Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean, 6303-6305 [2013-02000]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
The CBD petition referenced the
simulations performed by Beerkircher et
al. (2009) and stated they were an
indication of population decline. The
CBD petition does not include any
additional information indicating how
these simulations indicate extinction
risk. We carefully reviewed the
simulations; we noted they include the
period 1955 through 1999 when the
marked decline in white marlin catch
occurred, and do not project through
subsequent years when bycatch was
stabilized and reduced. Therefore we do
not find this simulated decline in
roundscale spearfish concurrent with
white marlin surprising, as the
simulations are partitioning the noted
decline in one species’ (white marlin)
catch rates that occurred through the
1990s across two species (white marlin
and roundscale spearfish). We conclude
the simulations do not provide relevant
information regarding the extinction
risk of white marlin or information on
the current status of the white marlin.
In summary, the petitions do not
present information regarding the
decline of white marlin catches in the
1990s that we have not already
considered in prior determinations as
discussed (see ‘‘Species Description’’).
There is no information in our files to
suggest our prior conclusions regarding
the 1990s decline in white marlin catch
were incorrect or insufficient. We
conclude the characterization of
continuing population decline in the
petitions is unsubstantiated. The
petitions did not provide substantial
information that white marlin
populations are unstable or that species
misclassification poses an extinction
risk. Therefore we conclude the
petitions do not present substantial
scientific information indicating that
listing may be warranted due to
overutilization for commercial and
recreational purposes.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The CBD petition states Lynch et al.
(2011) ‘‘demonstrates that existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to prevent the decline of white marlin.’’
We carefully reviewed Lynch et al.
(2011) and could not find statements
supporting CBDs’ assertions. In fact,
Lynch et al. (2011) states measures
already implemented are likely
beneficial to some degree; in
combination, reductions in landing and
live release ‘‘should slow and possibly
reverse downward population trends
* * * some evidence of population
response to these management strategies
may already be observable.’’ The
Chambers petition states that ICCAT is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:43 Jan 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
not managing the white marlin to
produce the maximum sustainable
yield, but does not explain how this
leads to extinction risk of concern.
Fishery management targets, such as
maximum sustainable yield, and
statuses, are based on different criteria
than that required by the ESA and, thus,
do not necessarily have any relationship
to a species’ extinction risk. There is no
information in our files that indicates
the current regulatory mechanisms are
insufficient to prevent endangerment of
the white marlin. The petitions did not
present other information to indicate
how the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is an extinction
risk to the white marlin.
While the petitions state additional
regulations are required to ensure
rebuilding of the marlin populations,
they do not provide any explanation on
how the existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to prevent endangerment
of the white marlin. In summary we find
the petitions, and information readily
available in our files, do not present
substantial information to suggest the
existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate and may be causing an
extinction risk for white marlin.
After reviewing the information
contained in the petitions, as well as
information readily available in our
files, we conclude these petitions do not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the
petitioned action may be warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of all references is
available upon request from the
Protected Resources Division of the
NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 25, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
performing the functions and duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–02008 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6303
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC300
Notice of Intent To Prepare a
Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the Effects of Oil
and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a
Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces its
intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
that would include an analysis of the
environmental impacts of issuing
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) Incidental Take Authorizations
(ITAs) to the oil and gas industry for the
taking of marine mammals incidental to
offshore exploration activities (e.g.,
seismic surveys and exploratory
drilling) in Federal and state waters of
the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off
Alaska. The Department of the Interior’s
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) and the North Slope Borough
are cooperating agencies on this EIS.
The Environmental Protection Agency is
serving as a consulting agency, and
NMFS is coordinating with the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission pursuant
to our co-management agreement under
the MMPA.
DATES: Effective January 30, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Information on this project
can be found on the Office of Protected
Resources Web page at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/
arctic.htm.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Payne, Jolie Harrison, or
Candace Nachman, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
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 small numbers 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 proposed
E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM
30JAN1
6304
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Notices
authorization is provided to the public
for review. The term ‘‘take’’ under the
MMPA means ‘‘to harass, hunt, capture,
or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any marine mammal.’’
Except with respect to certain 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].’’
Authorization for incidental take 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 (where relevant), 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.’’
Summary of 2011 Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
On February 8, 2010, NMFS, as lead
agency, announced its intent to prepare
an EIS analyzing the impacts to the
human environment from the issuance
of MMPA ITAs for the take of marine
mammals incidental to oil and gas
industry exploration activities in the
U.S. Arctic Ocean and BOEM’s
proposed action of issuing geological &
geophysical (G&G) permits and
authorization of ancillary activities in
the U.S. Arctic Ocean under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)
(75 FR 6175). The 60-day public scoping
period ended on April 9, 2010.
On December 30, 2011, NMFS
published a Notice of Availability of the
Draft EIS in the Federal Register (76 FR
82275). The Draft EIS includes an
analysis of the proposed actions
identified in the 2010 NOI (i.e., NMFS’
issuance of MMPA ITAs for take of
marine mammals incidental to G&G
surveys, ancillary activities, and
exploratory drilling in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas and BOEM’s issuance of
G&G permits and authorizations of
ancillary activities in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas), the anticipated
environmental impacts, and other
measures to minimize the impacts
associated with these activities. The 60day public comment period closed on
February 28, 2012.
In light of comments received on the
Draft EIS, NMFS and BOEM determined
that the Final EIS would benefit from
the inclusion of additional alternatives
for analysis that cover a broader range
of potential levels of exploratory drilling
scenarios in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas. The alternatives are based upon
the agencies’ analysis of additional
information, including the comments
and information submitted by
stakeholders during the Draft EIS public
comment period. Incorporating these
alternatives is intended to facilitate
consideration of a broader range of
possible future offshore activity, thus
addressing comments on the Draft EIS
and extending the applicability of the
document. Revisions to the document
will also incorporate information in
response to comments received from the
public regarding other issues, such as
analysis of potential mitigation
measures.
Alternatives
The alternatives analyzed in the 2011
Draft EIS are summarized in the Draft
EIS Notice of Availability (76 FR 82275,
December 30, 2011). However, as noted
previously NMFS and BOEM have
concluded that additional activity level
scenarios should be considered in a
Supplemental Draft EIS. Consistent with
the 2011 Draft EIS, the alternatives will
assess a reasonable range of G&G,
ancillary, and exploratory drilling
activities expected to occur, as well as
a reasonable range of mitigation
measures, in order to accurately assess
the potential consequences of issuing
ITAs under the MMPA and permits
under the OCSLA. Each alternative
includes an analysis of a suite of
standard and additional mitigation
measures that have been identified to
help reduce impacts to marine
mammals and to ensure no unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
marine mammals for subsistence uses.
The primary difference between the
upcoming Supplemental Draft EIS and
the 2011 Draft EIS will be in the
treatment of alternatives. In particular,
NMFS and BOEM will analyze an
additional alternative that considers up
to four exploratory drilling programs in
the Beaufort Sea and up to four
exploratory drilling programs in the
Chukchi Sea per year. In the 2011 Draft
EIS, the maximum level of exploratory
drilling considered in the alternatives
was two exploratory drilling programs
in the Beaufort Sea and two exploratory
drilling programs in the Chukchi Sea
per year. Table 1 outlines the activity
levels to be considered in each action
alternative. Activity levels noted are a
maximum for each alternative.
TABLE 1—LEVELS OF G&G, ANCILLARY, AND EXPLORATORY DRILLING ACTIVITIES PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE
ALTERNATIVES IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS ON THE EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC
OCEAN. ACTIVITY LEVELS NOTED ARE A MAXIMUM, AND ANY COMBINATION UP TO THAT AMOUNT COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE
Site clearance and
shallow hazards
surveys
2D/3D Seismic surveys
Alternative 1 (No Action) .......................
Alternative 2 (Level 1) ...........................
Alternative 3 (Level 2) ...........................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Alternative 4 (Level 3) ...........................
Alternative 5 (Level 3 with required
time/area closures).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:43 Jan 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
0
4
3
6
5
6
5
6
5
...................................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
PO 00000
Frm 00016
0
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
On-ice seismic surveys
...................................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
...................................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
in Beaufort ................
in Chukchi .................
E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM
30JAN1
Exploratory drilling
0
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
Beaufort
Chukchi.
Beaufort
Chukchi.
Beaufort
Chukchi.
Beaufort
Chukchi.
6305
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 1—LEVELS OF G&G, ANCILLARY, AND EXPLORATORY DRILLING ACTIVITIES PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE
ALTERNATIVES IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS ON THE EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC
OCEAN. ACTIVITY LEVELS NOTED ARE A MAXIMUM, AND ANY COMBINATION UP TO THAT AMOUNT COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE—Continued
2D/3D Seismic surveys
Alternative 6 (any level with required
use of alternative technologies).
Site clearance and
shallow hazards
surveys
On-ice seismic surveys
6 in Beaufort ................
5 in Chukchi .................
5 in Beaufort ................
5 in Chukchi .................
1 in Beaufort ................
0 in Chukchi
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Alternatives 5 and 6 differ from
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in the fact that
each one considers required mitigation
measures not contemplated in the other
action alternatives. Certain time/area
closures considered for mitigation on a
case-by-case basis under the other
action alternatives would be required
under Alternative 5. The time/area
closures would be for specific areas
important to biological productivity, life
history functions for specific species of
concern, and subsistence activities.
Activities would not be permitted to
occur in any of the time/area closures
during the specific identified periods.
Additionally, buffer zones around these
time/area closures could potentially be
included.
In addition to contemplating the same
suite of standard and additional
mitigation measures analyzed in the
other action alternatives, Alternative 6
also includes specific additional
mitigation measures that focus on the
use of alternative technologies that have
the potential to augment or replace
traditional airgun-based seismic
exploration activities in the future.
Although NMFS is not soliciting
comments and information from the
public at this time, the agencies will use
the information submitted by the public
on the Draft EIS to inform the content
and analysis in the Supplemental Draft
EIS. The public will then have the
opportunity to comment on the
Supplemental Draft EIS upon its
publication. Additionally, the public
will have the opportunity to comment
on any applications received under the
MMPA as part of this action.
Dated: January 24, 2013.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–02000 Filed 1–25–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:43 Jan 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC471
New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; public meeting.
AGENCY:
The New England Fishery
Management Council’s (Council)
Recreational Advisory Panel will meet
to consider actions affecting New
England fisheries in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ).
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Friday, February 15, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the DoubleTree by Hilton Boston North
Shore, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA
01923.
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
J. Howard, Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council;
telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items
of discussion in the committee’s agenda
are as follows:
The Recreational Advisory Panel
(RAP) will meet to discuss recreational
management measures for Gulf of Maine
cod and Gulf of Maine haddock for
fishing year 2013. Measures may need to
be modified because of reduced quotas
for these two stocks. The RAP will
consider alternative management
measures and may make
recommendations for changes to
account for these reductions. The RAP’s
advice will be provided to the New
England Fishery Management Council
and its Groundfish Oversight
Committee. These two bodies may
develop recommendations based on this
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Exploratory drilling
Any level up to the
maximum, as the
technology only relates to seismic surveys.
advice which will be forwarded to the
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) for consideration. Framework
Adjustment 48, currently under review,
may revise measures to allow changes to
recreational management measures in
advance of the fishing year in order to
reduce the possibility of overages, or
facilitate harvesting the recreational
allocations. Subject to the final decision
on this management measure that was
proposed in Framework Adjustment 48,
NFMS may adjust measures for fishing
year 2013. Any changes would be
announced as soon as possible. Other
business may be discussed.
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.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul
J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5
days prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: January 25, 2013.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–01943 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM
30JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6303-6305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XC300
Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic
Ocean
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces its
intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) that would include an analysis of the environmental impacts of
issuing Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Incidental Take
Authorizations (ITAs) to the oil and gas industry for the taking of
marine mammals incidental to offshore exploration activities (e.g.,
seismic surveys and exploratory drilling) in Federal and state waters
of the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska. The Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the North Slope
Borough are cooperating agencies on this EIS. The Environmental
Protection Agency is serving as a consulting agency, and NMFS is
coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission pursuant to our
co-management agreement under the MMPA.
DATES: Effective January 30, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Information on this project can be found on the Office of
Protected Resources Web page at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arctic.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Payne, Jolie Harrison, or
Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
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 small numbers 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 proposed
[[Page 6304]]
authorization is provided to the public for review. The term ``take''
under the MMPA means ``to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to
harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.'' Except with respect
to certain 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].''
Authorization for incidental take 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 (where
relevant), 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.''
Summary of 2011 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
On February 8, 2010, NMFS, as lead agency, announced its intent to
prepare an EIS analyzing the impacts to the human environment from the
issuance of MMPA ITAs for the take of marine mammals incidental to oil
and gas industry exploration activities in the U.S. Arctic Ocean and
BOEM's proposed action of issuing geological & geophysical (G&G)
permits and authorization of ancillary activities in the U.S. Arctic
Ocean under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (75 FR 6175).
The 60-day public scoping period ended on April 9, 2010.
On December 30, 2011, NMFS published a Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIS in the Federal Register (76 FR 82275). The Draft EIS
includes an analysis of the proposed actions identified in the 2010 NOI
(i.e., NMFS' issuance of MMPA ITAs for take of marine mammals
incidental to G&G surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory
drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and BOEM's issuance of G&G
permits and authorizations of ancillary activities in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas), the anticipated environmental impacts, and other
measures to minimize the impacts associated with these activities. The
60-day public comment period closed on February 28, 2012.
In light of comments received on the Draft EIS, NMFS and BOEM
determined that the Final EIS would benefit from the inclusion of
additional alternatives for analysis that cover a broader range of
potential levels of exploratory drilling scenarios in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas. The alternatives are based upon the agencies' analysis of
additional information, including the comments and information
submitted by stakeholders during the Draft EIS public comment period.
Incorporating these alternatives is intended to facilitate
consideration of a broader range of possible future offshore activity,
thus addressing comments on the Draft EIS and extending the
applicability of the document. Revisions to the document will also
incorporate information in response to comments received from the
public regarding other issues, such as analysis of potential mitigation
measures.
Alternatives
The alternatives analyzed in the 2011 Draft EIS are summarized in
the Draft EIS Notice of Availability (76 FR 82275, December 30, 2011).
However, as noted previously NMFS and BOEM have concluded that
additional activity level scenarios should be considered in a
Supplemental Draft EIS. Consistent with the 2011 Draft EIS, the
alternatives will assess a reasonable range of G&G, ancillary, and
exploratory drilling activities expected to occur, as well as a
reasonable range of mitigation measures, in order to accurately assess
the potential consequences of issuing ITAs under the MMPA and permits
under the OCSLA. Each alternative includes an analysis of a suite of
standard and additional mitigation measures that have been identified
to help reduce impacts to marine mammals and to ensure no unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence
uses.
The primary difference between the upcoming Supplemental Draft EIS
and the 2011 Draft EIS will be in the treatment of alternatives. In
particular, NMFS and BOEM will analyze an additional alternative that
considers up to four exploratory drilling programs in the Beaufort Sea
and up to four exploratory drilling programs in the Chukchi Sea per
year. In the 2011 Draft EIS, the maximum level of exploratory drilling
considered in the alternatives was two exploratory drilling programs in
the Beaufort Sea and two exploratory drilling programs in the Chukchi
Sea per year. Table 1 outlines the activity levels to be considered in
each action alternative. Activity levels noted are a maximum for each
alternative.
Table 1--Levels of G&G, Ancillary, and Exploratory Drilling Activities Proposed for Consideration in the
Alternatives in the Supplemental Draft EIS on the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean.
Activity Levels Noted Are a Maximum, and any Combination up to That Amount Could Be Allowed Under Each
Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site clearance and
2D/3D Seismic shallow hazards On-ice seismic Exploratory
surveys surveys surveys drilling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1 (No Action)....... 0................. 0................. 0................. 0
Alternative 2 (Level 1)......... 4 in Beaufort..... 3 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort
3 in Chukchi...... 3 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... 1 in Chukchi.
Alternative 3 (Level 2)......... 6 in Beaufort..... 5 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... 2 in Beaufort
5 in Chukchi...... 5 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... 2 in Chukchi.
Alternative 4 (Level 3)......... 6 in Beaufort..... 5 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... 4 in Beaufort
5 in Chukchi...... 5 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... 4 in Chukchi.
Alternative 5 (Level 3 with 6 in Beaufort..... 5 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... 4 in Beaufort
required time/area closures). 5 in Chukchi...... 5 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... 4 in Chukchi.
[[Page 6305]]
Alternative 6 (any level with 6 in Beaufort..... 5 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... Any level up to
required use of alternative 5 in Chukchi...... 5 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... the maximum, as
technologies). the technology
only relates to
seismic surveys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives 5 and 6 differ from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in the
fact that each one considers required mitigation measures not
contemplated in the other action alternatives. Certain time/area
closures considered for mitigation on a case-by-case basis under the
other action alternatives would be required under Alternative 5. The
time/area closures would be for specific areas important to biological
productivity, life history functions for specific species of concern,
and subsistence activities. Activities would not be permitted to occur
in any of the time/area closures during the specific identified
periods. Additionally, buffer zones around these time/area closures
could potentially be included.
In addition to contemplating the same suite of standard and
additional mitigation measures analyzed in the other action
alternatives, Alternative 6 also includes specific additional
mitigation measures that focus on the use of alternative technologies
that have the potential to augment or replace traditional airgun-based
seismic exploration activities in the future.
Although NMFS is not soliciting comments and information from the
public at this time, the agencies will use the information submitted by
the public on the Draft EIS to inform the content and analysis in the
Supplemental Draft EIS. The public will then have the opportunity to
comment on the Supplemental Draft EIS upon its publication.
Additionally, the public will have the opportunity to comment on any
applications received under the MMPA as part of this action.
Dated: January 24, 2013.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02000 Filed 1-25-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P