[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40016-40037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16966]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD782
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Seismic 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 SAExploration, Inc. (SAE)
to take, by harassment, small numbers of marine mammals incidental to a
marine 3-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) seismic survey
program in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, during the 2015 Arctic open-water
season.
DATES: Effective July 1, 2015, through October 15, 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.
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].
[[Page 40017]]
Summary of Request
On December 2, 2014, NMFS received an application from SAE for the
taking of marine mammals incidental to a 3D ocean bottom node (OBN)
seismic survey program in the Beaufort Sea. After receiving NMFS
comments, SAE made revisions and updated its IHA application on
December 5, 2014, January 21, 2015, January 29, 2015, and again on
February 16, 2015. In addition, NMFS received the marine mammal
mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) from SAE on December 2, 2014, with
an updated version on January 29, 2015. NMFS determined that the
application and the 4MP were adequate and complete on February 17,
2015.
SAE proposes to conduct 3D OBN seismic surveys in the state and
federal waters of the U.S. Beaufort Sea during the 2015 Arctic open-
water season. The proposed activity would occur between July 1 and
October 15, 2015. The actual seismic survey is expected to take
approximately 70 days, dependent on weather. The following specific
aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of
marine mammals: Seismic airgun operations and associated navigation
sonar and vessel movements. Takes, by Level A and/or Level B
Harassments, of individuals of six species of marine mammals are
anticipated to result from the specified activity.
SAE also conducted OBN seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea in the
2014 Arctic open-water season (79 FR 51963; September 2, 2014).
Detailed descriptions of SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey program are
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (80 FR
20084; April 14, 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 seismic
survey program.
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to SAE was published in
the Federal Register on April 14, 2015 (80 FR 20084). That notice
described in detail SAE'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 only one comment
letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). All comments are
addressed in this section of the Federal Register notice.
Comment 1: The Commission points out that information regarding the
specific areas that would be surveyed by SAE, or specific times of year
for the survey, was not available as part of the proposed incidental
harassment authorization. The Commission recommends that, prior to
issuing the IHA, NMFS require SAE to determine what areas it will
survey and when, in order to ensure that the proposed survey area and
associated numbers of takes are consistent with what NMFS plans to
authorize and, if they are not, amend the numbers of takes accordingly.
Response: Although a specific survey area for SAE's proposed 3D OBN
seismic survey has not been determined, and probably will be remain
confidential until the beginning of the survey, the potential area is
known and all scenarios of the proposed survey have been considered and
evaluated for impact assessment. As described in the Federal Register
notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015) for the proposed IHA, the worst-
case scenario related to location (with the highest animal density) is
taken into consideration for the analysis of the marine mammal impacts.
Comment 2: The Commission points out that the total survey area for
the project, 777 km\2\, appears low since it equates to roughly four
times the size of each recording patch (192 km\2\). The Commission
further notes that SAE has indicated that each patch would take about
four days to shoot, which means that if the proposed total survey are
of 777 km\2\ is indeed accurate, SAE would be able to shoot that area
within 16 days instead of 49 days.
Response: The Commission has confused shot patch size (192 km\2\)
and recording patch size (19.4 km\2\). The shot patches greatly overlap
with one another, while the recorder patches do not. Considering the
tremendous overlap in shot area between adjacent patches, no more than
777 km\2\ will be shot under this authorization, although many areas
will be shot more than once. It actually would take much longer than 49
days if SAE wanted to completely survey the entire777 km\2\.
Comment 3: The Commission states that it is concerned that the
method used by SAE and NMFS to estimate numbers of takes is based on
the total ensonified area rather than the area expected to be
ensonified on a daily basis, as is standard for a moving sound source.
The Commission recommends that NMFS use the method of area times
density times the number of survey days to estimate the total number of
Level A and B harassment takes for each of the marine mammal species
expected to be in the project area.
Response: Despite that in most cases monitoring reports from 3D
seismic surveys showed that take numbers, based on observation with
adjustment to count for animals missed, are usually under or closely
reflect the take estimates using a simple method of multiplying the
total ensonified area by animal density, NMFS recognizes that such
method has its limitation of not considering animal movement into the
area on different days. The Commission's recommended method of area
times density times the number of survey days provides an appropriate
estimated of the instances of take, but often overestimates the number
of individuals taken, because in many circumstances individual animals
would be repeatedly taken. Except in rare cases when animals are
migrating through the ensonified area, the ``instances'' of take
generated by this method are higher than the individuals taken, given
that in many cases marine mammals are using local habitat for multiple
days and will be taken multiple times--and therefore, additional work
may be needed to identify the likely numbers individuals taken to
compare to the population size. NMFS is exploring new methodologies to
calculate take estimates by accounting for daily ensonified area, days
of the project, as well as the averaged rates of animal moving in/out
of the survey area, prior monitoring report data, and other applicable
information, if available. In the case of SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey,
NMFS recalculated take numbers using daily ensonified area multiplied
by project days multiplied by animal density and then adjusted the
turnover rates based on species movement patterns and home ranges. A
detailed description of the take estimates and the methodology are
provided in section ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' below.
Comment 4: The Commission notes that NMFS is proposing to authorize
the incidental taking of marine mammals by Level A harassment under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, instead of through regulations under
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. The Commission states that
authorizing Level A harassment under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
would be inconsistent with the intent of the MMPA. The Commission
recommends that NMFS (1) develop criteria for determining when taking
by Level A harassment should be authorized (i.e., types of sound
sources, project locations, species, effectiveness of mitigation
measures) and (2) authorize any such takes through regulation under
[[Page 40018]]
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and a letter of authorization rather than
through an incidental harassment authorization. The Commission further
states that it would welcome an opportunity to discuss the development
of such criteria with NMFS.
Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission's statement that
Level A harassment cannot be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA. The legal requirements and underlying analysis for the
issuance of a take authorization (i.e., an IHA) in this particular case
do not require the issuance of regulations and a letter of
authorization. In order to issue an authorization pursuant to section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must determine that the taking by
harassment (Level A and Level B) of small numbers of marine mammal
species or stocks will have a negligible impact on affected species or
stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of affected species or stocks for taking for subsistence
uses. Potential impact on marine mammals incidental to SAE's 3D seismic
survey would be limited to harassments only. Therefore, the issuance of
an IHA to SAE under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA meets the legal
requirements stated above. However, if there were a potential for
serious injury or mortality, NMFS could not issue an IHA. Instead, any
incidental take authorization would need to be processed under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
As described here and in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084;
April 14, 2015) for the proposed IHA, permanent hearing threshold shift
(PTS) is considered to be injury (Level A Harassment), not serious
injury or mortality. Therefore, it is appropriate to issue an
incidental take authorization under 101(a)(5)(D), as we have made the
necessary findings (described elsewhere in this document) under that
section of the MMPA.
NMFS agrees with the Commission that criteria for determining when
taking by Level A harassment should be authorized (i.e., types of sound
sources, project locations, species, effectiveness of mitigation
measures) will enhance the analysis of marine mammal incidental takes
under MMPA, and appreciates the Commission's willingness to be involved
in such a process.
Comment 5: The Commission notes that NMFS has proposed that SAE
conduct in-situ sound source measurements for the 1,240-in\3\ airgun
array to ensure accurate characterization of the Level A and B
harassment zones for that sound source. The Commission recommends that
NMFS verify that any adjustments to the size of the Level A and/or B
harassment zones, based on in-situ measurements, are accurate before
such adjustments are made.
Response: SAE is required to conduct in-situ sound source
measurements for the 1,240-in\3\ airgun array before the commencement
of its 3D seismic surveys. The Commission did not specify a method for
how the in-situ measurements should be verified. Nevertheless, NMFS
will evaluate the empirically measured exclusion zone and zone of
influence based on comparable measurements of similar airguns in
similar environment before agreeing that SAE should adopt the measured
zones for monitoring and mitigation measures.
Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS require that SAE
refrain from initiating or cease seismic activities if an aggregation
of bowhead or gray whales (i.e., 12 or more whales of any age/sex class
that appear to be engaged in a non-migratory, significant biological
behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing)) is observed within the Level B
harassment Zone.
Response: NMFS discussed the Commission's recommendation with SAE
and SAE agrees to refrain from initiating or to cease seismic
activities if an aggregation of bowhead or gray whales (i.e., 12 or
more whales of any age/sex class that appear to be engaged in a non-
migratory, significant biological behavior (e.g., feeding,
socializing)) is observed within the Level B harassment Zone.
Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS encourage SAE to
coordinate with other operators and researchers who may be conducting
aerial surveys with the goal that information collected during those
surveys will assist SAE in monitoring pinnipeds use of haul-out sites
before, during, and after SAE's planned seismic survey.
Response: NMFS discussed the Commission's recommendation with SAE
and encouraged SAE to coordinate with other operations and researchers
who may be conducting aerial surveys. SAE responded that they attempted
to coordinate with other companies last year for spotted seal
monitoring, but none agreed to cooperate. In addition, at this point it
is unclear whether any other companies in the Beaufort Sea may be
conducting pinnipeds haul-out aerial surveys in the 2015 open-water
season. Nevertheless, NMFS encourages SAE again to seek cooperation
with other companies who may be conducting aerial surveys with the goal
that information collected during those surveys will assist SAE in
monitoring pinnipeds use of haul-out sites before, during, and after
SAE's planned seismic survey.
Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS incorporate the
peer-review panel's recommendations into the final authorization and,
if necessary, consult with personnel directly associated with
implementing passive acoustic monitoring to ensure that the monitoring
objectives are able to be met.
Response: NMFS conducted a peer review process to evaluate SAE's
monitoring plan in early March 2015 in Anchorage, AK. The peer review
panel submitted its report to NMFS in early April and provided
recommendations to SAE. NMFS worked with SAE extensively on these
recommendations. As a result, NMFS requires and SAE agrees to implement
the following recommendations from the peer-review panel: (1)
Conducting sound source verification (SSV) if SAE plans to use the
1,240 in\3\ airgun array for seismic survey; (2) including an
additional mitigation vessel for marine mammal monitoring if SAE plans
to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array; (3) deploying more acoustic
sensors than the 2014 season for passive acoustic monitoring; (4)
testing a new mooring design with NMFS National Marine Mammal
Laboratory for micro Marine Autonomous Recording System (microMARS) to
be deployed in shallow water; (5) including sightability curves in the
90-day report; and (6) making monitoring data available for valid
scientific reasons and request.
In addition, though not solicited as part of the independent peer
review of the monitoring, the peer-review panel also provided a number
of mitigation measures which, upon discussion with SAE, the company
agreed to limit the mitigation airgun shot interval to 1 shot per
minute. However, SAE could not agree to the ramp up of 1 airgun per 5
minutes, as opposed to standard protocol of doubling the number of
airguns every five minutes. SAE states that the recommended ramp up
protocol is cost prohibitive.
A detailed description of peer-review process, peer-review
recommendations, and NMFS' discussion with SAE regarding implementation
of the recommendations is provided in ``Monitoring Plan Peer Review''
section below.
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
[[Page 40019]]
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 Seismic Survey Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Status 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 Chukchi --............... -..................... Common................ Mostly spring Mostly Chukchi 3,710
Sea stock). and fall with Sea.
some in summer.
Killer whale **............... Orcinus orca..... -..................... Occasional/ Mostly summer California to 552
Extralimital. and early fall. Alaska.
Harbor porpoise **............ Phocoena phocoena -..................... Occasional/ Mostly summer California to 48,215
Extralimital. and early fall. Alaska.
Narwhal **.................... Monodon monoceros -..................... ...................... ................ ................ 45,358
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale *............... Balaena Endangered; Depleted.. Common................ Mostly spring Russia to Canada 19,534
mysticetus. and fall with
some in summer.
Gray whale.................... Eschrichtius -..................... Somewhat common....... Mostly summer... Mexico to the 19,126
robustus. U.S. Arctic
Ocean.
Minke whale **................ Balaenoptera -..................... ...................... ................ ................ 810-1,003
acutorostrata.
Humpback whale * ** (Central Megaptera Endangered; Depleted.. ...................... ................ ................ 21,063
North Pacific stock). novaeangliae.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bearded seal (Beringia Erigathus Candidate............. Common................ Spring and Bering, Chukchi, 155,000
distinct population segment). barbatus. summer. and Beaufort
Seas.
Ringed seal * (Arctic stock).. Phoca hispida.... Threatened; Depleted.. Common................ Year round...... Bering, Chukchi, 300,000
and Beaufort
Seas.
Spotted seal.................. Phoca largha..... -..................... Common................ Summer.......... Japan to U.S. 141,479
Arctic Ocean.
Ribbon seal **................ Histriophoca Species of concern.... Occasional............ Summer.......... Russia to U.S. 49,000
fasciata. Arctic Ocean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Species or stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act.
** 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 proposed IHA notice. Both the walrus and the
[[Page 40020]]
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 Notice of Proposed IHA.
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 found in SAE'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 airgun arrays,
navigational sonars, and vessel activities have the potential for
adverse effects on marine mammals. Potential effects from SAE's 3D OBN
seismic surveys 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 20084; April 14, 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 airguns and vessels
and their effects on marine mammal prey species. These potential
effects from SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey are discussed in the
``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section of the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (80 FR 20084; April 14, 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 SAE open-water 3D OBN seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea,
NMFS is requiring SAE 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 airgun(s).
Besides the mitigation measures that were proposed in the Federal
Register notice (80 FR 20084; March 14, 2015), NMFS included two
additional measures that require SAE (1) refrain from initiating or
cease seismic activities if an aggregation of bowhead or gray whales
(i.e., 12 or more whales of any age/sex class that appear to be engaged
in a non-migratory, significant biological behavior (e.g., feeding,
socializing)) is observed within the Level B harassment zone; and (2)
operate a mitigation airgun at a rate of 1 shot per minute. A detailed
discussion of the mitigation measures are provided below.
(1) 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.
In 2014, Heath et al. (2014) conducted a sound source verification
(SSV) of the very same 620-in\3\ array SAE plans to use in 2015. The
SSV was conducted in generally the same survey area of SAE's planned
2015 work. They empirically determined that the distances to the 190,
180, and 160 dB isopleths for sound pressure levels emanating from the
620-in\3\ array was 195, 635, and 1,820 m, respectively (Table 3).
Heath et al. (2014) also measured sound pressure levels from an active
10-in\3\ gun during SAE's 2014 Beaufort operations and found noise
levels exceeding 190 dB extended out 54 m, exceeding 180 dB out to 188
m, and exceeding 160 dB out to 1,050 m (Table 2).
Sound source studies have not been done for the 1,240-in\3\ array;
however, Austin and Warner (2013) conducted a sound source verification
of a 1,200-in\3\ array operated by SAE in Cook Inlet found the radius
to the 190 dB isopleth to be 250 m, to the 180 dB isopleth to be 910 m,
and to the 160 dB isopleth to be 5,200 m. These are the distance values
SAE intends to use before the SSV for the 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays are
obtained before the survey. If SAE plans to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun
arrays, SSV of these zones will be empirically measured before the 2015
open-water seismic survey for monitoring and mitigation measures.
Table 2--Summary of Airgun Array Source Levels and Proposed Exclusion Zone and Zones of Influence Radii
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level 190 dB radius 180 dB radius 160 dB radius
Array size (in\3\) (dB) (m) (m) (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.............................................. 195 54 188 1,050
620............................................. 218 195 635 1,820
1,240 *......................................... 224 250 910 5,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes modelled source level that need to be empirically measured before the seismic survey.
[[Page 40021]]
(2) Vessel Related Mitigation Measures
These mitigation measures apply to all vessels that are part of
SAE's Beaufort Sea seismic survey activities, including supporting
vessels.
Avoid concentrations or groups of whales. Operators of
vessels should, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum
distance possible from such concentrations or groups of whales.
If any vessel approaches within 1.6 km (1 mi) of observed
whales, except when providing emergency assistance to whalers or in
other emergency situations, the vessel operator will take reasonable
precautions to avoid potential interaction with the whales by taking
one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
[cir] Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 300 yards
(900 feet or 274 m) of the whale(s);
[cir] Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
[cir] Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
[cir] Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make
multiple changes in direction; and
[cir] Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to
ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
Reduce vessel speed, not to exceed 5 knots, when weather
conditions require, such as when visibility drops, to avoid the
likelihood of injury to whales.
(3) Mitigation Measures for Airgun Operations
The primary requirements for airgun mitigation during the seismic
surveys are to monitor marine mammals near the airgun array during all
daylight airgun operations and during any nighttime start-up of the
airguns and, if any marine mammals are observed, to adjust airgun
operations, as necessary, according to the mitigation measures
described below. During the seismic surveys, Protected Species
Observers (PSOs) will monitor the pre-established exclusion zones for
the presence of marine mammals. When marine mammals are observed
within, or about to enter, designated safety zones, PSOs have the
authority to call for immediate power down (or shutdown) of airgun
operations, as required by the situation. A summary of the procedures
associated with each mitigation measure is provided below.
Ramp Up Procedure
A ramp up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound
levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total
volume of airguns firing until the full volume is achieved. The purpose
of a ramp up (or ``soft start'') is to ``warn'' cetaceans and pinnipeds
in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide time for them to leave
the area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their
hearing abilities.
During the open-water survey program, the seismic operator will
ramp up the airgun arrays slowly. Full ramp ups (i.e., from a cold
start after a shutdown, when no airguns have been firing) will begin by
firing a single airgun in the array (i.e., the mitigation airgun). A
full ramp up, after a shutdown, will not begin until there has been a
minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the safety zone by PSOs to
assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire exclusion zone
must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If the
entire exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp up from a cold start
cannot begin. If a marine mammal is sighted within the exclusion zone
during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp up, ramp up will be delayed
until the marine mammal is sighted outside of the exclusion zone or the
animal is not sighted for at least 15 minutes, for small odontocetes
(harbor porpoise) and pinnipeds, or 30 minutes, for baleen whales and
large odontocetes (including beluga and killer whales and narwhal).
Use of a Small-Volume Airgun During Turns and Transits
Throughout the seismic survey, during turning movements and short
transits, SAE will employ the use of the smallest-volume airgun (i.e.,
``mitigation airgun'') to deter marine mammals from being within the
immediate area of the seismic operations. The mitigation airgun will be
operated at approximately one shot per minute and will not be operated
for longer than three hours in duration (turns may last two to three
hours for the project).
During turns or brief transits (i.e., less than three hours)
between seismic tracklines, one mitigation airgun will continue
operating. The ramp up procedures described above will be followed when
increasing the source levels from the one mitigation airgun to the full
airgun array. However, keeping one airgun firing during turns and brief
transits will allow SAE to resume seismic surveys using the full array
without having to ramp up from a ``cold start,'' which requires a 30-
minute observation period of the full exclusion zone and is prohibited
during darkness or other periods of poor visibility. PSOs will be on
duty whenever the airguns are firing during daylight and during the 30-
minute periods prior to ramp-ups from a ``cold start.''
Power Down and Shutdown Procedures
A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating
energy sources from all firing to some smaller number (e.g., a single
mitigation airgun). A shutdown is the immediate cessation of firing of
all energy sources. The array will be immediately powered down whenever
a marine mammal is sighted approaching close to or within the
applicable exclusion zone of the full array, but is outside the
applicable exclusion zone of the single mitigation airgun. If a marine
mammal is sighted within or about to enter the applicable exclusion
zone of the single mitigation airgun, the entire array will be shut
down (i.e., no sources firing). In addition, SAE will implement
shutdown measures when aggregations of bowhead whales or gray whales
that appear to be engaged in non-migratory significant biological
behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing) are observed within the 160-dB
harassment zone around the seismic operations.
No Seismic Survey With Presence of Aggregation of Whales
SAE shall refrain from initiating or cease seismic activities if an
aggregation of bowhead or gray whales (i.e., 12 or more whales of any
age/sex class that appear to be engaged in a non-migratory, significant
biological behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing)) is observed within
the Level B harassment Zone.
Poor Visibility Conditions
SAE plans to conduct 24-hour operations. PSOs will not be on duty
during ongoing seismic operations during darkness, given the very
limited effectiveness of visual observation at night (there will be no
periods of darkness in the survey area until mid-August). The
provisions associated with operations at night or in periods of poor
visibility include the following:
If during foggy conditions, heavy snow or rain, or
darkness (which may be encountered starting in late August), the full
180 dB exclusion zone is not visible, the airguns cannot commence a
ramp-up procedure from a full shut-down.
If one or more airguns have been operational before
nightfall or before the onset of poor visibility conditions, they can
remain operational throughout the night or poor visibility conditions.
In this case ramp-up procedures can be initiated, even though the
exclusion
[[Page 40022]]
zone may not be visible, on the assumption that marine mammals will be
alerted by the sounds from the single airgun and have moved away.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated SAE'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 seismic airguns, 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 seismic airguns 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 seismic airguns 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 mitigation measures, NMFS has
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. 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 action area. SAE
submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA
application.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or
more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of
marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, i.e., presence,
abundance, distribution, and/or density of species.
2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or
context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the
potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g., sound or visual
stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following:
The action itself and its environment (e.g., sound source
characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected
species (e.g., life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated
with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or
behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal
(e.g., age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or
feeding areas).
3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine
mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific
stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where
possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).
4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual
responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of
stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an
individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g., through effects
on annual rates of recruitment or survival).
5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects
marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or
acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term
contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels
and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).
6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on
marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic
activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of
mitigation and monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals
(through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within
the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the
mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.
Monitoring Measures
Monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine
mammals potentially affected by the 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.
Visual monitoring by PSOs during seismic 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
[[Page 40023]]
real-time mitigation to prevent impacts to marine mammals by industrial
sounds or operations. Vessel-based PSOs onboard the survey vessels and
mitigation vessel 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.
Besides the monitoring measures that were proposed in the Federal
Register notice (80 FR 20084; March 14, 2015), NMFS included several
additional measures based on the Commission and peer-review
recommendations. These additional monitoring measures include: (1) NMFS
evaluation of empirically measured exclusion zones and zone of
influence before they are adopted; (2) conducting SSV if SAE plans to
use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array for seismic survey; (3) including an
additional mitigation vessel for marine mammal monitoring if SAE plans
to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array; (4) deploying more acoustic
sensors than the 2014 season for passive acoustic monitoring; and (5)
testing a new mooring design with NMFS National Marine Mammal
Laboratory for microMARS to be deployed in shallow water.
Details of the monitoring measures are described below.
Visual-Based PSOs
The visual-based marine mammal monitoring will be implemented by a
team of experienced PSOs, including both biologists and Inupiat
personnel. PSOs will be stationed aboard both survey vessels through
the duration of the project. The vessel-based marine mammal monitoring
will provide the basis for real-time mitigation measures as discussed
in the Mitigation Measures section. In addition, monitoring results of
the vessel-based monitoring program will include the estimation of the
number of ``takes'' as stipulated in the IHA.
(1) 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.''
A total of 2 PSOs will be required onboard each survey vessel to
meet the following criteria:
100% monitoring coverage during all periods of survey
operations in daylight;
At least two PSOs conducting vessel-based visual
monitoring from both vessels during all time;
Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
Maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
PSO teams will consist of Inupiat observers and experienced field
biologists. Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to
supervise the PSO team. The total number of PSOs may decrease later in
the season as the duration of daylight decreases.
(2) PSO Role and Responsibilities
When onboard the seismic and support vessels, there are three major
parts to the PSO position:
Observe and record sensitive wildlife species;
Ensure mitigation procedures are followed accordingly; and
Follow monitoring and data collection procedures.
The main roles of the PSO and the monitoring program are to ensure
compliance with requirements set in place by NMFS to ensure that
disturbance of marine mammals is minimized, and potential effects on
marine mammals are documented. The PSOs will implement the monitoring
and mitigation measures specified in the IHA. The primary purposes of
the PSOs on board of the vessels are:
Mitigation: Implement mitigation clearing and ramp up
measures, observe for and detect marine mammals within, or about to
enter the applicable safety zone and implement necessary shut down,
power down and speed/course alteration mitigation procedures when
applicable. Advise marine crew of mitigation procedures.
Monitoring: Observe for marine mammals and determine
numbers of marine mammals exposed to sound pulses and their reactions
(where applicable) and document those as required.
(3) Observer Qualifications and Training
Crew leaders and most 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.
Biologist-observers will have previous marine mammal observation
experience, and field crew leaders will be highly experienced with
previous vessel-based marine mammal monitoring and mitigation projects.
Resumes for those individuals 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 NMFS-approved observer training
course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data
collection procedures.
PSOs will complete a 2- or 3-day training and refresher session on
marine mammal monitoring, to be conducted shortly before the
anticipated start of the 2015 open-water season. Any exceptions will
have or receive equivalent experience or training. The training
session(s) will be conducted by qualified marine mammalogists with
extensive crew-leader experience during previous vessel-based seismic
monitoring programs.
(4) Marine Mammal Observer Protocol
Source vessels will employ PSOs to identify marine mammals during
all hours of airgun operations. To better observe the exclusion zone, a
lead PSO, one or two PSOs, and an Inupiaq communicator will be on the
primary source vessel and two PSOs will be stationed aboard the
secondary source vessel. (The total number of observers is limited by
available berthing space aboard the vessels.) The three to four total
observers aboard the primary source vessel will allow two observers
simultaneously on watch during daylight hours.
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 airgun or pinger operations after an extended shutdown. Marine
mammal monitoring shall continue throughout airgun operations and last
for 30 minutes after the finish of airgun firing. SAE vessel crew and
operations personnel will also watch for marine mammals, as practical,
to assist and alert the PSOs for the airgun(s) to be shut down if
marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the exclusion zone.
The PSOs will watch for marine mammals from the best available
vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge. The PSOs
will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle
binoculars
[[Page 40024]]
(e.g., 7 x 50 and 16-40 x 80) and with the naked eye. Laser range
finders (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be
available to assist with distance estimation.
The observers will give particular attention to the areas within
the marine mammal exclusion zones around the source vessels. These
zones are the maximum distances within which received levels may exceed
180 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for cetaceans, or 190 dB (rms) re 1
[mu]Pa for pinnipeds.
When a marine mammal is seen approaching or within the exclusion
zone applicable to that species, the seismic survey crew will be
notified immediately so that mitigation measures called for in the
applicable authorization(s) can be implemented.
Night-vision equipment (Generation 3 binocular image intensifiers
or equivalent units) will be available for use if and when needed. Past
experience with night-vision devices (NVDs) in the Beaufort Sea and
elsewhere has indicated that NVDs are not nearly as effective as visual
observation during daylight hours (e.g., Harris et al. 1997, 1998;
Moulton and Lawson 2002).
(5) Dedicated Monitoring Vessel
If SAE decides to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array, an additional
dedicated visual monitoring vessel will be employed to assist marine
mammal monitoring due to the larger exclusion zones and zone of
influence from this larger airgun array. A minimum of 2 PSOs will be
positioned on this dedicated monitoring vessel.
(6) Field Data-Recording
The PSOs will record field observation data and information about
marine mammal sightings that 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 source and
mitigation vessels, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare;
and
Positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity.
Acoustic Monitoring
(1) Sound Source Measurements
Since the same airgun array of 620 in\3\ and a single mitigation
airgun of 10 in\3\ to be used were empirically measured in the
generally same seismic survey vicinity in 2014 (Heath 2014), NMFS does
not think additional SSV tests for this array and a single airgun are
necessary for the 2015 seismic survey. However, if SAE decides to use
the 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays for deeper water, SSV on these arrays is
required before the commencement of the surveys. Results of the
acoustic characterization and SSV will be used to establish the 190 dB,
180 dB, 170 dB, and 160 dB isopleths for the 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays.
The results of the SSV will be submitted to NMFS within five days
after completing the measurements, followed by a report to be submitted
within 14 days after completion of the measurements. A more detailed
report will be provided to NMFS as part of the required 90-day report
following completion of the acoustic program.
NMFS will evaluate the empirically measured exclusion zones and
zone of influence from the 1,240 in\3\ before they are formally
established for mitigation and monitoring measures.
(2) Passive Acoustic Monitoring
SAE will conduct Passive Acoustical Monitoring (PAM) using
microMARS. These sensors will be deployed on the seabed and will record
continuously at 64 kHz sample rate and 16-bit samples. The recorders
will be calibrated and their mooring designs tested prior to
deployment.
PAM Deployment
Passive acoustic monitoring package will be deployed at the four
corners of SAE's survey site. Each PAM package will include two
microMARS units coupled with an ARC-1 release device, a float and a
retrievable mooring. Deploying two microMARS at each monitoring
location will allow redundancy in the system to reduce the likelihood
of failures and/or data loss.
PAM will be deployed before the SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey
and remain at the study site during the entire survey period.
Data Analysis
Acoustic data will be analyzed for two frequency bands, low (below
2 kHz for baleen whales and low-frequency noise) and high (2 kHz-32 kHz
for beluga whales and high-frequency noise). This will allow sounds
produced by different species and anthropogenic sources to be reviewed
and analyzed in greater detail. Specialized acoustic review and
analysis software, Trition will be used to create long-term spectral
averages (LTSAs) for all acoustic files downloaded from the recorders.
Once LTSAs of all the acoustic data have been created and
preliminarily reviewed, experienced bioacoustic data analysts will
perform a detailed review of the data. Analysts will log the time of
occurrence of all biological sounds, seismic source events (if
audible), and other relevant acoustic signals (e.g. ships, small boats,
and other noise events). Combined event log data will then be organized
into tables to provide summaries including (1) the number and type of
acoustic events; (2) the number of days each event occurred at each
site; and (3) event durations for each deployment and site. Graphs of
daily event occurrence will be made for each identified marine mammal
species that have sufficient data to plot. Graphs of the percentage of
time for which signals from each species were detected with respect to
total recording time at each site will be plotted by species.
Noise analysis will be performed on all recorded acoustic data.
Sound levels will be measured for full and octave frequency bands. This
analysis will be conducted using automated algorithms that measure
root-mean-square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) each octave bands.
These results will be averaged both hourly and daily to provide a
synoptic representation of the ambient noise levels present at each
location for each of the different frequency bands measured.
Monitoring Plan Peer Review
The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer
reviewed ``where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses'' (16 U.S.C.
1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this requirement, NMFS' implementing
regulations state, ``Upon receipt of a complete monitoring plan, and at
its discretion, [NMFS] will either submit the plan to members of a peer
review panel for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed
monitoring plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan'' (50 CFR
216.108(d)).
NMFS established an independent peer review panel to review SAE's
4MP for the proposed 3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. The panel
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.
[[Page 40025]]
NMFS provided the panel with SAE'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 SAE' monitoring plans. The
peer-review panel believed that the objectives for both vessel-based
and passive acoustic monitoring were appropriate. The panel also agreed
that the objectives of real-time mitigation of potential disturbance of
marine mammals would be mostly met through visual monitoring. However,
there are some limitations associated with PSOs' ability to monitor the
entire safety radii at all times. Specific panel recommendations are
provided below.
(1) If SAE decides to use the larger airgun array (i.e., the 1,240
in\3\ array), SAE should conduct sound source verification;
(2) SAE should have an additional observer on the secondary source
vessel such that at least two observers are on watch during all
daylight hours;
(3) If SAE uses the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array and the measured
safety radii (exclusion zones) in the Beaufort Sea are similar to the
measurement done in Cook Inlet (250 m for 190 dB and 910 m for 180 dB),
SAE should have a dedicated scout (monitoring) vessel with at least 2
PSOs to monitor the 180 dB exclusion zone (910 m);
(4) If the seismic surveys are offshore, more acoustic sensors are
needed at more locations than what is presented by SAE at the peer-
review meeting (one sensor at each of the four corners);
(5) microMARS used for PAM should be deployed well before the
seismic surveys begin in order to collect baseline data before all the
vessels are operative in the area and the airgun arrays begin
operating;
(6) SAE should develop a more compact mooring design for microMARS
that are deployed in shallow waters, particularly because of the
compact size of these recorders;
(7) Additional testing to be conducted to verify PAM recorders'
performance due to the limited or non-existent field experience in long
term deployments and cold Arctic waters;
(8) Improve the effectiveness of monitoring by using Unmanned
Aerial Systems for monitoring of marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea;
(9) Provide information in the reports about how the detections
obtained by the microMARS are ground-truthed;
(10) Acoustic characteristics of the identified noise sources be
included in the reports to provide a better understanding of source
levels and the robustness of SSV results, and other acoustic
characteristics of the seismic survey equipment, such as spectral
content, and received levels in different metrics such as RMS dB, cSEL
24h, dB peak to peak, and 1/3 octave bands;
(11) Sightability curves be included in the reports as much as
possible;
(12) Coordinate and collaborate with other companies (such as
Caelus and Repsol) for monitoring the aggregated effects of all their
activities on spotted seals, especially animals that may be haulted
out; and
(13) Continue to make all environmental data (including PSO
observations, acoustic monitoring, vessel track lines and timing of
operations) available to the general public.
In addition, though not solicited as part of the independent peer
review of the monitoring, the peer review panel also recommended the
following mitigation measures:
(1) SAE should limit seismic operations at night or during periods
of low visibility because PSOs' ability to detect marine mammals
entering the safety zone is limited;
(2) If a bowhead whale mother/calf pair or an aggregation of three
or more bowhead whales are sighted within the Level B harassment zone
prior to the onset of night or during that day, SAE could be more
cautious during darkness based on the potential risk to marine mammals.
If the risk is relatively high, it might be decided that airguns should
be shut down for the night;
(3) SAE should not use a mitigation gun for longer than one hour,
which is the equivalent amount of time for surveying the safety radii
plus ramp up; and
(4) Mitigation gun should be shot only once every minute instead of
every few seconds.
NMFS discussed the peer review panel report and the list of
recommendations with SAE. For the aforementioned monitoring measures,
NMFS requires and SAE agrees to implement the following:
(1) Conducting sound source verification if the 1,240 in\3\ airgun
array is used in the proposed 3D seismic survey;
(2) Mobilizing a dedicated scout (monitoring) vessel with at least
2 PSOs onboard to monitor the 180 dB exclusion zone (910 m) if the SSV
test show that the 180 dB radius of the exclusion zone from the 1,240
in\3\ airgun array is 910 m or larger;
(3) Deploying microMARS used for PAM at least three days before the
seismic surveys till three days after the seismic survey in order to
collect data for comparing the sound field before, during, and after
the seismic survey;
(4) Deploying two microMARS units at each of the four corners
(total of 8 microMARS units);
(5) Developing a more compact mooring design for microMARS that are
deployed in shallow waters, particularly because of the compact size of
these recorders;
(6) Conducting tests and calibration to verify PAM recorders'
performance prior to deployment;
(7) Including sightability curves in the 90-day report;
(8) Making all environmental data (including PSO observations,
acoustic monitoring, vessel track lines and timing of operations)
available for valid scientific research.
In addition, NMFS worked with SAE on the following 5 of the panel
recommendations and determined that these will also be required in the
IHA issued to SAE with clarification and certain modifications to make
them practicable for implementation. These measures are listed below:
(1) Regarding the number of PSOs onboard the secondary source
vessel, this is to clarify that SAE plans to have two PSOs on both
source vessels, and they will be working on a shift described earlier
in the ``Monitoring Measure'' section of this document. Therefore, at
any given time, there will be 2 PSOs monitoring from both source
vessels. NMFS notes that the number of
[[Page 40026]]
PSOs is limited by the available berth on the seismic vessel. The
source vessels SAE plan to use are small, and therefore, could only
afford maximum of 2 PSOs onboard each vessel.
(2) Regarding ground-truth information in the reports about
microMARS detection, SAE states that it should be able to identify
bowhead and beluga calls from acoustic recordings. However, SAE states
that it will be difficult to identify pinniped calls for species
identification at distances, especially at the locations where the
microMARS are deployed there will be no PSOs on watch to verify the
calling animals. Therefore, ground-truth of acoustic data to specific
species calls would not be possible. Nevertheless, as stated earlier,
SAE will make the acoustic data available to researchers who are
interested in studies that will shed light on marine mammal call
identification.
(3) Regarding acoustic characteristics of the identified noise
sources, and other acoustic characteristics of the seismic survey
equipment, such as spectral content, and received levels in different
metrics such as RMS dB, cSEL 24h, dB peak to peak, and 1/3 octave
bands, SAE will work with its contractor to characterize the identified
noise sources as much as possible within the limits of the microMARS.
However, SAE states that some of the requested data analysis would
require knowing not only the real-time distance of each noise sources,
but the aspect (e.g., forward, endfire) of the array as well. SAE
states that for cost reasons, SAE cannot afford extended acoustic
analysis beyond identified source characterization. Nevertheless, SAE
will make the acoustic data available to researchers who are interested
in additional studies of the noise field from data collected by SAE. In
the IHA issued to SAE, NMFS requires that SAE at least perform basic
acoustic characteristics of the identified noise sources that include
spectral content and received levels in different metrics such as RMS
dB, cSEL 24h, dB peak to peak, and 1/3 octave bands.
(4) Regarding coordinating and collaborating with other companies
(such as Caelus and Repsol) for monitoring the aggregated effects of
all their activities on spotted seals, especially animals that may be
haulted out, SAE responded that they attempted to coordinate with other
companies last year for spotted seal monitoring, but none agreed to
cooperate. In addition, at this point it is unclear whether any other
companies in the Beaufort Sea may be conducting pinnipeds haul-out
aerial surveys in the 2015 open-water season. Nevertheless, NMFS
encourages SAE again to seek cooperation with other companies who may
be conducting aerial surveys with the goal that information collected
during those surveys will assist SAE in monitoring pinnipeds use of
haul-out sites before, during, and after SAE's planned seismic survey.
The only recommendation from the peer-review panel SAE is not able
to implement is the utilization of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for
monitoring of marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea for marine mammal
monitoring. The major reason for this is that using UAS for marine
mammal monitoring is still not a proven technology to provide an
effective monitoring modality. The resolution from the UAS video camera
does not have high resolution, especially for pinniped survey due to
the small size of the animals. In addition, SAE states that the expense
of flying a UAS is cost-prohibitive for the company. NMFS agrees with
SAE's reasoning. Therefore, this recommendation is not included in the
IHA issued to SAE.
With regards to the panel's mitigation recommendations, NMFS agrees
with the panel that mitigation airgun should be fired at a rate of 1
shot per minute instead of every few seconds. This condition is
required in the IHA issued to SAE.
Regarding the remaining three mitigation measures provided by the
peer-review panel, SAE and NMFS discussed and decided that it is
important to be consistent with existing mitigation practices for
typical 3D seismic surveys unless new scientific information is
available that warrant a change. These mitigation measures are
described in the ``Mitigation'' section above. These three mitigation
recommendations from the panel are addressed and clarified below:
(1) Limiting seismic operations at night or during periods of low
visibility: This recommendation is not consistent with existing
mitigation practices for a typical marine seismic survey, which require
no airgun ramping up when the entire exclusion zone cannot be cleared
due to low visibility. However, if the entire exclusion zone can be
visually cleared by PSOs, a ramp up can be commenced and, as long as no
shutdown occurs during the course of the survey, airgun firing can
continue into night or during periods of low visibility. By limiting
seismic operations at night or during periods of low visibility, SAE
would not be able to complete its 3D seismic survey during the project
period and would have to come back the following year to continue their
work. This can be cost-prohibitive for the company and will also extend
the season when the marine environment is affected.
(2) Be more cautious during darkness based on the potential risk to
marine mammals if a bowhead whale mother/calf pair or an aggregation of
three or more bowhead whales are sighted within the Level B harassment
zone prior to the onset of night or during that day. If the risk is
relatively high, airguns should be shut down for the night: The panel
did not define what constitutes ``the risk is relatively high'', and
without a clear definition, NMFS considers that this recommendation
cannot be made into a requirement. Additionally, as discussed in (1)
above, ceasing seismic activities at night because bowhead whale
mother/calf pair or an aggregation of three or more bowhead whales are
sighted within the Level B harassment zone during the day would be
cost-prohibitive, especially consider that the potential risk is not
identified.
(3) Mitigation gun not to be operated for more than one hour: NMFS
does not allow extended use of ``mitigation airgun'' when the seismic
survey is not ongoing, just so that the applicant can ramp up at night
or without the 30-minute clearance before ramping up airgun arrays.
However, NMFS allows a single airgun (so called ``mitigation gun'') to
be kept on for turning from one track to the next and for short
transiting purposes. SAE, as well as other seismic surveyors (e.g.,
BP), state that for 3D seismic surveys, an approximately 3-hour time
frame is needed to complete a turn or short transit, and NMFS has been
requiring the applicants to use the smallest single airgun for a
maximum of 3 hours for turning and short transiting purposes (e.g., IHA
to SAE's 3D seismic survey in 2014 open-water season in Beaufort Sea).
Further, the panel did not provide a justification for its
recommendation of maximum of one-hour use of ``mitigation airgun''.
Therefore, to be consistent with the existing mitigation measures, NMFS
again requires that SAE use the ``mitigation airgun'' for turning and
short line transiting only, with a maximum operation time of 3 hours.
Reporting Measures
(1) Sound Source Verification Report
As discussed earlier, if SAE plans to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun
arrays, SSV tests on these arrays will be required. A report on the
preliminary results of the sound source verification measurements,
including the measured 190, 180, 170, and 160 dB (rms) radii of
[[Page 40027]]
the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array, would be submitted within 14 days after
collection of those measurements at the start of the field season.
(2) Weekly Reports
SAE will submit weekly reports to NMFS no later than the close of
business (Alaska Time) each Thursday during the weeks when seismic
surveys take place. The field reports will summarize species detected,
in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, behavioral
reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine mammals
exposed to harassment level noise.
(3) Monthly Reports
SAE will submit monthly reports to NMFS for all months during which
seismic surveys take place. The monthly reports will contain and
summarize the following information:
Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea
conditions (including Beaufort Sea state and wind force), and
associated activities during the seismic survey and marine mammal
sightings.
Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and
behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated surveys
(number of shutdowns), observed throughout all monitoring activities.
An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds
that have been exposed to the seismic surveys (based on visual
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (ii) cetaceans
that have been exposed to the geophysical activity (based on visual
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
(4) Technical Report
The results of SAE's 2015 vessel-based monitoring, including
estimates of ``take'' by harassment, will be presented first in a ``90-
day'' draft Technical Report, to be submitted to NMFS within 90 days
after the end of the seismic 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 seismic airgun
array (or a single mitigation airgun) 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 seismic array 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 airgun activities (and other variables that could affect
detectability), such as:
Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state;
Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state;
Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun
activity state;
Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun
activity state;
Distribution around the survey vessel versus airgun
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;
(h) A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual
estimated takes;
(i) Acoustic characteristics of the identified noise sources. These
should include the acoustic characteristics of the seismic survey
equipment, such as spectral content, and received levels in different
metrics such as RMS dB, cSEL 24h, dB peak to peak, and 1/3 octave
bands; and
(j) Provide sightability curves in the 90-day report.
(5) Data Sharing and Research Collaboration
(a) Make all environmental data (including PSO observation,
acoustic monitoring, vessel track lines and timing of operations)
available for valid scientific research purposes; and
(b) Make a best effort to coordinate and collaborate with other
companies for monitoring the aggregated effects of all their activities
on spotted seals, especially animals that many be hauled out.
(6) 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), SAE 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 SAE to
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SAE would not be able to
resume its activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or
telephone.
In the event that SAE 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), SAE 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
[[Page 40028]]
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able
to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS
would work with SAE to determine whether modifications in the
activities are appropriate.
In the event that SAE 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),
SAE 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. SAE would
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. SAE can continue its operations under such a
case.
Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities
SAE was issued an IHA for a 3D OBN seismic survey in the same area
of the proposed 2015 seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea during the 2014
Arctic open-water season. SAE conducted the seismic survey between
August 25 and September 30, 2014. The technical report (90-day report)
submitted by SAE indicates that one beluga whale and 2 spotted seals
were observed within the 180-dB exclusion zones during the survey that
prompted immediate shutdown. Two additional spotted seals were detected
within the zone of influence when the airgun arrays were firing. Post-
activity analysis based on total sighting data concluded that up to
approximately 5 beluga whales and 264 pinnipeds (likely all spotted
seals due to their large numbers) could be exposed to received levels
above 160-dB re 1 [micro]Pa. Some of these could be exposed to levels
that may have Level A harassment which was not authorized under the
previous IHA. Nevertheless, take of Level B harassment were under the
take limits allowed by the IHA issued to SAE.
Based on the monitoring results from SAE's 2014 seismic survey,
NMFS is re-evaluating the potential effects on marine mammals and
requested SAE to conduct analysis on potential Level A takes (see
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section below).
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].
Takes by Level A and Level B harassments of some species are
anticipated as a result of SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey. NMFS
expects marine mammal takes could result from noise propagation from
operation of seismic airguns. NMFS does not expect marine mammals would
be taken by collision with seismic and support vessels, because the
vessels will be moving at low speeds, and PSOs on the survey vessels
and the mitigation vessel will be monitoring for marine mammals and
will be able to alert the vessels to avoid any marine mammals in the
area.
For impulse sounds, such as those produced by the airguns proposed
to be used in SAE's 3D OBN seismic surveys, NMFS uses the 180 and 190
dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level A
harassment for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; and the 160 dB
(rms) re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth for Level B harassment of all marine
mammals. SAE provided calculations of the 190-, 180-, and 160-dB
isopleths expected to be produced by the proposed seismic surveys and
then used those isopleths to estimate takes by harassment. NMFS used
those calculations to make the necessary MMPA findings. SAE provided a
full description of the methodology used to estimate takes by
harassment in its IHA application, which is also provided in the
following sections.
Acoustic Footprint
The acoustical footprint that could cause harassment (Levels A and
B) was determined by placing a 160-dB isopleth buffer around the area
that would be surveyed (shot) during the 2015 open water season (777
km\2\). SAE stated that for the majority of its proposed 2015 seismic
survey, a 620 in\3\ airgun array would be used. However, to make
conservative impact analysis, SAE uses the acoustic footprint of a
large 1,240 in\3\ array for this analysis.
There are no precise estimates for the 1,240-in\3\ array. The
estimated distances to the 160 dB isopleth for the 1,240-in\3\ array
are based on the sound source measurements from Austin and Warner
(2012) for a 1,200-in\3\ array in Cook Inlet. The results showed a
measured distance of 5.2 km to the 160 dB isopleths (Table 2). Placing
a 5.2-km buffer around the 777 km\2\ maximum shot area results in an
estimated annual ZOI of 1,463 km\2\ (565 mi\2\), which is the ZOI value
used in the exposure estimate calculations.
Because the exact location of the 2015 shoot area is currently
unknown, the distribution of marine mammal habitat within the shoot
area is unknown. However, within the 4,562 km\2\ potential survey box,
19% (860 km\2\) falls within the 0 to 1.5 m water depth range, 16% (753
km\2\) falls within the 1.5 to 5 m range, 36% (1,635 km\2\) within the
5 to 15 m range, and 29 percent% (1,348 km\2\) within waters greater
than 15 m deep (bowhead migration corridor). Thus, not all the area
that could be surveyed in 2015 constitutes bowhead summer (>5 m depth)
or fall migrating (>15 m depth) habitat. Further, few of the lease
areas that could be shot in 2015 extend into the deeper waters of the
potential survey box. The distribution of these depth ranges is found
in Figure 6-1 of SAE's IHA application.
Marine Mammal Densities
In the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015) for
the proposed IHA, NMFS used the aerial survey data (Ferguson and Clarke
2013) collected in the Beaufort Sea during the Aerial Surveys of Arctic
Marine Mammals (ASAMM) program in 2012 and 2013 for bowhead whale
density calculation. At the time of the proposed IHA stage, 2014
density data had not been vetted. Subsequently, the 2014 aerial survey
data for bowhead whale became available, and NMFS was advised by the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) and NMFS Alaska Regional
Office (AKRO) to use the 2008--2014 bowhead and beluga whale survey
data and a g(0) of 0.8696 and f(0) of 0.07 for density estimates. Both
g(0) and f(0) are factors used to correct the potential presence of
animals not detected and potential missed sighting from the survey. The
results showed much higher density for bowhead whale within the SAE's
proposed 3D seismic survey area. The revised bowhead whale density,
along with densities of other marine mammals that could be affected by
SAE's 3D seismic survey, are provided in Table 3.
[[Page 40029]]
Table 3. Marine mammal densities (#/km\2\) in the Beaufort Sea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Summer Fall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale..................................... 0.1674 0.4828
Beluga whale...................................... 0.0020 0.0057
Ringed seal....................................... 0.3547 0.2510
Spotted seal...................................... 0.0177 0.0125
Bearded seal...................................... 0.0177 0.0125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Exposure Calculations
In the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015) for
the proposed IHA, NMFS performed marine mammal take estimates by
multiplying animal density and the total ensonified area of the entire
survey without incorporating a time vector. However, the Commission
pointed out in its comment that such method does not take into account
the potential of new animals moving into the ensonified area during the
course of the survey. NMFS also realized that although such method
provides take estimates that closely matched the actual estimated takes
provided in the 90-day reports (with corrections to count for animals
missed due to avoidance of seismic exposure and missed detection), the
potential of not counting new animals moving into the area could
underestimate the actual take. Therefore, in response to the
Commission's response, NMFS is incorporating a time vector, survey
days, into take estimates by multiplying animal density and daily
ensonified area and the number of survey days. However, this method
provides the number of instances of take without accounting for the
fact that some individuals may be taken more than once during the
survey. Since the same animal is very likely to be taken multiple times
on different days, this method presents a serious issue when analyzing
the number of unique animals from a given population that are harassed.
To address this issue, NMFS applied a correction factor, the daily
turnover rate, to provide take estimates that are more realistic.
1. Daily Ensonified Area
SAE states that regardless the size of the airgun array, the daily
survey area is 18.75 mi\2\. However, the daily ensonified areas, which
are the daily survey areas in additional to areas that would be
ensonified to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa, would vary with the size of the
airgun array used. The specific daily ensonified areas depend on the
ensonified radii from different airgun arrays shown in Table 2. For the
620 in\3\ airgun array, the daily ensonified area out to the 160 dB re
1 [micro]Pa is 43.6 mi\2\, or 113 km\2\. For the 1,240 in\3\ airgun
array, the daily ensonified area out the 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa is 117
mi\2\, or 303 km\2\.
Assuming that the survey areas of different bathymetry are
proportionally represented by the bathymetry of the entire survey box,
then 19% of the survey area will be less than 1.5 m deep, 16% survey
area is 1.5-5 m deep, 36% survey area 5-15 m deep, and the remaining
29% survey area is deeper than 15 m. As stated earlier, waters below 5
m deep are not bowhead whale habitat, therefore, bowhead takes are
excluded from these waters. In addition, waters below 15 m deep are not
bowheads habitat during the fall, therefore, they are also excluded for
take calculation for SAE's 3D survey in the fall.
No adjustments were made for beluga whales, and ringed, spotted,
and bearded seals, as they could appear in much shallower waters.
2. Number of Survey Days
As discussed in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14,
2015) and in this document, within the total of 107 days of this IHA
(from July 1 to October 15, 2015), SAE states that survey is
anticipated to last 70 days, of which approximately 70% of the time, or
a total of 49 days, when the actual seismic survey using airgun arrays
will be occurring, depending on weather and ice conditions. Though it
cannot be predicted the exact days when incremental weather and ice
conditions would present the surveys, for the purpose of this analysis,
NMFS prorated survey days in summer (July 1 to August 31) and in fall
(September 1 to October 15) with the total days in summer (62 days) and
fall (45 days), which yielded 28 survey days in summer and 21 survey
days in fall.
3. Turnover Rate of Marine Mammals
For bowhead whales, during the summer period into early fall
(August to October), they are often observed feeding from Smith Bay to
Point Barrow (Clarke & Ferguson, 2010a, 2010b; Clarke et al. 2011a,
2011b, 2012, 2013). In other areas of the western Beaufort Sea
(including the SAE's proposed seismic survey area), bowhead whales may
feed on the continental shelf, out to approximately the 50-m isobath,
in September and October (Clarke et al. 2015). In the fall period
(September and October), bowhead whales are observed migrating through
the western Beaufort Sea primarily on the shelf (including the SAE's
proposed seismic survey area), at depths less than 50 m, with some
whales migrating across the outer shelf (Clarkes et al., 2015).
It is difficult to determine an average turnover time for
individual bowhead whales in a particular area of the Beaufort Sea.
Reasons for this include differences in residency time between
migratory and non-migratory periods, changes in distribution of food
and other factors such as behavior that influence animal movement,
variation among individuals, etc.
Complete turnover of individual bowhead whales in the project area
each 24-hour period is possible during distinct periods within the fall
migration when bowheads are traveling through the area, however,
bowheads often move in pulses with one to several days between major
pulses of whales (Miller et al. 2002). Gaps between groups of traveling
whales during fall migration result in days when no bowhead whales
would be expected to be present in the activity area. The absence of
bowhead whales during periods of the fall migration can likely be
attributed to individuals stopping to feed opportunistically when food
is encountered, which is known to occur annually in an area north of
Barrow (Citta et al. 2014). The extent of feeding by bowhead whales
during fall migration varies greatly from year to year based on the
location and abundance of prey (Shelden and Mocklin 2013). For these
reasons, NMFS believes a daily 100% turnover period for bowhead whales
is unnecessarily conservative and has selected a daily turnover rate of
50% to account for both feeding (where animals stay relatively within
an area) and migration (where animals are moving across an area) in
both fall and winter.
For beluga whales, two stocks are potentially present in the SAE 3D
seismic survey areas: the East Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea stocks.
Since they cannot be visually distinguished in the field, the
proportion of take form each stock in the seismic survey area in
Beaufort Sea cannot be determined (Allen and Angliss 2014). Thus it
would be difficult to assess the turnover rate of beluga whales because
each different stock has its own migratory pattern and time. Therefore,
NMFS used the most conservative measure of assuming complete turnover
of the animals every 24 hours, making a daily turnover rate of 100% for
a more conservative take calculation.
For ringed seals, satellite tagging data from tagging studies
fromthe State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Marine Mammals
Program, the Ice Seal Committee, and interested seal hunters from
villages along the west and north coasts of Alaska were used to derive
a turnover rate for this species. Data from
[[Page 40030]]
these tagged animals showed that in addition to a long distance
seasonal migration, there are many instances from July through
September when individual ringed seals stayed in a relatively small
area (compared to their migration route) up to multiple weeks,
including on and around the offshore continental shelf leased blocks.
In addition, Patterson et al. (2014) indicate a turnover period of a
week or more for individual seals in the vicinity of the seismic survey
in the Alaskan Arctic may be more appropriate, based on the 6-24 day
area occupancy. These results suggest that assuming a 100% turnover of
all individual seals around SAE's seismic survey box on a daily basis
is unreasonable, and a period closer to a week may be more appropriate
and yet still conservative for other individuals that remained in the
area for longer periods. Therefore, for the purpose of this IHA, NMFS
used a slightly higher turnover rate than the weekly rate, i.e., a 48-
hour (or 50%) turnover rate, to be more conservative.
Few data are available on the home range and movement patterns of
the other two ice seals, the bearded seal and spotted seals. Therefore,
we used the most conservative daily turnover rate for take estimates of
these species.
4. Use of Different Size of Airgun Arrays
As discussed in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14,
2015) for the proposed IHA and early in this document, two types of
airgun arrays will be used during SAE's 3D seismic survey in the
Beaufort Sea: 620 in\3\ and 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays. Upon inquiry
from NMFS regarding the frequency of different airgun arrays being
used, SAE expects that approximately 80% of the survey would be done
using the 620 in\3\ array, with the remaining by the 1,240 in\3\ array.
Therefore, the take number estimates reflect the combination of takes
from each of these two airgun arrays in a 4:1 ration for the 620 in\3\
vs. 1,240 in\3\ arrays.
Based on the above described take estimate calculation by
multiplying ensonified area by animal density by survey days in
specific marine mammal habitat and season, adjusted by turnover rates
and different airgun usage, the estimated number of bowhead and beluga
whales, and ringed, spotted, and bearded seals can be calculated. A
summary of the calculation is provided in Table 4 below.
Table 4--Summary of Calculation of Marine Mammal Exposed to Received Levels Higher Than 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for SAE's Proposed 3D Seismic Survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Fall All seasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species (habitat) Total
ZOI Days Density Summer ZOI Days Density Fall Turn- Airgun adjusted
(km\2\) (km-1) exposure (km\2\) (km-1) exposure over usage exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airgun array volume: 620 in\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale............................. 113 ........ ........ 344 113 ........ ........ 332.2 50 80 271
(0.0-1.5m)............................ 21.47 28 0 0 21.47 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(1.5-5.0m)............................ 18.08 28 0 0 18.08 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(5.0-15.0m)........................... 40.68 28 0.1674 190.6 40.68 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(15.0m).................... 32.77 28 0.1674 153.6 32.77 21 0.4828 332.2 ........ ........ ........
Beluga whale.............................. 113 28 0.0020 6.3 113 21 0.0057 13.5 100 80 16
Ringed seal............................... 113 28 0.3547 1122.3 113 21 0.2510 595.6 20 80 687
Spotted seal.............................. 113 28 0.0177 56 113 21 0.0125 29.7 100 80 69
Bearded seal.............................. 113 28 0.0177 56 113 21 0.0125 29.7 100 80 69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airgun array volume: 1,240 in\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale............................. 303 ........ ........ 923 303 ........ ........ 891 50 20 181
(0.0-1.5m)............................ 57.57 28 0 0 57.57 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(1.5-5.0m)............................ 48.48 28 0 0 48.48 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(5.0-15.0m)........................... 109.1 28 0.1674 511.2 109.1 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(15.0m).................... 87.87 28 0.1674 411.8 87.87 21 0.4828 890.8 ........ ........ ........
Beluga whale.............................. 303 28 0.0020 17 303 21 030057 36.3 100 20 11
Ringed seal............................... 303 28 0.3547 3009.3 303 21 0.2510 1597.1 20 20 461
Spotted seal.............................. 303 28 0.0177 150.2 303 21 0.0125 79.5 100 20 46
Bearded seal.............................. 303 28 0.0177 150.2 303 21 0.0125 79.5 100 20 46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential takes of spotted seals are adjusted based on
observations during SAE's 2014 seismic operations immediately east of
the Colville River Delta (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2014). The 90-day
report (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2014) reported only 5 confirmed sightings
of ringed seals, none of which were observed during active seismic
activity. But a total of 40 spotted seals (4 during seismic surveys)
and an additional 28 seals (could be either ringed or spotted seals,
with 4 during seismic surveys) were observed. Given only 88 km\2\ were
shot in 2014, this would extrapolate to about 353 spotted seals
observed during the planned 777 km2 of operations planned in 2015. If
80% of the ringed/spotted seal sightings were actually spotted seals,
then an additional 200 spotted seals would be observed during the
seismic survey. Given the nearshore location of the planned seismic
activities and proximity to Colville River Delta spotted seal haulout
sites, and likelihood that a number of seals that were exposed to
seismic noise exceeding 160 dB were not observed, NMFS corrected the
spotted seal takes to 500.
No density data for gray whale is available in the SAE's proposed
survey area, because gray whale occurrence in the Beaufort Sea is not
frequent, especially in nearshore water where SAE's survey area is.
Based on sighting data, only a few gray where have been documented in
the nearshore Beaufort Sea (Green and Negri, 2005, Green et al., 2007).
Therefore, it is estimated up to 2 gray whales could be taken by Level
B harassment as a result of SAE's 3D seismic survey during the 2015
open-water season in the Beaufort Sea.
A summary of estimated number of marine mammal potentially exposed
to received sound levels greater than 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa is provided
in Table 6.
Level A Exposure Calculations
As discussed earlier in this section, NMFS considers that exposures
to pinnipeds at noise levels above 190 dB and cetaceans at noise levels
above 180
[[Page 40031]]
dB constitute Level A takes under the MMPA. Although brief exposure of
marine mammals at these levels are not likely to cause TTS or PTS
(Southall et al. 2007), this consideration is a precaution NMFS takes
for its effect analysis.
The methods used in estimate Level A exposure is the same for Level
B estimates, i.e., multiplying the total amount of area available to
the species that could be seasonally ensonified by noise levels
exceeding 190 and 180 dB by density of each species by the number of
survey days in each season, then corrected by the animals turnover
rates and different airgun array usage. The results of potential Level
A exposure are shown in Table 5, assuming that animals will not avoid
being exposed to received levels that could cause hearing threshold
shifts or even injury, which is highly unlikely, and that no mitigation
and monitoring measures would be implemented to avoid Level A takes.
Table 5--Summary of Calculation of Cetaceans Exposed to Received Levels Higher Than 180 Db and Pinnipeds Exposure to Received Levels Higher Than 190 dB
re 1 [micro]Pa, With No Consideration of Animals Avoiding Level A Exclusion Zone and No Monitoring and Mitigation Measures Are In Place To Avoid Such
Exposures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Fall All seasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species (habitat) Airgun Total
ZOI Days Density Summer ZOI Days Density Fall Turn- usage adjusted
(km\2\) (km-1) exposure (km\2\) (km-1) exposure over (%) (%) exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airgun array volume: 620 in\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale............................. 67.8 ........ ........ 206 67.8 ........ ........ 199 50% 80% 162
(0.0--1.5m)........................... 12.88 28 0 0 12.88 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(1.5--5.0m)........................... 10.85 28 0 0 10.85 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(5.0--15.0m).......................... 24.41 28 0.1674 114.4 24.41 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(15.0m).................... 19.66 28 0.1674 92.2 19.66 21 0.4828 199.4 ........ ........ ........
Beluga whale.............................. 67.8 28 0.0020 3.8 67.8 21 0.0057 8.1 100 80 10
Ringed seal............................... 54.2 28 0.3547 538 54.2 21 0.2510 285.5 20 80 329
Spotted seal.............................. 54.2 28 0.0177 26.8 54.2 21 0.0125 14.2 100 80 33
Bearded seal.............................. 54.2 28 0.0177 26.8 54.2 21 0.0125 14.2 100 80 33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airgun array volume: 1,240 in\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale............................. 78 ........ ........ 237 78 ........ ........ 229 50% 20% 47
(0.0--1.5m)........................... 14.77 28 0 0 14.77 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(1.5--5.0m)........................... 12.44 28 0 0 12.44 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(5.0--15.0m).......................... 27.99 28 0.1674 131.1 27.99 21 0 0 ........ ........ ........
(15.0m).................... 22.54 28 0.1674 105.6 22.54 21 0.4828 228.6 ........ ........ ........
Beluga whale.............................. 77.74 28 0.0020 4.4 77.74 21 030057 9.3 100 20 3
Ringed seal............................... 55.84 28 0.3547 554.6 55.84 21 0.2510 294.3 20 20 85
Spotted seal.............................. 55.84 28 0.0177 27.7 55.84 21 0.0125 14.7 100 20 8
Bearded seal.............................. 55.84 28 0.0177 27.7 55.84 21 0.0125 14.7 100 20 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that the numbers presented in Table 5 are
not the Level A take numbers. These numbers represent an unlikely
scenario of exposure incidences if an animal did not avoid the intense
noise field that could cause hearing impairment or injury and no
monitoring or mitigation measures were implemented to avoid such
consequences. Literature (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995, 1999; Southall
et al. 2007) shows that marine mammals often avoid areas with intense
noises, especially bowhead whales, even when the received noise levels
are way below the levels that could elicit Level B harassment. Although
this avoidance of an area by the marine mammals does not preclude the
animals being taken by Level B harassment, it lessens the likelihood
that they will be exposed above 180 dB for cetaceans and 190 dB for
pinnipeds and incur hearing impairment or injury.
Most importantly, monitoring and mitigation measures prescribed in
the IHA require SAE to shut down or power down airgun arrays when a
marine mammal is detected approaching, therefore, potential Level A
harassment can be further avoided. Especially for non-deep diving large
cetaceans such as bowhead whales (and to some extent beluga whales),
vessel-based visual monitoring is effective to detect the whales before
they enter the exclusion zone, as shown in previous 90-day reports from
SAE and other open-water seismic survey activities. Nevertheless, in
the unlikely case if a marine mammal is not detected by the PSO and did
not avoid the 180 or 190 dB established for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
respectively, a Level A take could occur. To derive more realistic
Level A take estimates and in discussion with the Commission, NMFS
consulted with the ESA biologists at NMFS Alaska Region. In addition,
NMFS reviewed the monitoring results from SAE's 90-day report of its
2014 3D seismic survey in the same area with similar airgun arrays and
vessel types, and also reviewed monitoring results from other
monitoring reports in nearby waters in Beaufort Sea using similar sizes
of airgun arrays (e.g., BP's 2012 Simpson Lagoon 3D seismic survey and
BP's 2014 North Prudhoe Bay 3D seismic survey). Based on the review of
these monitoring plans (including consideration of missed detections),
the likely effectiveness of the mitigation and the likely avoidance of
high levels of sound, NMFS modified the authorized Level A take as
follows: 1 bowhead whale, 4 beluga whale, 20 ringed seals, 20 spotted
seals, and 10 bearded seals.
A summary of authorized Level A and Level B harassments for SAE's
3D seismic surveys in the Colville Delta of the Beaufort Sea is
provided in Table 6.
[[Page 40032]]
Table 6--The Authorized Level A and Level B Harassments of Marine Mammals for SAE's 2015 Open-Water 3D Seismic
Survey in the Beaufort Sea
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Authorized
Species Stock Level B Level A % of take by
abundance harassment harassment stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................................... 19,534 452 1 2.31
Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea stock)............... 39,258 27 4 0.07
Beluga whale (E. Chukchi Sea stock)............. 3,710 27 4 0.73
Gray whale...................................... 19,126 2 0 0.01
Ringed seal..................................... 300,000 1,148 20 0.39
Spotted seal.................................... 141,479 500 20 0.35
Bearded seal.................................... 155,000 115 10 0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated Level A and Level B takes as a percentage of the
marine mammal stock are 2.31% or less in all cases (Table 6). The
highest percent of population estimated to be taken is 0.005% for Level
A and 2.31% for Level B harassments for bowhead whale. For beluga
whales, since there are two stocks in the proposed action, the
percentage of the takes represent the worst case scenario when all
takes occur in Beaufort Sea stock (0.07%) or East Chukchi Sea stock
(0.73%). However, most likely the percentage of takes for each stock
would not be this worst case scenario.
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 6, given that the
anticipated effects of SAE's 3D seismic 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 serious injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a
result of SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey, and none are proposed to be
authorized. The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected
to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment, and Level A
harassment in the form of permanent hearing threshold shifts. While the
airguns are expected to be operated for approximately 49 days within a
70-day period, 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 A or Level B harassment zone
continuously. As mentioned previously in this document, pinnipeds
appear to be more tolerant of anthropogenic sound than mysticetes.
Bowhead Whales
The bowhead whale is listed as endangered species under the ESA and
depleted under the MMPA. However, despite these designations, the
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowheads has been increasing at a rate
of 3.4% annually for nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 2011), even in
the face of ongoing industrial activity. 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, 2011).
Most of the bowhead whales encountered will likely show overt
disturbance (avoidance) only if they receive airgun sounds with levels
>= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. In addition, elevated background noise level
from the seismic airgun reverberant field could cause acoustic masking
to bowhead whales and reduce their communication space. However, even
though the decay of the signal is extended, the fact that pulses are
separated by approximately 8 to 10 seconds for each individual source
vessel (or 4 to 5 seconds when taking into account the two separate
source vessels stationed 300 to 335 m apart) means that overall
received levels at distance are expected to be much lower, thus
resulting in less acoustic masking.
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 October), as they head west towards
Chukchi Sea.
It is estimated that a maximum of 452 bowhead whales (2.31%) could
be taken by Level B harassment. Potential impacts to bowhead whales
from SAE's 3D seismic surveys would be limited to brief behavioral
disturbances and temporary avoidance of the ensonified areas.
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 for bowhead whales in
September and October (Clarke et al. 2015). However, their habitat is
in relatively deeper water > 15 m, which accounts for only 29% of SAE's
proposed seismic survey area.
The proposed activity also partially overlaps with 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). However, as
discussed
[[Page 40033]]
previously, the majority of the survey areas (71%) are in shallow
waters < 15 m, and are not considered bowhead habitat in the fall. In
the summer, bowhead whale habitat extends to much shallower area of < 5
m, which counts for about 65% of the proposed 3D seismic survey areas.
Due to the relatively small airgun arrays to be used in the SAE's
3D seismic survey, noise exposure to bowhead whales is expected to be
low and would in almost all cases cause Level B harassment in the form
of mild and temporary behavioral modification and/or avoidance.
Moreover, the majority of the ensonified areas (67%) would fall between
160 and 166 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for impulse noise, which at the low-end
of the range for Level B behavioral harassment by noise exposure.
It is estimated that up to 1 bowhead whale could be exposed to
received noise levels above 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for durations long
enough to cause PTS, if the animal does not avoid the area for some
reason and is not detected in time to have mitigation measures
implemented. Marine mammals that are taken by TTS (which is a form of
Level B harassment) are expected to receive minor (in the order of
several dBs) and brief (minutes to hours) temporary hearing impairment
because (1) animals are not likely to remain for prolonged periods
within high intensity sound fields, and (2) both the seismic vessel and
the animals are constantly moving, and it is unlikely that the animal
will be moving along with the vessel during the survey. Although
repeated experience to TTS (Level B harassment) could result in PTS
(Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed above, even if
marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is expected to be
mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing threshold, and are not
expected to be biologically significant for the population or species.
Beluga Whale
Odontocete reactions to seismic airgun pulses are generally assumed
to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun than are those of
mysticetes (e.g., bowhead whales), in part because odontocete low-
frequency hearing is assumed to be less sensitive than that of
mysticetes. However, at least when in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in
summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive to seismic energy, with
few being sighted within 6-12 mi (10-20 km) of seismic vessels during
aerial surveys (Miller et al. 2005). Belugas will likely occur in small
numbers in the Beaufort Sea during the survey period and few will
likely be affected by the survey activity.
Beluga 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 October), as they head west towards
Chukchi Sea. However, most beluga whales are expected to occur in much
deeper water offshore in the Beaufort Sea during its migration. The
beluga whale fall migration BIAs are approximately 75 km offshore from
the SAE's proposed seismic survey area (Clarke et al., 2015). No other
beluga whale BIAs overlap with SAE's proposed survey area.
It is estimated that a maximum of 27 beluga whales (0.07% from the
Beaufort Sea stock if all animals taken are from the Beaufort Sea
stock, or 0.73% from the East Chukchi Sea stock if all animals taken
are from the East Chukchi Sea stock) could be taken by Level B
harassment. Potential impacts to beluga whales from SAE's 3D seismic
survey activity include brief behavioral disturbances and temporary
avoidance of the ensonified areas.
It is estimated that up to 4 beluga whales could be exposed to
received noise levels above 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for durations long
enough to cause PTS, if the animals do not avoid are area for some
reason and are not detected in time to have mitigation measures
implemented. Marine mammals that are taken by TTS (which is a form of
Level B harassment) are expected to receive minor (in the order of
several dBs) and brief (minutes to hours) temporary hearing impairment
because (1) animals are not likely to remain for prolonged periods
within high intensity sound fields, and (2) both the seismic vessel and
the animals are constantly moving, and it is unlikely that the animal
will be moving along with the vessel during the survey. Although
repeated experience to TTS (Level B harassment) could result in PTS
(Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed above, even if
marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is expected to be
mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing threshold, and are not
expected to be biologically significant for the population or species.
Gray Whales
Gray whales are not commonly encountered in the Beaufort Sea coast,
though occasional sightings have occurred in the past. It is estimated
that a maximum of 2 gray whales (0.01%) could be taken by Level B
harassment. Potential impacts to gray whales from SAE's 3D seismic
survey will be limited to brief behavioral disturbances and temporary
avoidance of the ensonified areas. No Level A takes of gray whale is
expected, and none is authorized.
No BIA for gray whales overlaps with SAE's 3D seismic survey in the
Beaufort Sea (the gray whale reproduction and feeding BIAs during the
summer and fall are in the Chukchi Sea (Clarke et al. 2015)).
Pinnipeds
Ringed, spotted, and bearded are regularly encountered in the
proposed SAE's seismic survey area, with the first two species being
most common. Ringed seals were recently listed under the ESA as
threatened species, and are considered depleted under the MMPA. On July
25, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska vacated
NMFS' rule listing the Beringia bearded seal DPS as threatened and
remanded the rule to NMFS to correct the deficiencies identified in the
opinion.
As stated in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14,
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. SAE'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 SAE's proposed activities. The
exposure of pinnipeds to sounds produced by SAE's proposed 3D seismic
survey operations in the Beaufort Sea is not expected to result in more
than Level B harassment of individuals from pinnipeds in most cases,
with a few by Level A harassment in the form of TTS (Level B
harassment) and PTS (Level A harassment).
It is estimated that maxima of 459 ringed seals (0.15%), 500
spotted seals (0.35%), and 115 bearded seals (0.07%) could be taken by
Level B harassment. Level B behavioral harassment to these species from
SAE's 3D seismic survey activity include brief behavioral disturbances
and temporary avoidance of the ensonified areas.
In addition, it is estimated that up to 20 ringed and spotted seals
and 10 bearded seals could be exposed to received noise levels above
190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for durations long enough to cause TTS, if the
animals do not avoid are area for some reason and are not detected in
time to have mitigation measures implemented (or even PTS if such
exposures occurred repeatedly). Marine mammals that are taken by TTS
are expected to receive minor (in the order of several dBs) and brief
(minutes
[[Page 40034]]
to hours) temporary hearing impairment because (1) animals are not
likely to remain for prolonged periods within high intensity sound
fields, and (2) both the seismic vessel and the animals are constantly
moving, and it is unlikely that the animal will be moving along with
the vessel during the survey. Although repeated experience to TTS could
result in PTS (Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed
above, even if marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is
expected to be mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing
threshold. Therefore, even if a few marine mammals receive TTS or PTS,
the degree of these effects are expected to be minor and, in the case
of TTS, brief, and are not expected to be biologically significant for
the population or species.
No biologically important area exists for seals in the vicinity of
SAE's 3D seismic survey activities.
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 SAE's proposed open-water activities
and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition
of ``Level B harassments.'' The many reported cases of apparent
tolerance by marine mammals to seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and
some other human activities show that co-existence is possible.
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 defined ranges, will
further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing
sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term,
with no lasting biological consequence.
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed
previously in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015)
for the proposed IHA (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat''
section of that document). 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.
In addition, no critical habitat of ESA-listed marine mammal
species occurs in the Beaufort Sea.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, will have
a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
The requested takes proposed to be authorized represent less than
2.31% for all populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 6
in this document). These take estimates represent the maximum
percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B
behavioral harassment and Level A harassment if each animal is taken
only once, and each take represents a different individual animal.
However, it is likely that many, if not most, individual animals could
be taken multiple times due to their short term movement patter and
home range. Therefore, the percentages of takes of marine mammals among
their populations are likely to be much lower. 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 and injuries 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.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for
Subsistence Uses
Relevant Subsistence Uses
The proposed seismic activities will occur within the marine
subsistence area used by the village of Nuiqsut. Nuiqsut was
established in 1973 at a traditional location on the Colville River
providing equal access to upland (e.g., caribou, Dall sheep) and marine
(e.g., whales, seals, and eiders) resources (Brown 1979). Although
Nuiqsut is located 40 km (25 mi) inland, bowhead whales are still a
major fall subsistence resource. Although bowhead whales have been
harvested in the past all along the barrier islands, Cross Island is
the site currently used as the fall whaling base, as it includes cabins
and equipment for butchering whales. However, whalers must travel about
160 km (100 mi) to annually reach the Cross Island whaling camp, which
is located in a direct line over 110 km (70 mi) from Nuiqsut. Whaling
activity usually begins in late August with the arrival whales
migrating from the Canadian Beaufort Sea, and may occur as late as
early October, depending on ice conditions and quota fulfillment. Most
whaling occurs relatively near (<16 km or <10 mi) the island, largely
to prevent meat spoilage that can occur with a longer tow back to Cross
Island. Since 1993, Cross Island hunters have harvested one to four
whales annually, averaging three.
Cross Island is located 70 km (44 mi) east of the eastern boundary
of the seismic survey box. (Point Barrow is over 180 km [110 mi]
outside the potential survey box.) Seismic activities are unlikely to
affect Barrow or Cross Island based whaling, especially if the seismic
operations temporarily cease during the fall bowhead whale hunt.
Although Nuiqsut whalers may incidentally harvest beluga whales
while hunting bowheads, these whales are rarely seen and are not
actively pursued. Any harvest that would occur would most likely be in
association with Cross Island.
The potential seismic survey area is also used by Nuiqsut villagers
for hunting seals. All three seal species that are likely to be taken--
ringed, spotted, and bearded--are hunted. Sealing begins in April and
May when villagers hunt seals at breathing holes in Harrison Bay. In
early June, hunting is concentrated at the mouth of the Colville River,
where ice breakup flooding results in the ice thinning and seals
becoming more visible.
Once the ice is clear of the Delta (late June), hunters will hunt
in open boats along the ice edge from Harrison Bay to Thetis Island in
a route called ``round the world.'' Thetis Island is important as it
provides a weather refuge and a base for hunting bearded seals. During
July and August, ringed and spotted seals are hunted in the lower 65 km
(40 mi) of the Colville River proper.
In terms of pounds, approximately one-third of the village of
Nuiqsut's annual subsistence harvest is marine mammals (fish and
caribou dominate the rest), of which bowhead whales
[[Page 40035]]
contribute by far the most (Fuller and George 1999). Seals contribute
only 2 to 3% of annual subsistence harvest (Brower and Opie 1997,
Brower and Hepa 1998, Fuller and George 1999). Fuller and George (1999)
estimated that 46 seals were harvested in 1992. The more common ringed
seals appear to dominate the harvest, although the larger and thicker-
skinned bearded seals are probably preferred. Spotted seals occur in
the Colville River Delta in small numbers, which is reflected in the
harvest.
Available harvest records suggest that most seal harvest occurs in
the months preceding the proposed August start of the seismic survey,
when waning ice conditions provide the best opportunity to approach and
kill hauled out seals. Much of the late summer seal harvest occurs in
the Colville River as the seals follow fish runs upstream. Still, open-
water seal hunting could occur coincident with the seismic surveys,
especially bearded seal hunts based from Thetis Island. In general,
however, given the relatively low contribution of seals to the Nuiqsut
subsistence, and the greater opportunity to hunt seals earlier in the
season, any potential impact by the seismic survey on seal hunting is
likely remote.
Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses
NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as: ``an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is
likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Noise and general activity during SAE's proposed 3D OBN seismic
survey have the potential to impact marine mammals hunted by Native
Alaskans. In the case of cetaceans, the most common reaction to
anthropogenic sounds (as noted previously) is avoidance of the
ensonified area. In the case of bowhead whales, this often means that
the animals divert from their normal migratory path by several
kilometers. Additionally, general vessel presence in the vicinity of
traditional hunting areas could negatively impact a hunt. Native
knowledge indicates that bowhead whales become increasingly
``skittish'' in the presence of seismic noise. Whales are more wary
around the hunters and tend to expose a much smaller portion of their
back when surfacing, which makes harvesting more difficult.
Additionally, natives report that bowheads exhibit angry behaviors,
such as tail-slapping, in the presence of seismic activity, which
translate to danger for nearby subsistence harvesters.
Responses of seals to seismic airguns are expected to be
negligible. Bain and Williams (2006) studied the responses of harbor
seals, California sea lions, and Steller sea lions to seismic airguns
and found that seals at exposure levels above 170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (peak-
peak) often showed avoidance behavior, including generally staying at
the surface and keeping their heads out of the water, but that the
responses were not overt, and there were no detectable responses at low
exposure levels.
Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence
Hunts
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for
activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of
Cooperation (POC) or information that identifies what measures have
been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes.
SAE has prepared a POC, which was developed by identifying and
evaluating any potential effects the proposed seismic survey might have
on seasonal abundance that is relied upon for subsistence use. For the
proposed project, SAE worked closely with the North Slope Borough (NSB)
and its partner Kuukpik Corporation, to identify subsistence
communities and activities that may take place within or near the
project area.
As a joint venture partner with Kuukpik, SAE is working closely
with them and the communities on the North Slope to plan operations
that will include measures that are environmentally suitable and that
do not impact local subsistence use. In addition, SAE signed a Conflict
Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the AEWC and other subsistence whaling
communities.
SAE adopted a three-stage process to develop its POC:
Stage 1: To open communications SAE attended and presented the
program description to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC)
during their mini-convention in December, 2014, in Anchorage.
Collaboration meetings were held in March and April 2015 with Kuukpik
Corporation leaders. Kuukpik Corporation is SAE's joint venture
partners in the project and on the North Slope of Alaska.
Prior to offshore activities, SAE met and consulted with nearby
communities, the North Slope Borough (NSB) planning department and the
Fish and Wildlife division. SAE has also presented its project during a
community meeting in the village of Nuiqsut, to discuss the planned
activities. The discussions included SAE's project description, the
POC, resolution of potential conflicts, and proposed operational
window. These meetings helped to identify any subsistence conflicts.
The following meetings were conducted:
Nuiqsut: November, 2014 (Job Fair)
Nuiqsut: January, 2015 (Project Presentation)
AEWC: December, 2014 (2015 planned projects)
Barrow (NSB): March, 2015 (Pre Application Meeting)
Barrow: March, 2015 (Planning Commission Meeting)
AEWC: February, 2015 (Project Presentation)
In addition, SAE scheduled the following meeting in the near
future:
Nuqsut: July, 2015 (update Meeting)
KSOP: July 2015 (Presentation)
Stage 2: SAE incorporated meaningful requests to mitigate concerns
into operations, including signing a CAA and providing weekly updates
to the Kuukpikmiut Subsistence Oversight Panel (KSOP). SAE plans to
have a review of permit stipulations and a permit matrix developed for
the crews. The means of communications and contacts list have been
developed and implemented into operations. Communications will be
handled within the CAA and directly with Nuiqsut Whalers. The use of
scientific and Inupiat PSOs/Communicators on board the vessels will
ensure that appropriate precautions are taken to avoid harassment of
marine mammals, including whales, seals, walruses or polar bears. SAE
will coordinate the timing and location of operations with the Com-
Centers in Deadhorse and Kaktovik to minimize impact to the subsistence
activities or the Nuiqsut/Kaktovik Bowhead Whale Hunt.
Stage 3: If a conflict does occur with project activities and
subsistence hunting, the SAs will immediately contact the project
manager and the Com Center. If avoidance is not possible, the project
manager will initiate communication with a representative from the
impacted subsistence hunter group(s) to resolve the issue and to plan
an alternative course of action (which may include
[[Page 40036]]
ceasing operations during the whale hunt).
In addition, the following mitigation measures will be imposed in
order to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the
availability of marine mammal species for subsistence uses:
(i) Establishment and operations of Communication and Call Centers
(Com-Center) Program
For the purposes of reducing or eliminating conflicts
between subsistence whaling activities and SAE's survey program, SAE
will participate with other operators in the Com-Center Program. Com-
Centers will be operated to facilitate communication of information
between SAE and subsistence whalers. The Com-Centers will be operated
24 hours/day during the 2015 fall subsistence bowhead whale hunt.
All vessels shall report to the appropriate Com-Center at
least once every six hours, commencing each day with a call at
approximately 06:00 hours.
The appropriate Com-Center shall be notified if there is
any significant change in plans, such as an unannounced start-up of
operations or significant deviations from announced course, and that
Com-Center shall notify all whalers of such changes. The appropriate
Com-Center also shall be called regarding any unsafe or unanticipated
ice conditions.
(ii) SAE shall monitor the positions of all of its vessels and
exercise due care in avoiding any areas where subsistence activity is
active.
(iii) Routing barge and transit vessels:
Vessels transiting in the Beaufort Sea east of Bullen
Point to the Canadian border shall remain at least 5 miles offshore
during transit along the coast, provided ice and sea conditions allow.
During transit in the Chukchi Sea, vessels shall remain as far offshore
as weather and ice conditions allow, and at all times at least 5 miles
offshore.
From August 31 to October 31, vessels in the Chukchi Sea
or Beaufort Sea shall remain at least 20 miles offshore of the coast of
Alaska from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on the east side
of Smith Bay in the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an emergency
that threatens the safety of the vessel or crew prevents compliance
with this requirement. This condition shall not apply to vessels
actively engaged in transit to or from a coastal community to conduct
crew changes or logistical support operations.
Vessels shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no
physical contact with whales occurs, and to make any other potential
conflicts with bowheads or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall be
less than 10 knots in the proximity of feeding whales or whale
aggregations.
If any vessel inadvertently approaches within 1.6
kilometers (1 mile) of observed bowhead whales, except when providing
emergency assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the
vessel operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential
interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the
following actions, as appropriate:
[cir] Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet of
the whale(s);
[cir] Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
[cir] Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
[cir] Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make
multiple changes in direction; and
[cir] Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to
ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
(iv) Limitation on seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea
Kaktovik: No seismic survey from the Canadian Border to
the Canning River from around August 25 to close of the fall bowhead
whale hunt in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates.
From around August 10 to August 25, based on the actual hunt dates, SAE
will communicate and collaborate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) on any planned vessel movement in and around Kaktovik
and Cross Island to avoid impacts to whale hunting.
Nuiqsut:
[cir]Pt. Storkerson to Thetis Island: No seismic survey prior to
July 25 inside the Barrier Islands. No seismic survey from around
August 25 to close of fall bowhead whale hunting outside the Barrier
Island in Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates.
[cir] Canning River to Pt. Storkerson: No seismic survey from
around August 25 to the close of bowhead whale subsistence hunting in
Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates.
Barrow: No seismic survey from Pitt Point on the east side
of Smith Bay to a location about half way between Barrow and Peard Bay
from September 15 to the close of the fall bowhead whale hunt in
Barrow.
(v) SAE shall complete operations in time to allow such vessels to
complete transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59
degrees North latitude no later than November 15, 2015. Any vessel that
encounters weather or ice that will prevent compliance with this date
shall coordinate its transit through the Bering Strait to a point south
of 59 degrees North latitude with the appropriate Com-Centers. SAE
vessels shall, weather and ice permitting, transit east of St. Lawrence
Island and no closer than 10 miles from the shore of St. Lawrence
Island.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determination
SAE has adopted a spatial and temporal strategy for its 3D OBN
seismic survey that should minimize impacts to subsistence hunters and
ensure the sufficient availability of species for hunters to meet
subsistence needs. SAE will temporarily cease seismic activities during
the fall bowhead whale hunt, which will allow the hunt to occur without
any adverse impact from SAE's activities. Although some seal hunting
co-occurs temporally with SAE's proposed seismic survey, the locations
do not overlap, so SAE's activities will not impact the hunting areas
and will not directly displace sealers or place physical barriers
between the sealers and the seals. In addition, SAE is conducting the
seismic surveys in a joint partnership agreement with Kuukpik
Corporation, which allows SAE to work closely with the native
communities on the North Slope to plan operations that include measures
that are environmentally suitable and that do not impact local
subsistence use, and to adjust the operations, if necessary, to
minimize any potential impacts that might arise. 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 proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses from SAE's proposed activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Within the project area, the bowhead whale is listed as endangered
and the ringed seal is listed as threatened under the ESA. NMFS'
Permits and Conservation Division initiated consultation with staff in
NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the
ESA on the issuance of an IHA to SAE under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA for this activity. In June 2015, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion,
and concluded that the issuance of the IHA associated with SAE's 2015
3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the endangered bowhead, humpback and
[[Page 40037]]
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 SAE
to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a 3D seismic 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 SAE
for the take of marine mammals, by Level B and Level A harassments,
incidental to conducting a 3D OBN seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea
during the 2015 open-water season, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: July 6, 2015.
Perry Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16966 Filed 7-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P