2009) estimated that
32, 7, and 12 spotted seals were harvested by villagers at Barrow in
2000, 2001, and 2003, respectively. Spotted seals become less abundant
at Nuiqsut and Kaktovik and few if any spotted seal are harvested at
these villages. The seismic survey will commence at least 115 km (71.5
mi) offshore from the preferred nearshore harvest area of these seals.
Bearded seals, although not favored for their meat, are important
to subsistence activities in Barrow because of their skins. Six to nine
bearded seal hides are used by whalers to cover each of the skin-
covered boats traditionally used for spring whaling. Because of their
valuable hides and large size, bearded seals are specifically sought.
Bearded seals are harvested during the summer months in the Beaufort
Sea (USDI/BLM, 2005). The animals inhabit the environment around the
ice floes in the drifting ice pack, so hunting usually occurs from
boats in the drift ice. Braund et al. (1993) estimated that 174 bearded
seals were harvested annually at Barrow from 1987 to 1990 (see Table 8
of the IHA application). More recently Bacon et al. (2009) estimated
that 728, 327, and 776 bearded seals were harvested by villagers at
Barrow in 2000, 2001, and 2003, respectively. Braund et al. (1993)
mapped the majority of bearded seal harvest sites from 1987 to 1990 as
being within approximately 24 km (14.9 mi) of Point Barrow, well
inshore of the proposed survey which is to start approximately 115 km
(71.5 mi) offshore and terminate greater than 200 km (124.3 mi)
offshore. The average annual take of bearded seals by the Barrow
community from 1987 to 1990 was 174 (see Table 8 of the IHA
application).
Table 9--Average Annual Take of Marine Mammals Other Than Bowhead Whales
Harvest by the Community of Barrow (Compiled By LGL Alaska Research
Associates, 2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed Bearded Spotted
Beluga whales seals seals seals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** 5 * 394 * 174 * 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Average annual harvest for years 1987 to 1990 (Braund et al., 1993).
** Average annual harvest for years 1962 to 1982 (MMS, 1996).
Plan of Cooperation
The USGS has communicated with community authorities and residents
of Barrow to foster understanding of the proposed survey. There are
elements of the proposed survey, intrinsic to the project that
significantly limit the potential conflict with subsistence users.
Operations will be conducted during early August before bowhead whale
hunting typically occurs off Barrow and approximately 108 km (67.1 mi)
offshore, farther offshore than traditional subsistence hunting
grounds. USGS continues to work with the people of Barrow to identify
and avoid areas of potential conflict.
The USGS initiated contact with NSB scientists and the
chair of the AEWC in mid-December, 2010 via an emailed description of
the proposed survey that included components intended to minimize
potential subsistence conflict.
Invitations were extended December 31, 2009 to members of
the NSB, AEWC, and North Slope Communities to attend a teleconference
arranged for January 11, 2010. The teleconference served as a venue to
promote understanding of the project and discuss shareholder concerns.
Participants in the teleconference included Harry Brower, chair of the
AEWC, and NSB wildlife biologist Dr. Robert Suydam.
To further promote cooperation between the project
researchers and the community, Dr. Deborah Hutchinson with USGS
presented the proposed survey at a meeting of the AEWC in Barrow on
February 11, 2010. Survey plans were explained to local hunters and
whaling captains, including NSB Department of Wildlife Management
biologists, Craig George and Dr. Robert Suydam. Dr. Hutchinson
consulted with stakeholders about their concerns and discussed the
aspects of the survey designed to mitigate impacts.
Dr. Deborah Hutchinson of the USGS emailed a summary of
the topics discussed during the teleconference and the AEWC meeting in
Barrow to representatives of the NSB, AEWC, and North Slope
communities. These included:
[cir] Surveying within U.S. waters is scheduled early
(approximately August 11 to 19) to avoid conflict with hunters.
[cir] The EA and IHA application have been distributed as early as
possible to NSB and AEWC.
[cir] A community observer will be present aboard the Healy during
the project.
[cir] Mitigation of the one crew transfer near Barrow in early
September will be arranged--probably through Barrow Volunteer Search
and Rescue.
Representatives of the USGS attended the Arctic Open-water
Meeting in Anchorage, March 22 to 24, 2010.
[cir] Dr. Deborah Hutchinson presented information regarding the
proposed survey to the public during the Open-water meeting.
[cir] Dr. Jonathan Childs and Dr. Deborah Hutchinson also met with
stakeholders and agency representatives while at the meeting.
Subsequent meetings with whaling captains, other community
representatives, the AEWC, NSB, and
[[Page 60203]]
any other parties to the plan will be held if necessary to coordinate
the planned seismic survey operation with subsistence hunting activity.
The USGS has informed the chairman of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Committee (AEWC), Harry Brower, Jr., of its survey plan.
As noted above and in the IHA application, in the unlikely event
that subsistence hunting or fishing is occurring within 5 km (3 mi) of
the project vessel tracklines, or where potential impacts could occur,
the airgun operations will be suspended until the vessel is greater
than 5 km away and otherwise not interfering with subsistence
activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
On May 21, 2010, USGS initiated informal consultation, under
Section 7 of the ESA, with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
Endangered Species Division, on this seismic survey. Based on the
information provided by USGS, NMFS concurred with their determination
that the activities conducted during the proposed seismic survey are
not likely to adversely affect endangered whales in the study area. No
designated critical habitat occurs within the action area for this
experiment, therefore, no critical habitat will be affected by the
proposed bathymetric and seismic surveys and other associated
activities.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
USGS provided NMFS an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the
direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed
specified activities on marine mammals including those listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA. The EA, prepared by LGL
Environmental Research Associated (LGL) on behalf of USGS, is titled
``Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey of Parts of
the Arctic Ocean, August--September 2010 (EA)''. NMFS has adopted the
USGS's EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
issuance of the IHA.
Determinations
NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the specific
marine seismic survey activities described in this notice and the IHA
request in the specific geographic region within the U.S. EEZ and
within the Arctic Ocean may result, at worst, in a temporary
modification in behavior (Level B harassment) of small numbers of
marine mammals. No take by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury,
or mortality is anticipated, and take by harassment will be at the
lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation and
monitoring measures mentioned previously in this document. Further,
this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the
affected species or stocks of marine mammals. NMFS has determined that
this proposed activity will not have an unmitigable impact on the
availability of the affected species or stock of marine mammals for
subsistence uses. USGS will coordinate with local communities on
implementation of the Plan of Cooperation.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS issued an IHA to USGS for
conducting a marine seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean from August to
September 2010, including the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements. The duration of the IHA does
not exceed one year from the date of its issuance.
Dated: September 22, 2010.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-24335 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P