Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; On-ice Seismic Operations in the Beaufort Sea, 6625-6630 [05-2443]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6625-6630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2443]



[[Page 6626]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 122304A]


Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; On-
ice Seismic Operations in the Beaufort Sea

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

ACTION:  Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental take 
authorization; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  NMFS has received an application from ConocoPhillips Alaska 
(CPA) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine 
mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting on-ice vibroseis 
seismic operations from Milne Point to the eastern channel of the 
Colville River in the U.S. Beaufort Sea to a distance offshore of 2.3 
nautical miles (nm)(4.3 kilometers (km)). Under the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to 
issue an authorization to CPA to incidentally take, by harassment, 
small numbers of two species of pinnipeds for a limited period of time 
within the next year.

DATES:  Comments and information must be received no later than March 
10, 2005.

ADDRESSES:  Comments on the application should be addressed to Steve 
Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office 
of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of 
the contacts listed here. The mailbox address for providing email 
comments is PR1.122304A@noaa.gov. Please include in the subject line of 
the e-mail comment the following document identifier: 122304A. Comments 
sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-
megabyte file size. A copy of the application containing a list of the 
references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this 
address or by telephoning the first contact person listed here and is 
also available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Small_Take/
smalltake_info.htm#applications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 128 or Brad Smith, 
Alaska Region, NMFS, (907) 271-5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are 
made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to 
harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the 
public for review.
    Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a 
negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of 
taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of 
such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 
50 CFR 216.103 as ``...an impact resulting from the specified activity 
that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, 
adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates 
of recruitment or survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization 
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
    any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
[Level B harassment].
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS 
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment 
period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of 
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS 
must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

Summary of Request

    On November 26, 2004, NMFS received an application from CPA for the 
taking, by harassment, of two species of marine mammals incidental to 
conducting an on-ice seismic survey program. The seismic operations 
will be conducted from Milne Point to the eastern channel of the 
Colville River in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea to a distance offshore of 
2.3 nm (4.3 km), an area encompasing approximately 51 mi2 (132.1 
km\2\). Water depths in most (greater than 95 percent) of the planned 
survey area are less than 10 ft (3 m).
    The purpose of the project is to gather information about the 
subsurface of the earth by measuring acoustic waves, which are 
generated on or near the surface. The acoustic waves reflect at 
boundaries in the earth that are characterized by acoustic impedance 
contrasts.

Description of the Activity

    The seismic surveys use the ``reflection'' method of data 
acquisition. Seismic exploration uses a controlled energy source to 
generate acoustic waves that travel through the earth, including sea 
ice and water, as well as sub-sea geologic formations, and then uses 
ground sensors to record the reflected energy transmitted back to the 
surface. When acoustic energy is generated, compression and shear waves 
form and travel in and on the earth. The compression and shear waves 
are affected by the geological formations of the earth as they travel 
in it and may be reflected, refracted, diffracted or transmitted when 
they reach a boundary represented by an acoustic impedance contrast. 
Vibroseis seismic operations use large trucks with vibrators that 
systematically put variable frequency energy into the earth. At least 
1.2 m (4 ft) of sea ice is required to support the various equipment 
and vehicles used to transport seismic equipment offshore for 
exploration activities. These ice conditions generally exist from 1 
January until 31 May in the Beaufort Sea. Several vehicles are normally 
associated with a typical vibroseis operation. One or two vehicles with 
survey crews move ahead of the operation and mark the energy input 
points. Crews with wheeled vehicles often require trail clearance with 
bulldozers for adequate access to and within the site. Crews with 
tracked vehicles are typically limited by heavy snow cover and may 
require trail clearance beforehand.
    With the vibroseis technique, activity on the surveyed seismic line 
begins with the placement of sensors. All sensors are connected to the 
recording vehicle by multi-pair cable sections. The vibrators move to 
the beginning of the line and begin recording data. The vibrators begin 
vibrating in synchrony via a simultaneous radio signal to all vehicles. 
In a typical survey, each

[[Page 6627]]

vibrator will vibrate four times at each location. The entire formation 
of vibrators subsequently moves forward to the next energy input point 
(e.g. 67 m, or 220 ft, in most applications) and repeats the process. 
In a typical 16- to 18-hour day, a surveys will complete 6-16 km (4 to 
10 linear miles) in 2-dimensional seismic operations and 24 to 64 km 
(15 to 40 linear miles) in a 3-dimensional seismic operation.

Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

    A detailed description of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem can be found 
in several documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999; NMFS, 1999; Minerals 
Management Service (MMS), 1992, 1996, 2001). A detailed description of 
the seismic survey activities and its associated marine mammals can be 
found in the CPA application and a number of documents referenced in 
the CPA application (see ADDRESSES), and is not repeated here. Two 
marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed study area 
and are included in this application: the ringed seal (Phoca hispida) 
and the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus).
    Ringed seals are year-round residents in the Beaufort Sea. The 
worldwide population is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million seals 
(Stirling and Calvert 1979). The Alaska stock of the Bering-Chukchi-
Beaufort area is estimated at 1 to 1.5 (Frost 1985) or 3.3 to 3.6 
million seals (Frost et al. 1988). Although there are no recent 
population estimates in the Beaufort Sea, Bengston et al. (2000) 
estimated ringed seal abundance from Barrow south to Shismaref in a 
portion of the Chukchi Sea to be 245,048 animals from aerial surveys 
flow in 1999. The NMFS 2003 Stock Assessment Report (Anglis et al., 
2001) states that there are at least that many ringed seals in the 
Beaufort Sea. Frost et al. (1999) reported that observed densities 
within the area of industrial activity along the Beaufort Sea coast 
were generally similar between 1985-87 and 1996-98, suggesting that the 
regional population has been relatively stable during this 13-year 
period of industrial activity.
    During winter and spring, ringed seals inhabit landfast ice and 
offshore pack ice. Seal densities are highest on stable landfast ice 
but significant numbers of ringed seals also occur in pack ice (Wiig et 
al., 1999). Seals congregate at holes and along cracks or deformations 
in the ice (Frost et al., 1999). Breathing holes are established in 
landfast ice as the ice forms in autumn and maintained by seals 
throughout winter. Adult ringed seals maintain an average of 3.4 holes 
per seal (Hammill and Smith, 1989). Some holes may be abandoned as 
winter advances in order for seals to probably conserve energy by 
maintaining fewer holes (Brueggeman and Grialou, 2001). As snow 
accumulates, ringed seals excavate lairs in snowdrifts surrounding 
their breathing holes, which they use for resting and for the birth and 
nursing of their single pups in late March to May (McLaren, 1958; Smith 
and Stirling, 1975; Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990). Pups have been 
observed to enter the water, dive to over 10 m (33 ft), and return to 
the lair as early as 10 days after birth (Brendan Kelly, pers comm to 
CPA, June 2002), suggesting pups can survive the cold water 
temperatures at a very early age. Mating occurs in late April and May. 
From mid- May through July, ringed seals haul out in the open air at 
holes and along cracks to bask in the sun and molt. Most on-ice seismic 
activity occurs from late January through May.
    The seasonal distribution of ringed seals in the Beaufort Sea is 
affected by a number of factors but a consistent pattern of seal use 
has been documented since aerial survey monitoring began over 20 years 
ago. Seal densities have historically been substantially lower in the 
western than the eastern part of the Beaufort Sea (Burns and Kelly, 
1982; Kelly, 1988). Frost et al. (1999) reported consistently lower 
ringed seal densities in the western versus eastern sectors they 
surveyed in the Beaufort Sea during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The 
relatively low densities appear to be related to shallow water depths 
in much of the area occurring between the shore and the barrier 
islands. This area of historically low ringed seal density is the focus 
of much of the recent on-ice seismic surveys.
    The bearded seal inhabits the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas 
(Burns and Frost, 1979). There are no reliable estimates for bearded 
seals in the Beaufort Sea or in the activity area (Angliss et al., 
2001), but numbers are considerably higher in the Bering and Chukchi 
seas, particularly during winter and early spring. Early estimates of 
bearded seals in the Bering and Chukchi seas range from 250,000 to 
300,000 (Popov, 1976; Burns, 1981). Based on the available data there 
is no evidence of a decline in the bearded seal population. Bearded 
seals are generally associated with pack ice and only rarely use 
shorefast ice (Burns and Harbo, 1972). Bearded seals occasionally have 
been observed maintaining breathing holes in annual ice and even 
hauling out from holes used by ringed seals (Mansfield, 1967; Stirling 
and Smith, 1977). However, since bearded seals are normally found in 
broken ice that is unstable for on-ice seismic operation, bearded seals 
will be rarely encountered during seismic operations.
    Additional information on these species is available at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals

    Incidental take is anticipated to result from short-term 
disturbances by noise and physical activity associated with on-ice 
seismic operations. These operations have the potential to disturb and 
temporarily displace some seals. Pup mortality could occur if any of 
these animals were nursing and displacement was protracted. However, it 
is unlikely that a nursing female would abandon her pup given the 
normal levels of disturbance from the proposed activities, potential 
predators, and the typical movement patterns of ringed sea pups among 
different holes. Seals also use as many as four lairs spaced as far as 
3437 m (11276 ft) apart. In addition, seals have multiple breathing 
holes. Pups may use more holes than adults, but the holes are generally 
closer together. This indicates that adult seals and pups can move away 
from seismic activities, particularly since the seismic equipment does 
not remain in any specific area for a prolonged time. Given those 
considerations, combined with the small proportion of the population 
potentially disturbed by the proposed activity, impacts are expected to 
be negligible for the ringed and bearded seal populations.
    Not taking into account water depth (i.e., most of the activity 
area is marginal seal habitat, with over 95 percent of the area less 
than 3 m (9.8 ft) deep), the estimated number of ringed seals 
potentially within the 51-mi\2\ (132.1 km\2\) vibroseis activity area 
is less than 230 animals. This estimate is based on a density of 1.73 
seals per km\2\, which was derived from the most current aerial surveys 
of the region. Frost and Lowry (1999) reported an observed density of 
0.61 ringed seals per km\2\ on the fast ice from aerial surveys 
conducted in spring 1997 of an area (Sector B2) overlapping the 
activity area, which is in the range of densities (0.28-0.66) reported 
for the Northstar development from 1997 to 2001 (Moulton et al., 2001). 
This value (0.61) was adjusted to account for seals hauled out but not 
sighted by observers (x 1.22, based on Frost et al. (1988)) and seals 
not hauled out during the surveys (x 2.33, based on Kelly and 
Quakenbush (1990)) to obtain the 1.73 seal per km\2\. This estimate 
covered an area from the

[[Page 6628]]

coast to about 2-20 miles beyond the activity area; and it assumed that 
habitat conditions were uniform and, therefore, it was not adjusted for 
water depth. Since a high proportion (greater than 95 percent) of the 
activity area is within water less than 3 m (9.8 ft) deep, which 
Moulton et al. (2001) reported for Northstar supported about five times 
fewer seals (0.12 -0.13 seals/km\2\) than was reported by Frost and 
Lowry (i.e., 0.61), the actual number of ringed seals is estimated to 
be about 25 percent of the 230 seals or 58 seals.
    In the winter, bearded seals are restricted to cracks, broken ice, 
and other openings in the ice. On-ice seismic operations avoid those 
areas for safety reasons. Therefore, any exposure of bearded seals to 
on-ice seismic operations would be limited to distant and transient 
exposure. Bearded seals exposed to a distant on-ice seismic operation 
might dive into the water. An indication of their low numbers is 
provided by the results of aerial surveys conducted east of the 
activity area near the Northstar and Liberty project sites. Three to 18 
bearded seals were observed in these areas compared to 1,911 to 2,251 
ringed seals in the spring (May/June) of 1999 through 2001 (Moulton et 
al., 2001; Moulton and Elliott, 2000; and Moulton et al., 2000). 
Similarly only small numbers of bearded seals would be expected to 
occur in the activity area, where habitat is even less favorable 
because of the high proportion of shallow water area.
    Consequently, no significant effects on individual bearded seals or 
their population are expected, and the number of individuals that might 
be temporarily disturbed would be very low.

Potential Effects on Subsistence

    Residents of the village of Nuiqsut are the primary subsistence 
users in the activity area. The subsistence harvest during winter and 
spring is primarily ringed seals, but during the open-water period both 
ringed and bearded seals are taken. Nuiqsut hunters may hunt year 
round; however, most of the harvest has been in open water instead of 
the more difficult hunting of seals at holes and lairs (McLaren, 1958; 
Nelson, 1969). The most important area for Nuiqsut hunters is off the 
Colville River Delta, between Fish Creek and Pingok Island, which 
corresponds to approximately the eastern half to the activity area. 
Seal hunting occurs in this area by snow machine before spring break-up 
and by boat during summer. Subsistence patterns may be reflected 
through the harvest data collected in 1992, when Nuiqsut hunters 
harvested 22 of 24 ringed seals and all 16 bearded seals during the 
open water season from July to October (Fuller and George, 1997). 
Harvest data for 1994 and 1995 show 17 of 23 ringed seals were taken 
from June to August, while there was no record of bearded seals being 
harvested during these years (Brower and Opie, 1997). Only a small 
number of ringed seals was harvested during the winter to early spring 
period, which corresponds to the time of the proposed on-ice seismic 
operations.
    Based on harvest patterns and other factors, on-ice seismic 
operations in the activity area are not expected to have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on subsistence uses of ringed and bearded seals because:
    (1) Operations would end before the spring ice breakup, after which 
subsistence hunters harvest most of their seals.
    (2) Operations would temporarily displace relatively few seals, 
since most of the habitat in the activity area is marginal to poor and 
supports relatively low densities of seals during winter. Displaced 
seals would likely move a short distance and remain in the area for 
potential harvest by native hunters (Frost and Lowry, 1988; Kelly et 
al., 1988).
    (3) The area where seismic operations would be conducted is small 
compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area associated 
with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals.
    (4) To the maximum extent practicable, offshore vibroseis 
activities in Harrison Bay would progress in a westward direction and 
from deeper water shoreward to minimize disturbance to any subsistence 
hunting that may occur during seismic operations. If subsistence 
hunting occurred during winter, it would primarily be in the eastern 
half of Harrison Bay.
    In order to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the 
species and the subsistence use of ringed seals, all activities will be 
conducted as far as practicable from any observed ringed seal 
structure, and crews will be required to avoid hunters and the 
locations of any seals being hunted in the activity area, whenever 
possible. Finally, the applicant will consult with subsistence hunters 
of Nuiqsut and provide the community, the North Slope Borough, and the 
Inupiat Community of the North Slope with information about its planned 
activities (timing and extent) before initiating any on-ice seismic 
activities.

Mitigation and Monitoring

    The following mitigation measures are proposed for the subject 
surveys: (1) All activities will be conducted as far as practicable 
from any observed ringed or bearded seal lair and no energy source will 
be placed over a ringed or bearded seal lair; (2) only vibrator-type 
energy-source equipment shown to have similar or lesser effects will be 
used; and (3) CPA will provide training for the seismic crews so they 
can recognize potential areas of ringed seal lairs and adjust the 
seismic operations accordingly.
    Ringed seal pupping occurs in ice lairs from late March to mid-to-
late April (Smith and Hammill, 1981). Prior to commencing on-ice 
seismic surveys in mid-March, a survey using experienced field 
personnel and trained dogs will be conducted along the planned on-ice 
seismic transmission routes in areas where water depths exceed 3 m (9.8 
ft) to identify and determine the status of potential seal structures 
along the planned on-ice transit routes. The seal structure survey will 
be conducted before selection of precise transit routes to ensure that 
seals, particularly pups, are not injured by equipment. The locations 
of all seal structures will be recorded by Global Positioning System 
(GPS), staked, and flagged with surveyor's tape. Surveys will be 
conducted 150 m (492 ft) to each side of the transit routes. Actual 
width of route may vary depending on wind speed and direction, which 
strongly influence the efficiency and effectiveness of dogs locating 
seal structures. Few, if any, seals inhabit ice-covered waters 
shallower than 3 m (9.8 ft) due to water freezing to the bottom or poor 
prey availability caused by the limited amount of ice-free water.
    The level of take, while anticipated to be negligible, will be 
assessed by conducting a second seal structure survey shortly after the 
end of the seismic surveys. A single on-ice survey will be conducted by 
biologists on snow machines using a GPS to relocate and determine the 
status of seal structures located during the initial survey. The status 
(active vs. inactive) of each structure will be determined to assess 
the level of incidental take by seismic operations. The number of 
active seal structures abandoned between the initial survey and the 
final survey will be the basis for enumerating harassment takes. If 
dogs are not available for the initial survey, takings will be 
determined by using observed densities of seals on ice reported by 
Moulton et al. (200I) for the Northstar development, which is 
approximately 24 nm (46 km)

[[Page 6629]]

from the eastern edge of the proposed activity area.
    CPA will also continue to work with NMFS, other Federal agencies, 
the State of Alaska, Native communities of Barrow and Nuiqsut, and the 
Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS) to assess measures to 
further minimize any impact from seismic activity. A Plan of 
Cooperation will be developed between CPA and Nuiqsut to ensure that 
seismic activities do not interfere with subsistence harvest of ringed 
or bearded seals.
    In the event that seismic surveys can be completed in that portion 
of the activity area with water depths greater than or equal to 3 m 
(9.8 ft) before mid-March, no field surveys would be conducted of seal 
structures. Under this scenario, surveys would be completed before pups 
are born and disturbance would be negligible. Therefore, take estimates 
would be determined for only that portion of the activity area exposed 
to seismic surveys after mid-March, which would be in water depths of 3 
m (9.8 ft) or less. Take for this area would be estimated by using the 
observed density (13/100 km\2\) reported by Moulton et al. (2001) for 
water depths between 0 to 3 m (0 to 9.8 ft) in the Northstar project 
area, which is the only source of a density estimate stratified by 
water depth for the Beaufort Sea. This would be an overestimation 
requiring a substantial downward adjustment to reflect the actual take 
of seals using lairs, since few if any of the structures in these water 
depths would be used for birthing, and Moulton et al. (2001) estimate 
includes all seals.
    This monitoring program was reviewed at the fall 2002 on-ice 
meeting sponsored by NMFS' National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Seattle 
and found acceptable.

Reporting

    An annual report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of 
completing the year's activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The information provided in Environmental Assessments (EAs) 
prepared in 1993 and 1998 for winter seismic activities led NOAA to 
conclude that implementation of either the preferred alternative or 
other alternatives identified in the EA would not have a significant 
impact on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact 
Statement was not prepared. The proposed action discussed in this 
document is not substantially different from the 1992 and 1998 actions, 
and a reference search has indicated that no significant new scientific 
information or analyses have been developed in the past several years 
that would warrant new NEPA documentation. Accordingly, this action is 
categorically excluded from further review under NOAA Administrative 
Order 216-6.

Preliminary Conclusions

    The anticipated impact of winter seismic activities on the species 
or stock of ringed and bearded seals is expected to be negligible for 
the following reasons:
    (1) The activity area supports a small proportion (<=1 percent) of 
the ringed and bearded seal populations in the Beaufort Sea.
    (2) Most of the winter-run seismic lines will be on ice over 
shallow water where ringed seals are absent or present in very low 
abundance. Over 90 percent of the activity area is near shore and/or in 
water less than 3 m (9.8 ft) deep, which is generally considered poor 
seal habitat. Moulton et al. (2001) reported that only 6 percent of 660 
ringed seals observed on ice in the Northstar project area were in 
water between 0 to 3 m (0 to 9.8 ft) deep.
    (3) For reasons of safety and because of normal operational 
constraints, seismic operators will avoid moderate and large pressure 
ridges, where seal and pupping lairs are likely to be most numerous.
    (4) Many of the on-ice seismic lines and connecting ice roads will 
be laid out and explored during January and February, when many ringed 
seals are still transient, and considerably before the spring pupping 
season.
    (5) The sounds from energy produced by vibrators used during on-ice 
seismic programs typically are at frequencies well below those used by 
ringed seals to communicate (1000 Hz). Thus, ringed seal hearing is not 
likely to be very good at those frequencies and seismic sounds are not 
likely to have strong masking effects on ringed seal calls. This effect 
is further moderated by the quiet intervals between seismic energy 
transmissions.
    (6) There has been no major displacement of seals away from on-ice 
seismic operations (Frost and Lowry, 1988). Further confirmation of 
this lack of major response to industrial activity is illustrated by 
the fact that there has been no major displacement of seals near the 
Northstar Project. Studies at Northstar have shown a continued presence 
of ringed seals throughout winter and creation of new seal structures 
(Williams et al., 2001).
    (7) Although seals may abandon structures near seismic activity, 
studies have not demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between 
abandonment and seismic activity or biologically significant impact on 
ringed seals. Studies by Williams et al. (2001), Kelley et al. (1986, 
1988) and Kelly and Quakenbush (1990) have shown that abandonment of 
holes and lairs and establishment or re-occupancy of new ones is an 
ongoing natural occurrence, with or without human presence. Link et al. 
(1999) compared ringed seal densities between areas with and without 
vibroseis activity and found densities were highly variable within each 
area and inconsistent between areas (densities were lower for 5 days, 
equal for 1 day, and higher for 1 day in vibroseis area), suggesting 
other factors beyond the seismic activity likely influenced seal use 
patterns. Consequently, a wide variety of natural factors influence 
patterns of seal use including time of day, weather, season, ice 
deformation, ice thickness, accumulation of snow, food availability and 
predators as well as ring seal behavior and population dynamics.
    In winter, bearded seals are restricted to cracks, broken ice, and 
other openings in the ice. On-ice seismic operations avoid those areas 
for safety reasons. Therefore, any exposure of bearded seals to on-ice 
seismic operations would be limited to distant and transient exposure. 
Bearded seals exposed to a distant on-ice seismic operation might dive 
into the water. Consequently, no significant effects on individual 
bearded seals or their population are expected, and the number of 
individuals that might be temporarily disturbed would be very low.
    As a result, CPA believes the effects of on-ice seismic are 
expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes 
involving relatively small numbers of seals. NMFS has preliminarily 
determined, based on information in the application and supporting 
documents, that these changes in behavior will have no more than a 
negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of ringed and 
bearded seals. Also, the potential effects of the proposed on-ice 
seismic operations during 2005 are unlikely to result in more than 
small numbers of seals being affected and will not have an

[[Page 6630]]

unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of these two species.

Proposed Authorization

    NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to CPA for conducting seismic surveys 
from Milne Point to the eastern channel of the Colville River in the 
U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the proposed activity would result in the 
harassment of small numbers of marine mammals; would have no more than 
a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks; and would not 
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or 
stocks for subsistence uses.

Information Solicited

    NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information 
concerning this request (see ADDRESSES).

    Dated: February 2, 2005>
Laurie K. Allen,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-2443 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S