[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39062-39076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16521]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD870
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Shallow Geohazard Survey in the
Beaufort Sea, Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Hilcorp Alaska, LLC
(Hilcorp) to take, by harassment, small numbers of marine mammals
incidental to a shallow geohazard survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska,
during the 2015 Arctic open-water season.
DATES: Effective July 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Inquiry for information on the incidental take authorization
should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A copy of the
application containing a list of the references used in this document,
NMFS' Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI), and the IHA may be obtained by writing to the address
specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment,
during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.
[[Page 39063]]
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.''
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 December 1, 2014, NMFS received an application from Hilcorp for
the taking of marine mammals incidental to shallow geohazard surveys in
the Beaufort Sea. After receiving NMFS comments, Hilcorp submitted a
revised IHA application on January 5, 2015. In addition, Hilcorp
submitted a marine mammal mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) on
January 21, 2015. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and
complete on February 9, 2015.
The proposed activity would occur between July 1 and September 30,
2015. The actual survey is expected to be complete in 45 days,
including weather and equipment downtime. Underwater noises generated
from the sonar used for the survey are likely to result Level B
harassment of individuals of 6 species of marine mammals.
Description of the Specified Activity
Detailed descriptions of Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey are
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (80 FR
27901; May 15, 2015). No change has been made in the action described
in the Federal Register notice. Please refer to that document for
detailed information about the activities involved in the shallow
geohazard survey program.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Hilcorp was published
in the Federal Register on May 15, 2015 (80 FR 27901). That notice
described in detail Hilcorp's activity, the marine mammal species that
may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine
mammals and the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comment letters
from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and a private citizen.
All comments are addressed in this section of the Federal Register
notice.
Comment 1: The Commission states that the sub-bottom profiler,
echosounder, and other sonars are non-impulsive acoustic sources and
that NMFS should use the behavioral harassment threshold of 120 dB re 1
[micro]Pa instead of 160 dB, which is the threshold for impulse sound.
Further, the Commission recommends that NMFS require Hilcorp to monitor
the larger 120-dB re 1 [mu]Pa harassment zone of 450 m for the purpose
of enumerating marine mammal takes associated with the use of the sub-
bottom profiler.
Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission's statement that
signals from a sub-bottom profiler, echosounder, and other sonar
equipment proposed to be used by Hilcorp are non-impulsive. In
classifying underwater noise types, NMFS recognizes two categories:
continuous sounds and intermittent sounds. Continuous sounds are those
whose sound pressure level remains above that of the ambient sound,
with negligibly small fluctuations in level (NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005),
while intermittent sounds are defined as sounds with interrupted levels
of low or no sound (NIOSH, 1998). Thus, signals from sub-bottom
profiler, echosounder, and other sonar equipment to be used by Hilcorp
are not continuous sounds but rather intermittent sounds. Intermittent
sounds can further be defined as either impulsive or non-impulsive.
Impulsive sounds have been defined as sounds that are typically
transient, brief (< 1 sec), broadband, and consist of a high peak
pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH,
1998). Signals from these sources to be used by Hilcorp also have
durations that are typically very brief (< 1 sec), with temporal
characteristics that more closely resemble those of impulsive sounds
than non-impulsive sounds, which typically have more gradual rise times
and longer decays (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). With regard to behavioral
thresholds, we therefore consider the temporal and spectral
characteristics of signals from the sub-bottom profiler, echosounder,
and other sonar equipment to be used by Hilcorp to more closely
resemble those of an impulse sound than a continuous sound.
Therefore, NMFS considers that using the 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa
threshold for Level B harassment for marine mammal noise exposure by
Hilcorp's sub-bottom profiler is more appropriate than the continuous
threshold of 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa. Subsequently, the Level B zone of
influence (ZOI) is established as the isopleths where the received
level is 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa and higher, which will be monitored by
the protected species observers (PSOs).
Comment 2: A private citizen states that the Federal Register
notice (80 FR 27901; May 15, 2015) for the proposed IHA fails to
provide adequate information concerning the purpose of Hilcorp's
shallow geohazard survey. The person states that the notice refers only
obliquely to acquiring data ``along the subsea pipeline corridor area''
and ``a 300 m corridor around the centerline of the proposed pipeline
area will be covered''. The person states that the notice should be
withdrawn until NMFS is able to provide the public with the purpose for
the proposed survey and how it would contribute to any future project,
pipeline or otherwise, in the Beaufort Sea.
Response: NMFS does not agree with the private citizen's
assessment. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA may not
have provided detail on the purpose of Hilcorp's shallow geoharzard
survey; however the purpose is described in Hilcorp's IHA application
(ERM Alaska, Inc. 2014), which is referenced by the notice. As stated
in Hilcorp's IHA application, the purpose of the survey is to evaluate
[[Page 39064]]
development of the Liberty field, with a potential plan of building a
gravel island situated over the Liberty reservoir. The proposed shallow
geohazard survey is to obtain subsurface information for the potential
development of a subsea pipeline. The proposed IHA did not include this
detail because NMFS does not believe that this information is critical
for NMFS to make a determination of the survey's potential effects to
marine mammals. Instead, the Federal Register notice provided a
detailed description of the activity Hilcorp is proposing to undertake
for the shallow geohazard survey in the Beaufort Sea. Hilcorp's plans
related to any future project, pipeline or otherwise in the Beaufort
Sea are speculative and do not affect NMFS' analysis of the potential
impacts on marine mammals as a result of Hilcorp's shallow geohazard
survey.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
The Beaufort Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals.
Table 1 lists the 12 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction with
confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area.
Table 1--Marine Mammal Species With Confirmed or Possible Occurrence in the Proposed Shallow Geohazard Survey
Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Occurrence Seasonality Range Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes
Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea Delphinapterus Common......... Mostly spring Mostly Beaufort 39,258
stock). leucas. and fall with Sea.
some in summer.
Beluga whale (eastern ............... Common......... Mostly spring Mostly Chukchi 3,710
Chukchi Sea stock). and fall with Sea.
some in summer.
Killer whale **............. Orcinus orca... Extralimital... Mostly summer California to 552
and early fall. Alaska.
Harbor porpoise **.......... Phocoena Extralimital... Mostly summer California to 48,215
phocoena. and early fall. Alaska.
Narwhal **.................. Monodon Extralimital... Year round..... Arctic Ocean... 45,358
monoceros.
Mysticetes
Bowhead whale *............. Balaena Common......... Mostly spring Russia to 19,534
mysticetus. and fall with Canada.
some in summer.
Gray whale.................. Eschrichtius Somewhat common Mostly summer.. Mexico to the 19,126
robustus. U.S. Arctic
Ocean.
Minke whale **.............. Balaenoptera Extralimital... Mostly summer.. North Pacific 810-1,003
acutorostrata. Ocean.
Humpback whale (Central Megaptera Extralimital... Mostly summer.. North Pacific 21,063
North Pacific stock) * **. novaeangliae. Ocean.
Pinnipeds
Bearded seal (Beringia Erigathus Common......... Spring and Bering, 155,000
distinct population barbatus. summer. Chukchi, and
segment). Beaufort Seas.
Ringed seal (Arctic stock) * Phoca hispida.. Common......... Year round..... Arctic Ocean... 300,000
Spotted seal................ Phoca largha... Common......... Summer......... Japan to U.S. 141,479
Arctic Ocean.
Ribbon seal **.............. Histriophoca Occasional..... Summer......... Arctic Ocean... 49,000
fasciata.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Endangered, threatened, or species of concern under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); Depleted under the MMPA.
** These species are so rarely sighted in the proposed project area that take is unlikely.
Minke whales are relatively common in the Bering and southern
Chukchi Seas and have recently also been sighted in the northeastern
Chukchi Sea (Aerts et al., 2013; Clarke et al., 2013). Minke whales are
rare in the Beaufort Sea. They have not been reported in the Beaufort
Sea during the Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project/Aerial Surveys of
Arctic Marine Mammals (BWASP/ASAMM) surveys (Clarke et al., 2011, 2012;
2013; Monnet and Treacy, 2005), and there was only one observation in
2007 during vessel-based surveys in the region (Funk et al., 2010).
Humpback whales have not generally been found in the Arctic Ocean.
However, subsistence hunters have spotted humpback whales in low
numbers around Barrow, and there have been several confirmed sightings
of humpback whales in the northeastern Chukchi Sea in recent years
(Aerts et al., 2013; Clarke et al., 2013). The first confirmed sighting
of a humpback whale in the Beaufort Sea was recorded in August 2007
(Hashagen et al., 2009), when a cow and calf were observed 54 mi east
of Point Barrow. No additional sightings have been documented in the
Beaufort Sea. Narwhal are common in the waters of northern Canada, west
Greenland, and in the European Arctic, but rarely occur in the Beaufort
Sea (COSEWIC, 2004). Only a handful of sightings have occurred in
Alaskan waters (Allen and Angliss, 2013). These three species are not
considered further in this document. Both the walrus and the polar bear
could occur in the U.S. Beaufort Sea; however, these species are
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not
considered further in this document.
The Beaufort Sea is a main corridor of the bowhead whale migration
route. The main migration periods occur in spring from April to June
and in fall from late August/early September through October to early
November. During the fall migration, several locations in the U.S.
Beaufort Sea serve as feeding grounds for bowhead whales. Small numbers
of bowhead whales that remain in the U.S. Arctic Ocean during summer
also feed in these areas. The U.S. Beaufort Sea is not a main feeding
or calving area for any other cetacean species. Ringed seals breed and
pup in the Beaufort Sea; however, this does not occur during the summer
or early fall. Further information on the biology and local
distribution of these species can be
[[Page 39065]]
found in Hilcorp's application (see ADDRESSES) and the NMFS Marine
Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
Operating active acoustic sources such as sub-bottom profilers,
echosounders, and other civilian sonar equipment, and vessel activities
has the potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. Potential
effects from Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey on marine mammals in
the U.S. Beaufort Sea are discussed in the ``Potential Effects of the
Specified Activity on Marine Mammals'' section of the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (80 FR 27901; May 15, 2015). No changes
have been made to the discussion contained in this section of the
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA.
Anticipated Effects on Habitat
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are
associated with elevated sound levels produced by sonar equipment and
vessels and their effects on marine mammal prey species. These
potential effects from Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey are discussed
in the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section of the
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (80 FR 27901; May 15,
2015). No changes have been made to the discussion contained in this
section of the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA.
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 Hilcorp's open-water shallow geohazard survey in the
Beaufort Sea, NMFS is requiring Hilcorp to implement the following
mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals
in the project vicinity as a result of its survey activities. The
primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to detect marine
mammals within or about to enter designated exclusion zones and to
initiate immediate shutdown or power down of the sonar equipment. There
is no change made to the mitigation measures prescribed in the IHA
issued to Hilcorp from the Federal Register notice (80 FR 27901; May
15, 2015) for the proposed IHA.
Vessel Related Mitigation Measures
The general mitigation measures apply to all vessels that are part
of the Foggy Island Bay sonar survey. The source vessel will operate
under an additional set of specific mitigation measures during
operations.
To minimize collision risk with marine mammals, vessels
shall not be operated at speeds that would make collisions likely. When
weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, vessels
shall adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of marine mammal
collisions.
Vessel operators shall check the waters immediately
adjacent to a vessel to ensure that no marine mammals will be injured
when the vessel's propellers (or screws) are engaged.
Vessel operators shall avoid concentrations or groups of
whales and vessels shall not be operated in a way that separates
members of a group. In proximity of feeding whales or aggregations,
vessel speed shall be less than 10 knots.
When within 900 ft. (300 m) of whales vessel operators
shall take every effort and precaution to avoid harassment of these
animals by:
[cir] Reducing speed and steering around (groups of) whales if
circumstances allow, but never cutting off a whale's travel path;
[cir] Avoiding multiple changes in direction and speed.
In general, the survey design will start in shallow water
and work deeper to mitigate the potential ``herding'' effect.
Establishing Exclusion and Disturbance Zones
Under current NMFS guidelines, the ``exclusion zone'' for marine
mammal exposure to impulse sources is customarily defined as the area
within which received sound levels are >=180 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa for
cetaceans and >=190 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa for pinnipeds. These safety
criteria are based on an assumption that SPL received at levels lower
than these will not injure these animals or impair their hearing
abilities, but at higher levels might have some such effects.
Disturbance or behavioral effects to marine mammals from underwater
sound may occur after exposure to sound at distances greater than the
exclusion zones (Richardson et al. 1995). Currently, NMFS uses 160 dB
(rms) re 1 [mu]Pa as the threshold for Level B behavioral harassment
from impulse noise.
The sounds generated by the multibeam echosounder and sidescan
sonar are outside the hearing range of marine mammals. Sounds generated
by the sub-bottom profiler are within the hearing range of all marine
mammal species occurring in the area. The distance to 160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) zone of influence (ZOI) is estimated at 30 m (Warner &
McCrodan 2011). However, Hilcorp will establish a ZOI of 50 m around
all sonar sources for more protective measures. The exclusion zones of
all sonar equipment are less than 30 m from the sources.
Mitigation Measures for Sonar Equipment
(1) Ramp Up Procedure
A ramp up of the sub-bottom profiler provides a gradual increase in
sound levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and
incremental levels of the sub-bottom profiler firing until the maximum
level is achieved. The purpose of a ramp up (or ``soft start'') is to
``warn'' cetaceans and pinnipeds in the vicinity of the survey and to
provide time for them to leave the area and thus reducing startling
responses from marine mammals.
(2) Shutdown Measures
Although there is no exclusion zone expected from the sonar source
operated by Hilcorp during its proposed shallow geohazard survey,
Hilcorp proposes to implement shutdown measures when a marine mammals
is sighted within the 50 m ZOI during the operation of the sub-bottom
profiler.
After shutdown for more than 10 minutes, ramp-up shall not start
until after the marine mammal is visually seen having left the ZOI; or
15 minutes have passed after the last detection of the marine mammal
with shorter dive durations (pinnipeds and small odontocetes); or 30
minutes have passed after the last detection of the marine mammal with
longer dive durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including
beluga whales).
(3) Poor Visibility Conditions:
If during foggy conditions, heavy snow or rain, or darkness, the
full 160 dB ZOI is not visible, sonar equipment cannot commence a ramp-
up procedure from a full shut-down. If the sub-bottom profiler has been
operational before nightfall or before the onset of poor visibility
conditions, it can remain operational throughout the night or poor
visibility conditions.
[[Page 39066]]
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated Hilcorp'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 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 sub-bottom profiler, or other 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 sub-bottom profiler or other 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 sub-bottom profiler or other 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 these measures, NMFS has determined that
the 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. Mitigation 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
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.
Hilcorp submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA
application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments
or new information received from the public during the public comment
period or from the peer review panel (see the ``Monitoring Plan Peer
Review'' section later in this document).
There is no change in the monitoring prescribed in the IHA issued
to Hilcorp from the Federal Register notice (80 FR 27901; May 15, 2015)
for the proposed IHA.
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 exploration operations and
facilitate real-time mitigation to prevent injury of marine mammals by
industrial sounds or activities. These goals will be accomplished in
the Beaufort Sea during 2015 by conducting vessel-based monitoring and
passive acoustic monitoring to document marine mammal presence and
distribution in the vicinity of the survey area.
[[Page 39067]]
Visual monitoring by Protected Species Observers (PSOs) during
shallow geohazard survey operations, and periods when these surveys are
not occurring, will provide information on the numbers of marine
mammals potentially affected by these activities and facilitate real-
time mitigation to prevent impacts to marine mammals by industrial
sounds or operations. Vessel-based PSOs onboard the survey vessels will
record the numbers and species of marine mammals observed in the area
and any observable reaction of marine mammals to the survey activities
in the Beaufort Sea.
(1) Vessel-based Monitoring
(A) Protected Species Observers (PSOs)
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals will be done by trained
PSOs throughout the period of survey activities. The observers will
monitor the occurrence of marine mammals near the survey vessel during
all daylight periods during operation, and during most daylight periods
when operations are not occurring. PSO duties will include watching for
and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and
reactions to the survey operations; and documenting ``take by
harassment.''
Two PSOs will be present on the main sonar vessel. The smaller
skiff may only accommodate one at a time. Of these two PSOs, one will
be on watch at all times, except during darkness.
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.
Visual monitoring by the PSOs will be required to meet the
following criteria:
100% monitoring coverage during all periods of survey
operations in daylight;
Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
Maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
(B) PSO Qualifications and Training
Lead PSOs will be individuals with experience as observers during
recent seismic, site clearance and shallow hazards, and other
monitoring projects in Alaska or other offshore areas in recent years.
New or inexperienced PSOs will 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 will be provided to NMFS for review and
acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers will be
experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the
area. All observers will complete a training course designed to
familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures.
(C) Marine Mammal Observer Protocol
The PSOs will watch for marine mammals during all periods of source
operations and for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the planned start
of sonar operations after an extended shutdown. Marine mammal
monitoring shall continue throughout sonar operations and last for 30
minutes after the finish of sonar operations during daylight hours.
Hilcorp vessel crew and operations personnel will also watch for marine
mammals, as practical, to assist and alert the PSOs for the sub-bottom
profiler to be shut down if marine mammals are observed in or about to
enter the 50-m ZOI.
PSOs will also perform vessel-based marine mammal monitoring during
vessel transit when the shallow geohazard survey is not being
conducted. Marine mammal sighting data collected during the non-survey
period will be compared with those during the survey to analyze the
effects of the activities.
The PSOs will watch for marine mammals from the best available
vantage point on the vessels. The PSOs will scan the area around the
vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 and 16-40 x
80) and with the naked eye. GPS unit and laptop computer(s) will also
be available for PSOs onboard survey vessels.
The observers will give particular attention to the areas within
the marine mammal exclusion zones around the source vessels.
When a marine mammal is seen approaching or within the 50-m ZOI,
the survey crew will be notified immediately so that mitigation
measures called for in the applicable authorization(s) can be
implemented.
Information to be recorded by PSOs will include:
Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if
determinable), physical description of features that were observed or
determined not to be present in the case of unknown or unidentified
animals;
Behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting;
Heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from
observer;
Apparent reaction to activities (e.g., none, avoidance,
approach, paralleling, etc.), closest point of approach, and behavioral
pace;
Time, location, speed, and activity of the vessel, sea
state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
Positions of other vessel(s) (if present) in the vicinity
of the observer location.
The vessel's position, speed, water depth, sea state, ice cover,
visibility, and sun glare will also be recorded at the start and end of
each observation watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever
there is a change in any of those variables.
(2) Acoustic Monitoring
Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) will be conducted to document
ambient noise conditions, to examine the spatial and temporal
distribution of marine mammals based on acoustic detections of their
vocalizations, and to characterize the long-range propagation of sounds
produced during the geohazard survey. The goal of the program is to
address knowledge gaps about ambient sound levels and the distributions
and migration paths of several marine mammal species including bowhead
whales, beluga whales, and seals.
The acoustic data will be collected with Autonomous Multichannel
Acoustic Recorder (AMAR) systems deployed on the seabed for an extended
period. Two AMARs with different sampling rates will be deployed on the
seabed for 3 months. An AMAR with a sampling rate of 64 kHz (24 bits)
will be deployed at 500 m from the offshore end of the survey line and
will record continuously. A high-frequency AMAR with a sampling rate of
380 kHz (16 bits) will be deployed at 5,000 m from the offshore end of
the survey line. This high-frequency AMAR will be operated at 380 kHz
(16 bits) for 2 minutes each hour and the rest of the time at 64 kHz
(24 bits). The AMARs will be calibrated using pistonphone calibrators
immediately before and after each deployment. These calibrations are
accurate to less than 0.5 dB absolute.
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)).
[[Page 39068]]
NMFS has established an independent peer review panel to review
Hilcorp's 4MP for the proposed shallow geohazard survey in the Beaufort
Sea. The panel has met in early March 2015, and provided comments and
recommendations to NMFS in April 2015. The full panel report can be
viewed on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.
NMFS provided the panel with Hilcorp'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 that the
panel members felt were applicable to the Hilcorp' monitoring plans.
The panel believes that the objectives for both vessel-based and
passive acoustic monitoring are appropriate, and agrees that the
objective of real-time mitigation of potential disturbance of marine
mammals would be met through visual monitoring. Nevertheless, the panel
is concerned that there may also be behavioral effects resulting from
the use of single and multi-beam echosounders and side-scan sonar that
may warrant real-time mitigation to avoid disturbance, and provide a
series of recommendations to improve efficiencies and effectiveness of
monitoring and mitigation measures.
Specific recommendations provided by the peer review panel to
enhance marine mammal monitoring and reporting measures are:
(1) Deploying an additional observer on the source vessel such that
at least two observers are on watch during all daylight hours;
(2) Monitoring for marine mammals also be conducted during non-
survey activities to assist in the collection of baseline information
from which to analyze the effects of the activities;
(3) Deploying a third autonomous multichannel acoustic recorder
(AMAR) and arrange the AMARs in a triangular array, as depicted in
Figure 1 of the panel report, with the 500 m AMAR being a high-
frequency AMAR, for marine mammal monitoring;
(4) Using AMAR to collect data on cumulative sound exposure level
over 24 hours (cSEL24), in particular during the use of the
two sub-bottom profilers;
(5) Ground-truthing data collected by AMARs in consultation with
biologists experienced in Arctic species vocalizations and to include
error rates for automatic detection to ensure the accurate
classification of vocalizations by species;
(6) Collaborating with other entities collecting data on marine
mammal vocalizations in the Beaufort Sea to improve auto-detection and
manual capabilities for identifying species in which acoustic data are
limited or lacking (e.g., spotted seals); and
(7) Including information from high frequency acoustic recordings
in reports to provide a better understanding of source levels and other
acoustic characteristics of the active acoustics survey equipment, such
as spectral content, and received levels in root-mean-squared (RMS) dB,
sound exposure level (SEL), dB peak to peak and 1/3 octave bands.
In addition, although not requested by NMFS under the MMPA, the
panel also provided several mitigation measures. These recommendations
are:
(1) Hilcorp limit operations at night or during periods of low
visibility so that marine mammals do not enter the safety zone
undetected;
(2) Hilcorp specify that the delay for ramp-up and after a shut-
down should be 15 minutes for species with short dive durations (small
odontocetes and pinnipeds) and 30 minutes for species with longer diver
durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including beluga whales);
(3) Additional sound source information from the various active
acoustic equipment proposed for the survey be obtained by maneuvering
the source vessels over the high frequency AMARs; and
(4) Hilcorp conduct the survey starting closest to shore and
proceeding offshore to avoid any potential ``herding'' effect of marine
mammals into shallow waters, as was implicated in a mass stranding of
melon headed whales off Madagascar during a multi-beam echosounder
survey (Southall et al. 2013).
NMFS discussed these recommendations with Hilcorp to improve its
monitoring and reporting measures, and to some extent, as well as
mitigation measures. As a result, Hilcorp agrees to implement the
following recommendations:
(1) Hilcorp will perform vessel-based marine mammal monitoring by
protected species observers (PSOs) during vessel transit when the
shallow geohazard survey is not being conducted. Marine mammal sighting
data collected during the non-survey period will be compared with those
during the survey to analyze the effects of the activities.
(2) Hilcorp and its contractor JASCO will deploy a high-frequency
AMAR at the 5000 m site for detecting beluga clicks. The high-frequency
AMAR would be operated at 380 kHz (16 bits) for about 2 minutes each
hour and the rest of the time at 64 kHz (24 bits) for the 3 months
deployment. The reason for deploying the high-frequency AMAR at 5000 m
location, which NMFS concurs, is that there is a higher likelihood of
detecting marine mammal acoustics in the deeper water father from the
island.
(3) Hilcorp will work with JASCO to use AMAR to collect data on
cumulative sound exposure level over 24 hours (cSEL24), in
particular during the use of the two sub-bottom profilers.
(4) Hilcorp will work with JASCO to ground-truth data collected by
AMARs in consultation with biologists experienced in Arctic species
vocalizations and to include error rates for automatic detection to
ensure the accurate classification of vocalizations by species.
(5) Hilcorp is open to sharing data and work with its contractor
JASCO to collaborate with other researchers. In addition, Hilcorp and
JASCO will make the passive acoustic recording data, including data on
marine mammal vocalizations, publically available for researchers.
These data sharing/collaboration efforts will enable scientists to
purse a variety of studies concerning the acoustic environment, marine
mammal bioacoustics, and potential activity effects on marine mammals
in the survey area.
(6) Hilcorp will including information from high frequency acoustic
recordings in reports to provide a better understanding of source
levels and other acoustic characteristics of the
[[Page 39069]]
active acoustics survey equipment, such as spectral content, and
received levels in root-mean-squared (RMS) dB, sound exposure level
(SEL), dB peak to peak and 1/3 octave bands.
Furthermore, Hilcorp agrees to implement the following mitigation
recommendation and provided additional information in regard to the
peer-review panel report:
(1) Hilcorp will specify that the delay for ramp-up and after a
shut-down should be 15 minutes for species with short dive durations
(small odontocetes and pinnipeds) and 30 minutes for species with
longer diver durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including
beluga whales).
(2) Regarding sound source information from the various active
acoustic equipment proposed for Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey,
acoustic characteristics of these equipment or its equivalents were
previously measured by JASCO. The measurement results in the following
reports that are posted on NMFS Web site:
Statoil 2011 Shallow Hazards Survey 90-day Report (Chapter
3) (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/statoil_90day_report2011.pdf).
Shell 2013 Shallow Hazards Survey 90-day Report (Chapter
2) (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/oilgas/2013_shell_monitoringreport.pdf).
(3) Regarding the panel's recommendation on Hilcorp's survey
transect design, Hilcorp states that it can start in shallow water and
work deeper to mitigate the potential ``herding'' effect. Hilcorp's
plan is to divide the corridor into multiple sub-sections based on
depth and work each section independently. This method is necessary for
side scan sonar operations as each subsection will have a different
range setting and line spacing that is related to depth.
All these aforementioned recommendations from the peer-review panel
are included in the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures for
Hilcorp's 2015 open-water shallow geohazard survey in the Beaufort Sea.
However, Hilcorp will not be able to increase the number of vessel-
based PSOs onboard the survey vessel. The number of PSOs onboard the
vessel is limited by the available berth space. The survey vessels used
for the proposed shallow geohazard survey can only accommodate maximum
of 2 PSOs. Nevertheless, NMFS considers that due to the exceptionally
small ensonified zones (no exclusion zone, with the radius of ZOI at 30
m from the source), one PSO on watch onboard the survey vessel is
adequate.
In regard to an additional AMAR to be deployed in the vicinity of
the survey area, NMFS worked with Hilcorp and determined that
deployment of three AMARs would be cost prohibitive to Hilcorp, given
the small project budget of the shallow geohazard survey. In addition,
due to the short duration and minimal impact of the proposed shallow
geohazard survey, the currentpassive acoustic monitoring, improved with
a high-frequency AMAR, is adequate to provide needed information to
assess potential environmental effects from the proposed project.
Finally, NMFS does not agree with one of the panel's
recommendations that Hilcorp limit operations at night or during
periods of low visibility so that marine mammals do not enter the
safety zone undetected. As mentioned previously, there is no safety
zone (exclusion zone) because of the low intensity high-frequency sonar
equipment being employed in the proposed shallow geohazard survey. In
addition, limiting the survey at night or during periods of low
visibility would increase the survey duration, thus extend the noise
output from survey vessels in the area. NMFS believes that as long as
the 50-m ZOI is cleared of marine mammals before the ramp-up of sonar
equipment during daylight hours with good visibility, shallow hazard
survey can be carried out with minimum adverse effects to marine
mammals.
Reporting Measures
(1) Technical Report
The results of Hilcorp's 2015 vessel-based monitoring, including
estimates of ``take'' by harassment, will be presented in a ``90-day''
draft Technical Report, to be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after
the end of the shallow geohazard survey, and then in a final Technical
Report, which will address any comments NMFS had on the draft. The
Technical Report will include:
(a) 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);
(b) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers,
and fog/glare);
(c) 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;
(d) Data analysis separated into periods when a sonar source is
operating and when it is not, to better assess impacts to marine
mammals--the final and comprehensive report to NMFS should summarize
and plot:
Data for periods when a sonar source is active and when it
is not; and
The respective predicted received sound conditions over
fairly large areas (tens of km) around operations;
(e) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and
without sonar activities (and other variables that could affect
detectability), such as:
Initial sighting distances versus sonar activity state;
Closest point of approach versus sonar activity state;
Observed behaviors and types of movements versus sonar
activity state;
Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus sonar
activity state;
Distribution around the survey vessel versus sonar
activity state; and
Estimates of take by harassment;
(f) Results from all hypothesis tests, including estimates of the
associated statistical power, when practicable;
(g) 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
(h) A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual
estimated takes.
In addition, the technical report will include analysis on acoustic
monitoring such as:
(a) Cumulative sound exposure level over 24 hours
(cSEL24), in particular during the use of the two sub-bottom
profilers;
(b) Ground-truth of data collected by AMARs in consultation with
biologists experienced in Arctic species vocalizations with error rates
for automatic detection to ensure the accurate classification of
vocalizations by species; and
(c) Information of source levels and other acoustic characteristics
of the active acoustics survey equipment, such as spectral content, and
received levels in root-mean-squared (RMS) dB, sound exposure level
(SEL), dB peak to peak and 1/3 octave bands.
Finally, Hilcorp will share data and work with its contractor JASCO
to collaborate with other researchers. The passive acoustic recording
data, including data on marine mammal
[[Page 39070]]
vocalizations, will be made publically available for researchers. These
data sharing/collaboration efforts will enable scientists to purse a
variety of studies concerning the acoustic environment, marine mammal
bioacoustics, and potential activity effects on marine mammals in the
survey area.
(5) 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), Hilcorp 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);
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 Hilcorp to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Hilcorp would not be able
to resume its activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that Hilcorp 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), Hilcorp 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 Hilcorp to determine whether modifications in the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that Hilcorp 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),
Hilcorp 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. Hilcorp would
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. Hilcorp can continue its operations under
such a case.
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]. Only take by Level B behavioral
harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed shallow geohazard
survey. Noise propagation from subbottom profilers is expected to
harass, through behavioral disturbance, affected marine mammal species
or stocks.
The full suite of potential impacts to marine mammals from various
industrial activities was described in detail in the ``Potential
Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals'' section found
earlier in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 27901; May 15, 2015) for
the proposed IHA. The potential effects of sound from the proposed
shallow geohazard survey without any mitigation might include one or
more of the following: tolerance; masking of natural sounds; behavioral
disturbance; non-auditory physical effects; and, at least in theory,
temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson et al., 1995a).
As discussed in the following sections in this document, NMFS estimates
that Hilcorp's activities will most likely result in behavioral
disturbance, including avoidance of the ensonified area or changes in
speed, direction, and/or diving profile of one or more marine mammals.
For reasons discussed previously in this document, hearing impairment
(TTS and PTS) is highly unlikely to occur based on the fact that most
of the equipment to be used during Hilcorp's proposed shallow geohazard
survey does not have source levels high enough to elicit even mild TTS
and/or the fact that certain species are expected to avoid the
ensonified areas close to the operations. Additionally, non-auditory
physiological effects are anticipated to be minor, if any would occur
at all.
For impulsive sounds, such as the signals produced by the subbottom
profiler sources during the shallow geohazard survey, NMFS uses a
received level of 160-dB (rms) to indicate the onset of Level B
harassment. Hilcorp provided calculations of the 160-dB isopleth
produced by the subbottom profiler and then used that isopleth to
estimate takes by harassment. Hilcorp provides a full description of
the methodology used to estimate takes by harassment in its IHA
application (see ADDRESSES), which is also provided in the following
sections.
Hilcorp has requested authorization to take bowhead, gray,
humpback, minke, killer, and beluga whales, harbor porpoise, and
ringed, spotted, bearded, and ribbon seals incidental to shallow
geohazard survey in the Beaufort Sea. However, as stated previously in
this document, humpback, minke, and killer whales, harbor porpoise, and
ribbon seal are considered extralimital in the proposed shallow
geohazard survey area. Therefore, NMFS is not proposing to authorize
take of these species. In addition, NMFS made a minor adjustment to the
take number issued to Hilcorp from the proposed IHA published in the
Federal Register notice (80 FR 27901; May 15, 2015). In the notice for
the proposed IHA, the proposed take numbers were based on Hilcorp's
requested takes, which were higher than the estimated takes based on
calculation. The takes authorized in the IHA issued to Hilcorp are
estimated takes based on calculation, without upward adjustments,
except for beluga whales (explained below). No other changes were made
from the proposed IHA.
[[Page 39071]]
Basis for Estimating ``Take by Harassment''
``Take by Harassment'' is described in this section and was
calculated in Hilcorp's application by multiplying the expected
densities of marine mammals that may occur near the shallow geohazard
survey areas where received noise levels are higher than 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa (rms) created by the subbottom profiler during the survey.
Marine Mammal Density Estimates
Whale species are migratory and therefore show a seasonal
distribution, with different densities for the summer period (covering
July and August) and the fall period (covering September and October).
Seal species in the Beaufort Sea do not show a distinct seasonal
distribution during the open water period between July and October.
Data acquisition of the proposed sonar survey will only take place in
summer (before start of Nuiqsut whaling); therefore only estimates of
marine mammal densities for the summer are included in the take
calculation. Whale and seal densities in the Beaufort Sea will further
depend on the presence of sea ice. However, if ice cover within or
close to the sonar survey area is more than approximately 10%, sonar
survey activities may not start or be halted for safety reasons.
Densities related to ice conditions are therefore not included in the
take estimates.
Spatial differentiation is another important factor for marine
mammal densities, both in latitudinal and longitudinal gradient. Taking
into account the shallow water operations of the proposed sonar survey
area and the associated area of influence, data from the nearshore zone
of the Beaufort Sea is used for the calculation of densities, if
available.
Density estimates are based on best available data. Because
available data did not always cover the area of interest, estimates are
subject to large temporal and spatial variation. Though correction
factors for perception and availability bias have been calculated for
certain coastal areas they were not always known for this study area.
There is some uncertainty in the 2014 raw data and assumptions were
used in the estimated number of exposures. To provide allowance for
these uncertainties, maximum density estimates have been provided in
addition to average density estimates.
A summary of marine mammal density in the proposed Hilcorp survey
area is provided in Table 2.
Table 2--Estimated Summer Densities of Whales and Sighting Rates of Seals (Average and Maximum) for the Proposed
North Prudhoe Bay Survey. Densities Are Provided in Number of Individuals Per Km2 (IND/km2), Sighting Rates in
Number of Individuals per Hour (INDV/hr.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer densities (INDV/km\2\)
Species -----------------------------------------------------------
Average Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale....................................... 0.0088 0.0200
Beluga.............................................. 0.0008 0.0078
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer sighting rates (INDV/hr.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Average Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal......................................... 0.122 0.397
Bearded seal........................................ 0.033 0.107
Spotted seal........................................ 0.039 0.126
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Harassment Zone Distance
As discussed earlier in this document, the operating frequencies of
the multibeam, single-beam, and sidescan sonar equipment in Hilcorp's
proposed shallow geohazard survey are above the hearing range of all
marine mammals and therefore are not expected to have take of marine
mammals. Estimated distance to sound pressure levels of 160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa, generated by the proposed sub-bottom equipment is 30 m from the
source. However, as stated in this document earlier, Hilcorp proposes
to implement a 50 m shutdown zone for the Level B behavioral
harassment. Therefore, the calculation of marine mammal take is based
on the number of animals exposed within the 50 m radius.
Potential Number of ``Takes by Harassment''
This section provides estimates of the number of individuals
potentially exposed to pulsed sound levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms by
shallow geohazard survey using a subbottom profiler. The estimates are
based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be
affected by operations in the Beaufort Sea during 2015 and the
anticipated area exposed to those sound levels.
The potential number of bowhead whales and belugas that might be
exposed to the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) sound pressure level was
calculated by multiplying:
The expected bowhead and beluga density as provided in
Table 3;
The total 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) ensonified area in a
single hour by the vessel travelling at 3 knots; and
The estimated number of hours that the source vessels are
operating.
The calculated area (0.0079 km\2\) expected to be ensonified is
determined based on the maximum distance to the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(rms) sound pressure level for the Sub-bottom profiler, which is 0.05
km.
The estimated number of 24-hr days of sonar operations was
determined by assuming a 25% downtime during the planned 45-day time
span of the sonar survey period. Downtime is related to weather,
equipment maintenance, mitigation implementation, and other
circumstances. The total number of full 24-hr days that data
acquisition is expected to occur is ~34 days or 816 hours.
The total 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) ensonified area in a single hour
by the vessel is calculated as 0.556 km\2\/hr.
The average and maximum number of bowhead whales potentially
exposed to sonar sound levels of 160 dB re 1[mu]Pa (rms) or more is
estimated at 4 and 9 respectively. The limited number of exposures is
due to the low estimated density of bowheads in Foggy Island Bay during
July and August, the short duration of the survey, and the small
acoustic footprint. For the requested authorization, the maximum number
was increased by three to account for unexpected bowhead occurrences.
[[Page 39072]]
The average and maximum number of potential beluga exposures to 160
dB is <1. Belugas are known to show aggregate behavior and can occur in
large numbers in nearshore zones, as evidenced by the sighting from
Endicott in August 2013. Although beluga whales are not expected to
frequent the vicinity of the Liberty Unit shallow geohazard survey
area, their occurrence is still a possibility. To account for the
potential average take of 1 beluga whale per day during the 45-day
survey period, NMFS proposed a take authorization of 45 beluga whales
for Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey. Chance encounters with small
numbers of other whale species are possible, but exposures to 160 dB or
more are very unlikely for these species.
Although gray whale density is not known, this species has been
occasionally sited in the Arctic, and Hilcorp is requesting takes of 3
individuals of gray whales by Level B behavioral harassment (Table 3).
The estimated number of seals that might be exposed to pulsed
sounds of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) is calculated by multiplying:
The expected species specific sighting rate as provided in
Table 2; and
The total number of hours that each source vessel will be
operating during the data acquisition period.
The estimated number of hours that the sonar equipment will operate
was determined by assuming a 25% downtime during a 45-day survey
period, which is a total of 816 hours (34 days of 24 hour operations).
These estimated exposures do not take into account the mitigation
measures that will be implemented, such as marine mammal observers
watching for animals, shutdowns or power downs of the equipment when
marine mammals are seen within defined ranges. These measures will
further reduce the number of exposures and expected short-term
reactions, and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity.
A summary of the estimated takes and percent take among the
population is provided in Table 3.
Table 3--The Total Number of Potential Exposures of Marine Mammals to Sound Levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms
During the Hilcorp's Proposed Shallow Geohazard Survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, 2015. Estimates are also
Shown as a Percent of Each Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized % Estimated
Species Abundance level B take population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea stock)............................... 39,258 45 0.11
Bowhead whale................................................... 19,534 9 0.05
Gray whale...................................................... 19,126 3 0.02
Bearded seal.................................................... 155,000 87 0.06
Ringed seal..................................................... 300,000 324 0.11
Spotted seal.................................................... 141,479 103 0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 introductory discussion of our analyses
applies to all the species listed in Table 3, given that the
anticipated effects of Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey project on
marine mammals 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 described independently in the
analysis below.
No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of
Hilcorp's proposed shallow geohazard survey, and none are 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. While the sonar
sources are expected to be operated for approximately 45 days, the
project timeframe will occur when cetacean species are typically not
found in the project area or are found only in low numbers. While
pinnipeds are likely to be found in the proposed project area more
frequently, their distribution is dispersed enough that they likely
will not be in the Level B harassment zone continuously.
Most of the marine mammals encountered will likely show overt
disturbance (avoidance) only if they receive sonar sounds with levels
>= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. However, the estimated 160 dB zone is only 30 m
from the source, which means that the animals have to be very close to
the source vessel to be exposure to noise levels that could cause Level
B harassment. In addition, Hilcorp will implement shutdown measures if
a marine mammal is sighted within or is moving towards the 160 dB
isopleths.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned,
effects on marine mammals are generally expected to be restricted to
avoidance of a limited area around Hilcorp's proposed open-water
activities and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA
definition of ``Level B harassment.'' Mitigation measures, such as
controlled vessel speed, dedicated marine mammal observers, non-
pursuit, ramp up procedures, and shut downs or power downs when marine
mammals are seen within or approaching the ZOI, will further reduce
short-term reactions. In all cases, the effects are expected to be
short-term, with no lasting biological consequence.
Of the six marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed
marine
[[Page 39073]]
survey area, bowhead whale and ringed seal are listed as endangered and
threatened under the ESA, respectively. 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.
Bowhead Whales
The Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowheads has been increasing
at a rate of 3.4 percent annually for nearly a decade (Allen and
Angliss 2010). Additionally, during the 2001 census, 121 calves were
counted, which was the highest yet recorded. The calf count provides
corroborating evidence for a healthy and increasing population (Allen
and Angliss 2010). There is no critical habitat designated in the U.S.
Arctic for the bowhead whales.
Bowhead whales are designated as low-frequency cetacean. Although
the hearing sensitivity of low-frequency cetacean is thought to reach
25 kHz based on vocalizations from humpback whales, in general they are
not expected to be very sensitive to sound frequencies above several
kHz. Therefore, noise impacts on bowhead whales from Hilcorp's sonar
equipment are expected to be very mild. Potential impacts to bowhead
whales from Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey would be limited to
brief behavioral disturbances and temporary avoidance of the ensonified
areas and survey vessels. It is estimated that a maximum of 9 bowhead
whales (0.11%) could be taken by Level B harassment.
Bowhead whales are less likely to occur in the proposed project
area in July and early August, as they are found mostly in the Canadian
Beaufort Sea at this time. The animals are more likely to occur later
in the season (late-August through September), as they head west
towards Chukchi Sea.
In their westward migration route, bowhead whales have been
observed to feed in the vicinity of the survey area in the Beaufort
Sea. Most of the feedings are observed in the September to October
period as more bowhead whales are moving through the migratory corridor
in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, the areas in offshore Beaufort Sea are
considered as biologically important areas (BIAs) for bowhead whales in
September and October (Clarke et al. 2015). However, most, if not all
of their BIAs are in relatively deeper waters outside the barrier
islands, while almost all of Hilcorp's survey area is waters <31 m
within the barrier islands.
The proposed survey area is also mostly outside BIAs where bowhead
whale mother/calf pairs are sighted in the summer and fall and BIAs of
bowhead whale fall migration (Clarke et al., 2015).
Gray Whales
Gray whales are not expected to frequent the proposed shallow
geohazard survey area in the Beaufort Sea, although occasional
sightings of this species occurred in the past several years. Being a
member of low-frequency cetacean, the potential acoustic impacts to
gray whales are the same to those to bowhead whales as discussed above.
It is estimated that a maximum of 3 gray whales (0.02%) could be taken
by Level B harassment. There is no BIA for gray whales within Hilcorp's
proposed shallow geohazard survey area.
Beluga Whales
Although the acoustic effects on beluga whale, a mid-frequency
cetacean species, are expected to be more noticeable compared to
bowhead and gray whales, the adverse effects are still considered minor
due to the low intensity sonar equipment being used by Hilcorp's
shallow geohazard survey. Potential impacts to beluga whales would be
limited to brief behavioral disturbances and temporary avoidance of the
ensonified areas and survey vessels.
In addition, beluga whales in Beaufort Sea are typically
distributed in deeper waters offshore from Hilcorp's survey area. It is
estimated that a maximum of 45 beluga whales (0.05%) could be taken by
Level B harassment. There is no BIA for beluga whales within Hilcorp's
proposed shallow geohazard survey area.
Pinnipeds
Ringed, spotted, and bearded are expected to be encountered in the
Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey area. However, as stated in the
Federal Register notice (80 FR 21901; May 15, 2015) for the proposed
IHA, they appear to be more tolerant of anthropogenic sound, especially
at lower received levels, than other marine mammals, such as
mysticetes. Hilcorp's proposed activities would occur at a time of year
when these seal species found in the region are not molting, breeding,
or pupping. Therefore, these important life functions would not be
impacted by Hilcorp's activities. The exposure of pinnipeds to sounds
produced by Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey operations in the
Beaufort Sea is not expected to result in more than Level B harassment
of individuals from pinnipeds.
It is estimated that maxima of 324 ringed seals (0.11%), 103
spotted seals (0.07%), and 87 bearded seals (0.06%) could be taken by
Level B harassment. Level B behavioral harassment to these species from
Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey activity include brief behavioral
disturbances and temporary avoidance of the ensonified areas.
No biologically important area exists for seals in the vicinity of
Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey activities.
Although some disturbance of food sources of marine mammals is
possible, any impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to not
affect rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in the area.
The marine survey activities would occur in a localized area, and given
the vast area of the Arctic Ocean where feeding by marine mammals
occurs, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area
could be offset by feeding opportunities in other available feeding
areas.
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 prescribed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
Hilcorp's shallow geohazard survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, will
have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
The requested takes represent less than 0.11% of all populations or
stocks potentially impacted (see Table 3 in this document). These take
estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could
be taken by Level B behavioral harassment if each animal is taken only
once. The numbers of marine mammals estimated to be taken are small
proportions of the total populations of the affected species or stocks.
In addition, the mitigation and monitoring measures (described
previously in this document) prescribed in the IHA are expected to
reduce even further any potential disturbance to marine mammals.
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 mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken
relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
[[Page 39074]]
Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for
Subsistence Uses
Relevant Subsistence Uses
Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by coastal
Alaska Natives and represent between 60% and 80% of their total
subsistence harvest. The species regularly harvested by subsistence
hunters in and around the Beaufort Sea are bowhead and beluga whales,
and ringed, spotted, and bearded seals. The importance of each of the
subsistence species varies among the communities and is mainly based on
availability and season.
The communities closest to the project area are, from west to east,
the villages of Barrow, Nuiqsut and Kaktovik. Barrow is located >200 mi
west from the Hilcorp's survey area. It is the largest community on the
Alaska's Beaufort Sea coast. Important marine subsistence resources for
Barrow include bowhead and beluga whales, and ice seals. Nuiqsut is
located near the mouth of the Colville River, about 55 mi southwest of
the project area. The most important marine subsistence resource for
Nuiqsut is the bowhead whale, and to a lesser extent belugas and seals.
Nuiqsut hunters use Cross Island, (~20 mi northwest of the project
area) as a base to hunt for bowhead whales during the fall migration
and have historically hunted bowhead whales as far east as Flaxman
Island. Kaktovik is located on Barter Island, about 120 mi east of the
project area. Major marine subsistence resources include bowhead and
beluga whales, and seals.
(1) Bowhead Whale
The bowhead whale is a critical subsistence and cultural resource
for the North Slope communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. The
level of allowable harvest is determined under a quota system in
compliance with the International Whaling Commission (IWC 1980; Gambell
1982). The quota is based on the nutritional and cultural needs of
Alaskan Natives as well as on estimates of the size and growth of the
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort seas stock of bowhead whales (Donovan 1982;
Braund 1992). The AEWC allots the number of bowhead whales that each
community is permitted to harvest. Contemporary whaling in Kaktovik
dates from 1964 and in Nuiqsut from 1973 (EDAW/AECOM 2007; Galginaitis
and Koski 2002). The number of boats used or owned in 2011 by the
subsistence whaling crew of the villages of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and
Barrow was 8, 12, and 40, respectively. These numbers presumably change
from year to year.
Bowhead harvesting in Barrow occurs both during the spring (April-
May) and fall (September-October) when the whales migrate relatively
close to shore (ADNR 2009). During spring bowheads migrate through open
ice leads close to shore. The hunt takes place from the ice using
umiaks (bearded seal skin boats). During the fall, whaling is shore-
based and boats may travel up to 30 mi a day (EDAW/AECOM 2007). In
Barrow, most whales were historically taken during spring whaling. More
recently, however, the efficiency of the spring harvest appeared to be
lower than the autumn harvest due to ice and weather conditions as well
as struck whales escaping under the ice (Suydam et al. 2010). In the
past few years the bowhead fall hunt has become increasingly important.
Nuiqsut and Kaktovik hunters harvest bowhead whales only during the
fall. The bowhead spring migration in the Beaufort Sea occurs too far
from shore for hunting because ice leads do not open up nearshore (ADNR
2009). In Nuiqsut, whaling takes place from early September through
mid-to-late September as the whales migrate west (EDAW/AECOM 2007).
Three to five whaling crews base themselves at Cross Island, a barrier
island approximately 20 mi northwest of the Liberty Unit shallow
geohazard survey area. Nuiqsut whalers harvest an average of 2 bowheads
each year. Whaling from Kaktovik also occurs in the fall, primarily
from late August through late September or early October (EDAW/AECOM
2007). Kaktovik whalers hunt from the Okpilak and Hulahula rivers east
to Tapkaurak Point (ADNR 2009). Whaling activities are staged from the
community rather than remote camps; most whaling takes place within 12
mi of the community (ADNR 2009). Kaktovik whalers harvest an average of
2-3 bowhead whales each year.
(2) Beluga
The harvest of belugas is managed cooperatively through an
agreement between NMFS and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC).
From 2005-2009, between 5 and 48 belugas were harvested annually from
the Beaufort Sea stock (Allen and Angliss 2014); with a mean annual
take of 25.8 animals. Both Nuiqsut and Kaktovik harvest few belugas,
mostly opportunistically during the fall bowhead hunt.
(3) Seals
Seals represent an important subsistence resource for the North
Slope communities. Harvest of bearded seals usually takes place during
the spring and summer open water season from Barrow (EDAW/AECOM 2007)
with only a few animals taken by hunters from Kaktovik or Nuiqsut.
Seals are also taken during the ice-covered season, with peak hunting
occurring in February (ADNR 2009). In 2003, Barrow-based hunters
harvested 776 bearded seals, 413 ringed seals and 12 spotted seals
(ADNR 2009). Nuiqsut hunters harvest seals in an area from Cape Halkett
to Foggy Island Bay. For the period 2000-2001, Nuiqsut hunters
harvested one bearded seal and 25 ringed seals (ADNR 2009). Kaktovik
hunters also hunt seals year-round. In 2002-2003, hunters harvested 8
bearded seals and 17 ringed seals.
Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses
NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' as an impact
resulting from the specified activity. The definition and activities
can be found in 50 CFR 216.103.
The shallow geohazard survey will take place between July 1 and
September 30, 2015, with data acquisition occurring in July and August.
The project area is located >200 mi east from Barrow, approximately 55
mi northeast from Nuiqsut (20 mi southeast of Cross Island), and 120 mi
west from Kaktovik. Potential impact on the subsistence hunt from the
planned activities is expected mainly from sounds generated by sonar
equipment. Due to the timing of the project and the distance from the
surrounding communities, there will be no effects on spring harvesting
and little or no effects on the occasional summer harvest of beluga and
subsistence seal hunts (ringed and spotted seals are primarily
harvested in winter while bearded seals are hunted during July-
September in the Beaufort Sea). The community of Nuiqsut may begin fall
whaling activities in late August to early September from Cross Island
(northwest of the survey area).
Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence
Hunts
(1) Plan of Cooperation
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.
Hilcorp has prepared a POC and is currently establishing a dialogue
to coordinate activities with the villages.
[[Page 39075]]
The POC includes the aforementioned mitigation measures and includes
plans for and results of meetings with Alaska Native communities. In
addition, Hilcorp has conducted the following meetings and visits to
subsistence communities to discuss mitigation and monitoring measures
to achieve no unmitigable impacts to subsistence activities.
December 2, 2014: Open house at Kisik Community Center in
Nuiqsut, Alaska.
December 2, 2014: Kuukpik Subsistence Oversight Panel
Leadership meeting at Kisik Community Center in Nuiqsut, Alaska.
January 8, 2015: Meeting with Uum's Consulting, LLC in
Anchorage, Alaska.
January 12, 2015: Native Village of Barrow Meeting at the
Native Village of Barrow Conference Room in Barrow, Alaska.
January 12, 2015: North Slope Borough Mayor's Office
Meeting in Barrow, Alaska.
January 12, 2015: North Slope Borough Planning Department
Meeting in Barrow, Alaska.
January 12, 2015: North Slope Borough Wildlife Department
and Barrow Whaling Captain's Meeting at the Top of the World Hotel in
Barrow, Alaska.
January 13, 2015: Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission meeting
at the Top of the World Hotel in Barrow, Alaska.
January 13, 2015: Native Village of Nuiqsut meeting in
Nuiqsut, Alaska.
January 13, 2015: Nuiqsut Whaling Captain's meeting at
Kuukpik Hotel in Nuiqsut, Alaska.
January 13, 2015: Kuukpik Corporation meeting at Kuukpik
Corporation Conference Room in Nuiqsut, Alaska.
January 14, 2015: City of Kaktovik meeting at the City of
Kaktovik Community Center in Kaktovik, Alaska.
January 14, 2015: Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation meeting at
the Kaktovik Inupiaq Corporation Conference Room in Kaktovik, Alaska.
January 14, 2015: Kaktovik Whaling Captain's meeting at
Marsh Creek Hotel in Kaktovik, Alaska.
Any subsistence discussions are documented along with meeting
minutes, and are provided to the NMFS as part of the POC. Additional
pre-season meetings maybe planned if needed to address additional
requests for coordination.
(2) Stakeholder Engagement
Hilcorp has signed a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) intended to
minimize potential interference with bowhead subsistence hunting.
Hilcorp has attended and participated in the CAA meetings scheduled in
2015. The CAA describes measures to minimize any adverse effects on the
availability of bowhead whales for subsistence uses.
The North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management (NSB-DWM)
was consulted, and the project was also presented to the NSB Planning
Commission in January 2015. The following are measures that Hilcorp
will take to reduce impacts to the subsistence community:
Hilcorp will comply with the CAA terms to address plans to
meet with the affected community to resolve conflicts and notify the
communities of any changes in the operation.
Inupiat Marine Mammal Observers on board the vessels are
tasked with looking out for whales and other marine mammals in the
vicinity of the vessel to assist the vessel captain in avoiding harm to
whales and other marine mammals.
Vessels will be operated in a manner to avoid areas where
species that are sensitive to noise or movement are concentrated at
times when such species are concentrated.
Communications and conflict resolution are detailed in the
CAA. Hilcorp is planning to participate in the Communications Center
that is operated annually during the bowhead subsistence hunt.
Communications with the villages of Barrow, Kaktovik, and
Nuiqsut--discuss community questions or concerns including all
subsistence hunting activities.
(3) Future Plan of Cooperation Consultations
Hilcorp plans to engage with the relevant subsistence communities
regarding its future Beaufort Sea activities. With regard to the 2015
Liberty Unit shallow geohazard survey project, Hilcorp will present the
data on marine mammal sightings and the results of the marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation as part of our 90-day report to the
regulatory authorities.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS considers that these mitigation measures, including measures
to reduce overall impacts to marine mammals in the vicinity of the
proposed shallow geohazard survey area and measures to mitigate any
potential adverse effects on subsistence use of marine mammals, are
adequate to ensure subsistence use of marine mammals in the vicinity of
Hilcorp's proposed survey in the Beaufort Sea.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the prescribed mitigation and
monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an
unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from Hilcorp's
activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There are two marine mammal species listed as endangered under the
ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the project area: the
bowhead whale and ringed seal. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division
initiated consultation with NMFS' Endangered Species Division under
section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to Hilcorp under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. In June 2015, NMFS finished
conducting its section 7 consultation and issued a Biological Opinion
concluding that the issuance of the IHA associated with Hilcorp's
shallow geohazard survey in the Beaufort Sea during the 2015 open-water
season is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
endangered bowhead, humpback and the threatened Arctic sub-species of
ringed seal. No critical habitat has been designated for these species,
therefore none will be affected.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS prepared an EA that includes an analysis of potential
environmental effects associated with NMFS' issuance of an IHA to
Hilcorp to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a shallow
geohazard survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. NMFS has finalized the EA
and prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact for this action.
Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not
necessary. NMFS' draft EA was available to the public for a 30-day
comment period before it was finalized.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to
Hilcorp for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment,
incidental to conducting a shallow geohazard survey in the Beaufort Sea
during the 2015 open-water season, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
[[Page 39076]]
Dated: June 30, 2015.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16521 Filed 7-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P