[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40505-40512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20280]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D.061498A]
Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Offshore Seismic
Activities in the Beaufort Sea
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of bowhead whales
and other marine mammals by harassment incidental to conducting seismic
surveys in the Western Beaufort Sea in state and federal waters has
been issued to Western Geophysical/Western Atlas International of
Houston, Texas (Western Geophysical).
DATES: Effective from July 23, 1998, until November 1, 1998, unless
extended.
ADDRESSES: The application, authorization, monitoring plan,
environmental assessment (EA), and a list of references used in this
document are available by writing to the Chief, Marine Mammal Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed
here.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2055, Brad Smith, Western Alaska
Field Office, NMFS, (907) 271-5006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request,
the incidental, but not intentional, taking 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.
Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of
taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of
such taking are set forth.
On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884), NMFS published an interim rule
establishing, among other things, procedures for issuing incidental
harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA in
Arctic waters. For additional information on the procedures to be
followed for this authorization, please refer to that document.
Summary of Request
On April 15, 1998, NMFS received an application from Western
Geophysical requesting an authorization for the harassment of small
numbers of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting
seismic surveys during the open water season in the Beaufort Sea
between Harrison Bay and Flaxman Island, AK. Weather
permitting, the survey is expected to take place from middle- to late-
July and to extend until approximately October 20, 1998.
Disturbance by seismic noise is the principal means of taking by
this activity. Support vessels and aircraft will provide a secondary
source of noise. The physical presence of vessels and aircraft could
also lead to non-acoustic effects involving visual or other cues.
Seismic surveys are used to obtain data about formations several
thousands of feet deep. The proposed seismic operation is an ocean
bottom cable (OBC) survey. OBC surveys involve dropping cables from a
ship to the ocean bottom, forming a patch consisting of four parallel
cables 10 kilometers (km) (6.2 mi) long, separated 750 m (2,500 ft)
from each other. Sensors (hydrophones and geophones) are attached to
the cables. These hydrophones are used to detect seismic energy
reflected back from underground rock strata. The original source of
this energy is a submerged acoustic source, called a seismic airgun
array, that releases compressed air into the water, creating an
acoustical energy pulse that is directed downward toward the seabed.
The source level planned for this project - a maximum of 249 dB re 1
Pa-m (27.2
[[Page 40506]]
bar-meters; zero to peak) or 255 dB re 1 Pa-m (53 bar-meters;
peak-to-peak (p-p)) from a 1,500 in3 array of airguns is in
the lower to middle portion of the range of source levels commonly used
for seismic operations with airgun arrays (Richardson et al., 1995).
Normally, 36 seismic lines are run for each patch, covering an area 6.0
km by 17.5 km (3.7 mi by 10.87 mi), centered over the patch. The source
lines for one patch will normally overlap with those for adjacent
patches.
After sufficient data have been recorded to allow accurate mapping
of the rock strata, the cable is lifted onto the deck of a cable-
retrieval vessel, moved to a new location (ranging from several hundred
to a few thousand feet away), and placed onto the seabed again. A
detailed description of the work proposed for 1998 is contained in the
application (Western Geophysical, 1998) and is available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt of the application and proposed authorization
was published on May 20, 1998 (63 FR 27709), and a 30-day public
comment period was provided on the application and proposed
authorization. During the comment period, comments regarding this
application (and/or on a related application from BP Exploration
(Alaska) (BPXA)), were received from the Marine Mammal Commission
(MMC), the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), LGL Ltd.
environmental research associates on behalf of the applicant, and
Greenpeace Alaska (Greenpeace). Information on the activity and
authorization request that are not subject to reviewer comments can be
found in the proposed authorization notice and is not repeated here.
General Concerns
Comment 1: LGL Ltd provided information updating and correcting the
Federal Register notice that (1) Western Geophysical's cables include
both hydrophones and geophones, not just hydrophones, and (2) Western
Geophysical's airguns discharge once every 16 to 24 seconds, not 1
second in duration every 5 to 12 seconds. These pulses are much less
than 1 second in duration near the source, increasing to as much as 1
second in duration as received in the water at long horizontal
distances.
Response: Thank you for providing this information.
Comment 2: On July 1, 1998, Western Geophysical submitted a letter
to NMFS outlining modifications to its May 20, 1998, application. That
letter noted that Western Geophysical's activity would be amended by
the addition of shallow water cable equipment and the inclusion of a
shallow water acoustic source. The shallow water equipment would be
used in locations and times when the OBC system was not usable. The two
sources would not be used simultaneously.
Response: NMFS has reviewed this letter and determined that,
because the shallow water source is smaller (560 in3 ) than
either the 750 in3 or the 1500 in3 seismic
array, and would not be used simultaneously with the larger
sources, there will not be a cumulative effect. This modification is
not considered significant. The IHA will ensure that the two sources
are not used simultaneously and will require sound transmission
measurements be made of both sources to ensure that the designated
safety zones are conservative.
Marine Mammal Impact Concerns
Comment 3: Greenpeace contends that NMFS, Western Geophysical and,
BPXA, the second applicant, rely on outdated, incomplete, and
inaccurate information concerning the zone of influence for seismic
operations on bowhead whales. Greenpeace believes that NMFS fails to
respect or incorporate either the traditional knowledge (TK) of local
whalers presented at various hearings or the results of the 1997 aerial
surveys, both of which indicate a seismic zone of influence greater
than the 7.5 km (4.5 mi) used by NMFS. The AEWC believes the data
clearly shows that bowheads are displaced and deflected at least 20 km
(12 miles) by the noise of the seismic vessel when operating.
Response: Western Geophysical's application and the notice of
proposed authorization note that, in addition to the known responses
out to a distance of several kilometers, less conspicuous and/or less
frequent effects may extend to greater distances. Since the application
was submitted, a draft final report describing BPXA's combined 1996 and
1997 monitoring results (Richardson [ed.], 1998) has been completed.
That report shows that (1) BPXA's 1996 and 1997 seismic programs did
not greatly influence the position of the overall migration corridor;
(2) although the aerial surveys showed at least partial avoidance of
the area within 20 km (12 mi) of seismic operations, the 20 km (12 mi)
figure is a very imprecise estimate of potential avoidance radius; and
(3) the pattern of bowhead call detection rates at various locations
north and east of the 1996 area of seismic operations has suggested
that migrating bowheads either called less often when near active
seismic vessel, or tended to divert away from that area, or both. For
additional information on the estimated zones that seismic airguns have
on bowhead whales, please refer to the proposed authorization notice
mentioned in this document.
It is recognized that it is difficult (for scientists at least) to
determine the maximum distance at which reactions occur (Moore and
Clark, 1992) that may have an adverse impact on subsistence needs.
Inuit whalers, on the other hand, believe that whales exhibit avoidance
reactions as far as 48 km (30 miles) away (MMS, 1997). As a result,
Western Geophysical developed a Conflict and Avoidance Agreement (C&AA)
with the whalers to reduce any potential interference with the hunt.
That agreement was concluded by both parties on July 8, 1998.
Also, it is believed that the monitoring plan proposed by Western
Geophysical (LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge, 1998b), revised on the basis of
comments received during this public review period and at the Peer-
Review Workshop, will provide information that will help resolve
uncertainties about the effects of seismic exploration on the
accessibility of bowheads to hunters.
Comment 4: Greenpeace notes that Western Geophysical fails to
address the impact of an airgun on bowhead hearing at any number of
distances within and beyond the zone of influence and fails to account
for the impact from an airgun array operating 70 m (210 ft) from a
bowhead. LGL Ltd. comments that the application notice states that
temporary threshold shift (TTS) is a theoretical possibility for
animals within a few hundred meters and that mitigation measures are
designed to avoid exposing mammals to sound pulses that have any
possibility of causing hearing damage. LGL Ltd notes that TTS is a
natural protective mechanism built into the mammalian ear. Modest
levels of TTS do not constitute hearing damage.
Response: The impact of airguns on bowhead hearing has been
addressed in several documents, including Western Geophysical's
application, the supporting EA, and in LGL and Greeneridge (1998).
Without an ability to collect empirical information on physical impacts
from airguns on large marine mammals, scientists must rely on either
surrogate species and make conservative assumptions based upon findings
for those species.
Comment 5: Greenpeace notes in its letter that marine mammals use
sound to communicate and, it is clear, that many species are extremely
sensitive to
[[Page 40507]]
both sound and physical disturbance. Greenpeace also notes that
industrial noise and other activities interfere with bowhead cow-calf
bonding and cause displacement from feeding areas and migratory routes.
The energetic costs of noise-related changes in behavior and
distribution patterns are potentially significant and will inevitably
constitute harassment and ``take.''
Response: Thank you for providing this comment. Because there are
potential effects on bowhead whales by seismic activities, an IHA is
warranted. Under the IHA, NMFS will require Western Geophysical to
incorporate mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce potential
impacts to the lowest level practicable.
Comment 6: Greenpeace states that the fall bowhead migration
begins in August, and a significant proportion of the population may be
in the vicinity of Western Geophysical's seismic operations during the
latter half of August. Citing Moore and Clarke (1991), Greenpeace
states that, during mid- to late-August, as many as 1,200-3,000 bowhead
whales may be present in the Beaufort Sea region from the Canadian
border to the offshore area demarcated by the western boundary of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Response: NMFS notes that the region cited by the commenters is
east of the proposed seismic survey area for Western Geophysical and
that bowhead whale numbers referenced by Greenpeace are overstated
because they include bowheads located in the Canadian Beaufort Sea.
Moore and Clark (1991) estimated that in 1982 through 1984, up to 500
(range 0-500) bowheads may be in the region annually between the Barter
and Flaxman islands; however, no whales were sighted west of that
region prior to September 1 during those years. This is verified by
Ljungblad et al. (1987). Most sighted bowheads were still in Canadian
waters.
NMFS notes that, in general, bowhead whales migrate westward
through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea from late August to late October, but
only a portion of the population has been estimated during this time
period. Other bowheads are either undetectable to observers (i.e.,
under the ice), migrate prior to surveys commencing, or do not migrate
to the Canadian Beaufort Sea.
Comment 7: LGL Ltd. provided information that airgun sounds may be
audible to beluga whales at long distances not only because of the high
source levels, but also because some energy at frequencies of a few
hundred hertz propagates horizontally from the seismic vessel. Beluga
hearing is more sensitive to these frequencies than to the lower
frequencies that dominate the seismic output (Richardson and Wursig,
1997; see also Goold, 1998).
Response: Thank you for providing this information.
Comment 8: LGL Ltd. provided information from a paper by Kastak and
Schusterman (1998) updating information provided in Western
Geophysical's application and in the notice of proposed authorization
which indicates that, for one harbor seal tested, the hearing threshold
was 102 dB re 1 uPa at 75 Hz, 96 dB at 100 Hz, and 84 dB at 200 and 400
Hz. These results are consistent with previously reported preliminary
data at 100 Hz.
Response: Thank you for providing this information.
Comment 9: LGL Ltd. corrected a statement in the notice that ``no
studies to date have focused on pinniped reaction to underwater noise
from pulsed, seismic arrays,'' noting that while this was true up to
early 1996, the monitoring results from the 1996 and 1997 BPXA program
have provided considerable information about reactions of seals. These
have been described in detail in the 90-day and final reports on the
1996 and 1997 BPXA monitoring programs, as described in Richardson
[ed.] (1998).
Response: Thank you for the comment. NMFS notes, however, that,
while opportunistic observations have been made of seismic noise
impacts on pinnipeds over the last few years, NMFS is aware of only one
researcher who has physiologically monitored individual animals
reaction to seismic noise. Preliminary information provided by this
individual earlier this year at the annual meeting of the Marine Mammal
Society in Monaco supports the results reported here.
Subsistence Concerns
Comment 10: The AEWC objects to the issuance of IHA permits to BPXA
and Western Geophysical because of their opposition to seismic
activities which interfere with the availability of bowhead whales
within their subsistence hunting area. Greenpeace believes that seismic
activities will result in a significant and unmitigable impact to
subsistence communities.
Response: As mentioned previously, BPXA withdrew its application
for an incidental harassment authorization on July 6, 1998. As a
result, only Western Geophysical will conduct open water seismic
operations this summer in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. In part, section
101(a)(5) of the MMPA requires NMFS to ensure that any taking will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species
or stock(s) for subsistence uses. Two elements must be present for NMFS
to determine that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses: First, the impact resulting from the specified
activity must be likely to reduce the availability of the species to a
level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (1)
causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (2)
directly displacing subsistence users, or (3) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and subsistence hunters. Second, it must be
an impact that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to
increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs
to be met (50 CFR 216.103). This standard of determining impact does
not require the elimination of adverse impacts, but it does require
mitigation sufficient to meet subsistence requirements. However, the
MMPA also requires that, where applicable, the measures will ensure the
least practicable impact on the availability of marine mammals for
taking for subsistence uses. In 1996 and 1997, these conditions were
met through the C&AA (also known as a Plan of Cooperation) by requiring
seismic operations to move west of Cross Island no later than September
1 or when whalers commenced the bowhead hunting season, whichever was
earlier. A similar agreement for 1998 was concluded on July 8, 1998,
between the AEWC/North Slope Borough (NSB) and Western Geophysical. As
a result of this signed C&AA, NMFS concludes that there will not be an
unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence needs of the NSB whalers
this year due to seismic activities.
Comment 11 : In order to mitigate impacts on the availability of
bowhead whales for subsistence needs, the AEWC believes the IHAs, if
issued to both BPXA and Western Geophysical, must require that (1) all
seismic operations east of Cross Island cease on August 15 or when a
bowhead whale is sighted at Kaktovik (whichever is earlier); (2) all
seismic operations east of 150 degrees West cease on August 15 or when
active whaling begins in Nuiqsut or Kaktovik (whichever is earlier);
and (3) all seismic operations cease on September 1 until Kaktovik,
Nuiqsut, and Barrow have completed their hunts.
Response: A signed C&AA requiring, among other things, for Western
Geophysical to cease all seismic activities east of Cross Island after
August 31 and to move to the westernmost portion of their seismic
activity area if impacts to bowhead whales continue after moving west
of
[[Page 40508]]
Cross Island is the result of negotiations between the AEWC and Western
Geophysical. This signed C&AA supercedes the recommendations made on
June 2, 1998, by the AEWC.
Mitigation Concerns
Comment 12: LGL Ltd. noted several errors in the shutdown distances
for airgun restrictions as published in the notice of proposed
authorization.
Response: For clarity, NMFS is republishing the shutdown distance
criteria in this document (see Mitigation).
Comment 13: The AEWC recommends that, after August 15, the two
seismic operations must be arranged so that (1) neither is directly
offshore of the other, and (2) they are separated by at least a 25-mile
east-west distance (so that the 12 miles (20 km) exclusion zone, seen
in the 1997 monitoring, do not overlap.
Response: Since there are no longer two planned seismic operations
to be conducted in the Beaufort Sea this summer, response to this
comment is no longer applicable.
Monitoring Concerns
Comment 14: Greenpeace contends that the monitoring program
proposed by Western Geophysical is not sufficiently rigorous nor
independent to adequately provide reliable research to support findings
about the impacts of seismic operations on marine mammals. Greenpeace
recommends an additional 5 bottom-mounted acoustic recorders be
installed in the offshore Beaufort Sea to detect marine mammal
(principally bowhead whale) vocalizations. Greenpeace also recommends
noise measurements be conducted at distances of 10 km (6 mi), 20 km (12
mi), 30 km (18 mi), 40 km (24 mi), and 50 km (30 mi).
Response: Thank you for your recommendations. Section
101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(II) of the MMPA requires authorizations issued under
this section to prescribe, where applicable, requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking by harassment, including
requirements for independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans
or other research proposals where the proposed activity may affect the
availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence purposes.
Western Geophysical's proposed monitoring plan for 1998 and the
results from LGL Ltd.'s 1996 and 1997 Beaufort Sea research were the
subject of a scientific peer-review workshop held in Seattle, WA, on
May 17 through 19, 1998. As a result of that workshop and the comments
submitted on their application, Western Geophysical amended its
monitoring plan and submitted that plan to NMFS for approval.
Modifications to the original plan include (1) reference to boat-based
marine mammal observers onboard the second source vessel; (2) a 32-km
westward extension of aerial surveys to address the question how far
west of the seismic area do bowhead whales remain farther offshore than
usual if bowheads are displaced offshore by seismic; (3) an additional
autonomous seafloor acoustic recorder (ASAR) farther offshore from the
area of seismic operations as well as the three previously proposed
ones along the 25-m contour; and (4) an attempt to retrive the two
ASARs left on the bottom of the Beaufort Sea last fall.
This amended plan is being independently peer-reviewed for NMFS.
Greenpeace's monitoring recommendations will be provided to these
reviewers for consideration. It should be noted that workshop
participant's recommended that, in addition to the three bottom-mounted
recorders planned for deployment by each seismic acitivity, an
additional 2-3 bottom-mounted recorders be installed offshore of the
area of seismic operations. However, the withdrawal of BPXA from an
active seismic program in 1998, made unnecessary the use of a
significant increase in the number of offshore recorders.
Comment 15: Greenpeace states that the monitoring program is
inadequate because it fails to account for the cumulative impact of two
open-water seismic programs operating concurrently. Greenpeace also
states that the monitoring program fails to account for the additional
impacts of ongoing, concurrent and future oil and gas activities. The
monitoring program must be sufficiently rigorous in design and scope to
determine this cumulative impact.
Response: Western Geophysical's and BPXA's proposed monitoring
plans were the subject of a peer-review workshop held in Seattle, WA,
between May 17 and 19, 1998. These monitoring plans were being amended
based upon that workshop when BPXA withdrew from participating in
seismic exploration during the 1998 open water season. Part of their
monitoring programs would have addressed the effects of cumulative
impact of their seismic programs on bowheads. As a result of BPXA's
withdrawal, there will not be a cumulative impact from seismic
activities this year (Western Geophysical's two seismic vessels will
not operate at the same time). A copy of Western's final monitoring
program is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS is unaware of any oil and gas activities currently underway in
the offshore Beaufort Sea that might result in impacts to marine
mammals. Distant water and nearshore activities are presumed by NMFS to
result in an increase in the ambient noise in the marine environment.
Increasing ambient noise in this environment is of concern to NMFS.
Ambient noise measurements have been made by LGL Ltd. in 1996 and 1997;
opportunistic measurements will continue in 1998 during a one-week
acoustical measurement program and by use of sonobuoys and bottom
recorders.
Comment 16: The MMC recommends NMFS review the data to determine
whether a single observer is able to locate and determine when any
marine mammal is in, or is likely to enter, the designated safety zone
around the towed array and, if not, require that additional observers
be required.
Response: NMFS has reviewed the information provided in the 1996
and 1997 monitoring program report and determined that a single
biological observer is unable to ensure that no marine mammals (e.g.,
seals) enter the designated safety zone and that a single observer
cannot adequately view both the safety zone and that portion of the
zone of influence visible from the ship's bridge. However, because
bowheads appear to avoid the area visible to the observer and because
seals appear at times to be attracted to seismic vessels, NMFS has
determined that two observers on watch at all times is unncessary
except whenever the seismic source is powered (ramped) up. In addition,
observers will be required to ensure that no marine mammals enter the
bow aspect of the safety zone; a lesser effort should be spent on seals
entering from the sides or rear portions of the safety zone. This
year's reporting requirement will include a requirement for a
comprehensive assessment on the effectiveness of single observer
coverage. NMFS will review the data obtained during 1998 season to
determine whether future authorizations will need additional observers
during all daytime seismic operations.
Comment 17: Greenpeace believes that the monitoring program is
inadequate because observers will be unable to visually identify whales
or seals at night or at other times of poor visibility. Where the
impacts will occur after mid-July, because of the increasing hours of
darkness, the probability of impacts at night and the inadequacies of
the monitoring program to detect them are a virtual certainty. Similar
impairment can be expected in times of fog and in other periods of poor
visibility.
[[Page 40509]]
Response: Observers monitor the safety zones and zones of potential
harassment around the seismic source whenever visibility permits, and
the source is either on or within 30 minutes of powering up. Observers
are aided by night-vision equipment for monitoring the safety zone.
Assessments of takes by harassment will be made based upon the
percentage of time spent observing in relation to the total time for
seismic operations. Because: (1) relatively few marine mammals are
expected in the area during the time of the survey, (2) the vessels are
underway at low speeds while laying or pulling OBC cable or conducting
seismic surveys, theoretically allowing animals sufficient time to move
away from any annoyances, and (3) documented observations indicate that
bowhead whales avoid active seismic survey areas few, if any, bowheads
are expected to approach the vessel and therefore, terminating surveys
at night and during inclement weather is not warranted.
Comment 18: The AEWC has recommended that a monitoring program be
in place for each seismic operation and, after September 1, must be at
least as detailed as that used during monitoring the 1997 seismic
operation. In addition, the IHA should require the (aerial survey)
monitoring to be expanded to the west to the extent needed to determine
when whales, displaced by seismic noise, return to their normal
migration route.
Response: Thank you for the comment. This monitoring recommendation
was also provided by the AEWC at the 1998 Seattle workshop. As a
result, the monitoring plan has been revised to follow this
recommendation.
Comment 19: The MMC recommends NMFS (1) take such steps as
necessary to verify that the operation of, and the sounds produced by,
the cable, seismic source, and related support vessels are unlikely to
have any effect on marine mammals in or near the proposed survey area;
and (2) require the Monitoring Plan be augmented to measure the levels
and characteristics of sounds produced by the various vessels and
confirm those sounds have no effect on marine mammals.
Response: While NMFS does not believe that noise from vessels will
have no impact on marine mammals, it is recognized as being a secondary
source for potential harassment of marine mammals. These sources are
authorized under the IHA, should an incidental harassment occur. The
1998 monitoring program will continue the program of previous years to
measure vessel sounds, with an emphasis on vessels not recorded in 1996
or 1997. The results of these measurements are reported annually.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Concerns
Comment 20: Greenpeace believes that, for several reasons, NMFS has
failed to meet NEPA standards. First, the 1996 EA was written by BPXA,
not by NMFS, and is deficient. Second, the 1998 activity is for a
broader area and timeframe than described in the 1996 EA. Third, the
1996 EA fails to take account of the cumulative impact of two
activities (BPXA and Western Geophysical applications). Finally,
significant new information has become available since the 1996 EA was
issued.
Response: In conjunction with the 1996 notice of proposed
authorization for BPXA's application (61 FR 26501, May 28, 1996), NMFS
released an EA that addressed the impacts on the human environment from
the proposed issuance of an IHA to BPXA to conduct a 3-D seismic survey
in the Western Beaufort Sea and the alternatives to that proposed
action. That document was written for NMFS by LGL Ltd under funding
provided by BPXA. This procedure is considered proper for building a
Record of Decision. No comments were received on the EA, and, on July
18, 1996, NMFS adopted the contractor-drafted EA and concluded that
neither implementation of the proposed authorization to BPXA for the
harassment of small numbers of several species of marine mammals
incidental to conducting an ocean-bottom cable seismic survey during
the open water season (July through October) in the Northstar Unit and
nearby waters in the U.S. Beaufort Sea nor the alternatives to that
action would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
That determination was based on an evaluation of a single airgun array
with 8-12 guns totaling 1,200-1,500 in3, (2,000 psi, 250 dB
re 1 Pa-m, p-p), a possible second array (see page 64 of the
EA), and the use of a second single airgun source (40 in3;
232 db re p-p) for calibration, for up to 100 days of operations. It
should be noted that, although the planned focus of efforts for the
1996 seismic survey was the Northstar Island area, figure 1 of the EA
indicates the area of possible seismic activity extended from Spy
Island in the west to Flaxman Island in the east. In addition, the EA
notes that BPXA may relocate to another site and continue the survey
until freeze-up (approximately October 20th).
Western Geophysical's planned seismic area for 1998 is roughly
between Harrison Bay in the west to Camden Bay/Flaxman Island in the
east; negligibly different from that described in the EA. In addition,
both the 1996 application (and EA) and the 1998 applications indicate
that surveys would be conducted between July and October.
In 1998, weather permitting, activity in the U.S. Beaufort Sea was
proposed to increase, with primary airgun arrays being used by Western
Geophysical (up to 16 guns in an array totaling to 1,500 in3
@ 2,000 psi). Western Geophysical plans to utilize a third source of
560 in3 (which it does not plan to use at the same time as
the primary source).
While neither applicant's activity alone exceeds the activity
description found in the 1996 EA, both applicants' activities together
had the potential to result in cumulative impacts not addressed in the
1996 EA, and a new analysis was warranted. However, BPXA's withdrawal
from open-water seismic activities on the North Slope in 1998 made the
preparation of a new environmental analysis unnecessary. Should more
than one seismic survey take place on the North Slope in 1999, NMFS
will release a revised EA that addresses the impacts from more than one
survey being conducted concurrently.
Comment 21: Greenpeace believes that the described action fits the
standard neither for a FONSI nor for a ``Categorical Exclusion.''
Greenpeace believes that because of impacts on native subsistence as
well as on the Arctic marine ecosystem, particularly the bowhead whale
and other marine species, NMFS must prepare a full, comprehensive EIS.
Response: NMFS disagrees. As discussed in this document, neither
commenters, recent monitoring and research, nor TK have provided
information that the impact (with mitigation and C&AA in place) would
be more than negligible (i.e., significant; see the definition in 40
CFR 1508.24) on the bowhead or beluga whales or on several species of
seals and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of these marine mammal species for subsistence uses. Since
NMFS must analyze a request for IHAs to determine whether the proposed
activity has no more than a negligible impact on a species or stock of
marine mammals and does not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence users, it believes that the issuance of a small take
authorization requires only the preparation of an EA and not of an EIS.
In this case, the agency found through preparing an EA in 1996, that
the proposed action(s) will
[[Page 40510]]
not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, thus
making a finding of no significant impact. If the EA results in this
finding, no additional documents are required by NEPA (NOAA Directives
Manual 02-10).
Information on the impacts on the marine environment from Beaufort
Sea oil and gas leasing activities, including seismic, in the area
under discussion has been addressed in several EISs prepared by
Minerals Management Service (MMS). Final EISs for Lease Sale 124 and
144 were completed in 1990 and 1996.
Cumulative Impact Concerns
Comment 22: Greenpeace believes NMFS is ignoring cumulative impacts
from oil exploration and development on subsistence communities,
bowhead whales, and other marine mammals in the Arctic environment.
Greenpeace believes that impacts from seismic operations cannot be
assessed separately from offshore exploratory drilling, development,
and transportation activities that may follow or are already occurring.
Response: The commenter is correct, however, NMFS would like to
clarify that NMFS' responsibility in this action is limited to the
issuance or denial of an authorization for the short-term, incidental
harassment of a small number of marine mammals by Western while
conducting a seismic survey within an authorized lease sale area. NMFS
does not authorize the exploration and development of oil and gas
itself (e.g., conducting seismic surveys) as such authorization is
provided by the MMS of the U.S. Department of the Interior and is not
within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce.
NMFS also notes that the responsibility for reviewing an activity's
cumulative impact belongs primarily to the responsible permitting
agency, and, if that activity is Federal, federally funded or federally
permitted cumulative impacts are usually reviewed under NEPA. MMS has
responsibility for leasing and subsequent exploration and development
activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. As a result,
MMS published draft and final EISs under NEPA regarding leasing of
offshore oil and gas exploration for Lease Sale Area 144. Cumulative
impacts from oil and gas exploration operations are described in those
NEPA documents.
In addition, a multi-agency NEPA document is currently under public
review and comment. This document will analyze the proposal for oil and
gas development at Northstar and the alternatives to that proposal. A
notice of NEPA scoping was published for public comment in November
1995; a draft EIS was released by the Corps of Engineers on June 1,
1998. An analysis of concerns regarding potential future oil and gas
industry and other environmental issues will be found in this document.
Comment 23: The MMC recommended NMFS consult with appropriate
agencies and organizations to determine the long-term monitoring that
would be required to confirm that the proposed seismic surveys and
possible future exploration and development activities do not cause
changes in the seasonal distribution patterns, abundance, or
productivity of marine mammal populations in the area.
Response: NMFS agrees but notes that this recommendation extends
beyond the requirements of the 1998 monitoring program for Western
Geophysical's seismic survey. However, to the extent practicable, NMFS
intends to use the peer-review process required by the MMPA for small
take authorizations in Arctic waters to address these cumulative impact
monitoring concerns in the future.
ESA
Comment 24: Greenpeace states that the issuance of an IHA to
Western Geophysical (or BPXA) would violate the ESA as it is
inconsistent with the requirements and underlying purposes of the ESA
and with the requirements that each agency use the best scientific and
commercial data available.
Response: NMFS disagrees, noting that the issuance of an IHA to
Western Geophysical triggers section 7 of the ESA, as the issuance of
the IHA is a Federal action. However, the major federal agency for
offshore oil and gas lease activities is the Minerals Management
Service (MMS). Consultation under section 7 for lease sale 144 was
concluded on November 16, 1995, with a finding that the action was not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.
Reinitiation of formal consultation under section 7 is warranted
only when there is new scientific information that has the potential to
call into question the scientific and commercial data used in the
previous biological opinion. At this time, NMFS does not consider the
recent findings on impacts to listed marine species from the
disturbance from seismic surveys sufficient to reinitiate consultation.
Mitigation
Western Geophysical will use biological observers to monitor marine
mammal presence in the vicinity of the seismic array. To avoid serious
injury to marine mammals, Western Geophysical will power down the
seismic source if pinnipeds are sighted within the area delineated by
the 190 dB isopleth or:
(1) Within 170 m (558 ft) of an array <750 in3
operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
(2) Within 280 m (919 ft) of an array <750
in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
(3) Within 200 m (656 ft) of an array 1500
in3 operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
(4) Within 350 m (1,148 ft) of an array 1500
in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth.
Western Geophysical will power down the seismic source
if bowhead, gray, or belukha whales are sighted within the area
delineated by the 180 dB isopleth or:
(1) Within 660 m (2,165 ft) of an array <750 in3
operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
(2) Within 900 m (2,953 ft) of an array <750
in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
(3) Within 750 m (2,461 ft) of an array 1500
in3 operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
(4) Within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of an array 1500
in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth.
In addition, Western Geophysical proposes to ramp-up the seismic
source to operating levels at a rate no greater than 6 dB/min,
commencing with an 80 in3 airgun. Additional guns
will be added at intervals appropriate to limit the rate of increase in
source level to a maximum of 6 dB/min.
Monitoring and Reporting Monitoring
As part of its application, Western Geophysical provided a
monitoring plan for assessing impacts to marine mammals from seismic
surveys in the Beaufort Sea. This monitoring plan is described in
Western Geophysical (1998) and in LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences
Inc. (1998). As mentioned previously, this monitoring plan was amended
based on review and comment and was submitted to NMFS on July 15, 1998.
As required by the MMPA, this monitoring plan will be subject to a
peer-review panel of technical experts prior to formal acceptance by
NMFS.
Preliminarily, Western Geophysical plans to conduct the following:
Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
A minimum of two biologist-observers aboard the seismic vessel will
search for and observe marine mammals whenever seismic operations are
in progress and for at least 30 minutes prior to planned
[[Page 40511]]
start of shooting. These observers will scan the area immediately
around the vessels with reticulated binoculars during the daytime and
with night-vision equipment during the night (prior to mid-August,
there are no hours of darkness). Individual watches will normally be
limited to no more than four consecutive hours during daylight hours.
When mammals are detected within a safety zone designated to
prevent injury to the animals (see Mitigation), the geophysical crew
leader will be notified so that shutdown procedures can be implemented
immediately.
Aerial Surveys
From September 1, 1998, until 3 days after the seismic program
ends, aerial surveys will be conducted daily, weather permitting. The
primary objective will be to document the occurrence, distribution, and
movements of bowhead and belukha whales in and near the area where they
might be affected by the seismic pulses. These observations will be
used to estimate the level of harassment takes and to assess the
possibility that seismic operations affect the accessibility of bowhead
whales for subsistence hunting. Pinnipeds will be recorded when seen.
Aerial surveys will be at an altitude of 300 m (1,000 ft) above sea
level. Western Geophysical proposes to avoid overflights of the Cross
Island area where whalers from Nuiqsut are based during their fall
whale hunt.
Consistent with 1996 and 1997 aerial surveys in the U.S. Beaufort
Sea, the daily aerial surveys are proposed to cover two grids: (1) A
grid of 16 north-south lines spaced 8 km (5 mi) apart and extending
from about 50 km (30 mi) west of the western side of the then-current
seismic exploration area to 50 km (30 mi) east of its eastern edge, and
from the barrier islands north to approximately the 100 m (328 ft)
depth contour; and (2) a grid of 4 survey lines within the above
region, also spaced 8 km (5 mi) apart and mid-way between the longer
lines, to provide more intensive coverage of the area of the seismic
operations and immediate surrounding waters.
When the seismic program is relocated east or west along the coast
during the 1998 season, both survey grids will be relocated a
corresponding distance along the coast. Information on the survey
program can be found in Western Geophysical (1998) and in LGL Ltd. and
Greeneridge Sciences Inc. (1998).
Acoustical Measurements
The acoustic measurement program proposed for 1998 is designed to
continue the research conducted in 1996 and 1997 (see BPXA, 1996a,
1997, and 1998; LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., 1996, 1997, and
1998). The acoustic measurement program is planned to include (1) boat-
based acoustic measurements, (2) OBC-based acoustic measurements, (3)
use of air-dropped sonobuoys, and (4) bottom-mounted acoustical
recorders.
The boat-based acoustical measurement program is proposed for a 7-
day period in August 1998. The objectives of this survey will be as
follows: (1) To measure the levels and other characteristics of the
horizontally propagating seismic survey sounds from the type(s) of
airgun array(s) to be used in 1998 as a function of distance and aspect
relative to the seismic source vessel(s) and to water depth.
(2) To measure the levels and frequency composition of the vessel
sounds emitted by vessels used regularly during the 1998 program.
(3) To obtain additional site-specific ambient noise data, which
determine signal-to-noise ratios for seismic and other acoustic signals
at various ranges from their sources.
Western Geophysical and its proposed consultant (Greeneridge
Sciences) are investigating the use of the OBC-system to help document
horizontal propagation of the seismic surveys. In addition, during late
August and September, four autonomous seafloor acoustic recorders will
be placed on the sea bottom to record low-frequency sounds nearly
continuously for up to 3 weeks at a time. Information includes
characteristics of the seismic pulses, ambient noise, and bowhead
calls. Additional data on these noise sources will be obtained from
sonobuoys dropped from aircraft after September 1.
For a more detailed description of planned monitoring activities,
please refer to the application and supporting document (Western
Geophysical, 1998; LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., 1998b).
Estimates of Marine Mammal Take
Estimates of takes by harassment will be made through vessel and
aerial surveys. Preliminarily, Western Geophysical will estimate the
number of (a) marine mammals observed within the area ensonified
strongly by the seismic vessel; (b) marine mammals observed showing
apparent reactions to seismic pulses (e.g., heading away from the
seismic vessel in an atypical direction); (c) marine mammals subject to
take by type (a) or (b) above when no monitoring observations were
possible; and (d) bowheads displaced seaward from the main migration
corridor.
Reporting
Western Geophysical will provide an initial report on 1998
activities to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of the seismic
program. This report will provide dates and locations of seismic
operations, details of marine mammal sightings, estimates of the amount
and nature of all takes by harassment, and any apparent effects on
accessibility of marine mammals to subsistence users.
A final technical report will be provided by Western Geophysical
within 20 working days of receipt of the document from the contractor,
but no later than April 30, 1999. The final technical report will
contain a description of the methods, results, and interpretation of
all monitoring tasks.
Consultation
Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has completed consultations on the
issuance of this authorization.
Conclusions
NMFS has determined that the short-term impact of conducting
seismic surveys in the Western Beaufort Sea will result, at worst, in a
temporary modification in behavior by certain species of cetaceans.
While behavioral modifications may be made by these species of
cetaceans and seals to avoid the resultant noise, this behavioral
change is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals.
The number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on
the distribution and abundance of marine mammals (which vary annually
due to variable ice conditions and other factors) in the area of
seismic operations. Due to the distribution and abundance of marine
mammals during the projected period of activity and to the location of
the proposed seismic activity in waters generally too shallow and
distant from the edge of the pack ice for most marine mammals of
concern, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be
small (see 63 FR 27709, May 20, 1998, for potential levels of take). In
addition, no take by injury and/or by death is anticipated, and the
potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment will be avoided
through incorporation of the mitigation measures described in the
authorization.
Because bowhead whales are east of the seismic area in the Canadian
Beaufort Sea until late August/early September, seismic activities are
not
[[Page 40512]]
expected to impact subsistence hunting of bowhead whales prior to that
date. After August 31, 1998, Western Geophysical will initiate aerial
survey flights for bowhead whale assessments, and take other actions to
avoid having an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses.
Appropriate mitigation measures to avoid an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence needs is the
subject of consultation between Western Geophysical and subsistence
users. As a result of discussions between the two parties, a C&AA has
been completed. This Agreement consists of three main components: (1)
Communications, (2) conflict avoidance, and (3) dispute resolution.
Summer seismic exploration in the U.S. Beaufort Sea has a small
potential to influence seal hunting activities by residents of Nuiqsut.
However, NMFS believes that, because (1) the peak sealing season is
during the winter months, (2) the main summer sealing is off the
Colville delta, and (3) the zone of influence by seismic sources on
beluga and seals is fairly small, the 1998 Western Geophysical seismic
survey will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of these stocks for subsistence uses.
Since NMFS is assured that the taking would not result in more than
the incidental harassment (as defined by the MMPA Amendments of 1994)
of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals, would have only
a negligible impact on these stocks, would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of these stocks for subsistence
uses, and would result in the least practicable impact on the stocks,
NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.
Authorization
Accordingly, NMFS has issued an IHA to Western Geophysical for the
above described seismic survey during the 1998 open water season
provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
described in the authorization are undertaken.
Dated: July 23, 1998.
Patricia A. Montanio,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 98-20280 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F