[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6303-6305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XC300
Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic
Ocean
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces its
intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) that would include an analysis of the environmental impacts of
issuing Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Incidental Take
Authorizations (ITAs) to the oil and gas industry for the taking of
marine mammals incidental to offshore exploration activities (e.g.,
seismic surveys and exploratory drilling) in Federal and state waters
of the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska. The Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the North Slope
Borough are cooperating agencies on this EIS. The Environmental
Protection Agency is serving as a consulting agency, and NMFS is
coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission pursuant to our
co-management agreement under the MMPA.
DATES: Effective January 30, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Information on this project can be found on the Office of
Protected Resources Web page at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arctic.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Payne, Jolie Harrison, or
Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of proposed
[[Page 6304]]
authorization is provided to the public for review. The term ``take''
under the MMPA means ``to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to
harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.'' Except with respect
to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines
``harassment'' as ``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B
harassment].''
Authorization for incidental take shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as `` * * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
Summary of 2011 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
On February 8, 2010, NMFS, as lead agency, announced its intent to
prepare an EIS analyzing the impacts to the human environment from the
issuance of MMPA ITAs for the take of marine mammals incidental to oil
and gas industry exploration activities in the U.S. Arctic Ocean and
BOEM's proposed action of issuing geological & geophysical (G&G)
permits and authorization of ancillary activities in the U.S. Arctic
Ocean under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (75 FR 6175).
The 60-day public scoping period ended on April 9, 2010.
On December 30, 2011, NMFS published a Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIS in the Federal Register (76 FR 82275). The Draft EIS
includes an analysis of the proposed actions identified in the 2010 NOI
(i.e., NMFS' issuance of MMPA ITAs for take of marine mammals
incidental to G&G surveys, ancillary activities, and exploratory
drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and BOEM's issuance of G&G
permits and authorizations of ancillary activities in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas), the anticipated environmental impacts, and other
measures to minimize the impacts associated with these activities. The
60-day public comment period closed on February 28, 2012.
In light of comments received on the Draft EIS, NMFS and BOEM
determined that the Final EIS would benefit from the inclusion of
additional alternatives for analysis that cover a broader range of
potential levels of exploratory drilling scenarios in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas. The alternatives are based upon the agencies' analysis of
additional information, including the comments and information
submitted by stakeholders during the Draft EIS public comment period.
Incorporating these alternatives is intended to facilitate
consideration of a broader range of possible future offshore activity,
thus addressing comments on the Draft EIS and extending the
applicability of the document. Revisions to the document will also
incorporate information in response to comments received from the
public regarding other issues, such as analysis of potential mitigation
measures.
Alternatives
The alternatives analyzed in the 2011 Draft EIS are summarized in
the Draft EIS Notice of Availability (76 FR 82275, December 30, 2011).
However, as noted previously NMFS and BOEM have concluded that
additional activity level scenarios should be considered in a
Supplemental Draft EIS. Consistent with the 2011 Draft EIS, the
alternatives will assess a reasonable range of G&G, ancillary, and
exploratory drilling activities expected to occur, as well as a
reasonable range of mitigation measures, in order to accurately assess
the potential consequences of issuing ITAs under the MMPA and permits
under the OCSLA. Each alternative includes an analysis of a suite of
standard and additional mitigation measures that have been identified
to help reduce impacts to marine mammals and to ensure no unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence
uses.
The primary difference between the upcoming Supplemental Draft EIS
and the 2011 Draft EIS will be in the treatment of alternatives. In
particular, NMFS and BOEM will analyze an additional alternative that
considers up to four exploratory drilling programs in the Beaufort Sea
and up to four exploratory drilling programs in the Chukchi Sea per
year. In the 2011 Draft EIS, the maximum level of exploratory drilling
considered in the alternatives was two exploratory drilling programs in
the Beaufort Sea and two exploratory drilling programs in the Chukchi
Sea per year. Table 1 outlines the activity levels to be considered in
each action alternative. Activity levels noted are a maximum for each
alternative.
Table 1--Levels of G&G, Ancillary, and Exploratory Drilling Activities Proposed for Consideration in the
Alternatives in the Supplemental Draft EIS on the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean.
Activity Levels Noted Are a Maximum, and any Combination up to That Amount Could Be Allowed Under Each
Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site clearance and
2D/3D Seismic shallow hazards On-ice seismic Exploratory
surveys surveys surveys drilling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1 (No Action)....... 0................. 0................. 0................. 0
Alternative 2 (Level 1)......... 4 in Beaufort..... 3 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort
3 in Chukchi...... 3 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... 1 in Chukchi.
Alternative 3 (Level 2)......... 6 in Beaufort..... 5 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... 2 in Beaufort
5 in Chukchi...... 5 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... 2 in Chukchi.
Alternative 4 (Level 3)......... 6 in Beaufort..... 5 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... 4 in Beaufort
5 in Chukchi...... 5 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... 4 in Chukchi.
Alternative 5 (Level 3 with 6 in Beaufort..... 5 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... 4 in Beaufort
required time/area closures). 5 in Chukchi...... 5 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... 4 in Chukchi.
[[Page 6305]]
Alternative 6 (any level with 6 in Beaufort..... 5 in Beaufort..... 1 in Beaufort..... Any level up to
required use of alternative 5 in Chukchi...... 5 in Chukchi...... 0 in Chukchi...... the maximum, as
technologies). the technology
only relates to
seismic surveys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives 5 and 6 differ from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in the
fact that each one considers required mitigation measures not
contemplated in the other action alternatives. Certain time/area
closures considered for mitigation on a case-by-case basis under the
other action alternatives would be required under Alternative 5. The
time/area closures would be for specific areas important to biological
productivity, life history functions for specific species of concern,
and subsistence activities. Activities would not be permitted to occur
in any of the time/area closures during the specific identified
periods. Additionally, buffer zones around these time/area closures
could potentially be included.
In addition to contemplating the same suite of standard and
additional mitigation measures analyzed in the other action
alternatives, Alternative 6 also includes specific additional
mitigation measures that focus on the use of alternative technologies
that have the potential to augment or replace traditional airgun-based
seismic exploration activities in the future.
Although NMFS is not soliciting comments and information from the
public at this time, the agencies will use the information submitted by
the public on the Draft EIS to inform the content and analysis in the
Supplemental Draft EIS. The public will then have the opportunity to
comment on the Supplemental Draft EIS upon its publication.
Additionally, the public will have the opportunity to comment on any
applications received under the MMPA as part of this action.
Dated: January 24, 2013.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02000 Filed 1-25-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P