Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to an Anchor Retrieval Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 52407-52418 [2016-18738]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
8. September 28, 2016: Comfort Inn
and Suites, Meeting Room (no name),
3420 Leif Erickson Drive, Astoria, OR
97103, telephone 503–325–2000.
9. September 29, 2016: Agate Beach
Inn, Jasper Room, 3019 N. Coast Hwy.,
Newport, OR 97365, telephone 541–
265–9411.
No actions will be taken at the
hearings.
Special Accommodations
These public hearings are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language
interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Mr. Kris
Kleinschmidt, at 503–820–2280 (voice),
or 503–820–2299 (fax) at least five days
prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: August 2, 2016.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–18692 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE473
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to an Anchor
Retrieval Program in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental
take authorization (IHA).
AGENCY:
In accordance with
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an IHA to
Fairweather, LLC (Fairweather) to take,
by harassment, small numbers of 12
species of marine mammals incidental
to an anchor retrieval program in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas, Alaska,
during the open-water season of 2016.
DATES: This authorization is effective
from July 1, 2016 through October 31,
2016.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
52407
Background
Summary of Request
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 a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings 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.’’
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.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
establishes a 45-day time limit for
NMFS’s review of an application
followed by a 30-day public notice and
comment period on any proposed
authorizations for the incidental
harassment of small numbers of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close
of the public comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny the
authorization.
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].
On February 2, 2016, NMFS received
an application from Fairweather for the
taking of marine mammals incidental to
conducting anchor retrieval activities in
the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
After receiving NMFS comments,
Fairweather made revisions and
updated its IHA application and marine
mammal mitigation and monitoring
plan on February 8, 2016. NMFS
determined the IHA application
adequate and complete on February 8,
2016. NMFS published a notice making
preliminary determinations and
proposing to issue an IHA on May 19,
2016 (81 FR 31594). The notice initiated
a 30-day comment period.
Fairweather proposes to retrieve
anchor equipment left by Shell
Offshore, Inc. (Shell) during its 2012
and 2015 exploration drilling programs
in the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
The proposed activity would occur
between July 1 and October 31, 2016.
Noise generated from anchor handling
activities and vessel’s dynamic
positioning thrusters could impact
marine mammals in the vicinity of the
activities. Take, by Level B harassments,
of individuals of eight species of marine
mammals may result from the specified
activity.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Description of the Specified Activity
A detailed description of the
Fairweather’s anchor retrieval program
is provided in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR
31594; May 19, 2016). Since that time,
no changes have been made to the
proposed construction activities.
Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to that
Federal Register notice for the
description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA to Fairweather was published in
the Federal Register on May 19, 2016
(81 FR 31594). That notice described, in
detail, Fairweather’s activity, the marine
mammal species and subsistence
activities that may be affected by the
proposed anchor retrieval program, and
the anticipated effects on marine
mammals and subsistence activities.
During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received comments from
the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission) and the Alaska Oil and
Gas Association (AOGA). Specific
comments and responses are provided
below.
Comment 1: The Commission states
that since anchor handling would take
7 days at each site, and there are 5 sites,
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
52408
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
thus marine mammal takes should be
based on a total of 35 days, instead of
an average of 3.5 days per site with a
total of 17.5 days.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
Commission’s assessment. As stated in
Fairweather’s IHA application and the
Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (81 FR 31594; May 19, 2016),
anchor handling at each site takes 2–7
days, with machinery operating at full
power capacity only part of these days.
Therefore, our analysis used an average
of 3.5 days per site for anchor handling
at each site. We consider this to be a
more realistic scenario. In addition,
because some of these days the
shipboard machinery (including
dynamic positioning thruster) will not
be operating at full power, the 120-dB
ensonified area is expected to be much
smaller than expected. Therefore, we
believe using a total of 17.5 days based
on averaged operation days of 3.5 days
per site provides better take estimates of
marine mammals.
Comment 2: The Commission states
that the method used to estimate the
numbers of takes, which sums fractions
of takes for each species across days,
does not account for NMFS’s 24-hour
reset policy. The Commission argues
that although this approach is more
accurate in a pure mathematical sense,
it ultimately negates the intent of a 24hour reset. The Commission states that
instead of summing fractions of takes
across days and then rounding to
estimate total takes, NMFS should have
calculated a daily take estimate
(determined by multiplying the
estimated density of marine mammals
in the area by the daily ensonified area)
and then rounding that to a whole
number before multiplying it by the
number of days that activities would
occur. Thus, the Commission
recommends that NMFS (1) follow its
policy of a 24-hour reset for
enumerating the number of each species
that could be taken, (2) apply standard
rounding rules before summing the
numbers of estimated takes across days,
and (3) for species that have the
potential to be taken but modelestimated or calculated takes round to
zero, use group size to inform the take
estimates—these methods should be
used consistently for all future
incidental take authorizations.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
Commission’s assessment and
recommendation. While for certain
projects NMFS has rounded to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
whole number for daily takes, the
circumstance for projects like this one
when the objective of take estimation is
to provide more accurate assessments
for potential impacts to marine
mammals for the entire project, the
rounding in the middle of calculation
will introduce large errors into the
process. In addition, while NMFS uses
a 24-hour reset for its take calculation in
impact assessments, there is no need for
daily (24-hour) rounding in this case
because there is no daily limit of takes,
so long as total authorized takes of
marine mammal are not exceeded.
Comment 3: The Commission
recommends that NMFS incorporate the
peer-review panel’s recommendations
into the authorization.
Response: NMFS convened a peerreview panel to review Fairweather’s
marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation measure. The peer-review
panel met in March and provided its
report to NMFS in mid-April. The peerreview panel report contains
recommendations applicable to
Fairweather’s monitoring plans.
Specifically, the panel recommended
that Fairweather employ passive
acoustic monitoring (PAM) in the
vicinity of the proposed anchor
handling activities to collect better data
on the presence, calling behavior and
possible impacts to marine mammals for
all the locations where anchors are
deployed. In addition, the peer-review
panel recommends that Fairweather
coordinate closely with the
communities nearest to each of the
locations where it plans to retrieve
anchors to avoid the peak of marine
mammals’ presence and subsistence
hunting.
NMFS discussed the
recommendations with Fairweather and
determined that the deployment of PAM
devices in the vicinity of the anchor
handling activities is not feasible
because the anchor retrieval activity at
each site would only take an average of
3.5 days, and none of the anchor
retrieval vessels or the support vessel
could be used to serve as a PAM
platform during the operation.
Deployment of bottom-mounted sensors
for such a short duration would incur
unreasonable expenses to such a small
project. Nevertheless, Fairweather
agreed and is required to coordinate
closely with the subsistence
communities nearest to each of the
project site where it plans to retrieve
anchors to ensure no unmitigable
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impact to subsistence use of marine
mammals by these communities. A
detailed description of the peer-review
process and the panel’s
recommendation is presented in the
Monitoring Measure Peer Review section
below.
Comment 4: AOGA objects to the
proposed vessel movement mitigation
measures that will protect the North
Pacific right whale and its critical
habitat. These measures require
Fairweather to (1) avoid transits within
designated North Pacific right whale
critical habitat; (2) if transit within
North Pacific right whale critical habitat
cannot be avoided, vessel operators are
requested to observe the 10 kt (18.52
km/h) vessel speed restriction while
with in North Pacific right whale
habitat; and (3) within the North Pacific
right whale critical habitat, all vessels
keep a distance of 2,625 ft (800 m) away
from any observed North Pacific right
whales and avoid approaching whales
head-on. AOGA reasons that in order for
NMFS to require this mitigation
measure there must be a reasonable
expectation of take, and that existing
measures for vessels transits, plus
decades of activity transits have not
resulted in vessel strikes of North
Pacific right whales (NPRW).
Response: Although the density of
NPRW is very low, even in its critical
habitat, the additional measures will
ensure that a lethal take of this species
can be completely avoided. Fairweather
voluntarily included those mitigation
measures in its proposed action as a
precautionary move to minimize the
risk of a vessel strike. Regardless of how
small the risk of a strike may be,
Fairweather’s decision reflects the
potentially severe consequences to an
already very small population should a
strike occur. NMFS discussed this
measure with Fairweather, and the
company is committed to the measures
that afford additional protection to this
critically endangered species. Therefore,
these measures are reflected in the IHA
issued to Fairweather.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas
support a diverse assemblage of marine
mammals. Table 2 lists the 12 marine
mammal species under NMFS
jurisdiction with confirmed or possible
occurrence in the proposed project area.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
52409
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES WITH CONFIRMED OR POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE IN THE PROPOSED ACTION AREA
Conservation status
Habitat
Beluga
whale
(Delphinapterus
leucas)—Eastern Chukchi Stock.
Beluga
whale
(Delphinapterus
leucas)—Beaufort Stock.
Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ...................
Harbor
porpoise
(Phocoena
phocoena)—Bering Sea Stock.
Bowhead
whale
(Balaena
mysticetus)—Western Arctic Stock.
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)—
Eastern Pacific Stock.
Minke
whale
(Balaenoptera
acutorostrata).
Humpback
whale
(Megaptera
novaeangliae)—Western North Pacific Stock.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)—
Northeast Pacific Stock.
Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) .....
Spotted seal (Phoca largha) .................
Ringed seal (Pusa hispida) ...................
Ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata) ......
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Species/Stocks
ESA—Not Listed ...................................
Offshore, coastal, ice edges .................
3,710
ESA—Not Listed ...................................
Offshore, coastal, ice edges .................
32,453
ESA—Not Listed ...................................
ESA—Not Listed ...................................
Widely distributed .................................
Coastal, inland waters, shallow offshore waters.
Pack ice, coastal ...................................
2,084
48,215
ESA—Endangered ................................
ESA—Not Listed ...................................
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
13,796
19,126
ESA—Not Listed ...................................
Coastal, lagoons, shallow offshore
waters.
Shelf, coastal ........................................
ESA—Endangered ................................
Shelf slope, mostly pelagic ...................
6,000–14,000
ESA—Endangered ................................
Shelf, coastal ........................................
1,368
ESA—Not listed ....................................
ESA—(Arctic DPS Not Listed) ..............
ESA—Not listed ....................................
ESA—Not Listed ...................................
Pack ice, shallow offshore waters ........
Pack ice, coastal haul outs, offshore ...
Land-fast & pack ice, offshore ..............
Pack ice, offshore .................................
155,000
391,000
300,000
90,000–100,000
Among these species, bowhead,
humpback, and fin whales are listed as
endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In
addition, walrus and the polar bear
could also occur in the U.S. Chukchi
and Beaufort seas; however, these
species are managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are
not considered in this Notice of IHA.
Of all these species, bowhead and
beluga whales and ringed, bearded, and
spotted seals are the species most
frequently sighted in the proposed
activity area. The proposed action area
in Chukchi and Beaufort seas also
include areas that have been identified
as important for bowhead whale
reproduction during summer and fall
and for beluga whale feeding and
reproduction in summer.
Most spring-migrating bowhead
whales would likely pass through the
Chukchi Sea prior to the start of the
planned anchor handling activities.
However, a few whales that may remain
in the Chukchi Sea during the summer
could be encountered during the anchor
handling activities or by transiting
vessels. More encounters with bowhead
whales would be likely to occur during
the westward fall migration in late
September through October. Most
bowheads migrating in September and
October appear to transit across the
northern portion of the Chukchi Sea to
the Chukotka coast before heading south
toward the Bering Sea (Quakenbush et
al., 2009). Some of these whales have
traveled well north of the planned
operations, but others have passed near
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Population estimate
Jkt 238001
to, or through, the proposed project
area.
Two stocks of beluga whales occur in
the proposed anchor retrieving project
areas: The Eastern Chukchi stock and
the Beaufort Sea stock. The Eastern
Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal
areas, including Kasegaluk Lagoon, in
late June and animals are sighted in the
area until about mid-July (Frost et al.,
1993). This movement indicated some
overlap in distribution with the Beaufort
Sea beluga whale stock during late
summer. Summer densities of beluga
whales in offshore waters are expected
to be low, with somewhat higher
densities in ice-margin and nearshore
areas. If belugas are present during the
summer, they are more likely to occur
in or near the ice edge or close to shore
during their northward migration. In the
fall, beluga whale densities offshore in
the Chukchi Sea are expected to be
somewhat higher than in the summer
because individuals of the eastern
Chukchi Sea stock and the Beaufort Sea
stock will be migrating south to their
wintering grounds in the Bering Sea
(Allen and Angliss 2014).
Ringed seals are year-round residents
in the Bering Sea, Norton and Kotzebue
Sounds, and throughout the Chukchi
and Beaufort Seas and are the most
frequently encountered seal in the area
(Allen and Angliss 2015). They occur as
far south as Bristol Bay in years of
extensive ice coverage but are generally
not abundant south of Norton Sound
except in nearshore areas (Frost 1985).
Ringed seals will likely be the most
abundant marine mammal species
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
810
encountered in the Chukchi Sea during
anchor retrieval operations.
During spring when pupping,
breeding, and molting occur, spotted
seals are found along the southern edge
of the sea ice in the Okhotsk and Bering
seas (Quakenbush 1988; Rugh et al.,
1997). In late April and early May, adult
spotted seals are often seen on the ice
in female-pup or male-female pairs, or
in male-female-pup triads. Sub-adults
may be seen in larger groups of up to
200 animals. During the summer,
spotted seals are found primarily in the
Bering and Chukchi seas, but some
range into the Beaufort Sea (Rugh et al.,
1997; Lowry et al., 1998) from July until
September. Spotted seals are expected
to occur near the planned anchor
handling activities in the Chukchi Sea,
but they will likely be fewer in number
than ringed seals.
Bearded seals occur over the
continental shelves of the Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Burns
1981b). During the summer period,
bearded seals occur mainly in relatively
shallow areas because they are
predominantly benthic feeders (Burns
1981b). During winter, most bearded
seals in Alaskan waters are found in the
Bering Sea. From mid-April to June as
the ice recedes, some of the bearded
seals that overwinter in the Bering Sea
migrate northward through the Bering
Strait. During the summer they are
found near the widely fragmented
margin of sea ice covering the
continental shelf of the Chukchi Sea and
in nearshore areas of the central and
western Beaufort Sea (Allen and Angliss
2015). Bearded seals are likely to be
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52410
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
encountered during anchor handling
activities, and greater numbers of
bearded seals are likely to be
encountered if the ice edge occurs
nearby.
Further information on the biology
and local distribution of these species
can be found in Fairweather’s
application (see ADDRESSES) and the
NMFS Marine Mammal Stock
Assessment Reports, which are available
online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
sars/pdf/alaska2015_final.pdf.
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals
The effects of the stressors associated
with the specified activity (e.g., acoustic
effects of anchor retrieval, which
include noises from dynamic
positioning, winch operations, and
other machinery operations) have the
potential to result in harassment of
marine mammals. The Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR
31594, May 19, 2016) included a
discussion of the effects of acoustic
stimuli on marine mammals. That
information is not repeated here. No
instances of injury, serious injury, or
mortality (Level A take) are expected as
a result of the anchor retrieval activities,
nor are any Level A take authorized by
this IHA.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat
The environmental effects of
Fairweather’s proposed anchor retrieval
activity, which includes noise exposure
to marine mammal prey species and
physical disturbances of project
locations, are discussed in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (81
FR 31594, May 19, 2016). Therefore,
that information is not repeated here.
Mitigation Measures
In order to issue an incidental take
authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the
permissible methods of taking pursuant
to such activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of such species or stock for
taking for certain subsistence uses.
For the planned Fairweather openwater anchor retrieval operations in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas, Fairweather
is required to implement the following
mitigation measures to minimize the
potential impacts to marine mammals in
the project vicinity as a result of the
activities. The primary purpose of these
mitigation measures is to detect marine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
mammals and avoid vessel interactions
during the anchor retrieval operation.
(a) Establishing and Monitoring
Exclusion Zone for Anchor Retrieval
and Ice Management
(1) Protected species observers (PSO)
would establish and monitor a safety
zone of 500 m for anchor retrieval
activity and ice management. The
modeled safety zone for anchor retrieval
is 100 m from the source.
(2) When the vessel is positioned onsite, the PSOs will ‘clear’ the area by
observing the 500m safety zone for 30
minutes; if no marine mammals are
observed within those 30 minutes,
anchor retrieval or ice management will
commence.
(3) If a marine mammal(s) is observed
within the 500 m of the anchor retrieval
and/or ice management safety zone
during the clearing, the PSOs will
continue to watch until the animal(s) is
gone and has not returned for 15
minutes if the sighting was a pinniped,
or 30 minutes if it was a cetacean.
(4) Once the PSOs have cleared the
area, anchor retrieval or ice management
operations may commence.
(5) Should a marine mammal(s) be
observed within or approaching the 500
m safety zone during the retrieval or ice
management operations, the PSOs will
monitor and carefully record any
reactions observed.
(b) Establishing and Monitoring
Exclusion Zone for Sonar Activity
Although NMFS does not expect
marine mammals would be taken by
high-frequency sonar used for locating
anchors, at Fairweather’s suggestion the
following mitigation and monitoring
measures related to sonar operations
will be implemented.
(1) PSOs would establish and monitor
an exclusion zone of 500 m for sonar
activity. The modeled exclusion zone
for sonar activity is 100 m from the
source.
(2) Prior to starting the sonar activity,
the PSOs will ‘clear’ the area by
observing the 500 m exclusion zone for
30 minutes; if no marine mammals are
observed within those 30 minutes, sonar
activity will commence.
(3) If a marine mammal(s) is observed
within the 500 m exclusion zone during
the clearing, the PSOs will continue to
watch until the animal(s) is gone and
has not returned for 15 minutes if the
sighting was a pinniped, or 30 minutes
if it was a cetacean.
(4) Once the PSOs have cleared the
area, sonar activity may commence.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(c) Establishing Zones of Influence
(ZOIs)
PSOs would establish and monitor
ZOIs where the received level is 120 dB
during Fairweather’s anchor retrieval
operation and where the received level
is 160 dB during sonar activity.
(d) Vessel Speed or Course Measures
If a marine mammal is detected
outside the 500 m sonar exclusion zone
for sonar activities or during transit
between sites, based on its position and
the relative motion, is likely to enter
those zones, the vessel’s speed and/or
direct course may, when practical and
safe, be changed. The marine mammal
activities and movements relative to the
vessels shall be closely monitored to
ensure that the marine mammal does
not approach within either zone. If the
mammal appears likely to enter the
respective zone, further mitigation
actions will be taken, i.e., either further
course alterations or shut down in the
case of the sonar. During actual anchor
handling, the vessel is stationary on site.
In addition, the vessel shall reduce its
speed to 5 kt (9.26 km/h) or lower when
within 900 ft (274 m) of cetaceans or
pinnipeds. Further, Fairweather shall
avoid transits within designated NPRW
critical habitat. If transit within NPRW
critical habitat cannot be avoided, vessel
operators are requested to exercise
extreme caution and observe the of 10
kt (18.52 km/h) vessel speed restriction
while within North Pacific right whale
critical habitat. Within the NPRW
critical habitat, all vessels shall keep
2,625 ft (800 m) away from any observed
NPRW and avoid approaching whales
head-on, consistent with vessel safety.
(e) Shutdown Measures
If an animal enters or is approaching
the 500 m exclusion zone, sonar will be
shut down immediately. Sonar activity
will not resume until the marine
mammal has cleared the exclusion zone.
PSOs will also collect behavioral
information on marine mammals
beyond the exclusion zone.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated
Fairweather’s mitigation measures and
considered a range of other measures in
the context of ensuring that NMFS
prescribes the means of effecting the
least practicable impact on the affected
marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential
measures included consideration of the
following factors in relation to one
another:
• The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measures are
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the
specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure
for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed
by NMFS should be able to accomplish,
have a reasonable likelihood of
accomplishing (based on current
science), or contribute to the
accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may
contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of
marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) exposed to received levels
of activities expected to result in the
take of marine mammals (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing
harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times
(total number or number at biologically
important time or location) individuals
would be exposed to received levels of
activities expected to result in the take
of marine mammals (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing
harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of
exposures (either total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) to received levels of
activities expected to result in the take
of marine mammals (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the
severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of
adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the
food base, activities that block or limit
passage to or from biologically
important areas, permanent destruction
of habitat, or temporary destruction/
disturbance of habitat during a
biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to
mitigation—an increase in the
probability of detecting marine
mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS
has determined that the proposed
mitigation measures provide the means
of effecting the least practicable impact
on marine mammals species or stocks
and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance.
Measures to ensure availability of such
species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses are discussed later in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
this document (see ‘‘Impact on
Availability of Affected Species or Stock
for Taking for Subsistence Uses’’
section).
Monitoring and Reporting Measures
In order to issue an ITA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking.’’ The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13)
indicate that requests for ITAs must
include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in
increased knowledge of the species and
of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are
expected to be present in the proposed
action area. Fairweather submitted a
marine mammal monitoring plan as part
of the IHA application.
Monitoring measures prescribed by
NMFS should accomplish one or more
of the following general goals:
1. An increase in our understanding
of the likely occurrence of marine
mammal species in the vicinity of the
action, i.e., presence, abundance,
distribution, and/or density of species.
2. An increase in our understanding
of the nature, scope, or context of the
likely exposure of marine mammal
species to any of the potential stressor(s)
associated with the action (e.g. sound or
visual stimuli), through better
understanding of one or more of the
following: The action itself and its
environment (e.g. sound source
characterization, propagation, and
ambient noise levels); the affected
species (e.g. life history or dive pattern);
the likely co-occurrence of marine
mammal species with the action (in
whole or part) associated with specific
adverse effects; and/or the likely
biological or behavioral context of
exposure to the stressor for the marine
mammal (e.g., age class of exposed
animals or known pupping, calving or
feeding areas).
3. An increase in our understanding
of how individual marine mammals
respond (behaviorally or
physiologically) to the specific stressors
associated with the action (in specific
contexts, where possible, e.g., at what
distance or received level).
4. An increase in our understanding
of how anticipated individual
responses, to individual stressors or
anticipated combinations of stressors,
may impact either: The long-term fitness
and survival of an individual; or the
population, species, or stock (e.g.
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52411
5. An increase in our understanding
of how the activity affects marine
mammal habitat, such as through effects
on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g.,
through characterization of longer-term
contributions of multiple sound sources
to rising ambient noise levels and
assessment of the potential chronic
effects on marine mammals).
6. An increase in understanding of the
impacts of the activity on marine
mammals in combination with the
impacts of other anthropogenic
activities or natural factors occurring in
the region.
7. An increase in our understanding
of the effectiveness of mitigation and
monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of
detecting marine mammals (through
improved technology or methodology),
both specifically within the safety zone
(thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and
in general, to better achieve the above
goals.
Monitoring Measures
Monitoring will provide information
on the numbers of marine mammals
potentially affected by the anchor
retrieval operation and facilitate realtime mitigation to prevent injury of
marine mammals by vessel traffic. These
goals will be accomplished in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas during 2016
by conducting vessel-based monitoring
to document marine mammal presence
and distribution in the vicinity of the
operation area.
Visual monitoring by PSOs during
anchor retrieval operation, and periods
when the operation is not occurring,
will provide information on the
numbers of marine mammals potentially
affected by the activity. Vessel-based
PSOs onboard the vessels will record
the numbers and species of marine
mammals observed in the area and any
observable reaction of marine mammals
to the anchor retrieval operation in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
Visual-Based PSOs
Vessel-based monitoring for marine
mammals would be done by trained
PSOs throughout the period of anchor
retrieval operation. The observers would
monitor the occurrence of marine
mammals onboard vessels during all
daylight periods during operation. PSO
duties would include watching for and
identifying marine mammals; recording
their numbers, distances, and reactions
to the survey operations; and
documenting ‘‘take by harassment.’’
A sufficient number of PSOs would be
required onboard each survey vessel to
meet the following criteria:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52412
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
• 100 percent monitoring coverage
during all periods of anchor retrieval
operations in daylight;
• Maximum of 4 consecutive hours
on watch per PSO; and
• Maximum of 12 hours of watch
time per day per PSO.
PSO teams will consist of Inupiat
observers and experienced field
biologists. Each vessel will have an
experienced field crew leader to
supervise the PSO team. The total
number of PSOs may decrease later in
the season as the duration of daylight
decreases.
(1) PSOs Qualification and Training
Lead PSOs and most PSOs would be
individuals with experience as
observers during marine mammal
monitoring projects in Alaska or other
offshore areas in recent years. New or
inexperienced PSOs would be paired
with an experienced PSO or
experienced field biologist so that the
quality of marine mammal observations
and data recording is kept consistent.
Resumes for candidate PSOs would be
provided to NMFS for review and
acceptance of their qualifications.
Inupiat observers would be experienced
in the region and familiar with the
marine mammals of the area. All
observers would complete an observer
training course designed to familiarize
individuals with monitoring and data
collection procedures.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
(2) Specialized Field Equipment
The PSOs shall be provided with
Fujinon 7 x 50 or equivalent binoculars
for visual based monitoring onboard all
vessels.
Laser range finders (Leica LRF 1200
laser rangefinder or equivalent) would
be available to assist with distance
estimation.
Marine Mammal Behavioral Response to
Vessel Disturbance Study
As part of the Chukchi Sea
Environmental Studies Program
(CSESP), marine mammal biologists
collected behavioral response data on
walruses and seals to the vessel. The
objectives of the observer on the CSESP
program were to collect information on
marine mammal distribution and
density estimates using standard linetransect theory. In other words, the
program was not a mitigation program
for any particular seismic activity.
Because the vessels in this program will
be transiting a large portion of the time,
Fairweather proposes to utilize this
opportunity to collect information on
responses of marine mammals,
particularly walruses and seals, to
vessel disturbance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
As part of the standard Fairweather’s
observation protocol, observers will
record the initial and subsequent
behaviors of marine mammals, a
methodology they refer to as ‘focal
following.’ Marine mammals will be
monitored and observed until they
disappear from the PSO’s view (PSOs
may have to follow the marine
mammals by moving to new locations in
order to keep the marine mammals in
constant view). Observers will also
record any perceived reactions that
marine mammals may have in response
to the vessel. When following the
animal observers will use either a
notebook or voice recorder to note any
changes in behavior and the time when
these changes occur. Time of first
observation, time of changes in
behavior, and time last seen will be
recorded. Behaviors and changes in
behaviors of marine mammals will be
recorded as long as they are in view of
the boat. After the animal is out of sight,
PSOs will summarize the observation in
the notes field of the electronic data
collection platform. It may be difficult
to find the animal being followed after
it dives and if this happens, PSO will
stop focal follow observation.
For large groups of marine mammals
where it is difficult to monitor each
animal, one or more focal animals, (e.g.,
cow/calf pair, sub-adult female, adult
male, etc.) will be chosen to monitor
until it is no longer observable. For a
sighting with more than one animal, the
most common behavior of the group
will be recorded. Focal animals will be
chosen without bias in relation to age
and sex, but as observations accumulate
and specific age/sex categories are
underrepresented, focal animals may be
chosen from those underrepresented
categories, if possible.
A separate section in the 90-day
report (see below) will be provided with
a summary of results of vessel
disturbance, with the ultimate goal of a
peer-reviewed publication.
Reporting Measures
(1) Monitoring Reports
The results of Fairweather’s anchor
retrieval program monitoring reports
would be presented in weekly, monthly,
and 90-day reports, as required by
NMFS under the proposed IHA. The
initial final reports are due to NMFS
within 90 days after the expiration of
the IHA (if issued). The reports will
include:
• Summaries of monitoring effort
(e.g., total hours, total distances, and
marine mammal distribution through
the study period, accounting for sea
state and other factors affecting
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
visibility and detectability of marine
mammals);
• Summaries that represent an initial
level of interpretation of the efficacy,
measurements, and observations, rather
than raw data, fully processed analyses,
or a summary of operations and
important observations;
• Information on distances marine
mammals are sighted from operations
and the associated noise isopleth for
active sound sources (i.e., anchor
retrieval, ice management, side scan
sonar);
• Analyses of the effects of various
factors influencing detectability of
marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number
of observers, and fog/glare);
• Species composition, occurrence,
and distribution of marine mammal
sightings, including date, water depth,
numbers, age/size/gender categories (if
determinable), group sizes, and ice
cover;
• Estimates of uncertainty in all take
estimates, with uncertainty expressed
by the presentation of confidence limits,
a minimum-maximum, posterior
probability distribution, or another
applicable method, with the exact
approach to be selected based on the
sampling method and data available;
and
• A clear comparison of authorized
takes and the level of actual estimated
takes.
The 90-day reports will be subject to
review and comment by NMFS. Any
recommendations made by NMFS must
be addressed in the final report prior to
acceptance by NMFS.
(2) Notification of Injured or Dead
Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the IHA, such as a serious
injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike,
gear interaction, and/or entanglement),
Fairweather would immediately cease
the specified activities and immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinators. The report would include
the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the
24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
• Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
• Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS would work with Fairweather to
determine necessary actions to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. Fairweather would not be
able to resume its activities until
notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that Fairweather
discovers a dead marine mammal and
the lead PSO determines that the cause
of the death is unknown and the death
is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a
moderate state of decomposition as
described in the next paragraph),
Fairweather would immediately report
the incident to the Chief of the Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or
by email to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators. The report
would include the same information
identified in the paragraph above.
Activities would be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances
of the incident. NMFS would work with
Fairweather to determine whether
modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that Fairweather
discovers a dead marine mammal, and
the lead PSO determines that the death
is not associated with or related to the
activities authorized in the IHA (e.g.,
previously wounded animal, carcass
with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage),
Fairweather would report the incident
to the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or
by email to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours
of the discovery. Fairweather would
provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS and
the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Fairweather can continue its operations
under such a case.
Monitoring Plan Peer Review
The MMPA requires that monitoring
plans be independently peer reviewed
‘‘where the proposed activity may affect
the availability of a species or stock for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
taking for subsistence uses’’ (16 U.S.C.
1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this
requirement, NMFS’ implementing
regulations state, ‘‘Upon receipt of a
complete monitoring plan, and at its
discretion, [NMFS] will either submit
the plan to members of a peer review
panel for review or within 60 days of
receipt of the proposed monitoring plan,
schedule a workshop to review the
plan’’ (50 CFR 216.108(d)).
NMFS convened an independent peer
review panel to review Fairweather’s
Marine Mammal Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan (4MP) for the planned
anchor retrieval operation in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The panel
met via web conference in early March
2016, and provided comments to NMFS
in April 2016. The full panel report can
be viewed online at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/research.htm.
NMFS provided the panel with
Fairweather’s IHA application and
monitoring plan and asked the panel to
answer the following questions:
1. Will the applicant’s stated
objectives effectively further the
understanding of the impacts of their
activities on marine mammals and
otherwise accomplish the goals stated
above? If not, how should the objectives
be modified to better accomplish the
goals above?
2. Can the applicant achieve the
stated objectives based on the methods
described in the plan?
3. Are there technical modifications to
the proposed monitoring techniques and
methodologies proposed by the
applicant that should be considered to
better accomplish their stated
objectives?
4. Are there techniques not proposed
by the applicant (i.e., additional
monitoring techniques or
methodologies) that should be
considered for inclusion in the
applicant’s monitoring program to better
accomplish their stated objectives?
5. What is the best way for an
applicant to present their data and
results (formatting, metrics, graphics,
etc.) in the required reports that are to
be submitted to NMFS (i.e., 90-day
report and comprehensive report)?
The peer-review panel report contains
recommendations applicable to
Fairweather’s monitoring plans.
Specifically, the panel recommended
that Fairweather employ PAM in the
vicinity of the proposed anchor
handling activities to collect better data
on the presence, calling behavior and
possible impacts to marine mammals for
all the locations where anchors are
deployed. In addition, although not
requested, the peer-review panel
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52413
recommends that Fairweather
coordinate closely with the
communities nearest to each of the
locations where it plans to retrieve
anchors to avoid the peak of marine
mammals’ presence and subsistence
hunting.
NMFS discussed the peer review
panel report and its recommendation of
conducting PAM in the vicinity of
anchor retrieving sites with Fairweather
and considers this recommendation is
not practicable for Fairweather’s anchor
retrieving operations. As discussed in
the Federal Register for the proposed
IHA (81 FR 31594, May 19, 2016), the
duration of activities in each area is
projected to be only 1–3 days for
complete anchor recovery (up to 7 as a
very conservative estimate), with only
∼20 minutes per system being the loud
‘‘unseating’’ portion. At the Sivulliq
site, which has the highest number of
anchor systems (12), the total
‘‘unseating’’ time would be 4 hours,
occurring in 12 x 20-minute bursts.
Because of this short duration,
particularly of the sound with the
largest potential for impacts to marine
mammals, NMFS does not think that
PAM is warranted. Moreover, deploying
and recovering PAM equipment for such
short durations only prolongs the
amount of time the vessels are in each
project area, thus increasing the impacts
on the animals. Additionally, deploying
PAM equipment for only 2 days will not
greatly expand the body of knowledge
about marine mammal acoustics in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, nor will it
be comparable to previous studies in the
area. Lastly, unless PAM monitoring is
real-time, it is not a useful tool for
mitigation. The only way for it to be
real-time would be to have several
smaller vessels on the project with the
PAM equipment (at which point we
would employ visual PSOs), but this
option is not practical or reasonable for
the small scale of this project
For close coordination with
subsistence communities near the
anchor retrieval locations, Fairweather
states that it is committed to working
very closely with the communities
surrounding its activities. Fairweather
has conducted meetings (either via
teleconference in-person) with
representatives from Kotzebue, Pt.
Hope, Pt. Lay, Wainwright, Barrow,
Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. Fairweather will
have experienced Inupiat
Communicators/Observers (ICOs)
onboard each of the vessels as liaisons
to the communities from all
communities. As part of the pre-season
planning and safety seminar, whaling
captains and members of Alaska Eskimo
Whaling Commission will be presenting
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52414
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
on their culture and traditional
knowledge to Fairweather.
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment
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).
Takes by Level B harassments of some
species are anticipated as a result of
Fairweather’s proposed anchor retrieval
operation. NMFS expects marine
mammal takes could result from noise
propagation from anchor retrieving
activities, which includes the operation
of dynamic thrusters and other
machinery noises generated from anchor
retrieving using winch and steel cables.
NMFS does not expect marine mammals
would be taken by collision with
vessels, because the vessels will be
moving at low speeds, and PSOs on the
vessels will be monitoring for marine
mammals and will be able to alert the
vessels to avoid any marine mammals in
the area.
For non-impulse sounds, such as
those produced by the dynamic
positioning thrusters and anchor
handling during Fairweather’s anchor
retrieval operation, NMFS uses the 180
and 190 dB (rms) re 1 mPa isopleth to
indicate the onset of Level A harassment
for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
respectively; and the 120 dB (rms) re 1
mPa isopleth for Level B harassment of
all marine mammals.
The estimates of the numbers of each
species of marine mammal that could
potentially be exposed to sound
associated with the anchor retrieval
activity are calculated by multiplying
the area of ensonified areas by animal
densities. Specifically, the ensonified
area for anchor retrieving activities is
the area where received noise levels are
above 120 dB, during the periods when
these activities would be occurring. For
the 2015 IHA application for Shell’s
exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea
(Shell 2015), JASCO modeled the
anchor handling activity using their
estimated distance to 120 dB isopleths
at 14,000 m (JASCO 2013). This yields
an estimated 120 dB ensonified area of
615 km2.
The duration of sound-producing
activity was calculated for each site.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Although each anchor site has different
configurations and numbers of anchors,
Fairweather assumes it would take up to
seven days per site to remove all
anchors. Because the vessels will not be
operating at full power during the entire
time, Fairweather assumes half of the
time (3.5 days) will be exceeding 120
dB. With five (5) anchor sites, this
results in 17.5 days of anchor handling
activity that may result in disturbance.
Description of the Sound Sources
Anchor Retrieving: During Shell’s
2012 exploratory program in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas, sound
source verifications (SSVs) were
conducted of all activities conducted
near both Burger and Sivulliq during the
open-water season (LGL et al., 2014).
Detailed descriptions of the sound
measurements and analysis methods
can be found in Chapter 3 of the Shell
2012 90-day report to NMFS (Austin et
al., 2013). Anchor handling activities
were measured at 143 dB at 860 m, the
loudest activity was when ‘‘seating’’ the
anchors (LGL et al., 2014). It is assumed
that the unseating of anchors will be
similar in power needed from the
vessel, so this source is suitable to
estimate area ensonified. In the report,
JASCO extrapolated the distance to the
120 dB threshold using a simple
spreading loss of 19 log R, resulting in
a radius of 14,000 m. This radius was
used to estimate the area ensonified for
this application.
Each anchor site has different
configurations and numbers of anchors,
but Fairweather assumes it will take up
to seven (7) days per site to remove all
anchors. Because the vessels will not be
operating at full power during the entire
time, Fairweather assumed half of the
time (3.5 days) will be utilizing the high
power to unseat anchors. With five (5)
anchor sites, this results in 17.5 days of
anchor handling activity that may result
in disturbance.
Ice Management: Although highly
unlikely, it may be necessary for ice
management near Point Barrow while
transiting to the Sivulliq site. During
exploration drilling operations on the
Burger Prospect in 2012, encroachment
of sea ice required the Discoverer to
temporarily depart the drill site. While
it was standing by to the south, ice
management vessels remained at the
drill site to protect buoys that were
attached to the anchors. Sounds
produced by vessels managing the ice
were recorded and the distance to the
120 dB re 1 mPa rms threshold was
calculated to occur at 9.6 km (JASCO et
al., 2014). The total calculated
ensonified area would be 290 km2.
Fairweather assumes that it could take
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
place over a two (2) day period near
Point Barrow.
Estimates of Marine Mammal Densities
The densities of marine mammals per
species were calculated using 2009–
2014 Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine
Mammals (ASAMM) data (https://
www.afsc.noaa.gov/nmml/cetacean/
bwasp/index.php) for bowhead, beluga,
and gray whales in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas and the Shell 2015 IHA
application (Shell 2015) for all other
species. The ASAMM density data are
separated by depth, month, year, and
location. The maximum calculated
density with the depth strata in which
the anchor system is located, the month
(based on project activity timing), year
(maximum of 2009–2014), and location
(Chukchi vs. Beaufort) was used. For
example, anchor handling only occurs
in the summer, so density data from July
and August were used. Side scan sonar
may occur at the beginning and end of
the project, so density data were
separated into summer and fall. The
Shell 2015 IHA included average and
maximum density estimates for area,
month, and location. The maximum
calculated density was used in take
estimates for these other species,
regardless of area, month, or location.
Bowhead Whale
The bowhead whale density estimate
is separated into the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas based on the ASAMM
study areas for aerial data collected
2008–2014. For each depth stratum, the
maximum density estimate was used for
summer and fall (Table 3). The bowhead
whale densities in the Chukchi Sea
range up to 0.0145 whales/km2 in the
summer and up to 0.1813 whales/km2
in the fall, with the highest density for
both seasons in the 50–200 m north
region. The bowhead whale densities in
the Beaufort Sea range up to 0.2883
whales/km2 in the summer and up to
0.1310 whales/km2 in the fall, both in
the east 21–50 m region.
Beluga Whale
The beluga whale density estimate is
separated into the Chukchi Sea and
Beaufort Seas based on the ASAMM
study areas for aerial data collected
2008–2014. For each depth stratum, the
maximum density estimate was used for
summer and fall (Table 3). The beluga
whale densities in the Chukchi Sea
range up to 0.1633 whales/km2 in the
summer in the 0–35 m north region and
up to 0.0495 whales/km2 in the fall in
the 50–200 m north region. The beluga
whale densities in the Beaufort Sea
range up to 0.7924 whales/km2 in the
summer and up to 0.1425 whales/km2
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52415
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Other Cetaceans
in the fall, both in the east 51–200 m
east region.
Gray Whale
The gray whale density estimate is
only in the Chukchi Sea based on the
ASAMM study areas for aerial data
collected 2008–2014. For each depth
stratum, the maximum density estimate
was used for summer and fall (Table 3).
The gray whale densities in the Chukchi
Sea range up to 0.2594 whales/km2 in
the summer and up to 0.1732 whales/
km2 in the fall, with the highest density
for both seasons in the 50–200 m south
region.
Seals
Shell (2015) derived average and
maximum density estimates for summer
and fall from all available open-water
research and monitoring data. For the
purposes of this project, the maximum
of the density estimates were used,
regardless of whether the density was
for summer or fall (Table 3). The
maximum density is 0.0044 whales/km2
for the harbor porpoise; 0.0004 whales/
km2 for the fin, humpback, and killer
whale; and 0.0006 whales/km2 for the
minke whale.
Shell (2015) derived average and
maximum density estimates for summer
and fall from all available open-water
research and monitoring data. For the
purposes of this project, the maximum
of the density estimates were used,
regardless of whether the density was
for summer or fall (Table 3). The
maximum density is 0.6075 seals/km2
for the ringed seal; 0.0203 seals/km2 for
the bearded seal; and 0.0122 seals/km2
for the spotted seal.
TABLE 3—EXPECTED DENSITIES OF WHALES AND SEALS IN AREA OF THE CHUKCHI AND BEAUFORT SEAS
Density (#/km2)
Species
Chukchi Sea
Summer
Bowhead whale ...............................................................................................
Beluga whale ...................................................................................................
Gray whale .......................................................................................................
Beaufort Sea
Fall
0.0145
0.1633
0.2594
Fin whale .........................................................................................................
0.1813
0.0495
0.1732
The estimates of the numbers of each
marine mammal species that could
potentially be exposed to sound
associated with the anchor retrieval
program, specifically the unseating of
anchors, potential side scan sonar
survey, and potential ice management,
were estimated by multiplying the
following three variables: (1) The area
(in km2) of ensonification for
disturbance for each activity, (2) the
duration (in days) of the sound activity,
and (3) the density (# of marine
mammals/km2) as summarized in Table
3. It is important to note that these
Fall
0.2883
0.7924
NA
0.0004
0.1310
0.1425
NA
0
Humpback whale .............................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...............................................................................................
Killer whale ......................................................................................................
Ringed seal ......................................................................................................
Bearded seal ....................................................................................................
Spotted seal .....................................................................................................
Calculation of Exposures
Summer
0.0004
0.0006
0.0044
0.0004
0.6075
0.0203
0.0122
estimates are based on worst-case (and
unlikely) sound levels and duration,
and the maximum reported density
estimates that do not account for the
movement of animals near the anchor
site during retrieval activities.
Since the two stocks occur in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas and one
cannot distinguish them visually, the
pooled densities in different seasons
represent the presence of both stocks.
The current abundance estimate for the
Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock is 3,710
individuals and the abundance estimate
for the Beaufort Sea Stock is 39,258
individuals (Allen and Angliss 2014),
resulting in a combined total estimate of
42,968 individuals. The Eastern
Chukchi Sea Stock is, therefore,
considered to represent 8.6 percent of
the combined population and the
Beaufort Sea Stock is considered to
represent 91.4 percent of the same.
Therefore, the estimated takes of each
beluga stock were based on the
proportion of these stocks, with 8.6
percent account for the Eastern Chukchi
Sea Stock, and 91.4 percent account for
the Beaufort Sea Stock for both summer
and fall.
A summary of the total number of
estimated exposures per species, per
sea, and per season is provided in Table
4.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Species
Chukchi Sea
Bowhead whale ................................................
Gray whale .......................................................
Beluga whale (E. Chukchi stock) .....................
Beluga whale (Beaufort stock) .........................
Fin whale ..........................................................
Humpback whale .............................................
Minke whale .....................................................
Harbor porpoise ...............................................
Killer whale .......................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Beaufort Sea
37.41
197.41
33.55
356.56
3.68
3.68
5.52
40.46
3.68
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Abundance
620.51
0
19.98
212.38
0
0.86
1.29
9.48
0.86
Sfmt 4703
19,534
20,990
3,710
39,258
10,103
1,652
1,233
48,215
2,347
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
% of stock or
population
Total
658
197
54
569
4
5
7
50
4
08AUN1
3.37
0.94
1.47
1.45
0.04
0.27
0.55
0.10
0.19
52416
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT—Continued
Species
Chukchi Sea
Ringed seal ......................................................
Bearded seal ....................................................
Spotted seal .....................................................
The estimated Level B harassment
takes as a percentage of the marine
mammal stock are less than 3.37 percent
in all cases (Table 4). The highest
percent of population estimated to be
taken is 3.37 percent by Level B
harassment of the bowhead whale.
Analysis and Determinations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Negligible Impact
Negligible impact is ‘‘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’’
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of Level B harassment takes, alone, is
not enough information on which to
base an impact determination. In
addition to considering estimates of the
number of marine mammals that might
be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral
harassment, NMFS must consider other
factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration,
etc.), the context of any responses
(critical reproductive time or location,
migration, etc.), as well as the number
and nature of estimated Level A
harassment takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, effects on habitat,
and the status of the species.
To avoid repetition, this discussion of
our analyses generally applies to all the
species listed in Table 4, given that the
anticipated effects of Fairweather’s
anchor retrieving operation on marine
mammals (taking into account the
proposed mitigation) are expected to be
relatively similar in nature. Where there
are meaningful differences between
species or stocks, or groups of species,
in anticipated individual responses to
activities, impact of expected take on
the population due to differences in
population status, or impacts on habitat,
they are pointed out below.
No injuries or mortalities are
anticipated to occur as a result of
Fairweather’s anchor retrieving
operation, and none are proposed to be
authorized. Additionally, animals in the
area are not expected to incur hearing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Beaufort Sea
5,586.67
186.68
112.19
Abundance
1,308.58
43.73
26.28
impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or nonauditory physiological effects. The takes
that are anticipated and authorized are
expected to be limited to short-term
Level B behavioral harassment in the
form of brief startling reaction and/or
temporarily vacating the area.
Mitigation measures, such as
controlled vessel speed and dedicated
marine mammal observers, will ensure
that takes are within the level being
analyzed. In all cases, the effects are
expected to be short-term, with no
lasting biological consequences.
Of the 12 marine mammal species
likely to occur in the proposed anchor
retrieving area, bowhead, humpback,
and fin whales are listed as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. These
species are also designated as
‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA. None of
the other species that may occur in the
project area are listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the
MMPA.
Fairweather’s proposed activities
overlap areas that have been identified
as biologically important areas (BIAs)
for feeding for the gray and bowhead
whales and for reproduction for gray
whale during the summer and fall
months (Clarke et al., 2015). In addition,
the coastal Beaufort Sea also serves as
a migratory corridor during bowhead
whale spring migration, as well as for
their feeding and breeding activities.
Additionally, the coastal area of
Chukchi and Beaufort seas also serve as
BIAs for beluga whales for their feeding
and migration. However, Fairweather’s
proposed anchor retrieving operation
would only occur in 5 locations totaling
a maximum of 10 days. As discussed
earlier, the Level B behavioral
harassment of marine mammals from
the proposed activity is expected to be
in the form of brief startling reactions
and animals temporarily vacating the
area. No long-term biologically
significant impacts to marine mammals
are expected from the proposed anchor
retrieving activity.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
% of stock or
population
Total
249,000
155,000
460,268
6,895
231
138
2.77
0.15
0.03
measures, NMFS finds that the total
marine mammal take from Fairweather’s
proposed anchor retrieving operation in
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas is not
expected to adversely affect the affected
species or stocks through impacts on
annual rates of recruitment or survival,
and therefore will have a negligible
impact on the affected marine mammal
species or stocks.
Small Numbers
The authorized takes represent less
than 3.37 percent of all populations or
stocks potentially impacted (see Table 4
in this document). The number of
marine mammals authorized to be taken
are small in proportion to the total
populations of the affected species or
stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
Subsistence hunting is an essential
˜
aspect of Inupiat life, especially in rural
˜
coastal villages. The Inupiat participate
in subsistence hunting activities in and
around the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.
The animals taken for subsistence
provide a significant portion of the food
that will last the community through the
year. Marine mammals represent on the
order of 60–80 percent of the total
subsistence harvest. Along with the
nourishment necessary for survival, the
subsistence activities strengthen bonds
within the culture, provide a means for
educating the younger generation,
provide supplies for artistic expression,
and allow for important celebratory
events.
The MMPA requires that any
harassment not result in an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
species or stocks for taking
(101(a)(5)(D)(i)(II)). Unmitigable adverse
impact is defined as (50 CFR 216.103):
• An impact resulting from the
specified activity that is likely to reduce
the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet
subsistence needs by:
• Causing marine mammals to
abandon or avoid hunting areas;
• Directly displacing subsistence
users;
• Placing physical barriers between
the marine mammals and the
subsistence users; and
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
• Cannot be sufficiently mitigated by
other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow
subsistence needs to be met.
In the following sub-sections, the
major animals used for subsistence by
villages of the upper-west and north
coast of Alaska are discussed (bowhead
whale, beluga whale, and all three
common species of seals (ringed,
spotted, and bearded seals)).
Bowhead Whale
Anchor handling-related vessel traffic
may traverse some areas used during
bowhead harvests by Chukchi and
Beaufort villages. Bowhead hunts by
residents of Wainwright, Point Hope,
and Point Lay take place almost
exclusively in the spring prior to the
date on which the vessels would
commence the proposed anchor
handling program. From 1984 through
2009, all bowhead harvests by these
Chukchi Sea villages occurred only
between April 14 and June 24 (George
and Tarpley 1986; George et al., 1987,
1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999,
2000; Philo et al. 1994; Suydam et al.,
1995a,b, 1996, 1997, 2001a,b, 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005a,b, 2006, 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010), while vessels will not enter
the Bering Sea (northbound) prior to
July 1. However, fall whaling by some
of these Chukchi Sea villages has
occurred since 2010 and is likely to
occur in the future, particularly if
bowhead quotas are not completely
filled during the spring hunt, and fall
weather is accommodating. A
Wainwright whaling crew harvested the
first fall bowhead for these villages in 90
years or more on October 7, 2010, and
another in October of 2011 (Suydam et
al., 2011, 2012, 2013). No bowhead
whales were harvested during fall in
2012, but 3 were harvested by
Wainwright in fall 2013.
Barrow crews have traditionally
hunted bowheads during both spring
and fall; however, spring whaling by
Barrow crews is normally finished
before the date on which anchor
handling operations would commence.
From 1984 through 2011 whales were
harvested in the spring by Barrow crews
only between April 23 and June 15
(George and Tarpley 1986; George et al.,
1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1998,
1999, 2000; Philo et al., 1994; Suydam
et al., 1995 a, b, 1996, 1997, 2001a,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005a,b, 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013).
Fall whaling by Barrow crews does take
place during the time period when
anchor handling activities would be
completed, with vessels out of the
Chukchi Sea by the end of August. From
1984 through 2011, whales were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
harvested in the fall by Barrow crews
between August 31 and October 30,
indicating that there is potential for
vessel traffic to affect these hunts. Most
fall whaling by Barrow crews, however,
takes place east of Barrow along the
Beaufort Sea coast therefore providing
little opportunity for the anchor
handling program to affect them. For
example, Suydam et al. (2008) reported
that in the previous 35 years, Barrow
whaling crews harvested almost all their
whales in the Beaufort Sea to the east of
Point Barrow. As all anchor sites are
over 100 miles from Barrow, NMFS does
not anticipate any conflict with Barrow
harvest. In the event the sonar survey
for Sivulliq is taking place as Barrow is
harvesting, the Norseman II will traverse
50 mi offshore around Barrow.
Nuiqsut and Kaktovik crews
traditionally hunt during the fall,
harvesting in late August through
September. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) requires that all
industry activities cease working east of
150° W. by August 25th for the start of
whaling for those communities. The
anchor handling vessels will enter the
Beaufort Sea as soon as ice at Point
Barrow allows for safe passage and will
complete the Sivulliq anchor retrieval
well before August 25th. If a sonar
survey is required on this site, it will
take place after the completion of the
fall hunt and has been cleared by both
communities.
Beluga Whales
Beluga whales typically do not
represent a large proportion of the
subsistence harvests by weight in the
communities of Wainwright and
Barrow, the nearest communities to the
planned anchor handling project area.
Barrow residents hunt beluga in the
spring (normally after the bowhead
hunt) in leads between Point Barrow
and Skull Cliffs in the Chukchi Sea,
primarily in April–June and later in the
summer (July–August) on both sides of
the barrier island in Elson Lagoon/
Beaufort Sea (Minerals Management
Service (MMS) 2008), but harvest rates
indicate the hunts are not frequent.
Wainwright residents hunt beluga in
April–June in the spring lead system,
but this hunt typically occurs only if
there are no bowheads in the area.
Communal hunts for beluga are
conducted along the coastal lagoon
system later in July–August.
Belugas typically represent a much
greater proportion of the subsistence
harvest in Kotzebue, Point Lay, and
Point Hope. Point Lay’s primary beluga
hunt occurs from mid-June through
mid-July, but can sometimes continue
into August if early success is not
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52417
sufficient. Point Hope residents hunt
beluga primarily in the lead system
during the spring (late March to early
June), but also in open water along the
coastline in July and August. Belugas
are harvested in spring mid-June
through mid-July in Kotzebue, but the
timing can vary based on beluga
movement. Belugas are harvested in
coastal waters near these villages,
generally within a few miles from shore.
In the Chukchi, the anchor retrieval
sites are located more than 60 mi (97
km) offshore, therefore proposed anchor
handling in the project area would have
no or minimal impacts on beluga hunts.
The retrieval of anchors around
Kotzebue is located nearshore and has
the most potential for disturbance to
beluga harvest. Fairweather will be
required to communicate with the
Kotzebue Whaling Commission, AEWC,
and Com Center (if established) during
operations in this area to avoid any
conflict. Vessels will move offshore if
Fairweather is not cleared to conduct
activities.
Disturbance associated with vessel
traffic could potentially affect beluga
hunts. However, all of the beluga hunt
by Barrow residents in the Chukchi Sea,
and much of the hunt by Wainwright
residents would likely be completed
before anchor handling activities would
commence. Additionally, vessel traffic
associated with the anchor handling
program will be restricted under normal
conditions to designated corridors that
remain onshore or proceed directly
offshore thereby minimizing the amount
of traffic in coastal waters where beluga
hunts take place. The designated vessel
traffic corridors do not traverse areas
indicated in recent mapping as utilized
by Point Lay or Point Hope for beluga
hunts, and avoids important beluga
hunting areas in Kasegaluk Lagoon that
are used by Wainwright.
Seals
Seals are an important subsistence
resource and ringed seals make up the
bulk of the seal harvest. Most ringed and
bearded seals are harvested in the
winter or in the spring before the anchor
handling program would commence,
but some harvest continues during open
water and could possibly be affected by
the planned activities. Spotted seals are
also harvested during the summer. Most
seals are harvested in coastal waters,
with available maps of recent and past
subsistence use areas indicating seal
harvests have occurred only within 48–
64 km (30–40 mi) of the coastline. The
anchor handling retrieval sites are
located more than 103 km (64 mi)
offshore, so activities are thought to
possibly have an impact on subsistence
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52418
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
hunting for seals. Since most seal
hunting is done during the winter and
spring when the anchor handling
program is not operational, NMFS
considers that the potential effects to
seal hunting are largely avoided.
Mitigation measures to be
implemented include participation in
operational Com Centers (below). With
these mitigation measures and the
nature of the proposed action, we are
confident that any harassment of seals
resulting from the 2016 anchor handling
program will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
seals to be taken for subsistence uses.
Plan of Cooperation or Measures To
Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)
require IHA applicants for activities that
take place in Arctic waters to provide a
Plan of Cooperation (POC) or
information that identifies what
measures have been taken and/or will
be taken to minimize adverse effects on
the availability of marine mammals for
subsistence purposes.
Fairweather has prepared a draft POC,
which was developed by identifying
and evaluating any potential effects the
proposed anchor retrieving operation
might have on seasonal abundance that
is relied upon for subsistence use.
Specifically, Fairweather will take
important time periods into
consideration when planning its anchor
retrieving operation, including the
beluga whale subsistence activities near
Kotzebue and in the Chukchi Sea, and
bowhead whale subsistence activities in
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
Fairweather plans to enter the Beaufort
Sea as soon as Point Barrow is ice-free
and be finished at the Sivulliq location
well before the August 25, 2016
commencement date of bowhead
whaling. Although not anticipated with
the proposed schedule, if crew changes
are needed, they will occur at either
Wainwright or Prudhoe Bay depending
on the location of the vessel.
Fairweather will work with the
community of Wainwright through its
joint venture with Olgoonik
Corporation. Through the establishment
of village liaisons and onboard PSOs,
Fairweather will ensure there are no
conflicts with subsistence activities.
Fairweather has developed a
communication plan and will
implement this plan before initiating the
anchor handling program. The plan will
help coordinate activities with local
Com Centers and thus subsistence users,
minimize the risk of interfering with
subsistence hunting activities, and keep
current as to the timing and status of the
bowhead whale hunt and other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
subsistence hunts. The communication
plan includes procedures for
coordination with Com Centers to be
located in coastal villages along the
Chukchi Sea during the proposed
anchor handling activities.
Fairweather attended the AEWC
meeting in Barrow from February 3–5
and presented the project components
and developing mechanisms to work
with the communities to present
consistent and concise information
regarding the planned anchor handling
program. Fairweather intends to sign a
Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA).
Throughout 2016, Fairweather will
continue its engagement with the
marine mammal commissions and
committees active in the subsistence
harvests and marine mammal research.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Within the project area, the bowhead,
humpback, and fin whales are listed as
endangered under the ESA. NMFS’
Permits and Conservation Division
engaged in consultation with staff in
NMFS’ Alaska Region Protected
Resources Division under section 7 of
the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to
Fairweather under section 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA for this activity. In May
2016, NMFS issued a Biological
Opinion concluding that the issuance of
the IHA associated with Fairweather’s
anchor retrieval operations in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the
2016 open-water season is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the endangered bowhead, humpback,
and fin whales. No critical habitat has
been designated for these species,
therefore none will be affected.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
NMFS prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) that includes an
analysis of potential environmental
effects associated with NMFS’ issuance
of an IHA to Fairweather to take marine
mammals incidental to conducting
anchor retrieval operations in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The draft EA
was available to the public for a 30-day
comment period before it was finalized.
Based on the EA, NMFS made a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for
this action. The FONSI was signed on
June 30, 2016, prior to this issuance of
the IHA. Therefore, preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement is not
necessary.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations,
NMFS has issued an IHA to Fairweather
for the take of marine mammals, by
Level B harassment, incidental to
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conducting anchor retrieval operations
in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during
the 2016 open-water season, which also
includes the mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements described in this
Notice.
Dated: August 3, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–18738 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Federal Need Analysis Methodology
for the 2017–18 Award Year—Federal
Pell Grant, Federal Perkins Loan,
Federal Work-Study, Federal
Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grant, William D. Ford Federal Direct
Loan, Iraq and Afghanistan Service
Grant and TEACH Grant Programs
Federal Student Aid,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice; republication.
AGENCY:
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.063;
84.038; 84.033; 84.007; 84.268; 84.408;
84.379.
SUMMARY: This notice is a republication
of a May 24, 2016 notice (81 FR 32737)
to include information that was missing
from the original version. The only
change to this version is in the
‘‘Education Savings and Asset
Protection Allowance’’ table under the
‘‘Parents of Dependent Students’’
section, where the first row of
information was missing from the
original notice. No other information
has changed.
The Secretary announces the annual
updates to the tables used in the
statutory Federal Need Analysis
Methodology that determines a
student’s expected family contribution
(EFC) for award year 2017–18 for these
student financial aid programs. The
intent of this notice is to alert the
financial aid community and the
broader public to these required annual
updates used in the determination of
student aid eligibility.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marya Dennis, U.S. Department of
Education, Room 63G2, Union Center
Plaza, 830 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20202–5454. Telephone: (202) 377–
3385.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52407-52418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18738]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE473
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to an Anchor Retrieval Program in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization (IHA).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that
NMFS has issued an IHA to Fairweather, LLC (Fairweather) to take, by
harassment, small numbers of 12 species of marine mammals incidental to
an anchor retrieval program in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, Alaska,
during the open-water season of 2016.
DATES: This authorization is effective from July 1, 2016 through
October 31, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, 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 a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings 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.''
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.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for
NMFS's review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and
comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental
harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the
close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the
authorization.
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].
Summary of Request
On February 2, 2016, NMFS received an application from Fairweather
for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting anchor
retrieval activities in the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas. After
receiving NMFS comments, Fairweather made revisions and updated its IHA
application and marine mammal mitigation and monitoring plan on
February 8, 2016. NMFS determined the IHA application adequate and
complete on February 8, 2016. NMFS published a notice making
preliminary determinations and proposing to issue an IHA on May 19,
2016 (81 FR 31594). The notice initiated a 30-day comment period.
Fairweather proposes to retrieve anchor equipment left by Shell
Offshore, Inc. (Shell) during its 2012 and 2015 exploration drilling
programs in the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The proposed activity
would occur between July 1 and October 31, 2016. Noise generated from
anchor handling activities and vessel's dynamic positioning thrusters
could impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities. Take, by
Level B harassments, of individuals of eight species of marine mammals
may result from the specified activity.
Description of the Specified Activity
A detailed description of the Fairweather's anchor retrieval
program is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA
(81 FR 31594; May 19, 2016). Since that time, no changes have been made
to the proposed construction activities. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register
notice for the description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Fairweather was
published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31594). That
notice described, in detail, Fairweather's activity, the marine mammal
species and subsistence activities that may be affected by the proposed
anchor retrieval program, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals
and subsistence activities. During the 30-day public comment period,
NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission)
and the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). Specific comments and
responses are provided below.
Comment 1: The Commission states that since anchor handling would
take 7 days at each site, and there are 5 sites,
[[Page 52408]]
thus marine mammal takes should be based on a total of 35 days, instead
of an average of 3.5 days per site with a total of 17.5 days.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the Commission's assessment. As
stated in Fairweather's IHA application and the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (81 FR 31594; May 19, 2016), anchor handling at
each site takes 2-7 days, with machinery operating at full power
capacity only part of these days. Therefore, our analysis used an
average of 3.5 days per site for anchor handling at each site. We
consider this to be a more realistic scenario. In addition, because
some of these days the shipboard machinery (including dynamic
positioning thruster) will not be operating at full power, the 120-dB
ensonified area is expected to be much smaller than expected.
Therefore, we believe using a total of 17.5 days based on averaged
operation days of 3.5 days per site provides better take estimates of
marine mammals.
Comment 2: The Commission states that the method used to estimate
the numbers of takes, which sums fractions of takes for each species
across days, does not account for NMFS's 24-hour reset policy. The
Commission argues that although this approach is more accurate in a
pure mathematical sense, it ultimately negates the intent of a 24-hour
reset. The Commission states that instead of summing fractions of takes
across days and then rounding to estimate total takes, NMFS should have
calculated a daily take estimate (determined by multiplying the
estimated density of marine mammals in the area by the daily ensonified
area) and then rounding that to a whole number before multiplying it by
the number of days that activities would occur. Thus, the Commission
recommends that NMFS (1) follow its policy of a 24-hour reset for
enumerating the number of each species that could be taken, (2) apply
standard rounding rules before summing the numbers of estimated takes
across days, and (3) for species that have the potential to be taken
but model-estimated or calculated takes round to zero, use group size
to inform the take estimates--these methods should be used consistently
for all future incidental take authorizations.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the Commission's assessment and
recommendation. While for certain projects NMFS has rounded to the
whole number for daily takes, the circumstance for projects like this
one when the objective of take estimation is to provide more accurate
assessments for potential impacts to marine mammals for the entire
project, the rounding in the middle of calculation will introduce large
errors into the process. In addition, while NMFS uses a 24-hour reset
for its take calculation in impact assessments, there is no need for
daily (24-hour) rounding in this case because there is no daily limit
of takes, so long as total authorized takes of marine mammal are not
exceeded.
Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS incorporate the
peer-review panel's recommendations into the authorization.
Response: NMFS convened a peer-review panel to review Fairweather's
marine mammal monitoring and mitigation measure. The peer-review panel
met in March and provided its report to NMFS in mid-April. The peer-
review panel report contains recommendations applicable to
Fairweather's monitoring plans. Specifically, the panel recommended
that Fairweather employ passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) in the
vicinity of the proposed anchor handling activities to collect better
data on the presence, calling behavior and possible impacts to marine
mammals for all the locations where anchors are deployed. In addition,
the peer-review panel recommends that Fairweather coordinate closely
with the communities nearest to each of the locations where it plans to
retrieve anchors to avoid the peak of marine mammals' presence and
subsistence hunting.
NMFS discussed the recommendations with Fairweather and determined
that the deployment of PAM devices in the vicinity of the anchor
handling activities is not feasible because the anchor retrieval
activity at each site would only take an average of 3.5 days, and none
of the anchor retrieval vessels or the support vessel could be used to
serve as a PAM platform during the operation. Deployment of bottom-
mounted sensors for such a short duration would incur unreasonable
expenses to such a small project. Nevertheless, Fairweather agreed and
is required to coordinate closely with the subsistence communities
nearest to each of the project site where it plans to retrieve anchors
to ensure no unmitigable impact to subsistence use of marine mammals by
these communities. A detailed description of the peer-review process
and the panel's recommendation is presented in the Monitoring Measure
Peer Review section below.
Comment 4: AOGA objects to the proposed vessel movement mitigation
measures that will protect the North Pacific right whale and its
critical habitat. These measures require Fairweather to (1) avoid
transits within designated North Pacific right whale critical habitat;
(2) if transit within North Pacific right whale critical habitat cannot
be avoided, vessel operators are requested to observe the 10 kt (18.52
km/h) vessel speed restriction while with in North Pacific right whale
habitat; and (3) within the North Pacific right whale critical habitat,
all vessels keep a distance of 2,625 ft (800 m) away from any observed
North Pacific right whales and avoid approaching whales head-on. AOGA
reasons that in order for NMFS to require this mitigation measure there
must be a reasonable expectation of take, and that existing measures
for vessels transits, plus decades of activity transits have not
resulted in vessel strikes of North Pacific right whales (NPRW).
Response: Although the density of NPRW is very low, even in its
critical habitat, the additional measures will ensure that a lethal
take of this species can be completely avoided. Fairweather voluntarily
included those mitigation measures in its proposed action as a
precautionary move to minimize the risk of a vessel strike. Regardless
of how small the risk of a strike may be, Fairweather's decision
reflects the potentially severe consequences to an already very small
population should a strike occur. NMFS discussed this measure with
Fairweather, and the company is committed to the measures that afford
additional protection to this critically endangered species. Therefore,
these measures are reflected in the IHA issued to Fairweather.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas support a diverse assemblage of
marine mammals. Table 2 lists the 12 marine mammal species under NMFS
jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed
project area.
[[Page 52409]]
Table 2--Marine Mammal Species With Confirmed or Possible Occurrence in the Proposed Action Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
Species/Stocks Conservation status Habitat estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas)-- ESA--Not Listed.......... Offshore, coastal, ice 3,710
Eastern Chukchi Stock. edges.
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas)-- ESA--Not Listed.......... Offshore, coastal, ice 32,453
Beaufort Stock. edges.
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)........... ESA--Not Listed.......... Widely distributed....... 2,084
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)-- ESA--Not Listed.......... Coastal, inland waters, 48,215
Bering Sea Stock. shallow offshore waters.
Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)-- ESA--Endangered.......... Pack ice, coastal........ 13,796
Western Arctic Stock.
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)-- ESA--Not Listed.......... Coastal, lagoons, shallow 19,126
Eastern Pacific Stock. offshore waters.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera ESA--Not Listed.......... Shelf, coastal........... 810
acutorostrata).
Humpback whale (Megaptera ESA--Endangered.......... Shelf slope, mostly 6,000-14,000
novaeangliae)--Western North Pacific pelagic.
Stock.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)-- ESA--Endangered.......... Shelf, coastal........... 1,368
Northeast Pacific Stock.
Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus).... ESA--Not listed.......... Pack ice, shallow 155,000
offshore waters.
Spotted seal (Phoca largha)........... ESA--(Arctic DPS Not Pack ice, coastal haul 391,000
Listed). outs, offshore.
Ringed seal (Pusa hispida)............ ESA--Not listed.......... Land-fast & pack ice, 300,000
offshore.
Ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata)... ESA--Not Listed.......... Pack ice, offshore....... 90,000-100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among these species, bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed
as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). In addition, walrus and the polar bear could also occur in the
U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas; however, these species are managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered in
this Notice of IHA.
Of all these species, bowhead and beluga whales and ringed,
bearded, and spotted seals are the species most frequently sighted in
the proposed activity area. The proposed action area in Chukchi and
Beaufort seas also include areas that have been identified as important
for bowhead whale reproduction during summer and fall and for beluga
whale feeding and reproduction in summer.
Most spring-migrating bowhead whales would likely pass through the
Chukchi Sea prior to the start of the planned anchor handling
activities. However, a few whales that may remain in the Chukchi Sea
during the summer could be encountered during the anchor handling
activities or by transiting vessels. More encounters with bowhead
whales would be likely to occur during the westward fall migration in
late September through October. Most bowheads migrating in September
and October appear to transit across the northern portion of the
Chukchi Sea to the Chukotka coast before heading south toward the
Bering Sea (Quakenbush et al., 2009). Some of these whales have
traveled well north of the planned operations, but others have passed
near to, or through, the proposed project area.
Two stocks of beluga whales occur in the proposed anchor retrieving
project areas: The Eastern Chukchi stock and the Beaufort Sea stock.
The Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal areas, including
Kasegaluk Lagoon, in late June and animals are sighted in the area
until about mid-July (Frost et al., 1993). This movement indicated some
overlap in distribution with the Beaufort Sea beluga whale stock during
late summer. Summer densities of beluga whales in offshore waters are
expected to be low, with somewhat higher densities in ice-margin and
nearshore areas. If belugas are present during the summer, they are
more likely to occur in or near the ice edge or close to shore during
their northward migration. In the fall, beluga whale densities offshore
in the Chukchi Sea are expected to be somewhat higher than in the
summer because individuals of the eastern Chukchi Sea stock and the
Beaufort Sea stock will be migrating south to their wintering grounds
in the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2014).
Ringed seals are year-round residents in the Bering Sea, Norton and
Kotzebue Sounds, and throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and are
the most frequently encountered seal in the area (Allen and Angliss
2015). They occur as far south as Bristol Bay in years of extensive ice
coverage but are generally not abundant south of Norton Sound except in
nearshore areas (Frost 1985). Ringed seals will likely be the most
abundant marine mammal species encountered in the Chukchi Sea during
anchor retrieval operations.
During spring when pupping, breeding, and molting occur, spotted
seals are found along the southern edge of the sea ice in the Okhotsk
and Bering seas (Quakenbush 1988; Rugh et al., 1997). In late April and
early May, adult spotted seals are often seen on the ice in female-pup
or male-female pairs, or in male-female-pup triads. Sub-adults may be
seen in larger groups of up to 200 animals. During the summer, spotted
seals are found primarily in the Bering and Chukchi seas, but some
range into the Beaufort Sea (Rugh et al., 1997; Lowry et al., 1998)
from July until September. Spotted seals are expected to occur near the
planned anchor handling activities in the Chukchi Sea, but they will
likely be fewer in number than ringed seals.
Bearded seals occur over the continental shelves of the Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Burns 1981b). During the summer period,
bearded seals occur mainly in relatively shallow areas because they are
predominantly benthic feeders (Burns 1981b). During winter, most
bearded seals in Alaskan waters are found in the Bering Sea. From mid-
April to June as the ice recedes, some of the bearded seals that
overwinter in the Bering Sea migrate northward through the Bering
Strait. During the summer they are found near the widely fragmented
margin of sea ice covering the continental shelf of the Chukchi Sea and
in nearshore areas of the central and western Beaufort Sea (Allen and
Angliss 2015). Bearded seals are likely to be
[[Page 52410]]
encountered during anchor handling activities, and greater numbers of
bearded seals are likely to be encountered if the ice edge occurs
nearby.
Further information on the biology and local distribution of these
species can be found in Fairweather's application (see ADDRESSES) and
the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available
online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/alaska2015_final.pdf.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
The effects of the stressors associated with the specified activity
(e.g., acoustic effects of anchor retrieval, which include noises from
dynamic positioning, winch operations, and other machinery operations)
have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. The
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 31594, May 19,
2016) included a discussion of the effects of acoustic stimuli on
marine mammals. That information is not repeated here. No instances of
injury, serious injury, or mortality (Level A take) are expected as a
result of the anchor retrieval activities, nor are any Level A take
authorized by this IHA.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The environmental effects of Fairweather's proposed anchor
retrieval activity, which includes noise exposure to marine mammal prey
species and physical disturbances of project locations, are discussed
in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 31594, May
19, 2016). Therefore, that information is not repeated here.
Mitigation Measures
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
For the planned Fairweather open-water anchor retrieval operations
in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, Fairweather is required to implement
the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to
marine mammals in the project vicinity as a result of the activities.
The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to detect marine
mammals and avoid vessel interactions during the anchor retrieval
operation.
(a) Establishing and Monitoring Exclusion Zone for Anchor Retrieval and
Ice Management
(1) Protected species observers (PSO) would establish and monitor a
safety zone of 500 m for anchor retrieval activity and ice management.
The modeled safety zone for anchor retrieval is 100 m from the source.
(2) When the vessel is positioned on-site, the PSOs will `clear'
the area by observing the 500m safety zone for 30 minutes; if no marine
mammals are observed within those 30 minutes, anchor retrieval or ice
management will commence.
(3) If a marine mammal(s) is observed within the 500 m of the
anchor retrieval and/or ice management safety zone during the clearing,
the PSOs will continue to watch until the animal(s) is gone and has not
returned for 15 minutes if the sighting was a pinniped, or 30 minutes
if it was a cetacean.
(4) Once the PSOs have cleared the area, anchor retrieval or ice
management operations may commence.
(5) Should a marine mammal(s) be observed within or approaching the
500 m safety zone during the retrieval or ice management operations,
the PSOs will monitor and carefully record any reactions observed.
(b) Establishing and Monitoring Exclusion Zone for Sonar Activity
Although NMFS does not expect marine mammals would be taken by
high-frequency sonar used for locating anchors, at Fairweather's
suggestion the following mitigation and monitoring measures related to
sonar operations will be implemented.
(1) PSOs would establish and monitor an exclusion zone of 500 m for
sonar activity. The modeled exclusion zone for sonar activity is 100 m
from the source.
(2) Prior to starting the sonar activity, the PSOs will `clear' the
area by observing the 500 m exclusion zone for 30 minutes; if no marine
mammals are observed within those 30 minutes, sonar activity will
commence.
(3) If a marine mammal(s) is observed within the 500 m exclusion
zone during the clearing, the PSOs will continue to watch until the
animal(s) is gone and has not returned for 15 minutes if the sighting
was a pinniped, or 30 minutes if it was a cetacean.
(4) Once the PSOs have cleared the area, sonar activity may
commence.
(c) Establishing Zones of Influence (ZOIs)
PSOs would establish and monitor ZOIs where the received level is
120 dB during Fairweather's anchor retrieval operation and where the
received level is 160 dB during sonar activity.
(d) Vessel Speed or Course Measures
If a marine mammal is detected outside the 500 m sonar exclusion
zone for sonar activities or during transit between sites, based on its
position and the relative motion, is likely to enter those zones, the
vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practical and safe, be
changed. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the
vessels shall be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal
does not approach within either zone. If the mammal appears likely to
enter the respective zone, further mitigation actions will be taken,
i.e., either further course alterations or shut down in the case of the
sonar. During actual anchor handling, the vessel is stationary on site.
In addition, the vessel shall reduce its speed to 5 kt (9.26 km/h)
or lower when within 900 ft (274 m) of cetaceans or pinnipeds. Further,
Fairweather shall avoid transits within designated NPRW critical
habitat. If transit within NPRW critical habitat cannot be avoided,
vessel operators are requested to exercise extreme caution and observe
the of 10 kt (18.52 km/h) vessel speed restriction while within North
Pacific right whale critical habitat. Within the NPRW critical habitat,
all vessels shall keep 2,625 ft (800 m) away from any observed NPRW and
avoid approaching whales head-on, consistent with vessel safety.
(e) Shutdown Measures
If an animal enters or is approaching the 500 m exclusion zone,
sonar will be shut down immediately. Sonar activity will not resume
until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone. PSOs will also
collect behavioral information on marine mammals beyond the exclusion
zone.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated Fairweather's mitigation measures and
considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that
NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the
following factors in relation to one another:
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measures are
[[Page 52411]]
expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
The practicability of the measure for applicant
implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received
levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes
only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed
to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of
marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing
harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number
or number at biologically important time or location) to received
levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of
harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance
of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means
of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Measures to ensure
availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses are discussed later in this document (see ``Impact on
Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence
Uses'' section).
Monitoring and Reporting Measures
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Fairweather submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the
IHA application.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or
more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of
marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, i.e., presence,
abundance, distribution, and/or density of species.
2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or
context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the
potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g. sound or visual
stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following:
The action itself and its environment (e.g. sound source
characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected
species (e.g. life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated
with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or
behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal
(e.g., age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or
feeding areas).
3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine
mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific
stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where
possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).
4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual
responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of
stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an
individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g. through effects
on annual rates of recruitment or survival).
5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects
marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or
acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term
contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels
and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).
6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on
marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic
activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of
mitigation and monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals
(through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within
the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the
mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.
Monitoring Measures
Monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine
mammals potentially affected by the anchor retrieval operation and
facilitate real-time mitigation to prevent injury of marine mammals by
vessel traffic. These goals will be accomplished in the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas during 2016 by conducting vessel-based monitoring to
document marine mammal presence and distribution in the vicinity of the
operation area.
Visual monitoring by PSOs during anchor retrieval operation, and
periods when the operation is not occurring, will provide information
on the numbers of marine mammals potentially affected by the activity.
Vessel-based PSOs onboard the vessels will record the numbers and
species of marine mammals observed in the area and any observable
reaction of marine mammals to the anchor retrieval operation in the
Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
Visual-Based PSOs
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by trained
PSOs throughout the period of anchor retrieval operation. The observers
would monitor the occurrence of marine mammals onboard vessels during
all daylight periods during operation. PSO duties would include
watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers,
distances, and reactions to the survey operations; and documenting
``take by harassment.''
A sufficient number of PSOs would be required onboard each survey
vessel to meet the following criteria:
[[Page 52412]]
100 percent monitoring coverage during all periods of
anchor retrieval operations in daylight;
Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
Maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
PSO teams will consist of Inupiat observers and experienced field
biologists. Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to
supervise the PSO team. The total number of PSOs may decrease later in
the season as the duration of daylight decreases.
(1) PSOs Qualification and Training
Lead PSOs and most PSOs would be individuals with experience as
observers during marine mammal monitoring projects in Alaska or other
offshore areas in recent years. New or inexperienced PSOs would be
paired with an experienced PSO or experienced field biologist so that
the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept
consistent.
Resumes for candidate PSOs would be provided to NMFS for review and
acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers would be
experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the
area. All observers would complete an observer training course designed
to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection
procedures.
(2) Specialized Field Equipment
The PSOs shall be provided with Fujinon 7 x 50 or equivalent
binoculars for visual based monitoring onboard all vessels.
Laser range finders (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or
equivalent) would be available to assist with distance estimation.
Marine Mammal Behavioral Response to Vessel Disturbance Study
As part of the Chukchi Sea Environmental Studies Program (CSESP),
marine mammal biologists collected behavioral response data on walruses
and seals to the vessel. The objectives of the observer on the CSESP
program were to collect information on marine mammal distribution and
density estimates using standard line-transect theory. In other words,
the program was not a mitigation program for any particular seismic
activity. Because the vessels in this program will be transiting a
large portion of the time, Fairweather proposes to utilize this
opportunity to collect information on responses of marine mammals,
particularly walruses and seals, to vessel disturbance.
As part of the standard Fairweather's observation protocol,
observers will record the initial and subsequent behaviors of marine
mammals, a methodology they refer to as `focal following.' Marine
mammals will be monitored and observed until they disappear from the
PSO's view (PSOs may have to follow the marine mammals by moving to new
locations in order to keep the marine mammals in constant view).
Observers will also record any perceived reactions that marine mammals
may have in response to the vessel. When following the animal observers
will use either a notebook or voice recorder to note any changes in
behavior and the time when these changes occur. Time of first
observation, time of changes in behavior, and time last seen will be
recorded. Behaviors and changes in behaviors of marine mammals will be
recorded as long as they are in view of the boat. After the animal is
out of sight, PSOs will summarize the observation in the notes field of
the electronic data collection platform. It may be difficult to find
the animal being followed after it dives and if this happens, PSO will
stop focal follow observation.
For large groups of marine mammals where it is difficult to monitor
each animal, one or more focal animals, (e.g., cow/calf pair, sub-adult
female, adult male, etc.) will be chosen to monitor until it is no
longer observable. For a sighting with more than one animal, the most
common behavior of the group will be recorded. Focal animals will be
chosen without bias in relation to age and sex, but as observations
accumulate and specific age/sex categories are underrepresented, focal
animals may be chosen from those underrepresented categories, if
possible.
A separate section in the 90-day report (see below) will be
provided with a summary of results of vessel disturbance, with the
ultimate goal of a peer-reviewed publication.
Reporting Measures
(1) Monitoring Reports
The results of Fairweather's anchor retrieval program monitoring
reports would be presented in weekly, monthly, and 90-day reports, as
required by NMFS under the proposed IHA. The initial final reports are
due to NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA (if issued).
The reports will include:
Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period,
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and
detectability of marine mammals);
Summaries that represent an initial level of
interpretation of the efficacy, measurements, and observations, rather
than raw data, fully processed analyses, or a summary of operations and
important observations;
Information on distances marine mammals are sighted from
operations and the associated noise isopleth for active sound sources
(i.e., anchor retrieval, ice management, side scan sonar);
Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers,
and fog/glare);
Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of
marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/
size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with
uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a
minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another
applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the
sampling method and data available; and
A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of
actual estimated takes.
The 90-day reports will be subject to review and comment by NMFS.
Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report
prior to acceptance by NMFS.
(2) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA,
such as a serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear
interaction, and/or entanglement), Fairweather would immediately cease
the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The
report would include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
[[Page 52413]]
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Fairweather
to determine necessary actions to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Fairweather would not be
able to resume its activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email,
or telephone.
In the event that Fairweather discovers a dead marine mammal and
the lead PSO determines that the cause of the death is unknown and the
death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of
decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Fairweather would
immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional
Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the same information
identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work
with Fairweather to determine whether modifications in the activities
are appropriate.
In the event that Fairweather discovers a dead marine mammal, and
the lead PSO determines that the death is not associated with or
related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or
scavenger damage), Fairweather would report the incident to the Chief
of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email
to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the
discovery. Fairweather would provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Fairweather can continue
its operations under such a case.
Monitoring Plan Peer Review
The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer
reviewed ``where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses'' (16 U.S.C.
1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this requirement, NMFS' implementing
regulations state, ``Upon receipt of a complete monitoring plan, and at
its discretion, [NMFS] will either submit the plan to members of a peer
review panel for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed
monitoring plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan'' (50 CFR
216.108(d)).
NMFS convened an independent peer review panel to review
Fairweather's Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (4MP) for
the planned anchor retrieval operation in the Chukchi and Beaufort
seas. The panel met via web conference in early March 2016, and
provided comments to NMFS in April 2016. The full panel report can be
viewed online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm.
NMFS provided the panel with Fairweather's IHA application and
monitoring plan and asked the panel to answer the following questions:
1. Will the applicant's stated objectives effectively further the
understanding of the impacts of their activities on marine mammals and
otherwise accomplish the goals stated above? If not, how should the
objectives be modified to better accomplish the goals above?
2. Can the applicant achieve the stated objectives based on the
methods described in the plan?
3. Are there technical modifications to the proposed monitoring
techniques and methodologies proposed by the applicant that should be
considered to better accomplish their stated objectives?
4. Are there techniques not proposed by the applicant (i.e.,
additional monitoring techniques or methodologies) that should be
considered for inclusion in the applicant's monitoring program to
better accomplish their stated objectives?
5. What is the best way for an applicant to present their data and
results (formatting, metrics, graphics, etc.) in the required reports
that are to be submitted to NMFS (i.e., 90-day report and comprehensive
report)?
The peer-review panel report contains recommendations applicable to
Fairweather's monitoring plans. Specifically, the panel recommended
that Fairweather employ PAM in the vicinity of the proposed anchor
handling activities to collect better data on the presence, calling
behavior and possible impacts to marine mammals for all the locations
where anchors are deployed. In addition, although not requested, the
peer-review panel recommends that Fairweather coordinate closely with
the communities nearest to each of the locations where it plans to
retrieve anchors to avoid the peak of marine mammals' presence and
subsistence hunting.
NMFS discussed the peer review panel report and its recommendation
of conducting PAM in the vicinity of anchor retrieving sites with
Fairweather and considers this recommendation is not practicable for
Fairweather's anchor retrieving operations. As discussed in the Federal
Register for the proposed IHA (81 FR 31594, May 19, 2016), the duration
of activities in each area is projected to be only 1-3 days for
complete anchor recovery (up to 7 as a very conservative estimate),
with only ~20 minutes per system being the loud ``unseating'' portion.
At the Sivulliq site, which has the highest number of anchor systems
(12), the total ``unseating'' time would be 4 hours, occurring in 12 x
20-minute bursts. Because of this short duration, particularly of the
sound with the largest potential for impacts to marine mammals, NMFS
does not think that PAM is warranted. Moreover, deploying and
recovering PAM equipment for such short durations only prolongs the
amount of time the vessels are in each project area, thus increasing
the impacts on the animals. Additionally, deploying PAM equipment for
only 2 days will not greatly expand the body of knowledge about marine
mammal acoustics in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, nor will it be
comparable to previous studies in the area. Lastly, unless PAM
monitoring is real-time, it is not a useful tool for mitigation. The
only way for it to be real-time would be to have several smaller
vessels on the project with the PAM equipment (at which point we would
employ visual PSOs), but this option is not practical or reasonable for
the small scale of this project
For close coordination with subsistence communities near the anchor
retrieval locations, Fairweather states that it is committed to working
very closely with the communities surrounding its activities.
Fairweather has conducted meetings (either via teleconference in-
person) with representatives from Kotzebue, Pt. Hope, Pt. Lay,
Wainwright, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. Fairweather will have
experienced Inupiat Communicators/Observers (ICOs) onboard each of the
vessels as liaisons to the communities from all communities. As part of
the pre-season planning and safety seminar, whaling captains and
members of Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission will be presenting
[[Page 52414]]
on their culture and traditional knowledge to Fairweather.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
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).
Takes by Level B harassments of some species are anticipated as a
result of Fairweather's proposed anchor retrieval operation. NMFS
expects marine mammal takes could result from noise propagation from
anchor retrieving activities, which includes the operation of dynamic
thrusters and other machinery noises generated from anchor retrieving
using winch and steel cables. NMFS does not expect marine mammals would
be taken by collision with vessels, because the vessels will be moving
at low speeds, and PSOs on the vessels will be monitoring for marine
mammals and will be able to alert the vessels to avoid any marine
mammals in the area.
For non-impulse sounds, such as those produced by the dynamic
positioning thrusters and anchor handling during Fairweather's anchor
retrieval operation, NMFS uses the 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa
isopleth to indicate the onset of Level A harassment for cetaceans and
pinnipeds, respectively; and the 120 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth for
Level B harassment of all marine mammals.
The estimates of the numbers of each species of marine mammal that
could potentially be exposed to sound associated with the anchor
retrieval activity are calculated by multiplying the area of ensonified
areas by animal densities. Specifically, the ensonified area for anchor
retrieving activities is the area where received noise levels are above
120 dB, during the periods when these activities would be occurring.
For the 2015 IHA application for Shell's exploration drilling in the
Chukchi Sea (Shell 2015), JASCO modeled the anchor handling activity
using their estimated distance to 120 dB isopleths at 14,000 m (JASCO
2013). This yields an estimated 120 dB ensonified area of 615 km\2\.
The duration of sound-producing activity was calculated for each
site. Although each anchor site has different configurations and
numbers of anchors, Fairweather assumes it would take up to seven days
per site to remove all anchors. Because the vessels will not be
operating at full power during the entire time, Fairweather assumes
half of the time (3.5 days) will be exceeding 120 dB. With five (5)
anchor sites, this results in 17.5 days of anchor handling activity
that may result in disturbance.
Description of the Sound Sources
Anchor Retrieving: During Shell's 2012 exploratory program in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas, sound source verifications (SSVs) were
conducted of all activities conducted near both Burger and Sivulliq
during the open-water season (LGL et al., 2014). Detailed descriptions
of the sound measurements and analysis methods can be found in Chapter
3 of the Shell 2012 90-day report to NMFS (Austin et al., 2013). Anchor
handling activities were measured at 143 dB at 860 m, the loudest
activity was when ``seating'' the anchors (LGL et al., 2014). It is
assumed that the unseating of anchors will be similar in power needed
from the vessel, so this source is suitable to estimate area
ensonified. In the report, JASCO extrapolated the distance to the 120
dB threshold using a simple spreading loss of 19 log R, resulting in a
radius of 14,000 m. This radius was used to estimate the area
ensonified for this application.
Each anchor site has different configurations and numbers of
anchors, but Fairweather assumes it will take up to seven (7) days per
site to remove all anchors. Because the vessels will not be operating
at full power during the entire time, Fairweather assumed half of the
time (3.5 days) will be utilizing the high power to unseat anchors.
With five (5) anchor sites, this results in 17.5 days of anchor
handling activity that may result in disturbance.
Ice Management: Although highly unlikely, it may be necessary for
ice management near Point Barrow while transiting to the Sivulliq site.
During exploration drilling operations on the Burger Prospect in 2012,
encroachment of sea ice required the Discoverer to temporarily depart
the drill site. While it was standing by to the south, ice management
vessels remained at the drill site to protect buoys that were attached
to the anchors. Sounds produced by vessels managing the ice were
recorded and the distance to the 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms threshold was
calculated to occur at 9.6 km (JASCO et al., 2014). The total
calculated ensonified area would be 290 km\2\. Fairweather assumes that
it could take place over a two (2) day period near Point Barrow.
Estimates of Marine Mammal Densities
The densities of marine mammals per species were calculated using
2009-2014 Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) data (https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/nmml/cetacean/bwasp/index.php) for bowhead, beluga,
and gray whales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the Shell 2015 IHA
application (Shell 2015) for all other species. The ASAMM density data
are separated by depth, month, year, and location. The maximum
calculated density with the depth strata in which the anchor system is
located, the month (based on project activity timing), year (maximum of
2009-2014), and location (Chukchi vs. Beaufort) was used. For example,
anchor handling only occurs in the summer, so density data from July
and August were used. Side scan sonar may occur at the beginning and
end of the project, so density data were separated into summer and
fall. The Shell 2015 IHA included average and maximum density estimates
for area, month, and location. The maximum calculated density was used
in take estimates for these other species, regardless of area, month,
or location.
Bowhead Whale
The bowhead whale density estimate is separated into the Chukchi
and Beaufort seas based on the ASAMM study areas for aerial data
collected 2008-2014. For each depth stratum, the maximum density
estimate was used for summer and fall (Table 3). The bowhead whale
densities in the Chukchi Sea range up to 0.0145 whales/km\2\ in the
summer and up to 0.1813 whales/km\2\ in the fall, with the highest
density for both seasons in the 50-200 m north region. The bowhead
whale densities in the Beaufort Sea range up to 0.2883 whales/km\2\ in
the summer and up to 0.1310 whales/km\2\ in the fall, both in the east
21-50 m region.
Beluga Whale
The beluga whale density estimate is separated into the Chukchi Sea
and Beaufort Seas based on the ASAMM study areas for aerial data
collected 2008-2014. For each depth stratum, the maximum density
estimate was used for summer and fall (Table 3). The beluga whale
densities in the Chukchi Sea range up to 0.1633 whales/km\2\ in the
summer in the 0-35 m north region and up to 0.0495 whales/km\2\ in the
fall in the 50-200 m north region. The beluga whale densities in the
Beaufort Sea range up to 0.7924 whales/km\2\ in the summer and up to
0.1425 whales/km\2\
[[Page 52415]]
in the fall, both in the east 51-200 m east region.
Gray Whale
The gray whale density estimate is only in the Chukchi Sea based on
the ASAMM study areas for aerial data collected 2008-2014. For each
depth stratum, the maximum density estimate was used for summer and
fall (Table 3). The gray whale densities in the Chukchi Sea range up to
0.2594 whales/km\2\ in the summer and up to 0.1732 whales/km\2\ in the
fall, with the highest density for both seasons in the 50-200 m south
region.
Other Cetaceans
Shell (2015) derived average and maximum density estimates for
summer and fall from all available open-water research and monitoring
data. For the purposes of this project, the maximum of the density
estimates were used, regardless of whether the density was for summer
or fall (Table 3). The maximum density is 0.0044 whales/km\2\ for the
harbor porpoise; 0.0004 whales/km\2\ for the fin, humpback, and killer
whale; and 0.0006 whales/km\2\ for the minke whale.
Seals
Shell (2015) derived average and maximum density estimates for
summer and fall from all available open-water research and monitoring
data. For the purposes of this project, the maximum of the density
estimates were used, regardless of whether the density was for summer
or fall (Table 3). The maximum density is 0.6075 seals/km\2\ for the
ringed seal; 0.0203 seals/km\2\ for the bearded seal; and 0.0122 seals/
km\2\ for the spotted seal.
Table 3--Expected Densities of Whales and Seals in Area of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (#/km\2\)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Species Chukchi Sea Beaufort Sea
---------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Fall Summer Fall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................................... 0.0145 0.1813 0.2883 0.1310
Beluga whale.................................... 0.1633 0.0495 0.7924 0.1425
Gray whale...................................... 0.2594 0.1732 NA NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale....................................... 0.0004
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale.................................. 0.0004
Minke whale..................................... 0.0006
Harbor porpoise................................. 0.0044
Killer whale.................................... 0.0004
Ringed seal..................................... 0.6075
Bearded seal.................................... 0.0203
Spotted seal.................................... 0.0122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of Exposures
The estimates of the numbers of each marine mammal species that
could potentially be exposed to sound associated with the anchor
retrieval program, specifically the unseating of anchors, potential
side scan sonar survey, and potential ice management, were estimated by
multiplying the following three variables: (1) The area (in km\2\) of
ensonification for disturbance for each activity, (2) the duration (in
days) of the sound activity, and (3) the density (# of marine mammals/
km\2\) as summarized in Table 3. It is important to note that these
estimates are based on worst-case (and unlikely) sound levels and
duration, and the maximum reported density estimates that do not
account for the movement of animals near the anchor site during
retrieval activities.
Since the two stocks occur in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and one
cannot distinguish them visually, the pooled densities in different
seasons represent the presence of both stocks. The current abundance
estimate for the Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock is 3,710 individuals and the
abundance estimate for the Beaufort Sea Stock is 39,258 individuals
(Allen and Angliss 2014), resulting in a combined total estimate of
42,968 individuals. The Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock is, therefore,
considered to represent 8.6 percent of the combined population and the
Beaufort Sea Stock is considered to represent 91.4 percent of the same.
Therefore, the estimated takes of each beluga stock were based on the
proportion of these stocks, with 8.6 percent account for the Eastern
Chukchi Sea Stock, and 91.4 percent account for the Beaufort Sea Stock
for both summer and fall.
A summary of the total number of estimated exposures per species,
per sea, and per season is provided in Table 4.
Table 4--Summary of Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to Level B Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of stock or
Species Chukchi Sea Beaufort Sea Abundance Total population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................................................. 37.41 620.51 19,534 658 3.37
Gray whale.................................................... 197.41 0 20,990 197 0.94
Beluga whale (E. Chukchi stock)............................... 33.55 19.98 3,710 54 1.47
Beluga whale (Beaufort stock)................................. 356.56 212.38 39,258 569 1.45
Fin whale..................................................... 3.68 0 10,103 4 0.04
Humpback whale................................................ 3.68 0.86 1,652 5 0.27
Minke whale................................................... 5.52 1.29 1,233 7 0.55
Harbor porpoise............................................... 40.46 9.48 48,215 50 0.10
Killer whale.................................................. 3.68 0.86 2,347 4 0.19
[[Page 52416]]
Ringed seal................................................... 5,586.67 1,308.58 249,000 6,895 2.77
Bearded seal.................................................. 186.68 43.73 155,000 231 0.15
Spotted seal.................................................. 112.19 26.28 460,268 138 0.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated Level B harassment takes as a percentage of the
marine mammal stock are less than 3.37 percent in all cases (Table 4).
The highest percent of population estimated to be taken is 3.37 percent
by Level B harassment of the bowhead whale.
Analysis and Determinations
Negligible Impact
Negligible impact is ``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'' (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes,
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment,
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes,
the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status
of the species.
To avoid repetition, this discussion of our analyses generally
applies to all the species listed in Table 4, given that the
anticipated effects of Fairweather's anchor retrieving operation on
marine mammals (taking into account the proposed mitigation) are
expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take
on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts
on habitat, they are pointed out below.
No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of
Fairweather's anchor retrieving operation, and none are proposed to be
authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur
hearing impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological
effects. The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to
be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of
brief startling reaction and/or temporarily vacating the area.
Mitigation measures, such as controlled vessel speed and dedicated
marine mammal observers, will ensure that takes are within the level
being analyzed. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-
term, with no lasting biological consequences.
Of the 12 marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed
anchor retrieving area, bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA. These species are also
designated as ``depleted'' under the MMPA. None of the other species
that may occur in the project area are listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA.
Fairweather's proposed activities overlap areas that have been
identified as biologically important areas (BIAs) for feeding for the
gray and bowhead whales and for reproduction for gray whale during the
summer and fall months (Clarke et al., 2015). In addition, the coastal
Beaufort Sea also serves as a migratory corridor during bowhead whale
spring migration, as well as for their feeding and breeding activities.
Additionally, the coastal area of Chukchi and Beaufort seas also serve
as BIAs for beluga whales for their feeding and migration. However,
Fairweather's proposed anchor retrieving operation would only occur in
5 locations totaling a maximum of 10 days. As discussed earlier, the
Level B behavioral harassment of marine mammals from the proposed
activity is expected to be in the form of brief startling reactions and
animals temporarily vacating the area. No long-term biologically
significant impacts to marine mammals are expected from the proposed
anchor retrieving activity.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
Fairweather's proposed anchor retrieving operation in the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas is not expected to adversely affect the affected species
or stocks through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival,
and therefore will have a negligible impact on the affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
The authorized takes represent less than 3.37 percent of all
populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 4 in this
document). The number of marine mammals authorized to be taken are
small in proportion to the total populations of the affected species or
stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
Subsistence hunting is an essential aspect of I[ntilde]upiat life,
especially in rural coastal villages. The I[ntilde]upiat participate in
subsistence hunting activities in and around the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas. The animals taken for subsistence provide a significant portion
of the food that will last the community through the year. Marine
mammals represent on the order of 60-80 percent of the total
subsistence harvest. Along with the nourishment necessary for survival,
the subsistence activities strengthen bonds within the culture, provide
a means for educating the younger generation, provide supplies for
artistic expression, and allow for important celebratory events.
The MMPA requires that any harassment not result in an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks for taking
(101(a)(5)(D)(i)(II)). Unmitigable adverse impact is defined as (50 CFR
216.103):
An impact resulting from the specified activity that is
likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:
Causing marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas;
Directly displacing subsistence users;
Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and
the subsistence users; and
[[Page 52417]]
Cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to
increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs
to be met.
In the following sub-sections, the major animals used for
subsistence by villages of the upper-west and north coast of Alaska are
discussed (bowhead whale, beluga whale, and all three common species of
seals (ringed, spotted, and bearded seals)).
Bowhead Whale
Anchor handling-related vessel traffic may traverse some areas used
during bowhead harvests by Chukchi and Beaufort villages. Bowhead hunts
by residents of Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay take place almost
exclusively in the spring prior to the date on which the vessels would
commence the proposed anchor handling program. From 1984 through 2009,
all bowhead harvests by these Chukchi Sea villages occurred only
between April 14 and June 24 (George and Tarpley 1986; George et al.,
1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000; Philo et al. 1994;
Suydam et al., 1995a,b, 1996, 1997, 2001a,b, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005a,b,
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010), while vessels will not enter the Bering
Sea (northbound) prior to July 1. However, fall whaling by some of
these Chukchi Sea villages has occurred since 2010 and is likely to
occur in the future, particularly if bowhead quotas are not completely
filled during the spring hunt, and fall weather is accommodating. A
Wainwright whaling crew harvested the first fall bowhead for these
villages in 90 years or more on October 7, 2010, and another in October
of 2011 (Suydam et al., 2011, 2012, 2013). No bowhead whales were
harvested during fall in 2012, but 3 were harvested by Wainwright in
fall 2013.
Barrow crews have traditionally hunted bowheads during both spring
and fall; however, spring whaling by Barrow crews is normally finished
before the date on which anchor handling operations would commence.
From 1984 through 2011 whales were harvested in the spring by Barrow
crews only between April 23 and June 15 (George and Tarpley 1986;
George et al., 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000; Philo et
al., 1994; Suydam et al., 1995 a, b, 1996, 1997, 2001a, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005a,b, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Fall
whaling by Barrow crews does take place during the time period when
anchor handling activities would be completed, with vessels out of the
Chukchi Sea by the end of August. From 1984 through 2011, whales were
harvested in the fall by Barrow crews between August 31 and October 30,
indicating that there is potential for vessel traffic to affect these
hunts. Most fall whaling by Barrow crews, however, takes place east of
Barrow along the Beaufort Sea coast therefore providing little
opportunity for the anchor handling program to affect them. For
example, Suydam et al. (2008) reported that in the previous 35 years,
Barrow whaling crews harvested almost all their whales in the Beaufort
Sea to the east of Point Barrow. As all anchor sites are over 100 miles
from Barrow, NMFS does not anticipate any conflict with Barrow harvest.
In the event the sonar survey for Sivulliq is taking place as Barrow is
harvesting, the Norseman II will traverse 50 mi offshore around Barrow.
Nuiqsut and Kaktovik crews traditionally hunt during the fall,
harvesting in late August through September. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) requires that all industry activities cease working
east of 150[deg] W. by August 25th for the start of whaling for those
communities. The anchor handling vessels will enter the Beaufort Sea as
soon as ice at Point Barrow allows for safe passage and will complete
the Sivulliq anchor retrieval well before August 25th. If a sonar
survey is required on this site, it will take place after the
completion of the fall hunt and has been cleared by both communities.
Beluga Whales
Beluga whales typically do not represent a large proportion of the
subsistence harvests by weight in the communities of Wainwright and
Barrow, the nearest communities to the planned anchor handling project
area. Barrow residents hunt beluga in the spring (normally after the
bowhead hunt) in leads between Point Barrow and Skull Cliffs in the
Chukchi Sea, primarily in April-June and later in the summer (July-
August) on both sides of the barrier island in Elson Lagoon/Beaufort
Sea (Minerals Management Service (MMS) 2008), but harvest rates
indicate the hunts are not frequent. Wainwright residents hunt beluga
in April-June in the spring lead system, but this hunt typically occurs
only if there are no bowheads in the area. Communal hunts for beluga
are conducted along the coastal lagoon system later in July-August.
Belugas typically represent a much greater proportion of the
subsistence harvest in Kotzebue, Point Lay, and Point Hope. Point Lay's
primary beluga hunt occurs from mid-June through mid-July, but can
sometimes continue into August if early success is not sufficient.
Point Hope residents hunt beluga primarily in the lead system during
the spring (late March to early June), but also in open water along the
coastline in July and August. Belugas are harvested in spring mid-June
through mid-July in Kotzebue, but the timing can vary based on beluga
movement. Belugas are harvested in coastal waters near these villages,
generally within a few miles from shore. In the Chukchi, the anchor
retrieval sites are located more than 60 mi (97 km) offshore, therefore
proposed anchor handling in the project area would have no or minimal
impacts on beluga hunts.
The retrieval of anchors around Kotzebue is located nearshore and
has the most potential for disturbance to beluga harvest. Fairweather
will be required to communicate with the Kotzebue Whaling Commission,
AEWC, and Com Center (if established) during operations in this area to
avoid any conflict. Vessels will move offshore if Fairweather is not
cleared to conduct activities.
Disturbance associated with vessel traffic could potentially affect
beluga hunts. However, all of the beluga hunt by Barrow residents in
the Chukchi Sea, and much of the hunt by Wainwright residents would
likely be completed before anchor handling activities would commence.
Additionally, vessel traffic associated with the anchor handling
program will be restricted under normal conditions to designated
corridors that remain onshore or proceed directly offshore thereby
minimizing the amount of traffic in coastal waters where beluga hunts
take place. The designated vessel traffic corridors do not traverse
areas indicated in recent mapping as utilized by Point Lay or Point
Hope for beluga hunts, and avoids important beluga hunting areas in
Kasegaluk Lagoon that are used by Wainwright.
Seals
Seals are an important subsistence resource and ringed seals make
up the bulk of the seal harvest. Most ringed and bearded seals are
harvested in the winter or in the spring before the anchor handling
program would commence, but some harvest continues during open water
and could possibly be affected by the planned activities. Spotted seals
are also harvested during the summer. Most seals are harvested in
coastal waters, with available maps of recent and past subsistence use
areas indicating seal harvests have occurred only within 48-64 km (30-
40 mi) of the coastline. The anchor handling retrieval sites are
located more than 103 km (64 mi) offshore, so activities are thought to
possibly have an impact on subsistence
[[Page 52418]]
hunting for seals. Since most seal hunting is done during the winter
and spring when the anchor handling program is not operational, NMFS
considers that the potential effects to seal hunting are largely
avoided.
Mitigation measures to be implemented include participation in
operational Com Centers (below). With these mitigation measures and the
nature of the proposed action, we are confident that any harassment of
seals resulting from the 2016 anchor handling program will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of seals to be taken for
subsistence uses.
Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence
Hunts
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for
activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of
Cooperation (POC) or information that identifies what measures have
been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes.
Fairweather has prepared a draft POC, which was developed by
identifying and evaluating any potential effects the proposed anchor
retrieving operation might have on seasonal abundance that is relied
upon for subsistence use.
Specifically, Fairweather will take important time periods into
consideration when planning its anchor retrieving operation, including
the beluga whale subsistence activities near Kotzebue and in the
Chukchi Sea, and bowhead whale subsistence activities in the Chukchi
and Beaufort seas. Fairweather plans to enter the Beaufort Sea as soon
as Point Barrow is ice-free and be finished at the Sivulliq location
well before the August 25, 2016 commencement date of bowhead whaling.
Although not anticipated with the proposed schedule, if crew changes
are needed, they will occur at either Wainwright or Prudhoe Bay
depending on the location of the vessel. Fairweather will work with the
community of Wainwright through its joint venture with Olgoonik
Corporation. Through the establishment of village liaisons and onboard
PSOs, Fairweather will ensure there are no conflicts with subsistence
activities.
Fairweather has developed a communication plan and will implement
this plan before initiating the anchor handling program. The plan will
help coordinate activities with local Com Centers and thus subsistence
users, minimize the risk of interfering with subsistence hunting
activities, and keep current as to the timing and status of the bowhead
whale hunt and other subsistence hunts. The communication plan includes
procedures for coordination with Com Centers to be located in coastal
villages along the Chukchi Sea during the proposed anchor handling
activities.
Fairweather attended the AEWC meeting in Barrow from February 3-5
and presented the project components and developing mechanisms to work
with the communities to present consistent and concise information
regarding the planned anchor handling program. Fairweather intends to
sign a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA).
Throughout 2016, Fairweather will continue its engagement with the
marine mammal commissions and committees active in the subsistence
harvests and marine mammal research.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Within the project area, the bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are
listed as endangered under the ESA. NMFS' Permits and Conservation
Division engaged in consultation with staff in NMFS' Alaska Region
Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance
of an IHA to Fairweather under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for
this activity. In May 2016, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion concluding
that the issuance of the IHA associated with Fairweather's anchor
retrieval operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the 2016
open-water season is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the endangered bowhead, humpback, and fin whales. No critical
habitat has been designated for these species, therefore none will be
affected.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) that includes an
analysis of potential environmental effects associated with NMFS'
issuance of an IHA to Fairweather to take marine mammals incidental to
conducting anchor retrieval operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort
seas. The draft EA was available to the public for a 30-day comment
period before it was finalized. Based on the EA, NMFS made a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this action. The FONSI was signed on
June 30, 2016, prior to this issuance of the IHA. Therefore,
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to
Fairweather for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment,
incidental to conducting anchor retrieval operations in the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas during the 2016 open-water season, which also includes
the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in
this Notice.
Dated: August 3, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18738 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P