Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; An On-ice Marine Geophysical and Seismic Programs in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, 67713-67718 [E7-23255]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 230 / Friday, November 30, 2007 / Notices
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: 978–281–9394, Attention: Dana
Hartley.
• Mail: Information on paper, disk or
CD-ROM should be addressed to the
Assistant Regional Administrator for
Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast
Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Hartley, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office (978) 281–9300 ext.
6514; Stephania Bolden, NMFS,
Southeast Regional Office (727) 824–
5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office
of Protected Resources, (301) 713–1410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Background
NMFS has Endangered Species Act
(ESA) jurisdiction of species listed at 50
CFR 223.102 and 224.101. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) adds
species under NMFS jurisdiction to its
official list (List), published at 50 CFR
17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for
plants). Shortnose sturgeon was listed as
an ‘‘endangered species threatened with
extinction’’ under the Endangered
Species Preservation Act on March 11,
1967. Shortnose sturgeon as a species
remained on the endangered species list
with the enactment of the ESA. We are
conducting a status review to update the
biological information on the status of
the species. The status review will not
only compile and analyze the best
available information on the status of
and threats to the species, it will also
consider if shortnose sturgeon should be
identified and assessed as Distinct
Population Segments (61 FR 4722;
February 1, 1996). Listing or
reclassifying distinct vertebrate
population segments may allow us to
protect and conserve species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend
before large-scale decline occurs; it may
also allow for more timely and less
costly protection and recovery on a
smaller scale. Any change in the List
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:27 Nov 29, 2007
Jkt 214001
would require a separate rulemaking
process. The regulations at 50 CFR
424.21 state that we will publish a
notice in the Federal Register
announcing those species under active
review. At this time we announce
commencement of a status review for
shortnose sturgeon, and request
information regarding the status of, and
factors and threats affecting, the species.
Request for Information
To support this status review, we are
soliciting information relevant to the
status of, and factors and threats
affecting, the species, including, but not
limited to, information on the following
topics: (1) river-specific historical and
current abundance and distribution of
the species throughout its range; (2)
potential factors affecting the species’
current status and past or ongoing
decline throughout its range by river; (3)
rates of capture and release of the
species from both recreational and
commercial fisheries; (4) life history
information (size/age at maturity,
growth rates, fecundity, reproductive
rate/success, preferred prey, etc.); (5)
molecular information to assist in
determining within-species genetic
structure and distinctiveness; (6) factors
and threats affecting the species’ status,
particularly: (a) present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (b) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (c)
disease or predation; (d) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (e)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence; and (7)
any ongoing conservation efforts for the
species.
If you wish to provide information for
this review, see DATES and ADDRESSES
for guidance on and deadlines for
submitting information.
If we determine that a change to the
way shortnose sturgeon is entered on
the List is appropriate, we will consider
the critical habitat provisions of the
ESA, such as Section 3 (defining critical
habitat) and Section 4 (outlining the
procedural and substantive
considerations regarding critical habitat)
and make the necessary determinations
required by those provisions. If you
would like to provide information
regarding the physical or biological
features of shortnose sturgeon habitat,
the role they play in the conservation of
shortnose sturgeon, and whether any
natural or human-induced factors may
negatively affect those features, we will
accept it at this time. Please note,
however, that this notice and request for
information should not be construed as
an indication that we have made any
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67713
statutory determinations regarding
shortnose sturgeon, including whether
to change the List or whether the
designation of critical habitat for any
newly listed entity is prudent or
determinable.
Dated: November 26, 2007.
Helen Golde
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7–23258 Filed 11–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XD60
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Specified Activities; An On-ice
Marine Geophysical and Seismic
Programs in the U.S. Beaufort Sea
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of three
applications and proposed incidental
take authorizations; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS has received
applications from CGGVeritas (Veritas)
and Shell Offshore, Inc. (SOI) for
Incidental Harassment Authorizations
(IHAs) to take marine mammals, by
harassment, incidental to conducting an
on-ice marine geophysical and seismic
programs in the U.S. Beaufort Sea from
February to May, 2008. Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue two
authorizations to Veritas and one
authorization to SOI to incidentally
take, by harassment, small numbers of
three species of pinnipeds.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than December 31,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
applications should be addressed to P.
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits,
Conservation and Education Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910–3225, or by telephoning one of
the contacts listed here. The mailbox
address for providing email comments
is PR1.0648–XD60@noaa.gov.
Comments sent via e-mail, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 10–
megabyte file size. A copy of the
applications and other supporting
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
67714
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 230 / Friday, November 30, 2007 / Notices
material related to the proposed actions
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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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 if the permissible methods of taking
and requirements pertaining to the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of
such takings are set forth. NMFS has
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as ’’...an impact resulting from
the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
established an expedited process by
which citizens of the United States can
apply for an authorization 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:27 Nov 29, 2007
Jkt 214001
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 August 8 and 14, 2007, NMFS
received two applications from Veritas
for the taking, by harassment, of three
species of marine mammals incidental
to conducting on-ice seismic surveys in
Smith Bay and Pt. Thomson areas of the
U.S. Beaufort Sea. On September 10,
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 survey program
offshore west of Simpson Lagoon, U.S.
Beaufort Sea. Veritas plans to acquire
3D seismic data within the months of
February - May, 2008. The energy
source for the proposed activity will be
vibroseis. The proposed SOI on-ice
seismic survey will also use vibroseis as
energy sources, and is scheduled to
begin in early March 2008 with camp
mobilization expected to begin
approximately March 11 from Oliktok
Point. Data acquisition will begin in
mid-March and continue for
approximately 60 days until mid-May,
followed by camp demobilization to
Oliktok Point.
Description of the Activity
Veritas
The proposed Veritas projects would
consist of laying recording cables with
geophones on the frozen sea ice; using
vibroseis techniques as the source of
energy to acquire the seismic data.
Seismic operations will be conducted
utilizing 8 - 10 wheeled/tracked
vibrators supported by Tucker SnoCats
and the Challenger 95 recording cable
transport vehicles. A Challenger 95 or
Tucker SnoCat vehicle will travel along
a pre-surveyed route and lay receiver
cable lines that extend between 3 - 10
miles (4.8 - 16.1 km) long. Receiver (i.e.,
geophone) lines will be spaced 1,320 ft
(402 m) apart; a group of 3 - 6
geophones would be located every 220
ft (67 m) along each of these lines. Ten
to fifteen receiver lines will be placed
on the ground at any one time all
interconnected to a recording device
known as a ‘‘recorder.’’ Vibroseis
vehicles will then move along a predetermined route most often nearly
perpendicular to the recording lines.
Positioning of the cables, vibroseis and
recording vehicles all use Tiger Nav
technology, a specialized navigation and
positioning software. The Tiger Nav
system integrates with GPS and Inertial
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Technology with Real Time Positioning,
Stake-less Source, Receiver Surveying
and Vehicle Tracking. The Vibrators
(usually 3 - 4 that travel together) move
to a pre-determined GPS point location
and begin vibrating in synchrony via a
radio signal. The Vibrators will vibrate
usually 2 - 4 times at each location,
move up to the next location about 330
ft (101 m), and continue the vibrating
technique until the end of the line. This
activity will occur two lines at a time.
Veritas utilizes satellite imagery,
existing bathymetry, drill grids and
ground penetrating radar (GPR) to
interpret ice integrity for proper
planning. To support vibroseis and
recording vehicle units, an ice thickness
of at least 4 feet is required.
The first specified geographic region
of Veritas activities is: (1) a 569–km2
(220–mi2) area extending across Smith
Bay from point of entry from the west
at approximately 71°06′00.05″ N,
154°30′21.00″ W to the east at point of
exit to land at approximately
70°54′37.03″N, 153°46′43.43″ W. Water
depths in most (> 80 percent) of the area
are less than 10 ft (3 m) based on
bathymetry charts. The second specified
geographic area is a 276–km2 (107–mi2)
area extending across the Beaufort Sea
from point of entry from the southwest
corner at approximately 70°10′ 41.84″ N,
146°43′ 03.36″ W to the northwest
corner at approximately 70°14′ 52.92″N,
146°42′ 15.21″ W to the southeast corner
at approximately 70°08′ 43.98″ N,
145°58′10.70″W to the northeast corner
off of Flaxman Island at approximately
70°11′28.82″N, 145°54′11.46″ W. Water
depths in most (> 75 percent) of the area
are less than 10 ft (3 m) based on
bathymetry charts.
SOI
The proposed SOI on-ice marine
geophysical (seismic) program would be
conducted over 10 to 20 U.S. Minerals
Management Service (MMS) Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) lease blocks
located offshore from Oliktok Point in
the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. The proposed
program location is in the vicinity of
Thetis and Spy Islands, north-northwest
of Oliktok Point. The majority of the
OCS blocks covered in the proposed
program are surrounding the 33 ft (10
m) water depth contour. Assuming
seismic acquisition occurred over up to
20 OCS blocks, the proposed on-ice
seismic project would cover a maximum
estimated 3,000 line-miles (4,828 km) of
surveying within a 265 mi2 (686 km2)
area. Two types of standard industry
vibrator sources will be used on-ice, and
no under-ice acoustic sources will be
deployed during the on-ice marine
seismic program. Receivers will be
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 230 / Friday, November 30, 2007 / Notices
placed primarily below ice suspended
in the water column; however, a few
will be placed on-ice in areas where ice
is grounded in the shallow marine
environment.
Surface sources will be two types of
industry-standard vibrator vehicles.
Vibrators will include up to: (1) Five,
68,000–lb (30,800–kg) gross vehicle
weight (GVW) Input/Output wheeled
vibrators (‘‘heavy vibes’’) capable of
49,440 ft-lbs of force; and (2) nine,
20,000–lb (9,072–kg) GVW Envirovibs
(modified to accommodate tracks),
capable of 15,000 ft-lbs of force. Seismic
data production is proposed to be
collected by groups of four vibrators in
series using either the heavy vibes or
Envirovibs. Fewer than four vibrators
per group may be used, but as a
conservative assumption four are
assumed for the maximum estimated
exposure to marine mammals. Not all 14
Envirovibs and heavy vibes will be used
at the same time. It is assumed that the
Envirovibs will conduct approximately
75 percent of the program, with the
‘‘heavy vibes’’ accounting for
approximately 25 percent.
The recording unit is comprised of
approximately 13 tracked vehicles for
crew transport and technical support,
two tracked recording trailers, and
several ice drilling units.
The SOI on-ice marine seismic
program will also require a temporary,
mobile camp facility geared to
accommodate up to 120 people and will
be composed of purpose-built
accommodations which are largely selfsufficient for normal operations. Camp
facilities are proposed to include as
many as 30 to 40 sled trailers including
medical facilities, crew quarters, offices,
kitchen and dining facilities, laundry
facilities, technical work spaces,
generators, and fuel storage units.
Tracked vehicles will be available for
camp site support and access trail
maintenance. Prospective mobile camp
locations will be chosen based on ice
conditions and safety of access to ice.
These locations will be moved along
with the project as it progresses within
the area. The temporary, mobile camp
will be stationed on grounded ice
alongside the project. Mobilization and
demobilization of the camp and
equipment will take place from Oliktok
Point. Resupply operations will
periodically be required for fuel and
provisions, and will come from
Deadhorse through Oliktok Dock to the
mobile field camp.
Description of Marine Mammals
Affected by the Activity
Four marine mammal species are
known to occur within the proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:27 Nov 29, 2007
Jkt 214001
survey areas: 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
marine mammal species that seasonally
inhabit the Beaufort Sea, but are not
anticipated to occur in the project area
during the proposed on-ice activities,
include bowhead whales (Balaena
mysticetus) and beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas). Veritas and
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 species.
A detailed description of these species
can be found in Angliss and Outlaw
(2007), which is available at the
following URL: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/
ak2007.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).
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., 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67715
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
indicate that ringed seals show 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,
2007). A minimum estimate for the
eastern Chukchi and Beaufort Sea is
249,000 seals, including 18,000 for the
Beaufort Sea (Angliss and Outlaw,
2007). 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, 2007). Estimates could be as
high as 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/
km2 on the fast ice from aerial surveys
conducted in spring 1997 of an area
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
an density of 1.73 ringed seals/km2.
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
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
67716
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 230 / Friday, November 30, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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, 2007). 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:27 Nov 29, 2007
Jkt 214001
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 haulouts 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, 2007), 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, 2007).
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals
and Their Habitat
Incidental harassment to marine
mammals could result from physical
activities associated with on-ice seismic
operations, which have the potential to
disturb and temporarily displace some
seals. For ringed 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. Ringed
seals also use as many as four lairs
spaced as far as 3,437 m (11,276 ft)
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 areas represent
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.
Number of Marine Mammals Expected
to Be Taken
NMFS estimates that up to 984 ringed
seals (0.39 percent of estimated total
Alaska population of 249,000) could be
taken by Level B harassment due to
Veritas′ Smith Bay on-ice seismic
survey, up to 477 seals (0.19 percent of
total population) by Veritas′ Pt.
Thomson on-ice seismic surveys, and
up to 1,187 seals (0.47 percent of total
population) by SOI′s on-ice geographical
program. The estimated take numbers
are based on consideration of the
number of ringed seals that might be
disturbed within each of the proposed
project areas, calculated from the
adjusted ringed seal density of 1.73 seal
per km2 (Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990).
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 very low within the
proposed project areas, especially
during spring (Moulton and Lawson,
2002; Treacy, 2002a; 2002b; Bengtson et
al., 2005). Consequently, the levels of
take of these two pinniped species by
Level B harassment within the proposed
project areas would represent only small
fractions of the total population sizes of
these species in Beaufort Sea.
In addition, NMFS expects that the
actual take by Level B harassment from
the proposed on-ice seismic programs
would be much lower than the estimates
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 230 / Friday, November 30, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
due to 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
The affected pinniped species are all
taken by subsistence hunters of the
Beaufort Sea villages. However, on-ice
seismic operations in the activity areas
are not expected to have an unmitigable
adverse impact on availability of these
stocks for taking for subsistence uses
because:
(1) Operations would end before the
spring ice breakup, after which
subsistence hunters harvest most of
their seals; and
(2) The areas where on-ice seismic
operations would be conducted are
small compared to the large Beaufort
Sea subsistence hunting area associated
with the extremely wide distribution of
ringed seals.
In addition, trained dogs will be used
to locate ringed seal lairs before the
onset of seismic activities. Subsistence
advisors will be used as marine
mammal observers during performance
of the seismic program. During the seal
pupping season, planned seismic line
segments will be surveyed via the
research biologists teamed with lair
sniffing dogs; these teams will be
accompanied by Inupiat subsistence
hunters experienced in the area of the
project.
For the two proposed Veritas on-ice
seismic projects, most of the anticipated
program areas are within 3 - 4 miles (4.8
- 6.4 km) of the coast on the proposed
surveys. The proposed on-ice seismic
surveys are not thought to hinder
subsistence harvest greatly during the
timing of the programs. For the
proposed Smith Bay project, Nuiqsut
and Barrow are the closest communities
to the area of the proposed activity;
while for the proposed Pt. Thomson
project, Kaktovik is the closest
community to the area of the proposed
activity. Veritas will consult with the
potentially affected subsistence
communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut,
Kaktovik, and other stakeholder groups
to develop a Plan of Cooperation.
Veritas’ joint venture partner on the
North Slope is the Kuukpik Corporation.
For the proposed SOI on-ice
geophysical program, Plan of
Cooperation meetings in the
communities of Nuiqsut and Barrow are
being held during October 2007.
Additional following up meetings are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:27 Nov 29, 2007
Jkt 214001
tentatively scheduled for early winter
2008 in the affected communities to
ensure that there will be no unmitigable
impacts to subsistence use of marine
mammal species/stocks resulting from
the proposed on-ice geophysical
program.
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.
Trained seal lair sniffing dogs will be
employed by Veritas and SOI for areas
of sea ice beyond 3 m (9.8 ft) depth
contour to locate seal structures under
snow (subnivean) before the seismic
program begins. The areas for the
proposed projects will be surveys for the
subnivean seal structures using trained
dogs running together. Transects will be
spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart and oriented
90o to the prevailing wind direction.
The search tracks of the dogs will be
recorded and marked. Subnivean
structures will be probed by a 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.
Any locations of seal structures will be
marked and protected by a with 150 m
(490 ft) exclusion distance from any
existing routes and on-ice seismic
activities. During active seismic vibrator
source operations, the 150–m (490–ft)
exclusion zone will be monitored for
entry by any marine mammals.
In addition, NMFS proposes to
require applicants’ vehicles to avoid any
pressure ridges, ice ridges, and ice
deformation areas where seal structures
are likely to be present.
Reporting
NMFS proposes to require annual
reports that must be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days of completing the year’s
activities.The reports would contain
detail descriptions of any marine
mammal, by species, number, age class,
and sex if possible, that is sighted in the
vicinity of the proposed project areas;
description of the animal’s observed
behaviors and the activities occurring at
the time.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
NMFS has determined that no species
listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA will be affected by
issuing the incidental harassment
authorizations under section
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67717
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to Veritas and
SOI for these three proposed on-ice
seismic survey projects.
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 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 actions
discussed in this document are 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
In summary, the anticipated impact of
the proposed on-ice seismic programs
on the species or stocks of ringed,
bearded, and spotted seals is expected
to be negligible for the following
reasons:
(1) The proposed activities would
only occur in a small area which
supports a small proportion
(approximately 1 percent) of the Alaska
stock of ringed seals. 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 would be
implemented: (a) using trained seal lair
sniffing dogs to conduct pre-operational
surveys in areas of sea ice beyond 3 m
(9.8 ft) and monitoring of ringed seal
lairs and breathing holes within the
proposed action areas; (b) conducting
activities as far away from any observed
seal structures as possible; (c)
establishing exclusion zones with 150 m
(490 ft) from locations of seal structures;
(d) vehicles to avoid any pressure
ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation
areas where seal structures are likely to
be present.
NMFS believes the effects of the three
on-ice seismic surveys by Veritas and
SOI are expected to be limited to shortterm and localized behavioral changes
involving relatively small numbers of
ringed seals, and may also potentially
affect any bearded and spotted seals in
the vicinity. Also, the potential effects
of the proposed on-ice seismic survey
projects during 2008 will not have an
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
67718
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 230 / Friday, November 30, 2007 / Notices
unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses of these species.
Proposed Authorization
NMFS proposes to issue two IHAs to
Veritas and one IHA to SOI for
conducting on-ice seismic surveys in
the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
proposed activities each 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: November 26, 2007.
Helen Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7–23255 Filed 11–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Special Accommodations
RIN 0648–XE11
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council’s (Council) Crab
Committee will meet December 17–18,
2007, in Anchorage, AK.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
December 17, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
and on December 18, from 8:30 a.m.
until 12 noon.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Hilton Hotel, Iliamna Room, 500
West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK.
Council address: North Pacific
Fishery Management Council, 605 W.
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK
99501–2252.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Fina, North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, telephone: (907)
271–2809.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee will focus on programmatic
issues and the effects of policy decisions
related to the Bering Sea Aleutian Island
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:27 Nov 29, 2007
Jkt 214001
crab rationalization program. The
Committee will also discuss potential
solutions to concerns that may arise
from any adjustments to the A share/B
share split, including compensation to
processors from harvesters for lost
economic opportunity from a shift in
market power, change in landing
distribution, the remaining need and
necessary changes to the binding
arbitration program, use and
effectiveness of regional landing
requirements to protect communities,
and respective impacts on crew;
potential solutions to existing data
needs, including the need for exvessel
prices, by share type and region, and
first wholesale price information.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
identified in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail
Bendixen, (907) 271–2809, at least 5
working days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: November 27, 2007.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7–23206 Filed 11–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
COMMITTEE FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE
AGREEMENTS
Establishment of Agreed Import Levels
for Certain Cotton, Wool, Man-Made
Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable
Fiber Textiles and Textile Products
Produced or Manufactured in the
People’s Republic of China
November 27, 2007.
Committee for the
Implementation of Textiles Agreements
(CITA).
ACTION: Directive to Commissioner, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
establishing agreed levels.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
January 1, 2008.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Ross
Arnold, International Trade Specialist,
Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.
Department of Commerce, (202) 482–
4212. For information on the quota
status of these limits, refer to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection website
(https://www.cbp.gov), or call (202) 863–
6560. For information on embargoes and
quota re-openings, refer to the Office of
Textiles and Apparel website at https://
otexa.ita.doc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural
Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);
Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as
amended.
In the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the
Governments of the United States of
America and the People’s Republic of
China concerning Trade in Textile and
Apparel Products, signed and dated
November 8, 2005, and Paragraph 242 of
the Report of the Working Party for the
Accession of China to the World Trade
Organization, the Governments of the
United States and China established
agreed levels for certain cotton, wool,
man-made fiber, silk blend and other
vegetable fiber textiles and textile
products, produced or manufactured in
China and exported to the United States
during three one-year periods beginning
on January 1, 2006 and extending
through December 31, 2008.
The agreed levels published below
may be adjusted during the course of the
year for ‘‘carryover,’’ or ‘‘carryforward’’
used in 2007, under the terms of the
MOU. The limits for Categories 345/
645/646 and 352/652 below have been
adjusted for carryforward applied to the
2007 limits.
Baby socks in HTS numbers
6111.20.6050, 6111.30.5050 and
6111.90.5050 shall be counted in dozen
pairs. These baby socks are subject to
the quota level for 332/432/632–T and
the sublevel for 332/432/632–B but the
correct category designation 239 will be
required at the time of entry for quota
purposes.
In the letter published below, the
Chairman of CITA directs the
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), to establish the
2008 limits.
A description of the textile and
apparel categories in terms of HTS
numbers is available in the
CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel
Categories with the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (refer to
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 230 (Friday, November 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67713-67718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23255]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD60
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; An
On-ice Marine Geophysical and Seismic Programs in the U.S. Beaufort Sea
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of three applications and proposed
incidental take authorizations; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received applications from CGGVeritas (Veritas) and
Shell Offshore, Inc. (SOI) for Incidental Harassment Authorizations
(IHAs) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting
an on-ice marine geophysical and seismic programs in the U.S. Beaufort
Sea from February to May, 2008. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to
issue two authorizations to Veritas and one authorization to SOI to
incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of three species of
pinnipeds.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
December 31, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the applications 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 PR1.0648-XD60@noaa.gov. Comments sent via e-mail, including
all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the
applications and other supporting
[[Page 67714]]
material related to the proposed actions 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 if the permissible methods of taking
and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ''...an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization
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 August 8 and 14, 2007, NMFS received two applications from
Veritas for the taking, by harassment, of three species of marine
mammals incidental to conducting on-ice seismic surveys in Smith Bay
and Pt. Thomson areas of the U.S. Beaufort Sea. On September 10, 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 survey program offshore west of Simpson Lagoon, U.S.
Beaufort Sea. Veritas plans to acquire 3D seismic data within the
months of February - May, 2008. The energy source for the proposed
activity will be vibroseis. The proposed SOI on-ice seismic survey will
also use vibroseis as energy sources, and is scheduled to begin in
early March 2008 with camp mobilization expected to begin approximately
March 11 from Oliktok Point. Data acquisition will begin in mid-March
and continue for approximately 60 days until mid-May, followed by camp
demobilization to Oliktok Point.
Description of the Activity
Veritas
The proposed Veritas projects would consist of laying recording
cables with geophones on the frozen sea ice; using vibroseis techniques
as the source of energy to acquire the seismic data. Seismic operations
will be conducted utilizing 8 - 10 wheeled/tracked vibrators supported
by Tucker SnoCats and the Challenger 95 recording cable transport
vehicles. A Challenger 95 or Tucker SnoCat vehicle will travel along a
pre-surveyed route and lay receiver cable lines that extend between 3 -
10 miles (4.8 - 16.1 km) long. Receiver (i.e., geophone) lines will be
spaced 1,320 ft (402 m) apart; a group of 3 - 6 geophones would be
located every 220 ft (67 m) along each of these lines. Ten to fifteen
receiver lines will be placed on the ground at any one time all
interconnected to a recording device known as a ``recorder.'' Vibroseis
vehicles will then move along a pre-determined route most often nearly
perpendicular to the recording lines. Positioning of the cables,
vibroseis and recording vehicles all use Tiger Nav technology, a
specialized navigation and positioning software. The Tiger Nav system
integrates with GPS and Inertial Technology with Real Time Positioning,
Stake-less Source, Receiver Surveying and Vehicle Tracking. The
Vibrators (usually 3 - 4 that travel together) move to a pre-determined
GPS point location and begin vibrating in synchrony via a radio signal.
The Vibrators will vibrate usually 2 - 4 times at each location, move
up to the next location about 330 ft (101 m), and continue the
vibrating technique until the end of the line. This activity will occur
two lines at a time. Veritas utilizes satellite imagery, existing
bathymetry, drill grids and ground penetrating radar (GPR) to interpret
ice integrity for proper planning. To support vibroseis and recording
vehicle units, an ice thickness of at least 4 feet is required.
The first specified geographic region of Veritas activities is: (1)
a 569-km\2\ (220-mi\2\) area extending across Smith Bay from point of
entry from the west at approximately 71[deg]06'00.05'' N,
154[deg]30'21.00'' W to the east at point of exit to land at
approximately 70[deg]54'37.03''N, 153[deg]46'43.43'' W. Water depths in
most (> 80 percent) of the area are less than 10 ft (3 m) based on
bathymetry charts. The second specified geographic area is a 276-km\2\
(107-mi\2\) area extending across the Beaufort Sea from point of entry
from the southwest corner at approximately 70[deg]10' 41.84'' N,
146[deg]43' 03.36'' W to the northwest corner at approximately
70[deg]14' 52.92''N, 146[deg]42' 15.21'' W to the southeast corner at
approximately 70[deg]08' 43.98'' N, 145[deg]58'10.70''W to the
northeast corner off of Flaxman Island at approximately
70[deg]11'28.82''N, 145[deg]54'11.46'' W. Water depths in most (> 75
percent) of the area are less than 10 ft (3 m) based on bathymetry
charts.
SOI
The proposed SOI on-ice marine geophysical (seismic) program would
be conducted over 10 to 20 U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) lease blocks located offshore from Oliktok
Point in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. The proposed program location is in
the vicinity of Thetis and Spy Islands, north-northwest of Oliktok
Point. The majority of the OCS blocks covered in the proposed program
are surrounding the 33 ft (10 m) water depth contour. Assuming seismic
acquisition occurred over up to 20 OCS blocks, the proposed on-ice
seismic project would cover a maximum estimated 3,000 line-miles (4,828
km) of surveying within a 265 mi\2\ (686 km\2\) area. Two types of
standard industry vibrator sources will be used on-ice, and no under-
ice acoustic sources will be deployed during the on-ice marine seismic
program. Receivers will be
[[Page 67715]]
placed primarily below ice suspended in the water column; however, a
few will be placed on-ice in areas where ice is grounded in the shallow
marine environment.
Surface sources will be two types of industry-standard vibrator
vehicles. Vibrators will include up to: (1) Five, 68,000-lb (30,800-kg)
gross vehicle weight (GVW) Input/Output wheeled vibrators (``heavy
vibes'') capable of 49,440 ft-lbs of force; and (2) nine, 20,000-lb
(9,072-kg) GVW Envirovibs (modified to accommodate tracks), capable of
15,000 ft-lbs of force. Seismic data production is proposed to be
collected by groups of four vibrators in series using either the heavy
vibes or Envirovibs. Fewer than four vibrators per group may be used,
but as a conservative assumption four are assumed for the maximum
estimated exposure to marine mammals. Not all 14 Envirovibs and heavy
vibes will be used at the same time. It is assumed that the Envirovibs
will conduct approximately 75 percent of the program, with the ``heavy
vibes'' accounting for approximately 25 percent.
The recording unit is comprised of approximately 13 tracked
vehicles for crew transport and technical support, two tracked
recording trailers, and several ice drilling units.
The SOI on-ice marine seismic program will also require a
temporary, mobile camp facility geared to accommodate up to 120 people
and will be composed of purpose-built accommodations which are largely
self-sufficient for normal operations. Camp facilities are proposed to
include as many as 30 to 40 sled trailers including medical facilities,
crew quarters, offices, kitchen and dining facilities, laundry
facilities, technical work spaces, generators, and fuel storage units.
Tracked vehicles will be available for camp site support and access
trail maintenance. Prospective mobile camp locations will be chosen
based on ice conditions and safety of access to ice. These locations
will be moved along with the project as it progresses within the area.
The temporary, mobile camp will be stationed on grounded ice alongside
the project. Mobilization and demobilization of the camp and equipment
will take place from Oliktok Point. Resupply operations will
periodically be required for fuel and provisions, and will come from
Deadhorse through Oliktok Dock to the mobile field camp.
Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity
Four marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed
survey areas: 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 marine
mammal species that seasonally inhabit the Beaufort Sea, but are not
anticipated to occur in the project area during the proposed on-ice
activities, include bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) and beluga
whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Veritas and 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 species. A detailed description of these species can be found
in Angliss and Outlaw (2007), which is available at the following URL:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2007.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). 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.,
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 indicate that ringed seals show 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, 2007). A minimum estimate
for the eastern Chukchi and Beaufort Sea is 249,000 seals, including
18,000 for the Beaufort Sea (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). 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, 2007). Estimates could be as high as 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 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 an
density of 1.73 ringed 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
[[Page 67716]]
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,
2007). 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/km\2\ and 0.14 seals/
km\2\, 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, 2007), 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,
2007).
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
Incidental harassment to marine mammals could result from physical
activities associated with on-ice seismic operations, which have the
potential to disturb and temporarily displace some seals. For ringed
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.
Ringed 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 areas
represent 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.
Number of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken
NMFS estimates that up to 984 ringed seals (0.39 percent of
estimated total Alaska population of 249,000) could be taken by Level B
harassment due to Veritas' Smith Bay on-ice seismic survey, up to 477
seals (0.19 percent of total population) by Veritas' Pt. Thomson on-ice
seismic surveys, and up to 1,187 seals (0.47 percent of total
population) by SOI's on-ice geographical program. The estimated take
numbers are based on consideration of the number of ringed seals that
might be disturbed within each of the proposed project areas,
calculated from the adjusted ringed seal density of 1.73 seal per km\2\
(Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990).
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 very low within the proposed project areas,
especially during spring (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a;
2002b; Bengtson et al., 2005). Consequently, the levels of take of
these two pinniped species by Level B harassment within the proposed
project areas would represent only small fractions of the total
population sizes of these species in Beaufort Sea.
In addition, NMFS expects that the actual take by Level B
harassment from the proposed on-ice seismic programs would be much
lower than the estimates
[[Page 67717]]
due to 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
The affected pinniped species are all taken by subsistence hunters
of the Beaufort Sea villages. However, on-ice seismic operations in the
activity areas are not expected to have an unmitigable adverse impact
on availability of these stocks for taking for subsistence uses
because:
(1) Operations would end before the spring ice breakup, after which
subsistence hunters harvest most of their seals; and
(2) The areas where on-ice seismic operations would be conducted
are small compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area
associated with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals.
In addition, trained dogs will be used to locate ringed seal lairs
before the onset of seismic activities. Subsistence advisors will be
used as marine mammal observers during performance of the seismic
program. During the seal pupping season, planned seismic line segments
will be surveyed via the research biologists teamed with lair sniffing
dogs; these teams will be accompanied by Inupiat subsistence hunters
experienced in the area of the project.
For the two proposed Veritas on-ice seismic projects, most of the
anticipated program areas are within 3 - 4 miles (4.8 - 6.4 km) of the
coast on the proposed surveys. The proposed on-ice seismic surveys are
not thought to hinder subsistence harvest greatly during the timing of
the programs. For the proposed Smith Bay project, Nuiqsut and Barrow
are the closest communities to the area of the proposed activity; while
for the proposed Pt. Thomson project, Kaktovik is the closest community
to the area of the proposed activity. Veritas will consult with the
potentially affected subsistence communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut,
Kaktovik, and other stakeholder groups to develop a Plan of
Cooperation. Veritas' joint venture partner on the North Slope is the
Kuukpik Corporation.
For the proposed SOI on-ice geophysical program, Plan of
Cooperation meetings in the communities of Nuiqsut and Barrow are being
held during October 2007. Additional following up meetings are
tentatively scheduled for early winter 2008 in the affected communities
to ensure that there will be no unmitigable impacts to subsistence use
of marine mammal species/stocks resulting from the proposed on-ice
geophysical program.
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.
Trained seal lair sniffing dogs will be employed by Veritas and SOI
for areas of sea ice beyond 3 m (9.8 ft) depth contour to locate seal
structures under snow (subnivean) before the seismic program begins.
The areas for the proposed projects will be surveys for the subnivean
seal structures using trained dogs running together. Transects will be
spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart and oriented 90o to the prevailing wind
direction. The search tracks of the dogs will be recorded and marked.
Subnivean structures will be probed by a 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. Any locations of seal structures will be marked and protected by
a with 150 m (490 ft) exclusion distance from any existing routes and
on-ice seismic activities. During active seismic vibrator source
operations, the 150-m (490-ft) exclusion zone will be monitored for
entry by any marine mammals.
In addition, NMFS proposes to require applicants' vehicles to avoid
any pressure ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation areas where seal
structures are likely to be present.
Reporting
NMFS proposes to require annual reports that must be submitted to
NMFS within 90 days of completing the year's activities.The reports
would contain detail descriptions of any marine mammal, by species,
number, age class, and sex if possible, that is sighted in the vicinity
of the proposed project areas; description of the animal's observed
behaviors and the activities occurring at the time.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA will be affected by issuing the incidental
harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to
Veritas and SOI for these three proposed on-ice seismic survey
projects.
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 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 actions discussed in this document are
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
In summary, the anticipated impact of the proposed on-ice seismic
programs on the species or stocks of ringed, bearded, and spotted seals
is expected to be negligible for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed activities would only occur in a small area which
supports a small proportion (approximately 1 percent) of the Alaska
stock of ringed seals. 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 would be
implemented: (a) using trained seal lair sniffing dogs to conduct pre-
operational surveys in areas of sea ice beyond 3 m (9.8 ft) and
monitoring of ringed seal lairs and breathing holes within the proposed
action areas; (b) conducting activities as far away from any observed
seal structures as possible; (c) establishing exclusion zones with 150
m (490 ft) from locations of seal structures; (d) vehicles to avoid any
pressure ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation areas where seal
structures are likely to be present.
NMFS believes the effects of the three on-ice seismic surveys by
Veritas and SOI 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. Also, the potential effects of the proposed on-ice seismic
survey projects during 2008 will not have an
[[Page 67718]]
unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of these species.
Proposed Authorization
NMFS proposes to issue two IHAs to Veritas and one IHA to SOI for
conducting on-ice seismic surveys in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided
the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that
the proposed activities each 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: November 26, 2007.
Helen Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-23255 Filed 11-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
