Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; On-ice Geotechnical Operations in the Beaufort Sea, 19695-19699 [E7-7471]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Export Trade Certificate of Review
Notice of Application to Amend
an Export Trade Certificate of Review.
ACTION:
Export Trading Company
Affairs (‘‘ETCA’’) of the International
Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce, has received an application
to amend an Export Trade Certificate of
Review (‘‘Certificate’’). This notice
summarizes the proposed amendment
and requests comments relevant to
whether the Certificate should be
issued.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export
Trading Company Affairs, International
Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131
(this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail
at oetca@ita.doc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of
the Export Trading Company Act of
1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce to issue Export
Trade Certificates of Review. An Export
Trade Certificate of Review protects the
holder and the members identified in
the Certificate from state and federal
government antitrust actions and from
private treble damage antitrust actions
for the export conduct specified in the
Certificate and carried out in
compliance with its terms and
conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the
Export Trading Company Act of 1982
and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the
Secretary to publish a notice in the
Federal Register identifying the
applicant and summarizing its proposed
export conduct.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Request for Public Comments
Interested parties may submit written
comments relevant to the determination
whether an amended Certificate should
be issued. If the comments include any
privileged or confidential business
information, it must be clearly marked
and a nonconfidential version of the
comments (identified as such) should be
included. Any comments not marked
privileged or confidential business
information will be deemed to be
nonconfidential. An original and five (5)
copies, plus two (2) copies of the
nonconfidential version, should be
submitted no later than 20 days after the
date of this notice to: Export Trading
Company Affairs, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 7021B, Washington,
DC 20230. Information submitted by any
person is exempt from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act (5
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:39 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential
versions of the comments will be made
available to the applicant if necessary
for determining whether or not to issue
the Certificate. Comments should refer
to this application as ‘‘Export Trade
Certificate of Review, Ferrous Scrap
Export Association (‘‘FSEA’’),
application number 88–3A015.’’
FSEA’s original Certificate was issued
on December 12, 1988 (53 FR 51294,
December 21, 1988) and previously
amended on February 28, 1989 (54 FR
9542, March 7, 1989); and February 5,
1999 (64 FR 6632, February 10, 1999).
Also, a name change was announced
changing the name of the FSEA
Certificate Member ‘‘Witte-Chase
Corporation’’ to ‘‘Metro Metal Recycling
Corp’’ (55 FR 13581, April 11, 1990). A
summary of the current application for
an amendment follows.
Summary of the Application
Applicant: Ferrous Scrap Export
Association (‘‘FSEA’’), 1209 Orange
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19809.
Contact: Fuad Rana, Attorney,
Telephone: (202) 662–5348.
Application No.: 88–3A015.
Date Deemed Submitted: April 5,
2007.
Proposed Amendment: FSEA seeks to
amend its Certificate to:
1. Add each of the following
companies as a new ‘‘Member’’ of the
Certificate within the meaning of
section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15
CFR 325.2(l)): Sims Hugo Neu
Corporation; HNE Recycling LLC; and
HNW Recycling LLC, each located in
New York, NY.
2. Change the current Member listing
of the trade name ‘‘Simsmetal America’’
to the legal name of ‘‘Sims Group USA
Corporation’’, and change the current
Member listing of ‘‘Southern Scrap
Material Co., Ltd.’’ to ‘‘Southern
Recycling, LLC,’’ due to a company
name change.
3. Delete the following companies as
‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate: Metro
Metal Recycling Corp., New York, NY,
and Proler International Corp., Portland,
OR.
Dated: April 13, 2007.
Jeffrey Anspacher,
Director, Export Trading Company Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7–7411 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19695
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 032207A]
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Specified Activities; On-ice
Geotechnical 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
marine mammals, by harassment,
incidental to conducting an on-ice
marine geotechnical operations in the
U.S. Beaufort Sea, has been issued to
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc (CPAI) for a
period of one year.
DATES: This authorization is effective
from April 15, 2007, until April 14,
2008.
A copy of the application,
IHA, an Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the proposed action, and a list of
references used in this document may
be obtained by writing to P. Michael
Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and
Education Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910–3225, or by
telephoning one of the contacts listed
here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
ADDRESSES:
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.
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
19696
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices
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].
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–
day time limit for NMFS review of an
application followed by a 30–day public
notice and comment period on any
proposed authorizations for the
incidental harassment of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close
of the comment period, NMFS must
either issue or deny issuance of the
authorization.
Summary of Request
On November 29, 2006, NMFS
received an application from CPAI for
the taking, by harassment, of a small
number of ringed seals (Phoca hispida)
incidental to conducting geotechnical
portions of a site clearance survey just
north of Cross Island, in the spring of
2007. The site clearance location will be
on the outer continental shelf (OCS) and
State of Alaska leases in the U.S.
Beaufort Sea. The proposed operation
will be active 24 hours per day and use
a conventional geotechnical drilling rig.
The purpose of the site clearance is to
confirm that the seafloor has soil and
surface characteristics that will support
the safe set-down of a drill rig, and longterm occupation of the site by such a
vessel.
The geographic region of the proposed
geotechnical activity encompasses 2 13
km2 (5 mi2) areas in the south central
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:39 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
Alaska Beaufort Sea on the fast ice. The
region is about 3 miles (4.8 km) north
of Cross Island at approximately 147°57′
W and 70°32′ N. There will also be a sea
ice route directly from Deadhorse to the
site, which will be about 24 km (15
miles) long and 0.01 km (35 ft) wide.
The closest Eskimo village to the site
clearance location is Nuiqsut, which is
over 60 miles (97 km) away. Water
depths in the proposed project area are
typically less than 60 ft (18.2 m).
The proposed geotechnical operation
would use a small drill rig that runs
either 5–ft (1.5–m) long augers for soil
samples or 10–ft (3–m) jointed pipe to
recover core samples. The drill rig
would use cone penatrometers for cone
penetration tests. Sea water circulation
and occasionally mud systems would be
used on the drill rig to stabilize the hole.
This work is part of an overall shallow
hazards investigation of the project.
CPAI initially planned to conduct the
proposed project between February and
April, 2007, however, it has postponed
it until April, 2007. If the proposed
project cannot be completed by the end
of May 2007 due to ice conditions, CPAI
will resume the project in February
2008, and complete it in April 2008,
under this IHA.
A detailed description of these
activities was published in the Federal
Register on January 22, 2007 (72 FR
2653). No other changes have been
made to these proposed activities except
the project time described above.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt and request for 30–
day public comment on the application
and proposed authorization was
published on January 22, 2007 (72 FR
2653). During the 30–day public
comment period, NMFS received the
following comments from one private
citizen, the North Slope Borough (NSB),
and the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission).
Comment 1: One private citizen
opposes the project out of concern that
marine mammals would be killed by the
proposed project in the Beaufort Sea.
Response: As described in detail in
the Federal Register notice of receipt of
the application (72 FR 2653, January 22,
2007), no marine mammal will be killed
or injured as a result of the proposed onice geotechnical operations by CPAI.
The project would only result Level B
behavioral harassment of a small
number of ringed seals. No take by Level
A harassment (injury) or death is
anticipated or authorized from this
project.
Comment 2: The Commission
recommends that NMFS issue the IHA
to CPAI, provided that CPAI be required
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to use trained dogs for locating ringed
seal lairs and other structures. Both the
Commission and the NSB recommend
that trained dogs be used to detect and
locate ringed seal lairs and other
structures. The NSB further states that a
single native hunter will not be
sufficient for locating lairs and that seal
breathing holes are not confined to
deformed ice or pressure ridges.
Response: While NMFS believes that
the use of trained dogs to locate ringed
seal lairs during on-ice geotechnical
operations is the best method to detect
ringed seals in winter, NMFS also
believes that the use of experienced
subsistence hunters should be an
alternative before ringed seal pupping
season, starting on March 15, if the
CPAI cannot complete the project by
then. As for the proposed project, only
a limited number of holes in and near
a small rig footprint would be drilled,
one single experienced hunter is
sufficient for detecting seal lairs before
March 15. CPAI requested use of an
Inupiat hunter since it was successfully
usedat McCovey for a rolligon
operation. Allowing a proven method of
using an experienced hunter prior to the
ringed seal pupping season is a
reasonable alternative to trained dogs.
Even though experienced hunters may
not be as efficient to detect breathing
holes, NMFS does not believe this will
cause any mortality or seriously injure
ringed seals. However, for activities that
occur after March 15th, CPAI will use
trained dogs to locate seal lairs.
Comment 3: The Commission
assumes that CPAI has explored the
need for an authorization from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to take
polar bears (Ursus maritimus) incidental
to the proposed activities. If not, the
Commission states, NMFS may wish to
advise CPAI to do so.
Response: CPAI states that it has
applied for an IHA for the incidental
takes of polar bears from the FWS, and
that the permit is pending.
Comment 4: The Commission
recommends that the authorization
specify that the operations be
suspended immediately if a dead or
injured ringed seal is found in the
vicinity of the operations and the death
or injury could be attributable to the
applicant’s activities. The Commission
further recommends that any
suspension should remain in place until
NMFS has (1) reviewed the situation
and determined that further deaths or
serious injuries are unlikely or (2)
issued regulations authorizing such
takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA.
Response: NMFS agrees, and the IHA
condition specified that operations be
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices
suspended if a mortality or injury of a
marine mammal is detected that may be
the result of CPAI’s activity.
Comment 5: The NSB points out that
CPAI did not provide noise information
associated with cone penetration test
(CPT). The NSB questions whether CPT
is somewhat similar to pile driving,
which could create a substantial amount
of sound in the environment.
Response: CPAI states that the CPT
work is accomplished using hydraulics.
Consistent pressure, provided by
hydraulics, is necessary to accurately
measure soil properties. Therefore, CPAI
states that noise levels generated by CPT
work is negligible compared to that of
pile driving.
Comment 6: The NSB questions
NMFS’ conclusion that the effects of the
proposed geotechnical operations would
be short-term within the context of
disturbance of ringed seals. The NSB
further questions how long any
disturbance of seals as a result of the
proposed operations might be expected
to persist.
Response: As described in detail in
the Federal Register notice (72 FR 2653,
January 22, 2007) the proposed
geotechnical operations would only last
for two weeks during a 3–month period
within two small areas of 13 km2 (5
mi2). The analyses of the proposed onice geotechnical operations showed the
potential to disturb and temporarily
displace some ringed seals within the
proposed project areas during this short
time period. Therefore, NMFS believes
that the effects of this action are
expected to be limited to short-term and
localized behavioral changes involving
relatively small numbers of ringed seals.
Comment 7: The NSB points out that
in CPAI’s application, CPAI suggested it
only needs an IHA if the work extends
past the later part of March, ‘‘prior to
the birthing season for ringed seal
pups.’’ The NSB states that ringed seals
are present in the CPAI’s operational
area throughout the ice-covered season
and not just from late March through the
ice-covered period. The NSB further
states that it is extremely likely that
CPAI’s operations are causing Level B
harassment of ringed seals, assuming
they have already begun, and will have
impacts in March.
Response: Generally, NMFS
recommends IHAs for activities that
occur after the start of pupping season,
and with the exception of ice road
construction, activities conducted prior
to that time do not require IHAs.
Considering the number of other
activities that take place on the ice
without IHAs (e.g., snow mobiles),
NMFS considers this appropriate.
However, CPAI is applying for an IHA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:39 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
for the entire period when its on-ice
operations would be conducted. CAPI
indicated that it has not started its onice geotechnical operations and that it
will not do so prior to obtaining an IHA.
Comment 8: The NSB does not agree
that ringed seals are the only marine
mammals that might be taken
incidentally as a result of CPAI’s on-ice
operations. The NSB is concerned that
bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus)
and belugas (Delphinapterus leucas)
could be potentially taken as a result of
the proposed action. NSB states that
bowheads and belugas typically begin
passing by Barrow in mid-April, and
that in a typical year, bowheads and
belugas could be off the project area by
mid-April within several days of
passing Barrow. The NSB further states
that in 2007, ice is very light and there
are considerable areas of open water
between Barrow and the Bering Sea. The
NSB also states that bearded seals
(Erignathus barbatus) will also be in the
Beaufort Sea in April.
Response: The nature of the proposed
on-ice geotechnical operations would
require ice thickness of at least 50 in
(1.3 m) to support the heavy equipment
and personnel. This is not typical
habitat for cetacean species, including
bowhead and beluga whales, thus, no
cetacean species is likely to be found in
the vicinity of the project area. In
addition, the proposed project will not
use any impact source sources nor
airguns, so the generated underwater
noises due to the activities are negligible
and will not impact on any cetacean
species in the vicinity. CPAI will not
operate in the area where ice condition
is getting thin to allow open lead due to
safety concerns.
In regards to bearded seals, NMFS
does not believe these species would be
affected as a result of the proposed onice geotechnical operations due to their
rare occurrence in the proposed project
areas, and the small size of these areas.
Comment 9: The NSB points out that
CPAI primarily relied on ringed seal
data collected at the Northstar
development island (Moulton et al.,
2002) for their estimates of numbers of
takes of ringed seals. CPAI states that
these data are helpful but given that
CPAI’s activities are in deep water and
farther offshore, there is potential for
actually a greater numbers of seals in
the project area. The NSB suggests that
site-specific data on ringed seals are
needed for CPAI’s project area.
Response: In reviewing and making a
determination on the issuance of an IHA
to SOI for its proposed on-ice R&D
project, NMFS used the most recent
available and best scientific data
regarding ringed seal density in the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19697
proposed project area from works
conducted by Kelly and Quakenbush
(1990), Frost an Lowry (1999), and
Moulton et al., (2002), which was based
on studies at the Northstar
development. These studies cover a
large area of the Beaufort Sea, and the
ringed seal population estimates derived
from these studies are representative of
this species abundance in the proposed
project area. NMFS believes that these
data provide the best scientific
information on ringed seal density and
abundance in the proposed project area.
Description of the Marine Mammals
Potentially Affected by the Activity
Ringed seals are the only species of
marine mammal that may be present in
the proposed project area during the site
clearance period. Ringed seals are not
listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) or designated as depleted under
the MMPA. Other marine mammal
species under NMFS’ jurisdiction that
seasonally inhabit the Beaufort Sea, but
are not anticipated to occur in the
project area during site clearance
operations, include the bowhead whales
(Balaena mysticetus), beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas), bearded seals
(Erignathus barbatus), and spotted seals
(Phoca largha). While some of these
species begin to enter Beaufort Sea off
Point Barrow from the Chukchi Sea
during April, the project area is over 160
nm (296 km) east of Point Barrow,
thereby making it highly unlikely these
species would occur in the project area
during the proposed operations. Polar
bears also frequent in the Beaufort Sea,
but they are not addressed in this
application because they are managed
by the FWS. CPAI is applying for an
IHA for the incidental take of polar
bears from the FWS.
A detailed description of ringed seals
can be found in the Angliss and Outlaw
(2005), which is available at the
following URL: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/
ak2005.pdf. A more detailed description
of this species within the proposed
action area is provided in the January
22, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 2653).
Therefore, it is not repeated here.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals
and Their Habitat
The proposed on-ice geotechnical
operations have the potential to disturb,
including the temporary displacement
of, some ringed seals within the
proposed project area. Incidental take
may result from short-term disturbances
by noise and physical activities
associated with soil borings, CPT, and
rolligon supported support and logistics
activities. Pup mortality could occur if
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
19698
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices
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 site
clearance activity. All anticipated takes
would be Level B harassment, involving
short term, temporary changes in
behavior including displacement by
ringed seals. The number of seals
estimated to be taken is calculated based
on the most recent density data obtained
during ringed seal surveys conducted
within the geographic area of the
planned operation. Moulton et al. (2002)
reported that ringed seal densities on
landfast ice of Alaskan Beaufort area
range from 0.39 – 0.63 seal/km2.
The size of the proposed project area
is 26 km2 plus 0.32 km2 for the travel
corridor between the site and Deadhorse
with water depths greater than 3 m (9.8
ft) below the sea ice. Areas where water
depths are less than 3 m (9.8 ft) were
excluded from the calculation since
ringed seals typically do not occur in
these shallow areas (Moulton et al.,
2002). The length of the travel corridor
associated is about 16 km (10 mi) and
the calculation for its width was
doubled (70 ft or 200 m) to account for
adjustment of the corridor during the
program due to any changes in ice
condition. Therefore, it is estimated that
between 10 – 17 ringed seals could be
taken by Level B harassment as a result
of the proposed geotechnical operations.
This estimated take number represents
less than 0.004 – 0.007 percent of the
ringed seal population (estimated
minimum 249,000 seals) in the eastern
Chukchi and Beaufort seas area. The
actual take is likely to be lower as the
IHA requires mitigation and monitoring
measures to be implemented in the
proposed action. No take by Level A
harassment (injury) or death is expected
or authorized.
The proposed geotechnical operation
is not expected to cause any permanent
impact on habitat and the prey used by
ringed seals. All surface activities will
be on sea ice, which will breakup and
drift away following spring breakup.
Any spills on the ice would be small in
size and cleaned up before completing
the operations. Similarly, all materials
from the camp and drilling activities
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:39 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
will be removed from the site before
completion of operations. Drilling will
have a negligible impact on the seafloor,
since the bore holes will be small and
widely spaced, and they will naturally
fill in over time due to sediment
movement by currents. The operation
should have no effect on ringed seal
prey species since most disturbances
will be on sea ice. Areas containing ice
conditions suitable for lairs will be
avoided by the rolligons to prevent any
destruction of the habitat.
Mitigation and Monitoring
All activities will be conducted as far
as practicable from any observed ringed
seal lairs. Upon commencement of the
on-ice geotechnical project, CPAI will
establish a route along the proposed
travel corridor and work areas to
discourage ringed seals from building
lairs within the corridor later.
For all activities conducted after
March 15, trained dogs will be used to
detect and locate ringed seal lairs and
other seal structures in the travel
corridor and work areas where water
depth exceeds 3 m (9.8 ft) under the ice.
For activities conducted before March
15, an experienced Inupiat hunter will
be hired to serve as a marine mammal
observer (MMO) to locate potential lairs
and breathing holes in the travel
corridor and work areas where water
depth exceeds 3 m (9.8 ft) under the ice.
The MMO will ride in the lead rolligon.
Locations will be flagged, Global
Positioning System (GPS) coordinates
taken and then delineated on a map.
On subsequent trips after seal surveys,
rolligon drivers will use the map, preprogrammed GPS coordinates and/or
flags to avoid potential lair habitat and
breathing holes when traveling the
corridor and work areas. The completed
map will be provided to NMFS.
Potential Effects on Subsistence
The primary subsistence village in the
region is Nuiqsut, which is over 60
miles (97 km) away from the proposed
project area. Most seal hunting by the
village is off the Colville river Delta,
between Fish Creek to the west and
Pingok Island to the east (Fuller and
George, 1997). Seal hunting
predominately occurs in the open water
during summer, when seals are more
readily accessible from small boats
(Fuller and George, 1997). In addition,
almost all subsistence seal hunts occur
during June through August. If a
subsistence hunter is encountered in the
project area, action will be taken to
divert the rolligon away from the
hunter. In addition, CPAI will meet with
Nuiqsut representatives before
commencing geotechnical operations in
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2007. The meeting(s) will fulfill the
requirement in 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12).
The proposed operations will be
modified, where possible and practical,
to reflect the concerns of the villages
and hunters. Taking into account this
and all mitigation and monitoring, the
proposed geotechnical operations will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on availablity of marine mammals for
subsistence uses.
Reporting
A final report will be submitted to
NMFS within 90 days of completing the
geotechnical project. The report will
contain detailed description of any
marine mammal, by species, number,
age class, and sex if possible, that is
sighted in the vicinity of the proposed
project area; location and time of the
animal sighted; whether the animal
exhibits a behavioral reaction to any onice activities or is injured or killed.
ESA
NMFS has determined that no species
listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA will be affected by this
activity and issuing an incidental
harassment authorization under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to CPAI for
this on-ice geotechnical project.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
NMFS prepared an Environmental
Assessment in March 2007 and issued a
Finding of No Significant Impact on the
proposed action.
Determinations
For the reasons discussed in this
document and in the identified
supporting documents, NMFS has
determined that the impact of the on-ice
geotechnical operations would result, at
worst, in the Level B harassment of
small numbers of ringed seals, and that
such taking will have a negligible
impact on this species. NMFS also finds
that the action will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of this species for taking for
subsistence uses.
In addition, no take by Level A
harassment (injury) or death is
anticipated or authorized, and
harassment takes should be at the
lowest level practicable due to
incorporation of the mitigation
measures described in this document.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to CPAI for
the Level B harassment of small number
of ringed seals incidental to conducting
on-ice geotechnical operations in the
U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: April 13, 2007.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7–7471 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 041207E]
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
convene a meeting of its Ecosystem
Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC) in St. Petersburg, FL.
DATES: The meeting will begin at 9 a.m.
on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 and conclude
by 3 p.m. on Thursday, May 10, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Florida Fish & Wildlife Research
Institute, 100 8th Avenue, SE, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701.
Council address: Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council, 2203
North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa,
FL 33607.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Atran, Population Dynamics
Statistician, Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council; telephone: (813)
348–1630.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council
(Council) will convene its Ecosystem
Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC), along with other invited
ecosystem modeling experts, in St.
Petersburg, FL, to conduct a three day
workshop to demonstrate the feasibility
of using ecosystem modeling as a tool to
address fishery management issues.
While there are numerous fishery
related issues that could potentially be
addressed through an ecosystem
modeling approach, the SSC identified
three primary issues to be the focus of
the workshop: (1) Red snapper-shrimp
interactions; (2) multi-species (MPA)
effects on snapper-grouper; and (3) Gulf
of Mexico hypoxic area from drainage
from the Mississippi River effects on
demersal and pelagic ecosystems. Other
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:39 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
issues identified by the Ecosystem SSC
as that could also be selected for
evaluation at the workshop, include: (4)
the role menhaden as a forage base in
the Gulf; (5) impacts of red tide on Gulf
of Mexico ecosystem; and (6) impacts of
artificial reefs on Gulf of Mexico
ecosystem.
Utilizing a preliminary ecosystem
model recently developed for the Gulf of
Mexico, the workshop will address as
many of the issues identified above as
is practicable within the time and data
constraints of the workshop. Additional
issues may also be addressed if time and
available data permit. The workshop
participants will work with Council
staff subsequent to the workshop to
develop final reports to the Gulf
Council, and a presentation of the
results of the workshop will be given to
the Gulf Council at one of the Council’s
regularly scheduled meetings.
Copies of the agenda and other related
materials can be obtained by calling
(813) 348–1630.
Although other non-emergency issues
not on the agendas may come before the
SSC for discussion, in accordance with
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues
may not be the subject of formal action
during these meetings. Actions of the
SSC will be restricted to those issues
specifically identified in the agendas
and any issues arising after publication
of this notice that require emergency
action under Section 305(c) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the
public has been notified of the Council’s
intent to take action to address the
emergency.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina
Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES) at
least 5 working days prior to the
meeting.
Dated: April 16, 2007.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7–7418 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
PO 00000
19699
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 041207F]
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (Council); Public Meetings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Council Coordination
Committee (CCC) will convene public
meeting consisting of representatives of
all eight Regional Fishery Management
Councils as well as attendees from the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
DATES: The meeting will be held May 8
- 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the W Hotel, 333 Poydras Street, New
Orleans, LA 70130.
Council address: Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council, 2203
North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa,
FL 33607.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director,
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCC
will convene a public meeting
consisting of representatives of all eight
Regional Fishery Management Councils
as well as attendees from the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The meeting
is being hosted/coordinated by the Gulf
Council (see ADDRESSES).
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. - a meeting of the
eight regional fishery management
Councils’ Administrative Officers (AOs)
will be held. The AOs will discuss
issues relating to the Councils’ Standard
Operating Practices and Procedures
(SOPPs), NOAA grant requirements,
record keeping requirements and
options, review and updates of various
legal opinions, insurance and liability
issues, and other general topics related
specifically to the fishery management
Councils. Also, the Councils and NMFS
will separately review and discuss the
following agenda items so that the CCC
can come to a consensus on a position
and the necessary future action needed.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
8 a.m. - the CCC Session will begin
with an opening statement and adoption
of the agenda;
8:15 a.m. - overview of actions needed
by Councils and NMFS to comply with
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 75 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19695-19699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7471]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 032207A]
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; On-
ice Geotechnical 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 marine mammals, by harassment,
incidental to conducting an on-ice marine geotechnical operations in
the U.S. Beaufort Sea, has been issued to ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc
(CPAI) for a period of one year.
DATES: This authorization is effective from April 15, 2007, until
April 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the proposed action, and a list of references used in this
document may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts
listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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.
[[Page 19696]]
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 application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment
period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
Summary of Request
On November 29, 2006, NMFS received an application from CPAI for
the taking, by harassment, of a small number of ringed seals (Phoca
hispida) incidental to conducting geotechnical portions of a site
clearance survey just north of Cross Island, in the spring of 2007. The
site clearance location will be on the outer continental shelf (OCS)
and State of Alaska leases in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The proposed
operation will be active 24 hours per day and use a conventional
geotechnical drilling rig.
The purpose of the site clearance is to confirm that the seafloor
has soil and surface characteristics that will support the safe set-
down of a drill rig, and long-term occupation of the site by such a
vessel.
The geographic region of the proposed geotechnical activity
encompasses 2 13 km\2\ (5 mi\2\) areas in the south central Alaska
Beaufort Sea on the fast ice. The region is about 3 miles (4.8 km)
north of Cross Island at approximately 147[deg]57' W and 70[deg]32' N.
There will also be a sea ice route directly from Deadhorse to the site,
which will be about 24 km (15 miles) long and 0.01 km (35 ft) wide. The
closest Eskimo village to the site clearance location is Nuiqsut, which
is over 60 miles (97 km) away. Water depths in the proposed project
area are typically less than 60 ft (18.2 m).
The proposed geotechnical operation would use a small drill rig
that runs either 5-ft (1.5-m) long augers for soil samples or 10-ft (3-
m) jointed pipe to recover core samples. The drill rig would use cone
penatrometers for cone penetration tests. Sea water circulation and
occasionally mud systems would be used on the drill rig to stabilize
the hole. This work is part of an overall shallow hazards investigation
of the project.
CPAI initially planned to conduct the proposed project between
February and April, 2007, however, it has postponed it until April,
2007. If the proposed project cannot be completed by the end of May
2007 due to ice conditions, CPAI will resume the project in February
2008, and complete it in April 2008, under this IHA.
A detailed description of these activities was published in the
Federal Register on January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2653). No other changes
have been made to these proposed activities except the project time
described above.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the
application and proposed authorization was published on January 22,
2007 (72 FR 2653). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS
received the following comments from one private citizen, the North
Slope Borough (NSB), and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
Comment 1: One private citizen opposes the project out of concern
that marine mammals would be killed by the proposed project in the
Beaufort Sea.
Response: As described in detail in the Federal Register notice of
receipt of the application (72 FR 2653, January 22, 2007), no marine
mammal will be killed or injured as a result of the proposed on-ice
geotechnical operations by CPAI. The project would only result Level B
behavioral harassment of a small number of ringed seals. No take by
Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized from
this project.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHA to
CPAI, provided that CPAI be required to use trained dogs for locating
ringed seal lairs and other structures. Both the Commission and the NSB
recommend that trained dogs be used to detect and locate ringed seal
lairs and other structures. The NSB further states that a single native
hunter will not be sufficient for locating lairs and that seal
breathing holes are not confined to deformed ice or pressure ridges.
Response: While NMFS believes that the use of trained dogs to
locate ringed seal lairs during on-ice geotechnical operations is the
best method to detect ringed seals in winter, NMFS also believes that
the use of experienced subsistence hunters should be an alternative
before ringed seal pupping season, starting on March 15, if the CPAI
cannot complete the project by then. As for the proposed project, only
a limited number of holes in and near a small rig footprint would be
drilled, one single experienced hunter is sufficient for detecting seal
lairs before March 15. CPAI requested use of an Inupiat hunter since it
was successfully usedat McCovey for a rolligon operation. Allowing a
proven method of using an experienced hunter prior to the ringed seal
pupping season is a reasonable alternative to trained dogs. Even though
experienced hunters may not be as efficient to detect breathing holes,
NMFS does not believe this will cause any mortality or seriously injure
ringed seals. However, for activities that occur after March 15th, CPAI
will use trained dogs to locate seal lairs.
Comment 3: The Commission assumes that CPAI has explored the need
for an authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
take polar bears (Ursus maritimus) incidental to the proposed
activities. If not, the Commission states, NMFS may wish to advise CPAI
to do so.
Response: CPAI states that it has applied for an IHA for the
incidental takes of polar bears from the FWS, and that the permit is
pending.
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that the authorization specify
that the operations be suspended immediately if a dead or injured
ringed seal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or
injury could be attributable to the applicant's activities. The
Commission further recommends that any suspension should remain in
place until NMFS has (1) reviewed the situation and determined that
further deaths or serious injuries are unlikely or (2) issued
regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA.
Response: NMFS agrees, and the IHA condition specified that
operations be
[[Page 19697]]
suspended if a mortality or injury of a marine mammal is detected that
may be the result of CPAI's activity.
Comment 5: The NSB points out that CPAI did not provide noise
information associated with cone penetration test (CPT). The NSB
questions whether CPT is somewhat similar to pile driving, which could
create a substantial amount of sound in the environment.
Response: CPAI states that the CPT work is accomplished using
hydraulics. Consistent pressure, provided by hydraulics, is necessary
to accurately measure soil properties. Therefore, CPAI states that
noise levels generated by CPT work is negligible compared to that of
pile driving.
Comment 6: The NSB questions NMFS' conclusion that the effects of
the proposed geotechnical operations would be short-term within the
context of disturbance of ringed seals. The NSB further questions how
long any disturbance of seals as a result of the proposed operations
might be expected to persist.
Response: As described in detail in the Federal Register notice (72
FR 2653, January 22, 2007) the proposed geotechnical operations would
only last for two weeks during a 3-month period within two small areas
of 13 km2 (5 mi2). The analyses of the proposed on-ice geotechnical
operations showed the potential to disturb and temporarily displace
some ringed seals within the proposed project areas during this short
time period. Therefore, NMFS believes that the effects of this action
are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral
changes involving relatively small numbers of ringed seals.
Comment 7: The NSB points out that in CPAI's application, CPAI
suggested it only needs an IHA if the work extends past the later part
of March, ``prior to the birthing season for ringed seal pups.'' The
NSB states that ringed seals are present in the CPAI's operational area
throughout the ice-covered season and not just from late March through
the ice-covered period. The NSB further states that it is extremely
likely that CPAI's operations are causing Level B harassment of ringed
seals, assuming they have already begun, and will have impacts in
March.
Response: Generally, NMFS recommends IHAs for activities that occur
after the start of pupping season, and with the exception of ice road
construction, activities conducted prior to that time do not require
IHAs. Considering the number of other activities that take place on the
ice without IHAs (e.g., snow mobiles), NMFS considers this appropriate.
However, CPAI is applying for an IHA for the entire period when its on-
ice operations would be conducted. CAPI indicated that it has not
started its on-ice geotechnical operations and that it will not do so
prior to obtaining an IHA.
Comment 8: The NSB does not agree that ringed seals are the only
marine mammals that might be taken incidentally as a result of CPAI's
on-ice operations. The NSB is concerned that bowhead whales (Balaena
mysticetus) and belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) could be potentially
taken as a result of the proposed action. NSB states that bowheads and
belugas typically begin passing by Barrow in mid-April, and that in a
typical year, bowheads and belugas could be off the project area by
mid-April within several days of passing Barrow. The NSB further states
that in 2007, ice is very light and there are considerable areas of
open water between Barrow and the Bering Sea. The NSB also states that
bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) will also be in the Beaufort Sea in
April.
Response: The nature of the proposed on-ice geotechnical operations
would require ice thickness of at least 50 in (1.3 m) to support the
heavy equipment and personnel. This is not typical habitat for cetacean
species, including bowhead and beluga whales, thus, no cetacean species
is likely to be found in the vicinity of the project area. In addition,
the proposed project will not use any impact source sources nor
airguns, so the generated underwater noises due to the activities are
negligible and will not impact on any cetacean species in the vicinity.
CPAI will not operate in the area where ice condition is getting thin
to allow open lead due to safety concerns.
In regards to bearded seals, NMFS does not believe these species
would be affected as a result of the proposed on-ice geotechnical
operations due to their rare occurrence in the proposed project areas,
and the small size of these areas.
Comment 9: The NSB points out that CPAI primarily relied on ringed
seal data collected at the Northstar development island (Moulton et
al., 2002) for their estimates of numbers of takes of ringed seals.
CPAI states that these data are helpful but given that CPAI's
activities are in deep water and farther offshore, there is potential
for actually a greater numbers of seals in the project area. The NSB
suggests that site-specific data on ringed seals are needed for CPAI's
project area.
Response: In reviewing and making a determination on the issuance
of an IHA to SOI for its proposed on-ice R&D project, NMFS used the
most recent available and best scientific data regarding ringed seal
density in the proposed project area from works conducted by Kelly and
Quakenbush (1990), Frost an Lowry (1999), and Moulton et al., (2002),
which was based on studies at the Northstar development. These studies
cover a large area of the Beaufort Sea, and the ringed seal population
estimates derived from these studies are representative of this species
abundance in the proposed project area. NMFS believes that these data
provide the best scientific information on ringed seal density and
abundance in the proposed project area.
Description of the Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by the Activity
Ringed seals are the only species of marine mammal that may be
present in the proposed project area during the site clearance period.
Ringed seals are not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Other marine mammal species
under NMFS' jurisdiction that seasonally inhabit the Beaufort Sea, but
are not anticipated to occur in the project area during site clearance
operations, include the bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), beluga
whales (Delphinapterus leucas), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus),
and spotted seals (Phoca largha). While some of these species begin to
enter Beaufort Sea off Point Barrow from the Chukchi Sea during April,
the project area is over 160 nm (296 km) east of Point Barrow, thereby
making it highly unlikely these species would occur in the project area
during the proposed operations. Polar bears also frequent in the
Beaufort Sea, but they are not addressed in this application because
they are managed by the FWS. CPAI is applying for an IHA for the
incidental take of polar bears from the FWS.
A detailed description of ringed seals can be found in the Angliss
and Outlaw (2005), which is available at the following URL: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2005.pdf. A more detailed description
of this species within the proposed action area is provided in the
January 22, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 2653). Therefore, it is not
repeated here.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
The proposed on-ice geotechnical operations have the potential to
disturb, including the temporary displacement of, some ringed seals
within the proposed project area. Incidental take may result from
short-term disturbances by noise and physical activities associated
with soil borings, CPT, and rolligon supported support and logistics
activities. Pup mortality could occur if
[[Page 19698]]
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 site clearance activity.
All anticipated takes would be Level B harassment, involving short
term, temporary changes in behavior including displacement by ringed
seals. The number of seals estimated to be taken is calculated based on
the most recent density data obtained during ringed seal surveys
conducted within the geographic area of the planned operation. Moulton
et al. (2002) reported that ringed seal densities on landfast ice of
Alaskan Beaufort area range from 0.39 - 0.63 seal/km\2\.
The size of the proposed project area is 26 km\2\ plus 0.32 km\2\
for the travel corridor between the site and Deadhorse with water
depths greater than 3 m (9.8 ft) below the sea ice. Areas where water
depths are less than 3 m (9.8 ft) were excluded from the calculation
since ringed seals typically do not occur in these shallow areas
(Moulton et al., 2002). The length of the travel corridor associated is
about 16 km (10 mi) and the calculation for its width was doubled (70
ft or 200 m) to account for adjustment of the corridor during the
program due to any changes in ice condition. Therefore, it is estimated
that between 10 - 17 ringed seals could be taken by Level B harassment
as a result of the proposed geotechnical operations. This estimated
take number represents less than 0.004 - 0.007 percent of the ringed
seal population (estimated minimum 249,000 seals) in the eastern
Chukchi and Beaufort seas area. The actual take is likely to be lower
as the IHA requires mitigation and monitoring measures to be
implemented in the proposed action. No take by Level A harassment
(injury) or death is expected or authorized.
The proposed geotechnical operation is not expected to cause any
permanent impact on habitat and the prey used by ringed seals. All
surface activities will be on sea ice, which will breakup and drift
away following spring breakup. Any spills on the ice would be small in
size and cleaned up before completing the operations. Similarly, all
materials from the camp and drilling activities will be removed from
the site before completion of operations. Drilling will have a
negligible impact on the seafloor, since the bore holes will be small
and widely spaced, and they will naturally fill in over time due to
sediment movement by currents. The operation should have no effect on
ringed seal prey species since most disturbances will be on sea ice.
Areas containing ice conditions suitable for lairs will be avoided by
the rolligons to prevent any destruction of the habitat.
Mitigation and Monitoring
All activities will be conducted as far as practicable from any
observed ringed seal lairs. Upon commencement of the on-ice
geotechnical project, CPAI will establish a route along the proposed
travel corridor and work areas to discourage ringed seals from building
lairs within the corridor later.
For all activities conducted after March 15, trained dogs will be
used to detect and locate ringed seal lairs and other seal structures
in the travel corridor and work areas where water depth exceeds 3 m
(9.8 ft) under the ice. For activities conducted before March 15, an
experienced Inupiat hunter will be hired to serve as a marine mammal
observer (MMO) to locate potential lairs and breathing holes in the
travel corridor and work areas where water depth exceeds 3 m (9.8 ft)
under the ice. The MMO will ride in the lead rolligon. Locations will
be flagged, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates taken and then
delineated on a map.
On subsequent trips after seal surveys, rolligon drivers will use
the map, pre-programmed GPS coordinates and/or flags to avoid potential
lair habitat and breathing holes when traveling the corridor and work
areas. The completed map will be provided to NMFS.
Potential Effects on Subsistence
The primary subsistence village in the region is Nuiqsut, which is
over 60 miles (97 km) away from the proposed project area. Most seal
hunting by the village is off the Colville river Delta, between Fish
Creek to the west and Pingok Island to the east (Fuller and George,
1997). Seal hunting predominately occurs in the open water during
summer, when seals are more readily accessible from small boats (Fuller
and George, 1997). In addition, almost all subsistence seal hunts occur
during June through August. If a subsistence hunter is encountered in
the project area, action will be taken to divert the rolligon away from
the hunter. In addition, CPAI will meet with Nuiqsut representatives
before commencing geotechnical operations in 2007. The meeting(s) will
fulfill the requirement in 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12). The proposed
operations will be modified, where possible and practical, to reflect
the concerns of the villages and hunters. Taking into account this and
all mitigation and monitoring, the proposed geotechnical operations
will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on availablity of marine
mammals for subsistence uses.
Reporting
A final report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of
completing the geotechnical project. The report will contain detailed
description of any marine mammal, by species, number, age class, and
sex if possible, that is sighted in the vicinity of the proposed
project area; location and time of the animal sighted; whether the
animal exhibits a behavioral reaction to any on-ice activities or is
injured or killed.
ESA
NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA will be affected by this activity and issuing
an incidental harassment authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA to CPAI for this on-ice geotechnical project.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment in March 2007 and issued
a Finding of No Significant Impact on the proposed action.
Determinations
For the reasons discussed in this document and in the identified
supporting documents, NMFS has determined that the impact of the on-ice
geotechnical operations would result, at worst, in the Level B
harassment of small numbers of ringed seals, and that such taking will
have a negligible impact on this species. NMFS also finds that the
action will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of this species for taking for subsistence uses.
In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is
anticipated or authorized, and harassment takes should be at the lowest
level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures
described in this document.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to CPAI for the Level B harassment of small
number of ringed seals incidental to conducting on-ice geotechnical
operations in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the
[[Page 19699]]
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: April 13, 2007.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-7471 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
