Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; On-ice Seismic Operations in the Beaufort Sea, 26336-26340 [E6-6768]
Download as PDF
26336
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Notices
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 27, 2005, Joint Stock
Company Liepajas Metalurgs, a Latvian
producer of subject merchandise,
requested an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia.
On September 30, 2005, the petitioners
in the proceeding, the Rebar Trade
Action Coalition1 and its individual
members, also requested an
administrative review of the
antidumping order. On October 25,
2005, the Department published a notice
of initiation of the administrative
review, covering the period September
1, 2004, through August 31, 2005 (70 FR
61601). The preliminary results are
currently due no later than June 2, 2006.
Statutory Time Limits
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires
the Department of Commerce (the
Department) to complete the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an order/
finding for which a review is requested,
and the final results within 120 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results are published. However, if it is
not practicable to complete the review
within these time periods, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend the time limit for
(1) the preliminary results to a
maximum of 365 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an order/
finding for which a review is requested,
and (2) the final results to 180 days (or
300 days if the Department does not
extend the time limit for the preliminary
results) from the date of publication of
the preliminary results.
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Review
We determine that it is not practicable
to complete the preliminary results of
this review within the original time
limits. Several complex issues related to
merchandise classification, date of sale,
and cost of production have been raised
during the course of this administrative
review. The Department needs more
time to address these items and evaluate
the issues more thoroughly.
1 The Rebar Trade Action Coalition comprises
Gerdau AmeriSteel, CMC Steel Group, Nucor
Corporation, and TAMCO.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
For the reasons noted above, we are
extending the time limit for completion
of the preliminary results until no later
than August 1, 2006. We intend to issue
the final results no later than 120 days
after publication of the preliminary
results.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act.
Dated: April 28, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–6761 Filed 5–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 041306A]
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Specified Activities; On-ice Seismic
Operations in the Beaufort Sea
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) as amended, notification is
hereby given that an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take
small numbers of marine mammals, by
harassment, incidental to conducting
on-ice vibroseis seismic operations in
the Harrison Bay portion of the western
U.S. Beaufort Sea has been issued to
Kuukpik Veritas DGC (Kuukpik) for a
period of 1 year.
DATES: Effective from April 30, 2006
through April 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The authorization and
application containing a list of the
references used in this document may
be obtained by writing to this address or
by telephoning the contact listed here.
The application is also available at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext
137 or Brad Smith, Alaska Region,
NMFS, (907) 271–5006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 mitigation, monitoring and reporting
of such takings are set forth. NMFS has
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as ’’...an impact resulting from
the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
established an expedited process by
which citizens of the United States can
apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of
marine mammals by harassment. Except
for certain categories of activities not
pertinent here, the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance
which (i) has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
[Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including,
but not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
[Level B harassment].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–
day time limit for NMFS review of an
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 October 24, 2005, NMFS received
an application from ASRC Energy
Services, Lynx Enterprises, Inc. (AES
Lynx) on behalf of Kuukpik 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 in the Harrison Bay portion
of the western U.S. Beaufort Sea. The
proposed survey would be conducted
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
from through May 20, 2006. The
operation will consist of laying seismic
cables with geophones on the frozen sea
ice, employing the vibroseis method of
energy (sound source) production, and
recording the seismic signals. Water
depths in the majority of the planned
survey area are less than 3 m (9.8 ft).
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
vibrator will vibrate four times at each
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt and request for 30–
day public comment on the application
and proposed authorization was
published on February 27, 2006 (71 FR
9782). During the 30–day public
comment period, NMFS received the
following comments from the Marine
Mammal Commission (Commission).
Comment 1: As noted in the
Commission’s previous letters on
similar requests, the Commission
believes that the effects of the activities
proposed, by themselves, are likely to be
negligible. However, the Commission
continues to be concerned that the
cumulative impacts of (1) many such
activities in the Beaufort Sea (see
National Academy of Sciences report
entitled Cumulative Environmental
Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on
Alaska’s North Slope), and (2) predicted
climate change in this region may, at
some point, have more than negligible
impacts on marine mammal
populations.
Response: NMFS is unaware of any
other wintertime seismic operations in
the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The only other
potential ice-road construction activity
is by Northstar operations near Prudhoe
Bay (70 FR 17066, April 4, 2005), which
is about 100 miles (1,610 km) from the
proposed action in the Coleville Delta/
Harrison Bay region of the Beaufort Sea.
No ice-roads have been constructed in
recent years due to use of hovercraft for
transportation. As for the cumulative
impacts:
(1) The report Cumulative
Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas
Activities on Alaska’s North Slope
(Report) released by the National
Academy of Science lists industrial
noise and oil spill as major impacts to
marine mammals from oil and gas
development. So far the prevalent
human induced mortalities on marine
mammals (bowhead whales, seals, and
polar bears) in this region are from
subsistent hunting. The Report further
predicts that ‘‘if climate warming and
substantial oil spills did not occur,
cumulative effects on ringed seals and
polar bears in the next 25 years would
likely be minor and not accumulate’’. In
its findings, the Report concludes that
‘‘industrial activity in marine waters of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26337
the Beaufort Sea has been limited and
sporadic and likely has not caused
serious accumulating effects on ringed
seals or polar bears’’; and ‘‘careful
mitigation can help to reduce the effects
of North Slope oil and gas development
and their accumulation, especially if
there is no major oil spill’’. The
proposed activity would have no
potential for oil spill, neither would it
produce noise that is high enough to
cause any harm to marine mammals.
(2) Although climate warming should
be a concern for the sustainability of the
entire ecosystem in the Alaska’s North
Slope region, it is irrelevant to the
proposed action since the on-ice seismic
activity would neither contribute nor
reduce the pace of global warming. The
melting of shore-fast ice by itself would
only reduce the on-ice activity as it
would be unsafe to employ vibroseis
survey techniques. At least 4 ft (1.2 m)
of ice thickness is required to support
the various equipment and vehicles
used to transport seismic equipment
offshore for exploration activities.
Comment 2: The Commission
questions whether arctic cod, which are
a primary prey of ringed seals, could be
adversely affected by vibroseis surveys.
Response: Most of the on-ice seismic
survey would be conducted in areas
where water depth is under 3 m (9.8 ft)
with the shore-fast ice at 1.2 m (4 ft)
thick. This is not preferred habitat for
the arctic cod, which is commonly
found at the surface of the sea close to
shore among ice floes.
Comment 3: The Commission
reiterates its recommendation that
monitoring programs for the proposed
activities be expanded to collect more
general data on changes in density and
abundance of potentially affected
marine mammals, reproductive rates,
prey availability, foraging patterns,
distribution, and contaminant levels
where oil and gas exploration,
development, and production occur.
The Commission considers such
information essential for ensuring that
subtle changes occurring over short
periods (i.e., seasonally or annually)
have negligible cumulative effects over
longer periods.
Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA, NMFS must prescribe a
monitoring program that the applicant
must implement to provide information
on marine mammal takings and impacts
on affected species and stocks. As
provided in the Federal Register notice
of receipt of this IHA application (71 FR
9782, February 27, 2006), seal density
and structure survey would be
conducted before selection of transit
routes, and a second seal structure
survey would be performed shortly after
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
26338
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Notices
the end of the seismic surveys. A
detailed description of the survey is
provided in that Federal Register notice
(71 FR 9782, February 27, 2006) and is
not repeated here. However, an
expanded program to collect
information on prey availability,
foraging patterns, and contaminant
levels of marine mammals is beyond the
scope of the proposed action.
Comment 4: The Commission believes
that the use of trained dogs is the only
reliable method for locating ringed seal
lairs and other structures. Thus, if
trained dogs are not available for the
initial survey, the Commission does not
believe that the NMFS should accept
monitoring by humans as an alternative
until it has been demonstrated that such
monitoring is as effective as that carried
out using dogs.
Response: While NMFS believes the
use of trained dogs to locate ringed seal
lairs during on-ice surveys conducted in
areas with water depth less than 3 m
(9.8 ft) is the best method to detect
ringed seals in winter, NMFS also
believes that the use of experienced
subsistence hunters should be an
alternative only if no dogs are available.
In such cases, NMFS requires the
applicant to provide certifications from
owners of trained dogs stating that no
dogs are available for the purposed
surveys during the survey days. The
applicant points out it has certain
concerns over the required dogs,
including the biasing of locating
abandoned versus active holes, the
potential of attracting polar bears,
potential takes of seals by dogs, and the
opposition from the native groups.
Comment 5: The Commission also
notes that the probability of physical
damage to seal lairs and holes or
individual seals is related to the total
area affected, and it suggests that
vehicles stay on the actual shot lines to
the maximum extent possible.
Response: The majority of the areas (≤
95 percent) that would be subject to onice seismic survey would be under 3 m
(9.8 ft) deep, therefore are not ringed
seal habitat. Nevertheless, NMFS is
requiring the applicant to have survey
vehicles stay on the actual shot lines to
the maximum extent possible.
Comment 6: The Commission further
recommends that the authorization
specify that operations be suspended if
a mortality or serious injury of a seal
occurs. The suspension would provide
an opportunity for NMFS to determine
whether steps can be taken to avoid
further injuries or mortalities and
whether an incidental take
authorization is needed under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
Response: NMFS agrees, and the IHA
condition will specify that operations be
suspended if a mortality or serious
injury of a seal is detected.
Comment 7: The Commission noted
that the application indicates that a brief
portion of the proposed project may be
conducted over open water if on-ice
studies are inadequate and further
resolution is needed. Such open-water
work would involve the use of small
airgun arrays. If it has not already done
so, the Commission asks NMFS to
request additional information from the
applicant on this portion of the
proposed activities (e.g., sizes of
airguns, zones of influence, etc.).
Response: The application NMFS
received on February 7, 2006, indicates
that open-water surveys would only be
necessary if on-ice seismic surveys
indicate that there may be a dead zone
from where inadequate or jumbled
seismic signals were recorded. Under
such circumstances when open-water
seismic surveys become necessary, the
applicant will be required to submit a
new IHA application for open-water
surveys providing detailed information
on this proposed activity. Open-water
seismic surveys are not authorized
under this IHA.
Comment 8: The application states
that the applicant will seek a Letter of
Authorization (LOA) from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
intentional take of polar bears. NMFS
should advise the applicant that it will
need to obtain appropriate
authorizations from FWS for any taking
of polar bears.
Response: Both intentional and
unintentional, incidental take of marine
mammals is prohibited under the
MMPA, unless the take has been
authorized by the appropriate agency.
NMFS encourages the applicant to
contact the FWS regarding appropriate
authorizations for any intentional or
unintentional, incidental taking of polar
bears that may occur as a result of their
activities.
Description of Habitat, Marine
Mammals Affected by the Activity, and
the Impact on Affected Marine
Mammals
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
more detailed description of the seismic
survey activities and affected marine
mammals can be found in the AES Lynx
application (see ADDRESSES). Four
marine mammal species are known to
occur within the proposed study area:
ringed seal (Phoca hispida), bearded
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
seal (Erignathus barbatus), spotted seal
(Phoca largha), and polar bear (Ursus
maritimus). The applicant reached an
arrangement with the USFWS for the
intentional taking of polar bears because
USFWS has management authority for
this species. Spotted seals are not
known winter users of the project area,
therefore, no incidental take is expected
for this species. A more detailed
description of ringed and bearded seals
can be found in the proposed IHA
notice (71 FR 9782, February 27, 2006).
That information is not repeated here.
Mitigation and Monitoring
The following mitigation measures
will be implemented for the subject
surveys. 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. Only
vibrator-type energy-source equipment
shown to have similar or lesser effects
than proposed will be used. Kuukpik
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 areas where water depth is less than
3 m (9.8 ft) in mid-March, trained dogs
will be used to screen for lairs along the
planned on-ice seismic transmission
routes. In case that no dogs are available
for the scheduled survey, experienced
Inupiat subsistence hunters will be
hired to look for seal lairs. 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 at locating seal
structures. Few, if any, seals inhabit icecovered 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.
Kuukpik 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 was developed between
Kuukpik and Nuiqsut to ensure that
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Notices
seismic activities do not interfere with
subsistence harvest of ringed or bearded
seals.
The level of impacts, 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
possible harassment takes. If dogs are
not available for the initial survey,
takings will be estimated by using
observed densities of seals on ice
reported by Moulton et al. (2001) for the
Northstar development, which is
approximately 24 nm (46 km) from the
eastern edge of the proposed activity
area.
Seal structures take estimates will be
determined for the portion of the
activity area exposed to seismic surveys
in water depths of 3 m (9.8 ft) or less.
Take for this area will be estimated by
using the observed density (13/100 km2)
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 will be an
overestimation requiring a substantial
downward adjustment to better reflect
the likely take of seals using lairs, since
few if any of the structures in these
water depths would be used for
birthing, and the Moulton et al. (2001)
estimate includes all seals.
Reporting
An annual report must be submitted
to NMFS within 90 days of completing
the year’s activities.
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
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 Kuukpik 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 1993
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.
Determinations
The anticipated impact of winter
seismic activities on the species or stock
of ringed and bearded seals is expected
to be negligible (and limited to the
taking of small numbers) 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. Most 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) 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 (1,000 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.
(5) 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26339
(6) 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, Kuukpik and NMFS
believe 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 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 on-ice
seismic operations during 2006 are
unlikely to result in more than small
numbers of seals being affected and will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on subsistence uses of these two
species.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to Kuukpik
for conducting seismic surveys from in
the Harrison Bay area of the western
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
26340
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Notices
U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: April 28, 2006.
Donna Wieting,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6–6768 Filed 5–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 032706A]
Notice of Availability of Final Stock
Assessment Reports
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; response
to comments.
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS has incorporated
public comments into revisions of
marine mammal stock assessment
reports (SARs). These reports for 2005
are now complete and available to the
public.
ADDRESSES: Send requests for copies of
reports or revised guidelines to: Chief,
Marine Mammal Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910–3226, Attn: Stock Assessments.
Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs
may be requested from Robyn Angliss,
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600
Sand Point Way, BIN 15700, Seattle,
WA 98115.
Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs
may be requested from Gordon Waring,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166
Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543.
Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs
may be requested from Tina Fahy,
Southwest Regional Office, NMFS, 501
West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA
90802–4213.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Eagle, Office of Protected Resources,
301–713–2322, ext. 105, e-mail
Tom.Eagle@noaa.gov; Robyn Angliss,
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206–
526–4032, e-mail
Robyn.Angliss@noaa.gov; Gordon
Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, e-mail
Gordon.Waring@noaa.gov; or Tina Fahy,
Southwest Regional Office, 562–980–
4023, e-mail Christina.Fahy@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:45 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
Electronic Access
Stock assessment reports are available
via the Internet at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.
Background
Section 117 of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare
stock assessments for each stock of
marine mammals occurring in waters
under the jurisdiction of the United
States. These reports must contain
information regarding the distribution
and abundance of the stock, population
growth rates and trends, estimates of
annual human-caused mortality and
serious injury from all sources,
descriptions of the fisheries with which
the stock interacts, and the status of the
stock. Initial reports were completed in
1995.
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS
to review the SARs at least annually for
strategic stocks and stocks for which
significant new information is available,
and at least once every 3 years for nonstrategic stocks. NMFS and the FWS are
required to revise a SAR if the status of
the stock has changed or can be more
accurately determined. NMFS, in
conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic,
and Pacific Scientific Review Groups
(SRGs), reviewed the status of marine
mammal stocks as required and revised
reports in each of the three regions.
Comments and Responses
The draft 2005 SARs were available
for public review (70 FR 37091, June 28,
2005) for a 90–day comment period,
which ended on September 26, 2005.
NMFS received letters from two Federal
agencies (Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission) and U.S. Geological
Survey), one individual, and three
organizations (Alaska Native Sea Otter
and Steller Sea Lion Commission,
Hawaii Longline Association, and
Marine Conservation Alliance).
The U.S. Geological Survey had no
comments. The Commission’s
comments were directed to national
issues and to individual regional
reports. All other comments were
directed toward regional reports.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
suggesting editorial or clarifying
changes were included in the reports.
Such editorial comments and responses
to them are not included in the
summary of comments and responses
below. Other comments recommended
additional survey effort, observer
programs, or Take Reduction Plans.
Comments on the need to develop
additional Take Reduction Plans are not
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
related to the SARs; therefore, these
comments are not included below.
Comments recommending additional
data collection have been addressed in
recent years. Responses to these
comments indicated that NMFS’
resources for surveys or observer
programs were fully utilized, and no
new large surveys or observer programs
may be initiated until additional
resources are available. Such comments
on the 2005 SARs may not be included
in the summary below because the
responses have not changed.
In some cases, NMFS’ responses state
that comments would be considered for
or incorporated in future revisions of
the SAR rather than being incorporated
into the final 2005 SARs. The delay is
due to review of the reports by the
regional SRGs. NMFS provides
preliminary copies of updated SARs to
SRGs prior to release for public review
and comment. If a comment on the draft
SAR results in a substantive change to
the SAR, NMFS may discuss the
comment and prospective change with
the SRG at its next meeting prior to
incorporating the change.
Comments on National Issues
The Commission noted that the SARs
addressed a number of issues
inconsistently and recommended NMFS
review the assessment issues, develop
appropriate, precautionary policies for
addressing them, and take the steps
necessary to ensure consistent
application of the policies among all
regions and for all stocks of marine
mammals.
Comment 1: NMFS should ensure that
information provided within the SARs
is consistent among the contributions
from various regional offices. For
example, the summary tables for SARs
from different regions should compile
information in the same manner and
should include not only estimates of
populations size and mortality rates, but
also the variances of those estimates.
Response: NMFS agrees there should
be a certain level of consistency in the
tables, but there may be important
differences in some regions that warrant
inclusion in the summary tables. For
example, subsistence harvest results in
substantial mortality for some stocks in
the Alaska region, and such harvests do
not occur in the Atlantic or Pacific
regions. The Alaska SARs, therefore,
include a column in the summary table
for subsistence mortality, and this
column does not appear in the other two
regional SARs. Similarly, the Atlantic
and Pacific SARs include a column to
identify which Science Center within
NMFS produced the reports because
four Science Centers (Alaska,
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26336-26340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6768]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 041306A]
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 issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of marine mammals,
by harassment, incidental to conducting on-ice vibroseis seismic
operations in the Harrison Bay portion of the western U.S. Beaufort Sea
has been issued to Kuukpik Veritas DGC (Kuukpik) for a period of 1
year.
DATES: Effective from April 30, 2006 through April 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The authorization and application containing a list of the
references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this
address or by telephoning the contact listed here. The application is
also available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 137 or Brad Smith, Alaska Region,
NMFS, (907) 271-5006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are
made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the
public for review.
Permission 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 mitigation, monitoring and
reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ''...an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
[Level B harassment].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS
review of an 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 October 24, 2005, NMFS received an application from ASRC Energy
Services, Lynx Enterprises, Inc. (AES Lynx) on behalf of Kuukpik 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 in the Harrison Bay portion of the western U.S.
Beaufort Sea. The proposed survey would be conducted
[[Page 26337]]
from through May 20, 2006. The operation will consist of laying seismic
cables with geophones on the frozen sea ice, employing the vibroseis
method of energy (sound source) production, and recording the seismic
signals. Water depths in the majority of the planned survey area are
less than 3 m (9.8 ft).
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 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.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the
application and proposed authorization was published on February 27,
2006 (71 FR 9782). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS
received the following comments from the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission).
Comment 1: As noted in the Commission's previous letters on similar
requests, the Commission believes that the effects of the activities
proposed, by themselves, are likely to be negligible. However, the
Commission continues to be concerned that the cumulative impacts of (1)
many such activities in the Beaufort Sea (see National Academy of
Sciences report entitled Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and
Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope), and (2) predicted climate
change in this region may, at some point, have more than negligible
impacts on marine mammal populations.
Response: NMFS is unaware of any other wintertime seismic
operations in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The only other potential ice-road
construction activity is by Northstar operations near Prudhoe Bay (70
FR 17066, April 4, 2005), which is about 100 miles (1,610 km) from the
proposed action in the Coleville Delta/Harrison Bay region of the
Beaufort Sea. No ice-roads have been constructed in recent years due to
use of hovercraft for transportation. As for the cumulative impacts:
(1) The report Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas
Activities on Alaska's North Slope (Report) released by the National
Academy of Science lists industrial noise and oil spill as major
impacts to marine mammals from oil and gas development. So far the
prevalent human induced mortalities on marine mammals (bowhead whales,
seals, and polar bears) in this region are from subsistent hunting. The
Report further predicts that ``if climate warming and substantial oil
spills did not occur, cumulative effects on ringed seals and polar
bears in the next 25 years would likely be minor and not accumulate''.
In its findings, the Report concludes that ``industrial activity in
marine waters of the Beaufort Sea has been limited and sporadic and
likely has not caused serious accumulating effects on ringed seals or
polar bears''; and ``careful mitigation can help to reduce the effects
of North Slope oil and gas development and their accumulation,
especially if there is no major oil spill''. The proposed activity
would have no potential for oil spill, neither would it produce noise
that is high enough to cause any harm to marine mammals.
(2) Although climate warming should be a concern for the
sustainability of the entire ecosystem in the Alaska's North Slope
region, it is irrelevant to the proposed action since the on-ice
seismic activity would neither contribute nor reduce the pace of global
warming. The melting of shore-fast ice by itself would only reduce the
on-ice activity as it would be unsafe to employ vibroseis survey
techniques. At least 4 ft (1.2 m) of ice thickness is required to
support the various equipment and vehicles used to transport seismic
equipment offshore for exploration activities.
Comment 2: The Commission questions whether arctic cod, which are a
primary prey of ringed seals, could be adversely affected by vibroseis
surveys.
Response: Most of the on-ice seismic survey would be conducted in
areas where water depth is under 3 m (9.8 ft) with the shore-fast ice
at 1.2 m (4 ft) thick. This is not preferred habitat for the arctic
cod, which is commonly found at the surface of the sea close to shore
among ice floes.
Comment 3: The Commission reiterates its recommendation that
monitoring programs for the proposed activities be expanded to collect
more general data on changes in density and abundance of potentially
affected marine mammals, reproductive rates, prey availability,
foraging patterns, distribution, and contaminant levels where oil and
gas exploration, development, and production occur. The Commission
considers such information essential for ensuring that subtle changes
occurring over short periods (i.e., seasonally or annually) have
negligible cumulative effects over longer periods.
Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
prescribe a monitoring program that the applicant must implement to
provide information on marine mammal takings and impacts on affected
species and stocks. As provided in the Federal Register notice of
receipt of this IHA application (71 FR 9782, February 27, 2006), seal
density and structure survey would be conducted before selection of
transit routes, and a second seal structure survey would be performed
shortly after
[[Page 26338]]
the end of the seismic surveys. A detailed description of the survey is
provided in that Federal Register notice (71 FR 9782, February 27,
2006) and is not repeated here. However, an expanded program to collect
information on prey availability, foraging patterns, and contaminant
levels of marine mammals is beyond the scope of the proposed action.
Comment 4: The Commission believes that the use of trained dogs is
the only reliable method for locating ringed seal lairs and other
structures. Thus, if trained dogs are not available for the initial
survey, the Commission does not believe that the NMFS should accept
monitoring by humans as an alternative until it has been demonstrated
that such monitoring is as effective as that carried out using dogs.
Response: While NMFS believes the use of trained dogs to locate
ringed seal lairs during on-ice surveys conducted in areas with water
depth less than 3 m (9.8 ft) is the best method to detect ringed seals
in winter, NMFS also believes that the use of experienced subsistence
hunters should be an alternative only if no dogs are available. In such
cases, NMFS requires the applicant to provide certifications from
owners of trained dogs stating that no dogs are available for the
purposed surveys during the survey days. The applicant points out it
has certain concerns over the required dogs, including the biasing of
locating abandoned versus active holes, the potential of attracting
polar bears, potential takes of seals by dogs, and the opposition from
the native groups.
Comment 5: The Commission also notes that the probability of
physical damage to seal lairs and holes or individual seals is related
to the total area affected, and it suggests that vehicles stay on the
actual shot lines to the maximum extent possible.
Response: The majority of the areas (> 95 percent) that would be
subject to on-ice seismic survey would be under 3 m (9.8 ft) deep,
therefore are not ringed seal habitat. Nevertheless, NMFS is requiring
the applicant to have survey vehicles stay on the actual shot lines to
the maximum extent possible.
Comment 6: The Commission further recommends that the authorization
specify that operations be suspended if a mortality or serious injury
of a seal occurs. The suspension would provide an opportunity for NMFS
to determine whether steps can be taken to avoid further injuries or
mortalities and whether an incidental take authorization is needed
under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Response: NMFS agrees, and the IHA condition will specify that
operations be suspended if a mortality or serious injury of a seal is
detected.
Comment 7: The Commission noted that the application indicates that
a brief portion of the proposed project may be conducted over open
water if on-ice studies are inadequate and further resolution is
needed. Such open-water work would involve the use of small airgun
arrays. If it has not already done so, the Commission asks NMFS to
request additional information from the applicant on this portion of
the proposed activities (e.g., sizes of airguns, zones of influence,
etc.).
Response: The application NMFS received on February 7, 2006,
indicates that open-water surveys would only be necessary if on-ice
seismic surveys indicate that there may be a dead zone from where
inadequate or jumbled seismic signals were recorded. Under such
circumstances when open-water seismic surveys become necessary, the
applicant will be required to submit a new IHA application for open-
water surveys providing detailed information on this proposed activity.
Open-water seismic surveys are not authorized under this IHA.
Comment 8: The application states that the applicant will seek a
Letter of Authorization (LOA) from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for intentional take of polar bears. NMFS should advise the
applicant that it will need to obtain appropriate authorizations from
FWS for any taking of polar bears.
Response: Both intentional and unintentional, incidental take of
marine mammals is prohibited under the MMPA, unless the take has been
authorized by the appropriate agency. NMFS encourages the applicant to
contact the FWS regarding appropriate authorizations for any
intentional or unintentional, incidental taking of polar bears that may
occur as a result of their activities.
Description of Habitat, Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity, and
the Impact on Affected Marine Mammals
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 more detailed
description of the seismic survey activities and affected marine
mammals can be found in the AES Lynx application (see ADDRESSES). Four
marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed study
area: ringed seal (Phoca hispida), bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus),
spotted seal (Phoca largha), and polar bear (Ursus maritimus). The
applicant reached an arrangement with the USFWS for the intentional
taking of polar bears because USFWS has management authority for this
species. Spotted seals are not known winter users of the project area,
therefore, no incidental take is expected for this species. A more
detailed description of ringed and bearded seals can be found in the
proposed IHA notice (71 FR 9782, February 27, 2006). That information
is not repeated here.
Mitigation and Monitoring
The following mitigation measures will be implemented for the
subject surveys. 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. Only vibrator-type
energy-source equipment shown to have similar or lesser effects than
proposed will be used. Kuukpik 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 areas where water depth is less than 3 m (9.8 ft) in
mid-March, trained dogs will be used to screen for lairs along the
planned on-ice seismic transmission routes. In case that no dogs are
available for the scheduled survey, experienced Inupiat subsistence
hunters will be hired to look for seal lairs. 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 at 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.
Kuukpik 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 was developed between Kuukpik and Nuiqsut to ensure that
[[Page 26339]]
seismic activities do not interfere with subsistence harvest of ringed
or bearded seals.
The level of impacts, 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 possible harassment
takes. If dogs are not available for the initial survey, takings will
be estimated by using observed densities of seals on ice reported by
Moulton et al. (2001) for the Northstar development, which is
approximately 24 nm (46 km) from the eastern edge of the proposed
activity area.
Seal structures take estimates will be determined for the portion
of the activity area exposed to seismic surveys in water depths of 3 m
(9.8 ft) or less. Take for this area will 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 will be an overestimation
requiring a substantial downward adjustment to better reflect the
likely take of seals using lairs, since few if any of the structures in
these water depths would be used for birthing, and the Moulton et al.
(2001) estimate includes all seals.
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
Kuukpik 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 1993 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.
Determinations
The anticipated impact of winter seismic activities on the species
or stock of ringed and bearded seals is expected to be negligible (and
limited to the taking of small numbers) 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. Most 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) 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 (1,000 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.
(5) 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).
(6) 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, Kuukpik and NMFS believe 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
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 on-ice seismic
operations during 2006 are unlikely to result in more than small
numbers of seals being affected and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses of these two species.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to Kuukpik for conducting seismic surveys
from in the Harrison Bay area of the western
[[Page 26340]]
U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: April 28, 2006.
Donna Wieting,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6-6768 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S