Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; An On-ice Marine Geophysical Research and Development Program in the Beaufort Sea, 5421-5426 [E7-1875]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5421-5426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1875]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 011807A]


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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDRESSES:  Comments on the application should be addressed to P. 
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one 
of the contacts listed here. The mailbox address for providing email 
comments is PR1.011807A@noaa.gov. Comments sent via e-mail, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the 
application and other supporting material related to this proposed 
action may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the 
first contact person listed here and is also available at: 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 shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have 
a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of 
taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible 
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ''...an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization 
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
    any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
[Level B harassment].
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS 
review of an

[[Page 5422]]

application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on 
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine 
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must 
either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

Summary of Request

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

Description of the Activity

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

Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

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

Ringed Seals

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

[[Page 5423]]

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

Bearded Seals

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

Spotted Seals

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

[[Page 5424]]

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

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

Number of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken

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

[[Page 5425]]

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

Potential Effects on Subsistence

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

Mitigation and Monitoring

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

Reporting

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

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

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

Preliminary Conclusions

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

[[Page 5426]]

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

Proposed Authorization

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

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