[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26336-26340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6768]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 041306A]
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; On-
ice Seismic Operations 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 marine mammals,
by harassment, incidental to conducting on-ice vibroseis seismic
operations in the Harrison Bay portion of the western U.S. Beaufort Sea
has been issued to Kuukpik Veritas DGC (Kuukpik) for a period of 1
year.
DATES: Effective from April 30, 2006 through April 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The authorization and application containing a list of the
references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this
address or by telephoning the contact listed here. The application is
also available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 137 or Brad Smith, Alaska Region,
NMFS, (907) 271-5006.
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 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), 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 mitigation, monitoring and
reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ''...an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Except for certain categories of 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].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment
period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
Summary of Request
On October 24, 2005, NMFS received an application from ASRC Energy
Services, Lynx Enterprises, Inc. (AES Lynx) on behalf of Kuukpik for
the taking, by harassment, of two species of marine mammals incidental
to conducting an on-ice seismic survey program. The seismic operations
will be conducted in the Harrison Bay portion of the western U.S.
Beaufort Sea. The proposed survey would be conducted
[[Page 26337]]
from through May 20, 2006. The operation will consist of laying seismic
cables with geophones on the frozen sea ice, employing the vibroseis
method of energy (sound source) production, and recording the seismic
signals. Water depths in the majority of the planned survey area are
less than 3 m (9.8 ft).
The purpose of the project is to gather information about the
subsurface of the earth by measuring acoustic waves, which are
generated on or near the surface. The acoustic waves reflect at
boundaries in the earth that are characterized by acoustic impedance
contrasts.
Description of the Activity
The seismic surveys use the ``reflection'' method of data
acquisition. Seismic exploration uses a controlled energy source to
generate acoustic waves that travel through the earth, including sea
ice and water, as well as sub-sea geologic formations, and then uses
ground sensors to record the reflected energy transmitted back to the
surface. When acoustic energy is generated, compression and shear waves
form and travel in and on the earth. The compression and shear waves
are affected by the geological formations of the earth as they travel
in it and may be reflected, refracted, diffracted or transmitted when
they reach a boundary represented by an acoustic impedance contrast.
Vibroseis seismic operations use large trucks with vibrators that
systematically put variable frequency energy into the earth. At least
1.2 m (4 ft) of sea ice is required to support the various equipment
and vehicles used to transport seismic equipment offshore for
exploration activities. These ice conditions generally exist from 1
January until 31 May in the Beaufort Sea. Several vehicles are normally
associated with a typical vibroseis operation. One or two vehicles with
survey crews move ahead of the operation and mark the energy input
points. Crews with wheeled vehicles often require trail clearance with
bulldozers for adequate access to and within the site. Crews with
tracked vehicles are typically limited by heavy snow cover and may
require trail clearance beforehand.
With the vibroseis technique, activity on the surveyed seismic line
begins with the placement of sensors. All sensors are connected to the
recording vehicle by multi-pair cable sections. The vibrators move to
the beginning of the line and begin recording data. The vibrators begin
vibrating in synchrony via a simultaneous radio signal to all vehicles.
In a typical survey, each vibrator will vibrate four times at each
location. The entire formation of vibrators subsequently moves forward
to the next energy input point (e.g. 67 m, or 220 ft, in most
applications) and repeats the process. In a typical 16- to 18-hour day,
a surveys will complete 6-16 km (4 to 10 linear miles) in 2-dimensional
seismic operations and 24 to 64 km (15 to 40 linear miles) in a 3-
dimensional seismic operation.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the
application and proposed authorization was published on February 27,
2006 (71 FR 9782). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS
received the following comments from the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission).
Comment 1: As noted in the Commission's previous letters on similar
requests, the Commission believes that the effects of the activities
proposed, by themselves, are likely to be negligible. However, the
Commission continues to be concerned that the cumulative impacts of (1)
many such activities in the Beaufort Sea (see National Academy of
Sciences report entitled Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and
Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope), and (2) predicted climate
change in this region may, at some point, have more than negligible
impacts on marine mammal populations.
Response: NMFS is unaware of any other wintertime seismic
operations in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The only other potential ice-road
construction activity is by Northstar operations near Prudhoe Bay (70
FR 17066, April 4, 2005), which is about 100 miles (1,610 km) from the
proposed action in the Coleville Delta/Harrison Bay region of the
Beaufort Sea. No ice-roads have been constructed in recent years due to
use of hovercraft for transportation. As for the cumulative impacts:
(1) The report Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas
Activities on Alaska's North Slope (Report) released by the National
Academy of Science lists industrial noise and oil spill as major
impacts to marine mammals from oil and gas development. So far the
prevalent human induced mortalities on marine mammals (bowhead whales,
seals, and polar bears) in this region are from subsistent hunting. The
Report further predicts that ``if climate warming and substantial oil
spills did not occur, cumulative effects on ringed seals and polar
bears in the next 25 years would likely be minor and not accumulate''.
In its findings, the Report concludes that ``industrial activity in
marine waters of the Beaufort Sea has been limited and sporadic and
likely has not caused serious accumulating effects on ringed seals or
polar bears''; and ``careful mitigation can help to reduce the effects
of North Slope oil and gas development and their accumulation,
especially if there is no major oil spill''. The proposed activity
would have no potential for oil spill, neither would it produce noise
that is high enough to cause any harm to marine mammals.
(2) Although climate warming should be a concern for the
sustainability of the entire ecosystem in the Alaska's North Slope
region, it is irrelevant to the proposed action since the on-ice
seismic activity would neither contribute nor reduce the pace of global
warming. The melting of shore-fast ice by itself would only reduce the
on-ice activity as it would be unsafe to employ vibroseis survey
techniques. At least 4 ft (1.2 m) of ice thickness is required to
support the various equipment and vehicles used to transport seismic
equipment offshore for exploration activities.
Comment 2: The Commission questions whether arctic cod, which are a
primary prey of ringed seals, could be adversely affected by vibroseis
surveys.
Response: Most of the on-ice seismic survey would be conducted in
areas where water depth is under 3 m (9.8 ft) with the shore-fast ice
at 1.2 m (4 ft) thick. This is not preferred habitat for the arctic
cod, which is commonly found at the surface of the sea close to shore
among ice floes.
Comment 3: The Commission reiterates its recommendation that
monitoring programs for the proposed activities be expanded to collect
more general data on changes in density and abundance of potentially
affected marine mammals, reproductive rates, prey availability,
foraging patterns, distribution, and contaminant levels where oil and
gas exploration, development, and production occur. The Commission
considers such information essential for ensuring that subtle changes
occurring over short periods (i.e., seasonally or annually) have
negligible cumulative effects over longer periods.
Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
prescribe a monitoring program that the applicant must implement to
provide information on marine mammal takings and impacts on affected
species and stocks. As provided in the Federal Register notice of
receipt of this IHA application (71 FR 9782, February 27, 2006), seal
density and structure survey would be conducted before selection of
transit routes, and a second seal structure survey would be performed
shortly after
[[Page 26338]]
the end of the seismic surveys. A detailed description of the survey is
provided in that Federal Register notice (71 FR 9782, February 27,
2006) and is not repeated here. However, an expanded program to collect
information on prey availability, foraging patterns, and contaminant
levels of marine mammals is beyond the scope of the proposed action.
Comment 4: The Commission believes that the use of trained dogs is
the only reliable method for locating ringed seal lairs and other
structures. Thus, if trained dogs are not available for the initial
survey, the Commission does not believe that the NMFS should accept
monitoring by humans as an alternative until it has been demonstrated
that such monitoring is as effective as that carried out using dogs.
Response: While NMFS believes the use of trained dogs to locate
ringed seal lairs during on-ice surveys conducted in areas with water
depth less than 3 m (9.8 ft) is the best method to detect ringed seals
in winter, NMFS also believes that the use of experienced subsistence
hunters should be an alternative only if no dogs are available. In such
cases, NMFS requires the applicant to provide certifications from
owners of trained dogs stating that no dogs are available for the
purposed surveys during the survey days. The applicant points out it
has certain concerns over the required dogs, including the biasing of
locating abandoned versus active holes, the potential of attracting
polar bears, potential takes of seals by dogs, and the opposition from
the native groups.
Comment 5: The Commission also notes that the probability of
physical damage to seal lairs and holes or individual seals is related
to the total area affected, and it suggests that vehicles stay on the
actual shot lines to the maximum extent possible.
Response: The majority of the areas (> 95 percent) that would be
subject to on-ice seismic survey would be under 3 m (9.8 ft) deep,
therefore are not ringed seal habitat. Nevertheless, NMFS is requiring
the applicant to have survey vehicles stay on the actual shot lines to
the maximum extent possible.
Comment 6: The Commission further recommends that the authorization
specify that operations be suspended if a mortality or serious injury
of a seal occurs. The suspension would provide an opportunity for NMFS
to determine whether steps can be taken to avoid further injuries or
mortalities and whether an incidental take authorization is needed
under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Response: NMFS agrees, and the IHA condition will specify that
operations be suspended if a mortality or serious injury of a seal is
detected.
Comment 7: The Commission noted that the application indicates that
a brief portion of the proposed project may be conducted over open
water if on-ice studies are inadequate and further resolution is
needed. Such open-water work would involve the use of small airgun
arrays. If it has not already done so, the Commission asks NMFS to
request additional information from the applicant on this portion of
the proposed activities (e.g., sizes of airguns, zones of influence,
etc.).
Response: The application NMFS received on February 7, 2006,
indicates that open-water surveys would only be necessary if on-ice
seismic surveys indicate that there may be a dead zone from where
inadequate or jumbled seismic signals were recorded. Under such
circumstances when open-water seismic surveys become necessary, the
applicant will be required to submit a new IHA application for open-
water surveys providing detailed information on this proposed activity.
Open-water seismic surveys are not authorized under this IHA.
Comment 8: The application states that the applicant will seek a
Letter of Authorization (LOA) from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for intentional take of polar bears. NMFS should advise the
applicant that it will need to obtain appropriate authorizations from
FWS for any taking of polar bears.
Response: Both intentional and unintentional, incidental take of
marine mammals is prohibited under the MMPA, unless the take has been
authorized by the appropriate agency. NMFS encourages the applicant to
contact the FWS regarding appropriate authorizations for any
intentional or unintentional, incidental taking of polar bears that may
occur as a result of their activities.
Description of Habitat, Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity, and
the Impact on Affected Marine Mammals
A detailed description of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem can be found
in several documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999; NMFS, 1999; Minerals
Management Service (MMS), 1992, 1996, 2001). A more detailed
description of the seismic survey activities and affected marine
mammals can be found in the AES Lynx application (see ADDRESSES). Four
marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed study
area: ringed seal (Phoca hispida), bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus),
spotted seal (Phoca largha), and polar bear (Ursus maritimus). The
applicant reached an arrangement with the USFWS for the intentional
taking of polar bears because USFWS has management authority for this
species. Spotted seals are not known winter users of the project area,
therefore, no incidental take is expected for this species. A more
detailed description of ringed and bearded seals can be found in the
proposed IHA notice (71 FR 9782, February 27, 2006). That information
is not repeated here.
Mitigation and Monitoring
The following mitigation measures will be implemented for the
subject surveys. All activities will be conducted as far as practicable
from any observed ringed or bearded seal lair and no energy source will
be placed over a ringed or bearded seal lair. Only vibrator-type
energy-source equipment shown to have similar or lesser effects than
proposed will be used. Kuukpik will provide training for the seismic
crews so they can recognize potential areas of ringed seal lairs and
adjust the seismic operations accordingly.
Ringed seal pupping occurs in ice lairs from late March to mid-to-
late April (Smith and Hammill, 1981). Prior to commencing on-ice
seismic surveys in areas where water depth is less than 3 m (9.8 ft) in
mid-March, trained dogs will be used to screen for lairs along the
planned on-ice seismic transmission routes. In case that no dogs are
available for the scheduled survey, experienced Inupiat subsistence
hunters will be hired to look for seal lairs. The seal structure survey
will be conducted before selection of precise transit routes to ensure
that seals, particularly pups, are not injured by equipment. The
locations of all seal structures will be recorded by Global Positioning
System (GPS), staked, and flagged with surveyor's tape. Surveys will be
conducted 150 m (492 ft) to each side of the transit routes. Actual
width of route may vary depending on wind speed and direction, which
strongly influence the efficiency and effectiveness of dogs at locating
seal structures. Few, if any, seals inhabit ice-covered waters
shallower than 3 m (9.8 ft) due to water freezing to the bottom or poor
prey availability caused by the limited amount of ice-free water.
Kuukpik will also continue to work with NMFS, other Federal
agencies, the State of Alaska, Native communities of Barrow and
Nuiqsut, and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS) to assess
measures to further minimize any impact from seismic activity. A Plan
of Cooperation was developed between Kuukpik and Nuiqsut to ensure that
[[Page 26339]]
seismic activities do not interfere with subsistence harvest of ringed
or bearded seals.
The level of impacts, while anticipated to be negligible, will be
assessed by conducting a second seal structure survey shortly after the
end of the seismic surveys. A single on-ice survey will be conducted by
biologists on snow machines using a GPS to relocate and determine the
status of seal structures located during the initial survey. The status
(active vs. inactive) of each structure will be determined to assess
the level of incidental take by seismic operations. The number of
active seal structures abandoned between the initial survey and the
final survey will be the basis for enumerating possible harassment
takes. If dogs are not available for the initial survey, takings will
be estimated by using observed densities of seals on ice reported by
Moulton et al. (2001) for the Northstar development, which is
approximately 24 nm (46 km) from the eastern edge of the proposed
activity area.
Seal structures take estimates will be determined for the portion
of the activity area exposed to seismic surveys in water depths of 3 m
(9.8 ft) or less. Take for this area will be estimated by using the
observed density (13/100 km\2\) reported by Moulton et al. (2001) for
water depths between 0 to 3 m (0 to 9.8 ft) in the Northstar project
area, which is the only source of a density estimate stratified by
water depth for the Beaufort Sea. This will be an overestimation
requiring a substantial downward adjustment to better reflect the
likely take of seals using lairs, since few if any of the structures in
these water depths would be used for birthing, and the Moulton et al.
(2001) estimate includes all seals.
Reporting
An annual report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of
completing the year's activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA will be affected by issuing an incidental
harassment authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to
Kuukpik for this on-ice seismic survey.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The information provided in Environmental Assessments (EAs)
prepared in 1993 and 1998 for winter seismic activities led NOAA to
conclude that implementation of either the preferred alternative or
other alternatives identified in the EA would not have a significant
impact on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement was not prepared. The proposed action discussed in this
document is not substantially different from the 1993 and 1998 actions,
and a reference search has indicated that no significant new scientific
information or analyses have been developed in the past several years
that would warrant new NEPA documentation.
Determinations
The anticipated impact of winter seismic activities on the species
or stock of ringed and bearded seals is expected to be negligible (and
limited to the taking of small numbers) for the following reasons:
(1) The activity area supports a small proportion (<1 percent) of
the ringed and bearded seal populations in the Beaufort Sea.
(2) Most of the winter-run seismic lines will be on ice over
shallow water where ringed seals are absent or present in very low
abundance. Most of the activity area is near shore and/or in water less
than 3 m (9.8 ft) deep, which is generally considered poor seal
habitat. Moulton et al. (2001) reported that only 6 percent of 660
ringed seals observed on ice in the Northstar project area were in
water between 0 to 3 m (0 to 9.8 ft) deep.
(3) For reasons of safety and because of normal operational
constraints, seismic operators will avoid moderate and large pressure
ridges, where seal and pupping lairs are likely to be most numerous.
(4) The sounds from energy produced by vibrators used during on-ice
seismic programs typically are at frequencies well below those used by
ringed seals to communicate (1,000 Hz). Thus, ringed seal hearing is
not likely to be very good at those frequencies and seismic sounds are
not likely to have strong masking effects on ringed seal calls. This
effect is further moderated by the quiet intervals between seismic
energy transmissions.
(5) There has been no major displacement of seals away from on-ice
seismic operations (Frost and Lowry, 1988). Further confirmation of
this lack of major response to industrial activity is illustrated by
the fact that there has been no major displacement of seals near the
Northstar Project. Studies at Northstar have shown a continued presence
of ringed seals throughout winter and creation of new seal structures
(Williams et al., 2001).
(6) Although seals may abandon structures near seismic activity,
studies have not demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between
abandonment and seismic activity or biologically significant impact on
ringed seals. Studies by Williams et al. (2001), Kelley et al. (1986,
1988) and Kelly and Quakenbush (1990) have shown that abandonment of
holes and lairs and establishment or re-occupancy of new ones is an
ongoing natural occurrence, with or without human presence. Link et al.
(1999) compared ringed seal densities between areas with and without
vibroseis activity and found densities were highly variable within each
area and inconsistent between areas (densities were lower for 5 days,
equal for 1 day, and higher for 1 day in vibroseis area), suggesting
other factors beyond the seismic activity likely influenced seal use
patterns. Consequently, a wide variety of natural factors influence
patterns of seal use including time of day, weather, season, ice
deformation, ice thickness, accumulation of snow, food availability and
predators as well as ring seal behavior and population dynamics.
In winter, bearded seals are restricted to cracks, broken ice, and
other openings in the ice. On-ice seismic operations avoid those areas
for safety reasons. Therefore, any exposure of bearded seals to on-ice
seismic operations would be limited to distant and transient exposure.
Bearded seals exposed to a distant on-ice seismic operation might dive
into the water. Consequently, no significant effects on individual
bearded seals or their population are expected, and the number of
individuals that might be temporarily disturbed would be very low.
As a result, Kuukpik and NMFS believe the effects of on-ice seismic
are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral
changes involving relatively small numbers of seals. NMFS has
determined, based on information in the application and supporting
documents, that these changes in behavior will have no more than a
negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of ringed and
bearded seals. Also, the potential effects of the on-ice seismic
operations during 2006 are unlikely to result in more than small
numbers of seals being affected and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses of these two species.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to Kuukpik for conducting seismic surveys
from in the Harrison Bay area of the western
[[Page 26340]]
U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: April 28, 2006.
Donna Wieting,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6-6768 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S