49418 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

amount of information pertaining to 

each company’s sales practices, factors 

of production, corporate relationships, 

and to review responses to 

supplemental questionnaires, we are 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of review by an 

additional 10 days until August 31, 

2006, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results 

continue to be due 120 days after the 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the preliminary results of review. 

Dated: August 17, 2006. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–13979 Filed 8–22–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 081606B] 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Recovery Plans 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the 

availability for public review of the draft 

updated Recovery Plan (Plan) for the 

U.S. Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 

of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). 

NMFS is soliciting review and 

comments from the public and all 

interested parties on the draft Plan, and 

will consider all substantive comments 

received during the review period 

before submitting the Plan for final 

approval. 

DATES: Comments on the draft Plan 

must be received by close of business on 

October 23, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Smalltooth Sawfish Coordinator. 

Comments may be submitted by: 

• E-mail: smalltooth

sawfish.recoveryplan@noaa.gov, include 

in the subject line the following 

document identifier: Smalltooth 

Sawfish Recovery Plan. E-mail 

comments, with or without attachments, 

are limited to 5 megabytes; 

• Smalltooth Sawfish Coordinator, 

NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 

Protected Resources Division, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida 

33071; or 

• Fax: (727) 824–5309. Interested 

persons may obtain the Plan for review 

from the above address or on-line from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/ 

plans.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelley Norton, (727) 824–5312, or by email Shelley.Norton@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (15 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA) requires that 

NMFS develop and implement recovery 

plans for the conservation and survival 

of threatened and endangered species 

under its jurisdiction, unless it is 

determined that such plans would not 

promote the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(f) of the ESA, as amended in 

1988, requires that public notice and 

opportunity to review and comment be 

provided during recovery plan 

development. 

The U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish 

(Pristis pectinata) was listed as 

endangered under the ESA on April 1, 

2003 (68 FR 15680) subsequent to a 

1999 listing petition from The Ocean 

Conservancy (formerly the Center for 

Marine Conservation). Smalltooth 

sawfish were once prevalent throughout 

Florida and were commonly 

encountered from Texas to North 

Carolina. Currently, smalltooth sawfish 

can only be found with any regularity in 

south Florida between the 

Caloosahatchee River and the Florida 

Keys. 

The draft recovery plan for the U.S. 

DPS of smalltooth sawfish was prepared 

for NMFS by the smalltooth sawfish 

recovery team. The team is composed of 

nine members from Federal, State, nongovernmental, and non-profit 

organizations. The goal of the recovery 

plan is to rebuild and assure the longterm viability of the U.S. DPS of 

smalltooth sawfish in the wild, allowing 

initially for reclassification from 

endangered to threatened status 

(downlisting) and ultimately to recovery 

and subsequent removal from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(delisting). NMFS will consider all 

substantive comments and information 

presented during the public comment 

period in the course of finalizing this 

Plan. 

Dated: August 17, 2006. 

Maria Boroja, 

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–13975 Filed 8–22–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 071406A] 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; 

Seismic Surveys in the Chukchi Sea 

off Alaska 

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 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

conducting marine geophysical seismic 

surveys, on oil and gas lease blocks 

located on Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) waters in the Chukchi Sea. has 

been issued to GX Technology of 

Houston, Texas (GXT). 

DATES: Effective from August 15, 2006, 

through December 31, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: The application, a list of 

references used in this document, and/ 

or the IHA are available by writing to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225, or by telephoning one of 

the contacts listed here. A copy of the 

application, the IHA and/or the research 

monitoring plan is also available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#iha. 

A copy of the Minerals Management 

Service’s (MMS) Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment (PEA) is 

available on-line at: http:// 

www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/pealbe.htm 

Documents cited in this document, 

that are not available through standard 

public (inter-library loan) access, may 

be viewed, by appointment, during 

regular business hours at this address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–

2289, ext 128. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49419 

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 shall 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 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 

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]. 

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 March 28, 2006, NMFS received 

an IHA application from GXT to take 

several species of marine mammals 

incidental to conducting a marine 

seismic survey in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas. On March 31, 2006, GXT 

notified NMFS that it would not be 

conducting surveys in the U.S. Beaufort 

Sea, but would instead conduct seismic 

surveys in the Canadian Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Beaufort 

Sea. 

GXT plans to collect seismic 

reflection data that reveal the subbottom profile for assessments of 

petroleum reserves in the area. Ultradeep 2D lines such as those to be 

collected are used to better evaluate the 

evolution of the petroleum system at the 

basin level, including identifying source 

rocks, migration pathways, and play 

types. All planned geophysical data 

acquisition activities will be conducted 

by GXT. The geophysical survey will be 

performed from the M/V Discoverer (the 

original proposed action was for the M/ 

V Discoverer II to conduct the seismic 

survey, see Comments and Responses). 

The M/V Discoverer will arrive in 

Dutch Harbor about June 1st where it 

will be resupplied and the crew will 

change in preparation for the beginning 

of seismic surveys in the Chukchi Sea. 

Depending on ice conditions, the vessel 

will mobilize to arrive off Cape Lisburne 

and begin survey data acquisition as 

soon as possible; the expected date is 

July 30, 2006, depending upon ice 

conditions. Two alternative schedule 

scenarios are planned depending on the 

seasonal ice conditions encountered in 

2006. 

The first (and most likely) scenario 

entails operations beginning in the 

Chukchi Sea about July 30, 2006. 

Collection of seismic data will continue 

there until there is sufficient open water 

near Point Barrow and in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea to allow passage east into 

the Canadian Beaufort Sea. The M/V 

Discoverer will then leave the Chukchi 

Sea, traverse the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 

and conduct surveys in the Canadian 

Beaufort Sea under GX Technology 

Canada Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta,. a 

company incorporated in Canada. 

Seismic operations will continue in the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea until all planned 

seismic lines have been completed, or 

new ice begins forming in the fall. The 

vessel will then return to the Chukchi 

Sea to complete any lines not previously 

surveyed, or until weather and sea ice 

force an end to the survey season, which 

is not expected to continue past 

November 30, 2006. 

The second scenario will occur only 

if sea ice in the Beaufort Sea does not 

move far enough offshore to allow the 

M/V Discoverer to travel to the Canadian 

Beaufort. In that case, the vessel will 

continue operations in the Chukchi Sea 

until all survey lines there are 

completed. The M/V Discoverer will 

then exit the area and transit to Dutch 

Harbor to de-mobilize. Helicopter 

operations are not planned as a part of 

the seismic survey and would occur 

only in the case of an emergency. 

The total seismic survey program, if it 

can be completed, will consist of a total 

of about 5302 km (3294.5 mi) of surveys, 

not including transits when the airguns 

are not operating. Water depths within 

the study area are 30–3800 m (98–12467 

ft). Approximately 14 percent of the 

survey (about 742 km (461 mi)) will 

occur in water depths greater than 500 

m (1640 ft), 5 percent of the survey 

(about 265 km (165 mi)) will be 

conducted in water 200–500 m (656–

1640 ft) deep, and most (81 percent) of 

the survey (about 4295 km (2669 mi) ) 

will occur in water less than 200 m (656 

ft). None of the survey will take place 

in nearshore waters within 25 km (15.5 

mi) of the coast (the Chukchi polynya 

zone). 

The M/V Discoverer will tow an 

airgun array directly astern and a single 

hydrophone streamer up to 9 km long. 

The array will consist of 36 sleeve 

airguns (8 40 in3, 4 70 in3, 4 80 in3, 12 

100 in3, and 8 150 in3) that produce a 

total discharge of 3320 in3. The vessel 

will travel along pre-determined lines at 

about 4–5 knots while the airgun array 

discharges about every 20 seconds (shot 

interval about 46 m (151 ft). The towed 

hydrophone streamer will receive the 

reflected signals and transfer the data to 

an on-board processing system. The 

proposed survey lines cover a large 

portion of the Chukchi Sea, and tie 

together known wells, core locations, 

fault lines and other geophysical points 

of interest. Specifications of the M/V 

Discoverer and the 36–airgun array that 

will be used can be found in GXT’s 

application (Appendices A and B; see 

ADDRESSES). 

The survey consists of a large grid of 

14 lines oriented to connect previous 

well locations and core sample locations 

as well as geological structures in the 

sub-surface. The extent of the lines 

allows flexibility to mitigate any 

interaction with seasonal subsistence 

hunting as well as species migration 

patterns. GXT has restricted its survey 

lines along the shore to the area of the 

MMS lease sales (greater than 25 km 

(15.5 mi) offshore) to exclude the 

nearshore Chukchi polynya, through 

which marine mammals migrate in the 

spring. Lines will be chosen based on 

marine mammal migration and 

subsistence hunting, as well as ice 

movement and geophysical importance. 

If heavy ice conditions are encountered 

in the northern portions of the survey 

area, some trackline planned for that 

region may be shifted to ice-free waters 

within the central or southern portions 

of the survey area. There will be 

additional seismic operations associated 

with airgun testing, start up, and repeat 

coverage of any areas where initial data 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
49420 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

quality is sub-standard. In addition to 

the airgun array, a pinger system will be 

used to position the 36–airgun array and 

streamer relative to the vessel. 

The M/V Discoverer will serve as the 

platform from which vessel-based 

marine mammal observers will watch 

for marine mammals before and during 

airgun operations (see Mitigation and 

Monitoring later in this document). A 

‘‘chase boat’’ will be used to protect the 

streamer from damage and otherwise 

lend support to the M/V Discoverer. It 

will not be introducing sounds into the 

water beyond those associated with 

normal vessel operations. 

Characteristics of Airgun Pulses 

Discussion of the characteristics of 

airgun pulses was provided in several 

previous Federal Register documents 

(see 69 FR 31792 (June 7, 2004) or 69 

FR 34996 (June 23, 2004)) and is not 

repeated here. Additional information 

can be found in the MMS PEA and 

Appendix C in GXT’s application. 

Reviewers are encouraged to read these 

documents for additional information. 

Safety Radii 

The rms (root mean square) received 

sound pressure levels (SPLs) that are 

used to estimate marine mammal takes 

and establish safety zones for mitigation 

are not directly comparable to the peak 

or peak-to-peak values normally used by 

geophysicists to characterize source 

levels of airguns (GXT IHA Application, 

Appendix C). The measurement units 

used to describe airgun sources, peak or 

peak-to-peak dB, are always higher than 

the rms dB referred to in much of the 

biological literature and by NMFS. A 

measured broadband received level of 

160 dB re 1 microPa (rms) in the far 

field would typically correspond to a 

peak measurement of about 170 to 172 

dB, and to a peak-to-peak measurement 

of about 176 to 178 decibels, as 

measured for the same pulse received at 

the same location (Greene, 1997; 

McCauley et al.,1998, 2000a). The 

precise difference between rms and 

peak or peak-to-peak values for a given 

pulse depends on the frequency content 

and duration of the pulse, among other 

factors. However, the rms level is 

always lower than the peak or peak-topeak level for an airgun-type source. 

Received sound fields have been 

modeled by GXT using the Gundalf 

software suite (Gundalf, 2002) for the 

36–airgun array that will be used during 

this survey (GXT IHA Application 

Appendix B). GXT used an advanced 

version of the Gundalf modeling 

program to estimate the rms received 

sound levels (in dB re 1 microPa) at 

different distances from the seismic 

source on a broadband basis (0–256 Hz). 

These estimates are believed by GXT to 

be conservative (i.e., likely to 

overestimate the distance at which 

received levels will be ≥160 dB) and 

most applicable to the 36–airgun array 

discharging 3320 in3 in water depths 

between 200 and 500 m (656–1640 ft), 

or ‘‘intermediate depths.’’ The safety 

radii are expected by GXT to be smaller 

in ‘‘deep’’ (greater than 500 m) and 

‘‘shallow’’ (less than 200 m) water. 

Empirical data do not exist for this 

airgun array’s sound propagation, so 

those data will be collected at the 

beginning of seismic operations. During 

this initial period, a 1.5X precautionary 

factor will be applied to the 190 dB and 

180 dB radii listed here in Table 1, for 

use as shutdown radii for marine 

mammals in the water. Once empirical 

measurements of the sound produced by 

GXT’s airgun array have been collected 

and analyzed, the safety radii presented 

in Table 1 may be adjusted to reflect 

those results. 

As discussed in detail later in this 

document (see Mitigation), the airguns 

will be powered down immediately (or 

shut down if necessary) when cetaceans 

or pinnipeds are detected within or 

about to enter the ≥180 dB or ≥190 dB 

radii, respectively. A single 40 in3

sleeve airgun will be used as the power 

down source. The 160–190 dB re 1 

microPa (rms) radii for this source will 

be measured during acoustic 

verification measurements at the 

beginning of seismic shooting. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN23AU06.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49421 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of GXT’s MMPA 

application and NMFS’ proposal to 

issue an IHA to GXT was published in 

the Federal Register on June 6, 2006 (71 

FR 32045). That notice described, in 

detail, GXT’s proposed activity, the 

marine mammal species that may be 

affected by the activity, and the 

anticipated effects on marine mammals. 

During the 30–day public comment 

period on GXT’s application, 

substantive comments were received 

from the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission), the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission (AEWC), the 

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) 

and GXT. The comments of the 

Commission are identical to its 

comments on NMFS’ proposed IHA to 

Shell. NMFS has addressed these 

comments in its Federal Register notice 

of issuance of that IHA and they are not 

repeated here. That notice will publish 

shortly. The CBD suggested that the 

comments submitted by the Natural 

Resources Defense Council on the PEA 

also be considered for the issuance of 

the IHA. These comments have been 

considered in the Final PEA and in 

NMFS’ and MMS’ Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) 

determinations. Many of those 

comments are specific to the PEA. 

However, where either of these sets of 

comments raise issues germane to the 

IHA issue that have not been addressed 

already, NMFS has addressed them 

either in this section or in notices of 

issuance of IHAs to Shell and 

ConocoPhillips (71 FR 43112, July 31, 

2006). 

Activity Concerns 

Comment 1: GXT notes that the 

source vessel for the planned seismic 

survey in the Chukchi Sea will be the 

M/V Discoverer, not the M/V Discoverer 

II. Because the M/V Discoverer is the 

sister-ship of the M/V Discoverer II, the 

two vessels are almost identical. The M/ 

V Discoverer is 2 m (6.6 ft) longer, 2 m 

(6.6 ft) narrower, and its draft is 0.7 m 

(2.3 ft) less than the M/V Discoverer II. 

Because of the great similarities between 

the two vessels, the noise generated by 

the operations of each of the two sisterships is expected to be approximately 

the same. The airgun array described in 

the notice is accurate for the M/V 

Discoverer. 

Response: NMFS has made the 

appropriate modifications to this 

document. 

MMPA Concerns 

Comment 2: The CBD states that 

waters in the Canadian Beaufort EEZ are 

‘‘high seas’’ and therefore GXT’s 

activities there are subject to the take 

prohibition in section 102(a)(1) of the 

MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1372(a)(1). They cite 

the Center for Biological Diversity v. 

National Science Foundation, (2002 WL 

31548073 (N.D. Cal, Oct 30, 2002). 

Response: MMPA section 102(a)(1) 

applies only to persons and vessels 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States (16 U.S.C. 1372(a)(1)). The vessel 

is Chinese-owned and flagged in the 

Bahamas, and there will be no person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States owning or operating the vessel 

while it is in the Canadian EEZ. Further, 

the persons responsible for the conduct 

of the seismic survey in the Canadian 

EEZ are not U.S. citizens (and the 

seismic work in the Canadian EEZ will 

be conducted under permits issued by 

the Canadian government to GX 

Technology Ltd of Calgary, Canada). 

Therefore, section 102(a)(1) of the 

MMPA is irrelevant. 

Comment 3: The CBD also states that 

‘‘the MMPA prohibits any person to use 

‘‘any port, harbor, or other place’’ under 

U.S. jurisdiction to take marine 

mammals. 16 U.S.C. 1372(a)(2)(B). 

Because GXT will start operations from 

Dutch Harbor, which is under U.S. 

jurisdiction, CBD believes this brings 

GXT’s surveys in the Canadian Beaufort 

Sea within the jurisdictional reach of 

the MMPA. 

Response: We do not interpret the use 

of Dutch Harbor in this manner as 

falling within the meaning of 16 U.S.C. 

1372(a)(2)(B). We also point out that the 

surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas are not one continuous survey. See 

also NMFS’ response to Comment 

MMPAC1. 

Comment 4: The CBD believes that 

the proposed IHA does not adequately 

specify the specific geographic region 

where the activity will occur. 

Response: NMFS defines ‘‘specified 

geographical region’’ as ‘‘an area within 

which a specified activity is conducted 

and which has certain biogeographic 

characteristics’’ (50 CFR 216.103). 

NMFS believes that GXT’s description 

of the activity and the locations for 

conducting seismic surveys meet the 

requirements of the MMPA. GXT 

intends to conduct seismic surveys 

within the area of the Chukchi Sea 

indicated in its application. 

Marine Mammal Impact Concerns 

Comment 5: The CBD states that 

NMFS’ failure to address the scientific 

literature linking seismic surveys with 

marine mammal stranding events, and 

the threat of serious injury or mortality 

renders NMFS’ conclusionary 

determination that serious injury or 

mortality will not occur from GXT’s 

activities arbitrary and capricious. 

Response: The evidence linking 

marine mammal strandings and seismic 

surveys remains tenuous at best. Two 

papers, Taylor et al. (2004) and Engel et 

al., (2004) reference seismic signals as a 

possible cause for a marine mammal 

stranding. Taylor et al. (2004) noted two 

beaked whale stranding incidents 

related to seismic surveys. The 

statement in Taylor et al. (2004) was 

that the seismic vessel was firing its 

airguns at 1300 hrs on September 24, 

2004 and that between 1400 and 1600 

hrs, local fishermen found live-stranded 

beaked whales some 22 km (12 nm) 

from the ship’s location. A review of the 

vessel’s trackline indicated that the 

closest approach of the seismic vessel 

and the beaked whales stranding 

location was 18 nm (33 km) at 1430 hrs. 

At 1300 hrs, the seismic vessel was 

located 25 nm (46 km) from the 

stranding location. What is unknown is 

the location of the beaked whales prior 

to the stranding in relation to the 

seismic vessel, but the close timing of 

events indicates that the distance was 

not less than 18 nm (33 km). No 

physical evidence for a link between the 

seismic survey and the stranding was 

obtained. In addition, Taylor et al. 

(2004) indicates that the same seismic 

vessel was operating 500 km (270 nm) 

from the site of the Galapagos Island 

stranding in 2000. Whether the 2004 

seismic survey caused to beaked whales 

to strand is a matter of considerable 

debate (see Cox et al., 2004). NMFS 

believes that scientifically, these events 

do not constitute evidence that seismic 

surveys have an effect similar to that of 

mid-frequency tactical sonar. However, 

these incidents do point to the need to 

look for such effects during future 

seismic surveys. To date, follow-up 

observations on several scientific 

seismic survey cruises have not 

indicated any beaked whale stranding 

incidents. 

Engel et al. (2004), in a paper 

presented to the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) in 2004 (SC/56/E28), 

mentioned a possible link between oil 

and gas seismic activities and the 

stranding of eight humpback whales 

(seven off the Bahia or Espirito Santo 

States and one off Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil). Concerns about the relationship 

between this stranding event and 

seismic activity were raised by the 

International Association of 

Geophysical Contractors (IAGC). The 

IAGC (2004) argues that not enough 

evidence is presented in Engel et al. 

(2004) to assess whether or not the 

relatively high proportion of adult 

strandings in 2002 is anomalous. The 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
49422 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

IAGC contends that the data do not 

establish a clear record of what might be 

a ‘‘natural’’ adult stranding rate, nor is 

any attempt made to characterize other 

natural factors that may influence 

strandings. As stated previously, NMFS 

remains concerned that the Engel et al. 

(2004) article appears to compare 

stranding rates made by opportunistic 

sightings in the past with organized 

aerial surveys beginning in 2001. If so, 

then the data are suspect. 

Second, strandings have not been 

recorded for those marine mammal 

species expected to be harassed by 

seismic in the Arctic Ocean. Beaked 

whales and humpback whales, the two 

species linked in the literature with 

stranding events with a seismic 

component are not located in the 

Chukchi Sea seismic areas. Finally, if 

bowhead and gray whales react to 

sounds at very low levels by making 

minor course corrections to avoid 

seismic noise and mitigation measures 

require GXT to ramp-up the seismic 

array to avoid a startle effect, strandings 

are highly unlikely to occur in the 

Arctic Ocean. In conclusion, NMFS 

does not expect any marine mammals 

will incur serious injury or mortality as 

a result of Arctic Ocean seismic surveys 

in 2006. 

Comment 6: The CBD states that the 

IHA notice provide no support for 

NMFS’ ‘‘conclusion’’ on small numbers 

and negligible impact. For GXT’s 

proposed seismic surveys in the 

Chukchi, the number of bowheads likely 

to be harassed is 337. In absolute terms 

these numbers cannot be considered 

‘‘small.’’ Even relative to population 

size, the higher estimate represents a 

third of the estimated population of 

bowheads. For beluga whales, the 

number harassed is estimated to be 650; 

for gray whales the number is 481. None 

of these numbers can be considered 

‘‘small.’’ Given the MMPA is designed 

to protect not just populations, but 

individual marine mammals, any 

number in the hundreds or thousands 

simply cannot be considered ‘‘small.≥ 

Response: As discussed elsewhere in 

this document, NMFS believes that the 

small numbers requirement has been 

satisfied (see Estimates of Marine 

Mammal Exposures later in this 

document). The maximum number of 

bowhead whales that may be exposed to 

seismic sounds is estimated to be 337 

(Table 2). With a population size 

estimated to be 10,545 bowheads, NMFS 

estimates that the maximum percentage 

of the population that will be exposed 

would be approximately 3 percent, not 

33 percent. For beluga whales and gray 

whales these numbers represent less 

than 5 percent of each population stock 

size. 

Also, NMFS must clarify that the 

numbers provided in Table 2 estimate 

the numbers indicate the number of 

animals that would be exposed to 

seismic noise at the SPLs indicated, not 

the numbers of animals that will be 

taken by Level B (behavioral) 

harassment. Not all individuals of a 

marine mammal species would be 

expected to react at the same level or 

even react at all as indicated in GXT’s 

application. 

Comment 7: The CBD notes that as 

many as 12,223 ringed seals and over 

7000 bearded seals may be harassed in 

the Chukchi Sea. Bearded seals with 

over seven thousand to be harassed. The 

total numbers of marine mammals 

potentially harassed in the Chukchi 

from GXT’s seismic surveys is almost 

twenty thousand individuals. These 

numbers cannot rationally be 

considered ‘‘small.’’ The proposed 

seismic surveys simply are not designed 

to avoid impacting more than small 

numbers of marine mammals and, 

therefore, the IHA must be denied. 

Response: NMFS is not required to 

consider the total estimated take across 

all species in making its small numbers 

determination. The species most likely 

to be harassed during seismic surveys in 

the Arctic Ocean area is the ringed seal, 

with a ‘‘best estimate’’ of animals being 

exposed to sound levels of 160 dB or 

greater of 3056 in the Chukchi Sea. As 

stated previously, this does not mean 

that this number of ringed seals will be 

taken by Level B harassment, it is only 

the best estimate of the number of 

animals that could be exposed to an SPL 

of 160 dB or greater and, theoretically 

could be harassed due to the noise. 

However, Moulton and Lawson (2002) 

indicate that most pinnipeds exposed to 

seismic sounds in the Beaufort Sea 

lower than 170 dB do not visibly react 

to that sound; pinnipeds are not likely 

to react to seismic sounds unless they 

are greater than 170 dB re 1 microPa 

(rms)). In addition, these estimates are 

calculated based upon line miles of 

survey effort, animal density and the 

calculated zone of influence (ZOI). 

While this methodology is valid for 

seismic surveys that transect long 

distances (as part of GXT’s survey will 

be), those surveys that ‘‘mow the lawn,’’

that is, remain within a relatively small 

area, transiting back and forth while 

shooting seismic, numbers tend to be 

highly inflated. As a result, NMFS 

believes that these exposure estimates 

are conservative and may actually affect 

very few animals. 

Although it might be argued that the 

absolute number of ringed seal 

behavioral harassment numbers may not 

be small, the number of ‘‘exposures’’ is 

relatively small, representing less than 4 

percent of the regional population of 

that species (245,000) if each 

‘‘exposure’’ represented an individual 

ringed seal and maximum ringed seal 

density was used. Bearded (and spotted) 

seals take estimates ignore the 

likelihood that these two species 

frequent polar ice areas where seismic 

vessels cannot operate and, therefore, 

likely overestimate take levels. 

Comment 8: The CBD believes that 

NMFS’ assumption that sounds below 

160 dB do not constitute harassment is 

incorrect and, therefore, underestimates 

the possible true impact. The CBD notes 

that their NEPA comments pointed out 

numerous studies showing significant 

behavioral impacts from received 

sounds well below 160 dB and even the 

PEA acknowledges that impacts to 

bowheads occur at levels of 120 dB and 

below. This clearly meets the statutory 

definition of harassment and 

demonstrates that the numbers of 

marine mammals estimated to be taken 

by GXT’s activity likely constitute a 

significant underestimate. NMFS’

‘‘small numbers’’ conclusion is therefore 

arbitrary and capricious. 

Response: The best information 

available to date for reactions by 

bowhead whales to impulse noise, such 

as seismic, is based on the results from 

the 1998 aerial survey (as supplemented 

by data from earlier years) as reported 

in Miller et al. (1999). In 1998, bowhead 

whales below the water surface at a 

distance of 20 km (12.4 mi) from an 

airgun array received pulses of about 

117–135 dB re 1 μParms, depending upon 

propagation. Corresponding levels at 30 

km (18.6 mi) were about 107–126 dB re 

1 μParms. Miller et al. (1999) surmise 

that deflection may have begun about 35 

km (21.7 mi) to the east of the seismic 

operations, but did not provide SPL 

measurements to that distance, and 

noted that sound propagation has not 

been studied as extensively eastward in 

the alongshore direction, as it has 

northward, in the offshore direction. 

Therefore, while this single year of data 

analysis indicates that bowhead whales 

may make minor deflections in 

swimming direction at a distance of 30–

35 km (18.6–21.7 mi), there is no 

indication that the SPL where deflection 

first begins is at 120 dB, it could be at 

another SPL lower or higher than 120 

dB. Miller et al. (1999) also note that the 

received levels at 20–30 km (12.4–18.6 

mi) were considerably lower in 1998 

than have previously been shown to 

elicit avoidance in bowheads exposed to 

seismic pulses. However, the seismic 

airgun array used in 1998 was larger 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49423 

than the ones used in 1996 and 1997 

(1500 in3 vs 1320 in3). It should also be 

pointed out that these minor course 

changes are during migration and, as 

indicated in the Final PEA, have not 

been seen at other times of the year and 

during other activities. Therefore, until 

additional data is obtained to indicate at 

what SPL bowhead whales begin to 

deflect away from a seismic airgun 

array, NMFS will not adopt any single 

SPL value below 160 dB and apply it 

across the board for all species and in 

all circumstances. NMFS therefore 

continues to estimate ‘‘takings’’ under 

the MMPA from impulse noises, such as 

seismic, as being at a distance of 160 dB 

(re 1 μPa). 

Comment 9: The CBD states that 

NMFS has no idea of the actual 

population status of several of the 

species subject to the proposed IHA. 

NMFS acknowledges (in its Status of 

Stock’s Reports (SARS)) it has no 

accurate information on the status of 

spotted seals, bearded seals, and ringed 

seals. Without this data, NMFS cannot 

make a rational ‘‘negligible impact’’

finding. This is particularly so given 

there is real reason to be concerned 

about the status of these populations. 

Such concerns were raised recently in a 

letter to NMFS from the Commission 

that cautioned against assuming a stable 

population given apparent changes in 

the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas 

and the declines of many other Alaska 

marine mammals. 

Response: NMFS uses the best 

information available when making a 

determination that the impacts from an 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species and stocks of 

marine mammals. This information 

comes from many sources, including 

NMFS’ SARS reports. As noted in GXT’s 

application for the pinniped species 

mentioned by CBD: 

(1) Bearded seals: While no reliable 

estimate of bearded seal abundance is 

available for the Beaufort Sea (Angliss 

and Lodge, 2002), results from aerial 

surveys of the eastern Chukchi Sea 

indicated densities of up to 0.149 

bearded seals/km2 and a population of 

4862 animals, although actual 

abundance may be much higher 

(Angliss and Lodge, 2004). 

(2) Spotted seals: While the total 

number of spotted seals in Alaskan 

waters is not known (Angliss and Lodge, 

2002), the estimate is most likely 

between several thousand and several 

tens of thousands (Rugh et al., 1997). 

(3) Ringed seals: While no estimate for 

the size of the Alaska ringed seal stock 

is currently available (Angliss and 

Lodge, 2002), past ringed seal 

population estimates in the BeringChukchi-Beaufort area ranged from 1–

1.5 million (Frost, 1985) to 3.3–3.6 

million (Frost et al., 1988). Frost and 

Lowry (1981) estimated 80,000 ringed 

seals in the Beaufort Sea during summer 

and 40,000 during winter. 

At present, there is no scientific 

information that population declines are 

occurring or have occurred. Moreover, 

long-term monitoring studies of Alaskan 

marine mammals being conducted by 

NMFS and others would note significant 

population declines. 

Cumulative Effects Concerns 

Comment 10: In its comments on 

NMFS’ negligible impact determination, 

CBD states that NMFS must look at the 

immediate effects of GXT’s seismic 

surveys together with the cumulative 

effects over multiple years of other oil 

and gas activities and anthropogenic 

risk factors such as climate change, both 

onshore and offshore Alaska. CBD 

contends that these cumulative effects 

should be analyzed with respect to their 

potential population consequences at 

the species level, stock level, and at the 

local population level, citing Anderson 

v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the MMPA, NMFS is required to 

determine whether the taking by the 

IHA applicant’s specified activity will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

marine mammal species or population 

stocks. Cumulative impact assessments 

are NMFS’ responsibility under NEPA, 

not the MMPA. In that regard, the MMS’

Final PEA addresses cumulative 

impacts, as did its Draft PEA. The PEA’s 

cumulative activities scenario and 

cumulative impact analysis focused on 

oil and gas-related and non-oil and gasrelated noise-generating events/ 

activities in both Federal and State of 

Alaska waters that were likely and 

foreseeable. Other appropriate factors, 

such as Arctic warming, military 

activities and noise contributions from 

community and commercial activities 

were also considered. Appendix D of 

that PEA addresses similar comments 

on cumulative impacts, including global 

warming. That information is 

incorporated in this document by 

citation. NMFS has adopted the MMS 

Final PEA and it is part of NMFS’

Administrative Record. Finally, the 

proposition for which CBD cites 

Anderson was in the context of the 

court’s analysis under NEPA, not 

MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D), which was 

not at issue in Anderson. 

Mitigation Concerns 

Comment 11: GXT suggests (as noted 

in section XI of GXT’s IHA application) 

that the 190–dB radius, not the 180–dB 

radius, is the appropriate zone that 

should be fully visible to observers and 

clear of all marine mammal sightings for 

30 minutes prior to ramp-up from a full 

shutdown of all airguns. This includes 

during night-time or other times of 

reduced visibility. The rationale for this 

is as follows: 

(1) Pinnipeds, to which the 190–dB 

safety zone applies, have not shown 

much avoidance of operating seismic 

arrays in the Beaufort Sea (Harris et al., 

2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002; 

Miller et al., 2005). Therefore, it is 

appropriate to assume that some 

pinnipeds will not move out of the 

safety zone during a ramp-up. 

Accordingly, the 190–dB zone should be 

visible before a ramp-up begins. 

(2) The types of cetaceans likely to be 

encountered (bowheads, belugas, and 

gray whales) have shown avoidance of 

active seismic surveys and it is expected 

that they will move beyond the full 

180–dB radius for the airgun array 

during the ramp-up (Malme and Miles, 

1985; Malme et al., 1986, 1988; 

Richardson et al., 1986, 1999; Miller et 

al. 2005). Thus, it is not critical that the 

full 180–dB radius applicable to 

cetaceans be visible prior to 

commencing a ramp-up. 

Response: While NMFS fully expects 

that bowhead and beluga whales will 

avoid seismic activity by large 

distances, scientific information is less 

clear that the gray whales will do so. 

Documentation of avoidance in either 

the Beaufort or Chukchi seas is lacking 

and, although Malme et al. (1985) 

indicate that gray whales will avoid 

seismic activity, later research by Clark 

and Tyack (1999) duplicating the work 

of Malme et al. (1985) indicates that 

gray whale avoidance response is 

context dependent. Essentially, gray 

whales did not react (avoid) the sound 

source when the source was not directly 

in its migratory path. Also, because GXT 

will be conducting seismic operations in 

the Chukchi Sea where additional 

cetaceans may be affected (killer whales 

and harbor porpoise (although these 

species are more sensitive to higher 

frequencies than seismic)), NMFS has 

determined that the scientific evidence 

to support using only 190–dB isopleth 

as a safety zone for all species of marine 

mammals is not supportable at this 

time. 

Comment 12: The CBD believes that 

the proposed IHA notice ignores the 

MMPA statutory requirement that all 

methods and means of ensuring the 

least practicable impact have been 

adopted. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

mitigation measures required under 

GXT’s IHA will result in the least 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
49424 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

practicable adverse impact. Inherent in 

implementing these mitigation measures 

is some level of uncertainty on the 

distribution and abundance of cetaceans 

in the Chukchi Sea and on whether the 

acoustic impacts observed in the 

Beaufort Sea also occur in the Chukchi 

Sea. Additional information on this 

concern can be found later in this 

document and in previous responses to 

this concern by CBD (see for example, 

comment MiC2 and MiC3 in Shell’s IHA 

notice. 

Monitoring Concerns 

Comment 13: The AEWC incorporates 

by reference into its comments on the 

GXT application, the comments 

submitted by the North Slope Borough’s 

Department of Wildlife Management 

regarding the most recent version of the 

‘‘Marine Mammal Monitoring, 

Mitigation, and Investigatory Plan for 

Seismic Exploration in the Alaskan 

Chukchi Sea, 2006’’ (Monitoring Plan) 

prepared on behalf of Shell, 

ConocoPhillips and GXT. 

Response: Please see the discussion 

on marine mammal monitoring later in 

this document. 

Subsistence Concerns 

Comment 14: The AEWC notes that 

GXT’s proposed data acquisition in the 

Chukchi Sea includes work near shore, 

the AEWC is concerned about the 

potential effects on the fall bowhead 

whale subsistence hunt at Barrow and 

possibly Wainwright and Pt. Hope. The 

village of Barrow traditionally has 

hunted during both the spring and fall 

bowhead whale migraitons; however, 

unfavorable ice conditions in the 

Chukchi Sea this year resulted in a very 

poor spring bowhead whale hunt for all 

of the spring (hunt) villages. As a result, 

the villages of Wainwright and Point 

Hope have announced that they may 

attempt to hunt bowheads this fall. 

To protect the fall bowhead hunt at 

Barrow, the Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement (CAA) (see description later 

in this document) includes a prohibition 

on all seismic operations beginning on 

September 10th through October 25th, 

from Pitt Point on the east side of Smith 

Bay to the east to a location about half 

way between Barrow and Peard Bay to 

the west. However, given the outcome of 

the spring bowhead hunt in the Chukchi 

villages (which had not been completed 

at the time the CAA was negotiated), the 

AEWC requests NMFS’ assistance in 

providing further protections for the 

near-shore areas of the Chukchi during 

the fall bowhead migration in this 

region. In particular, the AEWC requests 

NMFS include in GXT’s IHA, provisions 

designed to protect the nearshore area 

from the effects of seismic operations, 

either directly or through sound 

propagation. The AEWC suggests that 

GXT refrain from conducting seismic 

operations within 50 miles of the 

Chukchi coast beginning September 15 

through October 25th, from the halfway 

point between Barrow and Peard Bay to 

50 miles due west of Cape Lisburne. 

Response: The IHA requires GXT to 

comply with the conditions of the CAA. 

This requirement ensures that, to the 

greatest extent practicable, GXT’s 

activities will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on subsistence uses of 

marine mammals, particularly bowhead 

whales. 

Comment 15: The CBD disagrees with 

NMFS’ ‘‘no unmitigable adverse 

impact’’ determination for the same 

reasons it disagrees with NMFS’

‘‘negligible impact’’ and ‘‘small 

numbers’’ determinations. 

Response: This comment is not 

specific enough for a response, but we 

disagree with the conclusion. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Concerns 

Comment 16: The CBD states that 

previous Biological Opinions for the 

bowhead whale have been inadequate. 

The CBD hopes NMFS will perform a 

full analysis required by law. 

Response: NMFS has issued a 

biological opinion regarding the effects 

of this action on ESA-listed species and 

critical habitat under the jurisdiction of 

NMFS. That biological opinion 

concluded that this action is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. A copy of the Biological 

Opinion is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Comment 17: The CBD states that 

NMFS may authorize incidental take of 

bowhead whales under the ESA 

pursuant to section 7(b)(4), but only 

where such take occurs while ‘‘carrying 

out an otherwise lawful activity.’’ CBD 

believes GXT’s proposed activities 

violate the MMPA and NEPA and 

therefore are not ‘‘otherwise lawful.’’

Any take authorization for the bowhead 

whale would therefore violate the ESA 

as well as other statutes. 

Response: NMFS believes it has 

complied with the requirements of the 

MMPA, the ESA and NEPA in 

connection with the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals by GXT 

while conducting activities permitted 

under MMS’ jurisdiction. 

NEPA Concerns 

Comment 18: The CBD notes that they 

submitted comments on the MMS PEA 

along with comments on GXT’s IHA 

application. Subsequent to CBD’s May 

10, 2006 letter on the PEA, they believe 

additional information has come to light 

that requires the preparation of an EIS 

in accordance with 40 CFR 

1508.27(b)(4). The CBD notes that the 

Native Village of Kaktovik passed a 

resolution opposing Shell’s seismic 

survey plans and the Native Village of 

Point Hope also officially expressed its 

opposition to this summer’s various 

seismic surveys. The CBD believes that 

NMFS cannot rationally adopt the PEA 

and make a FONSI on this action. 

Instead, it must prepare a full EIS 

analyzing the effects of Shell’s proposed 

activities in the context of cumulative 

effects of all other natural and 

anthropogenic impacts on marine 

mammals, habitats and communities of 

the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. 

Response: While the Villages of Point 

Hope and Kaktovik expressed 

opposition to seismic activities 

(specifically by Shell) in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort seas this year (as coastal 

native Alaskan communities have done 

for many years), the Whaling Captains’

Associations of Point Hope, Kaktovik, 

Nuiqsut, and Wainwright signed a CAA 

with Shell, ConocoPhillips and GXT. 

This CAA indicates to NMFS that 

seismic exploration activities by these 

companies will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence uses, 

including bowheads and belugas. This, 

along with the required mitigation and 

monitoring measures, informed NMFS’

FONSI. 

Description of Habitat and Marine 

Mammals Affected by the Activity 

A detailed description of the Chukchi 

Sea ecosystem and its associated marine 

mammals can be found in several 

documents, including the MMS PEA 

and does not need to be repeated here. 

The Chukchi Seas support a diverse 

assemblage of marine mammals, 

including bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus), gray whales (Eschrichtius 

robustus), beluga whales 

(Delphinapterus leucas), killer whales 

(Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena), ringed seals 

(Phoca hispida), spotted seals (Phoca 

largha), bearded seals (Erignathus 

barbatus), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) 

and polar bears (Ursus maritimus). 

These latter two species are under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not 

discussed further in this document. 

Abundance estimates of these species 

can be found in Table 2 in GXT’s 

application. Descriptions of the biology 

and distribution of the marine mammal 

species under NMFS’ jurisdiction can be 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49425 

found in GXT’s application, MMS’ PEA, 

and several other documents (Corps of 

Engineers, 1999; Lentfer, 1988; MMS, 

1992, 1996; Hill et al., 1999). 

Information on marine mammal hearing 

capabilities can be found in GXT’s 

application. 

Information on these species can also 

be found in NMFS Stock Assessment 

Reports. The Alaska stock assessment 

document is available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/readingrm/ 

MMSARS/sar2003akfinal.pdf. Updated 

species reports are available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/readingrm/ 

MMSARS/ 

2005alaskasummarySARs.pdf. Please 

refer to these documents for information 

on these species. 

Potential Impacts of Seismic Surveys on 

Marine Mammals 

Disturbance by seismic noise is the 

principal means of taking by this 

activity. Support vessels and marine 

mammal survey aircraft (if required) 

may provide a potential secondary 

source of noise. The physical presence 

of vessels and aircraft could also lead to 

non-acoustic effects on marine 

mammals involving visual or other cues. 

As outlined in several previous NMFS 

documents, the effects of noise on 

marine mammals are highly variable, 

and can be categorized as follows (based 

on Richardson et al., 1995): 

(1) The noise may be too weak to be 

heard at the location of the animal (i.e., 

lower than the prevailing ambient noise 

level, the hearing threshold of the 

animal at relevant frequencies, or both); 

(2) The noise may be audible but not 

strong enough to elicit any overt 

behavioral response; 

(3) The noise may elicit reactions of 

variable conspicuousness and variable 

relevance to the well being of the 

marine mammal; these can range from 

temporary alert responses to active 

avoidance reactions such as vacating an 

area at least until the noise event ceases; 

(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine 

mammal may exhibit diminishing 

responsiveness (habituation), or 

disturbance effects may persist; the 

latter is most likely with sounds that are 

highly variable in characteristics, 

infrequent and unpredictable in 

occurrence, and associated with 

situations that a marine mammal 

perceives as a threat; 

(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is 

strong enough to be heard has the 

potential to reduce (mask) the ability of 

a marine mammal to hear natural 

sounds at similar frequencies, including 

calls from conspecifics, and underwater 

environmental sounds such as surf 

noise; 

(6) If mammals remain in an area 

because it is important for feeding, 

breeding or some other biologically 

important purpose even though there is 

chronic exposure to noise, it is possible 

that there could be noise-induced 

physiological stress; this might in turn 

have negative effects on the well-being 

or reproduction of the animals involved; 

and 

(7) Very strong sounds have the 

potential to cause temporary or 

permanent reduction in hearing 

sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and 

presumably marine mammals, received 

sound levels must far exceed the 

animal’s hearing threshold for there to 

be any temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

in its hearing ability. For transient 

sounds, the sound level necessary to 

cause TTS is inversely related to the 

duration of the sound. Received sound 

levels must be even higher for there to 

be risk of permanent hearing 

impairment. In addition, intense 

acoustic or explosive events may cause 

trauma to tissues associated with organs 

vital for hearing, sound production, 

respiration and other functions. This 

trauma may include minor to severe 

hemorrhage. 

Potential Effects of Seismic Airgun 

Arrays on Marine Mammals 

GXT believes that the effects of 

sounds from airguns might include one 

or more of the following: (1) Tolerance; 

(2) masking of natural sounds; (2) 

behavioral disturbance; and (3) at least 

in theory, hearing impairment and other 

non-auditory physical effects 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Discussion on 

marine mammal tolerance to noise, 

masking effects of noise, temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, and 

non-auditory effects can be found in 

GXT’s IHA application, and previous 

Federal Register notices for seismic 

activities (e.g., see 69 FR 74906, 

December 14, 2004). In summary, NMFS 

and GXT believe that it is unlikely that 

there would be any cases of temporary 

or permanent hearing impairment, nonauditory physical effects, or strandings. 

NMFS has also provided information 

previously on the potential effects of 

noise on marine mammal species 

expected to be in the Chukchi Sea 

region (see 71 FR 26055 (May 3, 2006), 

71 FR 27685 (May 12, 2006) and 71 FR 

32045 (June 6, 2006)). Readers are 

encouraged to review those documents 

for additional information. 

Potential Effects of Pinger Signals on 

Marine Mammals 

A description of the pinger system 

(DigiRANGE I and II, Input/Output, Inc) 

that will be used during seismic 

operations to position the airgun array 

and hydrophone streamer relative to the 

vessel was described in the proposed 

IHA notice for GXT June 6, 2006 (71 FR 

32045) and is not repeated here. 

Estimates of Marine Mammal Exposures 

to SPLs of 160 dB or Higher (Level B 

Harassment) 

Table 2 of this Federal Register notice 

provides the estimates of the number of 

potential sound exposure to levels 160 

dB re 1 microPa (rms) or greater. The 

methodology used and the assumptions 

made to estimate incidental take by 

Level B harassment, at sound pressure 

levels at 160 dB or above, by seismic 

and the numbers of marine mammals 

that might be affected during the 

proposed seismic survey area in the 

Chukchi Sea are presented in the GXT 

application. While GXT believes, based 

on the evidence summarized in the 

application, that the 170–dB criterion is 

appropriate for estimating Level B 

harassment for delphinids and 

pinnipeds, which tend to be less 

responsive (whereas the 160–dB 

criterion is considered relevant for other 

cetaceans), there is no empirical 

evidence to indicate that some 

delphinid species do not respond at the 

lower level (i.e., 160 dB). Also, since 

delphinids are not expected to be 

affected by this action, this suggested 

new criterion is not relevant for this 

action. While the application cites 

recent empirical information regarding 

responses of pinnipeds to low-frequency 

seismic sounds, the information cited in 

the application is less than convincing. 

As a result, NMFS will continue to use 

the 160–dB isopleth to estimate the 

numbers of pinnipeds that may be taken 

by Level B harassment. However, while 

some autumn migrating bowheads in 

the Beaufort Sea have been found to 

react to a noise threshold closer to 130 

dB re 1 microParms; (Miller et al., 1999; 

Richardson et al., 1999), evidence in 

Richardson et al. (1986) and Miller et al. 

(2005) indicate that the 160–dB criterion 

is suitable for summering bowhead 

whales. 

The following estimates are based on 

a consideration of the number of marine 

mammals that might be exposed to SPLs 

of 160 dB or more along about 5302 

line-km (3294 line mi) of seismic 

surveys across the Chukchi Sea. An 

assumed total of 6628 km (4118 mi) of 

trackline in the Chukchi Sea includes a 

25 percent allowance over and above 

the planned trackline to allow for turns 

and lines that might have to be repeated 

because of poor data quality, or for 

minor changes to the survey design. 

The anticipated radii of influence of 

the M/V Discoverer’s pinger system are 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
49426 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

much less than those for the airgun 

array (for those species that can hear it). 

It is assumed that, during simultaneous 

operations of the airgun array and 

pinger system, any marine mammals 

close enough to be affected by the 

pingers will already be affected by the 

airguns. However, whether or not the 

airguns are operating simultaneously 

with the pinger system, odontocetes and 

seals are expected to exhibit no more 

than momentary and inconsequential 

responses to the pingers, based on 

evidence of their reactions from pingers 

on maritime private and commercial 

vessels using similar instrumentation 

for obtaining bathymetric information. 

Therefore, no additional take numbers 

are provided for animals exposed to 

pingers. 

The estimates of marine mammals 

that might be exposed to SPLs that 

could result in Level B harassment are 

based on available data about mammal 

distribution and densities at different 

locations and times of the year. The 

proposed survey covers a large area in 

the Chukchi Sea in two different 

seasons. The estimates of marine 

mammal densities have therefore been 

separated both spatially and temporarily 

in an attempt to represent the 

distribution of animals expected to be 

encountered over the duration of the 

survey. Density estimates in the 

Chukchi Sea have been derived for two 

time periods, the early summer period 

covering the months of June and July 

(Table 3 in GXT’s IHA application), and 

the late fall period including most of 

October and November (Table 4 in 

GXT’s IHA application). For the 

Chukchi Sea, cetacean densities during 

the summer were estimated from effort 

and sighting data in Moore et al. (2000) 

and Richardson and Thomson (eds., 

2002), while pinniped densities were 

estimated from Bengtson (2005) and 

Moulton and Lawson (2002). 

The potential number of events when 

members of each species might be 

exposed to received levels 160 dB re 1 

microPa (rms) or greater was calculated 

by summing the results for each season 

and habitat zone by multiplying: 

(1) The expected species density, 

either ‘‘average’’ (i.e., best estimate) or 

‘‘maximum’’ (see Tables 3 and 4 in 

GXT’s IHA application), 

(2) The anticipated total linekilometers of operations with the 36–

airgun array in the time period, and 

habitat zone to which that density 

applies after applying a 25 percent 

allowance for possible additional line 

kilometers (see GXT IHA application) 

and 

(3) The cross-track distances within 

which received sound levels are 

predicted to be ≥160 (Table 1 in this 

document). 

Some marine mammals that are 

estimated to be exposed, particularly 

migrating bowhead whales, might show 

avoidance reactions before being 

exposed to 160 dB re 1 microPa (rms). 

Thus, these calculations actually 

estimate the number of exposures to ≤ 

160 dB that would occur if there were 

no earlier avoidance of the area 

ensonified to that level. 

For the 36–airgun array, the cross 

track distance is 2X the predicted 160–

dB radius predicted by the Gundalf 

model or 6000 m (19685 ft). Applying 

the approach described above, 55,560 

km2 of open-water habitat in the 

Chukchi Sea would be within the 160–

dB isopleth over the course of the 

seismic project (though not at any given 

moment). After adding the 25–percent 

contingency to the expected number of 

line kilometers of seismic run, the 

number of exposures is calculated based 

on 69,450 km2. 

The numbers of exposures in the two 

habitat categories (open water and ice 

margin) were then summed for each 

species. GXT’s estimate of marine 

mammal exposures to SPL of 160 dB 

(and greater) is provided in Tables 5, 6, 

and 7 in the IHA application. Table 2 in 

this document is a summary of that 

information. 

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES OF MARINE MAMMALS TO RECEIVED SOUND LEVELS IN

THE WATER OF ≥160 DB DURING GXT’S PROPOSED SEISMIC PROGRAM IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA, -15 JUNE -25 

JULY AND -1 OCTOBER - 30 NOVEMBER, 2006. NOT ALL MARINE MAMMALS WILL CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR WHEN EXPOSED TO THESE SOUND LEVELS, ALTHOUGH SOME MIGHT ALTER THEIR BEHAVIOR SOMEWHAT WHEN LEVELS ARE

LOWER. 

Number of Exposure to Sound Levels ≥160 dB 

Summer Fall Total 

Species Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum 

Odontocetes 

Monodontidae 

Beluga 3 11 160 639 163 650 

Delphinidae 

Killer whale 3 11 5 22 8 33 

Phocoenidae 

Harbor porpoise 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mysticetes 

Bowhead whale 1 8 57 328 59 337 

Gray whale 1 4 83 333 84 337 

Minke whale 3 11 5 22 8 33 

Fin whale 1 2 1 4 2 7 

Total Cetaceans 11 47 313 1349 324 1396 

Pinnipeds 

Bearded seal 586 2344 1190 4760 1776 7104 

Spotted seal 6 23 12 47 17 70 

Ringed seal 1008 4033 2047 8189 3056 12223 

Harbor seal 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Pinnipeds 1600 6401 3249 12996 4849 19397 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49427 

GXT and NMFS believe that bowhead, 

beluga, and gray whales are the only 

cetaceans expected to be exposed to 

noise levels ≥160–dB levels. The 

estimates show that one endangered 

cetacean species, the bowhead whale, is 

expected to be exposed to such noise 

levels, unless bowheads avoid the 

approaching survey vessel before the 

received levels reach 160 dB. Migrating 

bowheads are likely to do so, though 

summering bowheads, if encountered 

may not. For convenience, GXT refers to 

either eventuality as an ‘‘exposure’’. As 

a result, GXT’s average and maximum 

estimates for bowhead whale exposures 

are 59 and 337, respectively (Table 2). 

The average and maximum estimates of 

the number of exposures of cetaceans 

are beluga (163 and 650) and gray whale 

(84 and 337). The seasonal breakdown 

of these numbers is shown in Tables 5 

and 6 and totaled in Table 7 in the 

application and Table 2 in this 

document. Other cetacean species may 

occasionally occur near the seismic 

areas, but given their low estimated 

densities in the area, they are not likely 

to be exposed to SPLs of 160 dB or 

greater. With a population size 

estimated to be 10,545 bowheads, NMFS 

estimates that the maximum percentage 

of the population that will be exposed 

would be approximately 3 percent. For 

beluga whales and gray whales these 

numbers represent less than 5 percent of 

each population stock size. NMFS 

believes that this number of potential 

Level B harassment takes is small. 

The ringed seal is the most 

widespread and abundant pinniped in 

ice-covered arctic waters, but there is a 

great deal of annual variation in 

population size and distribution of these 

marine mammals. Ringed seals account 

for the vast majority of marine mammals 

expected to be encountered, and, 

therefore, exposed to airgun sounds 

with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 

microPa (rms) during the proposed 

seismic survey. Haley and Ireland 

(2006) reported that 20 percent of ringed 

seals remained on the ice when a 

seismic vessel passed. Because the SPL 

radii for this project are assumed to be 

larger than those found in the Haley and 

Ireland (2006) project, NMFS and GXT 

believe a larger percent of ringed seals 

within the 160–dB radii are likely to 

remain on the ice while the M/V 

Discoverer passes, and not subject to 

potential harassment. Therefore, GXT’s 

estimates of numbers of ringed seals that 

might be exposed to sound levels 160 

dB re 1 microPa (rms) were reduced by 

50 percent to account for animals that 

are expected to be out of the water, and 

hence exposed to much lower levels of 

seismic sounds. The average (and 

maximum) estimate is that 3056 (max. 

12,223) ringed seals out of a Beaufort/ 

Chukchi Sea population of 245,048 seals 

might be exposed to seismic sounds 

with received levels ≤160 dB. NMFS 

believes that this number of potential 

Level B harassment takes (less than 4 

percent of the population size of ringed 

seals is small. 

Two other species of pinnipeds are 

expected to be encountered during the 

proposed seismic survey. With Alaskan 

stock estimates of 300–450,000 and 

1000 respectively, the bearded seal has 

average and maximum exposure 

estimates of 1776 and 7104, and the 

spotted seal has average and maximum 

exposure estimates of 17 and 70, 

respectively. These exposure estimates 

are small numbers relative to their 

population sizes. Finally, the harbor 

seal is unlikely to be encountered so no 

exposure estimates have been made. 

Effects of Seismic Survey Noise on 

Subsistence Uses 

GXT (2006) reports that marine 

mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan 

waters by coastal Alaska Natives; 

species hunted include bowhead and 

beluga whales; ringed, spotted, and 

bearded seals; walruses, and polar bears. 

The importance of each of the various 

species varies among the communities 

based largely on availability. Bowhead 

whales, belugas, and walruses are the 

marine mammal species primarily 

harvested during the time of the 

proposed seismic survey. There is little 

or no bowhead hunting by the 

community of Point Lay, so beluga and 

walrus hunting are of more importance 

there. Members of the Wainwright 

community do hunt bowhead whales in 

the spring, although bowhead whale 

hunting conditions there are often more 

difficult than elsewhere, and 

traditionally they do not hunt bowheads 

during seasons when GXT’s seismic 

operation would occur. Depending on 

the level of success during the spring 

bowhead hunt, Wainwright residents 

may be very dependent on the presence 

of belugas in a nearby lagoon system 

during July and August. Barrow 

residents focus hunting efforts on 

bowhead whales during the spring and 

generally do not hunt beluga then. 

Barrow residents also hunt in the fall. 

Bowhead whale hunting is the key 

activity in the subsistence economies of 

Barrow and Wainwright. The whale 

harvests have a great influence on social 

relations by strengthening the sense of 

Inupiat culture and heritage in addition 

to reinforcing family and community 

ties. 

An overall quota system for the 

hunting of bowhead whales was 

established by the International Whaling 

Commission in 1977. The quota is now 

regulated through an agreement between 

NMFS and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC). The AEWC allots 

the number of bowhead whales that 

each whaling community may harvest 

annually (USDI/BLM, 2005). 

Bowhead whales migrate around 

northern Alaska twice each year, during 

the spring and autumn, and are hunted 

in both seasons. Bowhead whales are 

hunted from Wainwright only during 

the spring migration and animals are not 

successfully harvested every year. The 

spring hunt there and at Barrow occurs 

after leads open due to the deterioration 

of pack ice; the spring hunt typically 

occurs from early April until the first 

week of June. The fall migration of 

bowhead whales that summer in the 

eastern Beaufort Sea typically begins in 

late August or September. Fall migration 

into Alaskan waters is primarily during 

September and October. However, in 

recent years a small number of 

bowheads have been seen or heard 

offshore from the Prudhoe Bay region 

during the last week of August (Treacy, 

1993; LGL and Greeneridge, 1996; 

Greene, 1997; Greene et al., 1999; 

Blackwell et al., 2004). 

The location of the fall subsistence 

hunt near Barrow depends on ice 

conditions and (in some years) 

industrial activities that influence the 

bowheads movements as they move 

west (Brower, 1996). In the fall, 

subsistence hunters use aluminum or 

fiberglass boats with outboards. Hunters 

prefer to take bowheads close to shore 

to avoid a long tow during which the 

meat can spoil, but Braund and 

Moorehead (1995) report that crews may 

(rarely) pursue whales as far as 80 km 

(50 mi). The autumn hunt usually 

begins in Barrow in mid-September, and 

mainly occurs in waters east and 

northeast of Point Barrow. The whales 

have usually left the Beaufort Sea by 

late October (Treacy, 2002a,b). 

The scheduling of this seismic survey 

has been discussed with representatives 

of those concerned with the subsistence 

bowhead hunt, most notably the AEWC, 

the Barrow Whaling Captains’

Association, and the North Slope 

Borough (NSB) Department of Wildlife 

Management. 

The starting date for seismic surveys 

in the Chukchi Sea is well after the end 

of the spring bowhead migration and 

hunt at Wainwright and Barrow. 

Similarly, the resumption of seismic 

activities in the Chukchi Sea in October 

will occur after most subsistence 

whaling from Barrow has been 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
49428 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

completed and if the hunt is still active, 

seismic operations will be conducted far 

from Barrow to avoid conflicting with 

subsistence hunting activities. 

Beluga whales are available to 

subsistence hunters along the coast of 

Alaska in the spring when pack-ice 

conditions deteriorate and leads open 

up. Belugas may remain in coastal areas 

or lagoons through June and sometimes 

into July and August. The community of 

Point Lay is heavily dependent on the 

hunting of belugas in Kasegaluk Lagoon 

for subsistence meat. From 1983–1992 

the average annual harvest was about 40 

whales (Fuller and George, 1997). In 

Wainwright and Barrow, hunters 

usually wait until after the spring 

bowhead whale hunt is finished before 

turning their attention to hunting 

belugas. The average annual harvest of 

beluga whales taken by Barrow for 

1962–1982 was five (MMS, 1996). The 

Alaska Beluga Whale Committee 

recorded that 23 beluga whales were 

harvested by Barrow hunters from 1987 

to 2002, ranging from 0 in 1987, 1988 

and 1995 to the high of 8 in 1997 (Fuller 

and George, 1997; Alaska Beluga Whale 

Committee, 2002 in USDI/BLM, 2005). 

GXT states that it is possible, but 

unlikely, that accessibility to belugas 

during the subsistence hunt could be 

impaired during the survey. However, 

very little of the proposed survey is 

within 25 km (15.5 mi) of the Chukchi 

coast. That means the vessel will 

usually be well offshore away from 

areas where seismic surveys would 

influence beluga hunting by these 

communities. 

Because seals (ringed, spotted, 

bearded) are hunted in nearshore waters 

and the seismic survey will remain 

offshore of the coastal and nearshore 

areas of these seals, seismic surveys 

should not conflict with seal harvest 

activities. 

Impact on Habitat 

The proposed seismic survey will not 

result in any long-term impact on 

habitats used by marine mammals, or to 

the food sources they utilize. Although 

feeding cetaceans and pinnipeds may 

occur in the area, the proposed activities 

will be of short duration in any 

particular area at any given time; thus 

any effects would be localized and 

short-term. 

One of the reasons for the adoption of 

airguns as the standard energy source 

for marine surveys was that, unlike 

explosives, they do not result in any 

appreciable fish kill. However, the 

existing body of information relating to 

the impacts of seismic on marine fish 

and invertebrate species, the primary 

food sources of pinnipeds and belugas, 

is very limited. 

In water, acute injury and death of 

organisms exposed to seismic energy 

depends primarily on two features of 

the sound source: (1) the received peak 

pressure, and (2) the time required for 

the pressure to rise and decay (Hubbs 

and Rechnitzer, 1952; Wardle et al., 

2001). Generally, the higher the received 

pressure and the less time it takes for 

the pressure to rise and decay, the 

greater the chance of acute pathological 

effects. Considering the peak pressure 

and rise/decay time characteristics of 

seismic airgun arrays used today, the 

pathological zone for fish and 

invertebrates would be expected to be 

within a few meters of the seismic 

source (Buchanan et al., 2004). 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the proposed Chukchi Sea seismic 

program for 2006 will have negligible 

physical effects on the various life 

stages of fish and invertebrates or have 

any habitat-related effects that could 

cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations, since 

operations at any specific location will 

be limited in duration. 

Mitigation Measures 

For the proposed seismic survey in 

the Chukchi Sea, GXT will deploy an 

airgun source composed of 36 sleeve 

airguns. The airguns comprising the 

array will be spread out horizontally, so 

that most the energy will be directed 

downward. GXT and NMFS believe that 

the directional nature of this array is an 

important factor for mitigating high 

energy sounds on marine mammals that 

are on or in near-surface waters. This 

directionality will result in reduced 

sound levels at any given horizontal 

distance compared to levels expected at 

that distance if the source were 

omnidirectional with the stated nominal 

source. 

Important mitigation factors built into 

the design of the survey include the fact 

that the spring migration and hunt for 

bowhead whales in Chukchi waters will 

be completed prior to the start of GXT’s 

survey. Also, it is likely that many 

bowhead whales have already reached 

Russian waters north of the Chukotsk 

Peninsula when surveying is expected 

to resume in the autumn. Thus, the 

density of bowhead whales encountered 

during the fall in the Chukchi Sea, 

where the migration corridor becomes 

broad across the Chukchi, is expected to 

be much lower than that of the Beaufort 

Sea during the fall, where the migration 

corridor is narrow (Richardson and 

Thomson, 2002). 

Received sound fields were modeled 

by GXT for the 36–airgun configuration, 

in relation to distance and direction 

from the array. The distance from the 

array by which received levels would 

have diminished to 190, 180, 160 and 

other levels (in dB re 1 microPa rms) are 

likely to depend on water depth and 

location. Table 1 presents the predicted 

sound radii for the 36–airgun array in 

intermediate (200–500 m (656–1640 ft)) 

water depths. The radii for deeper or 

shallower water are predicted by GXT to 

be smaller than those for intermediate 

depths. 

Empirical data concerning these radii 

are not yet available, but will be 

acquired prior to commencing the 2006 

seismic field season. In addition to 

performing an acoustic characterization/ 

verification of the full 36–airgun array at 

different depths, the output from a 

single 40 in3 sleeve gun source will also 

be measured in order to determine the 

appropriate safety radius for use during 

power downs. A summary report on the 

acoustic measurements and proposed 

refinements to the safety radii will be 

made available for review shortly after 

the data have been collected. Until these 

empirical data are available, the 180- 

and 190–dB radii predicted to be 

applicable to intermediate water depths 

(with a precautionary 1.5X adjustment) 

will also be applied for deep and 

shallow water operations when 

estimating the required safety radii. 

More detailed modeling of the airgun 

array may be completed prior to the 

beginning of the field season and the 

resulting 120-, 160-,180- and 190–dB 

(rms) safety radii (with 1.5X factor) will 

be applied at the start of the season if 

that occurs. 

The following mitigation measures, as 

well as marine mammal visual 

monitoring (discussed later in this 

document), will be implemented for the 

subject seismic survey: (1) Speed and 

course alteration (provided that they do 

not compromise operational safety 

requirements); (2) power-down/shutdown procedures; and (3) ramp-up 

procedures. 

Speed and Course Alteration 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside its respective safety zone (180 

dB for cetaceans, 190 dB for pinnipeds) 

and, based on its position and the 

relative motion, is likely to enter the 

safety zone, the vessel’s speed and/or 

direct course may, when practical and 

safe, be changed to avoid the mammal 

in a manner that also minimizes the 

effect to the planned science objectives. 

The marine mammal activities and 

movements relative to the seismic vessel 

will be closely monitored to ensure that 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49429 

the marine mammal does not enter the 

safety zone. If the mammal appears 

likely to enter the safety zone, further 

mitigative actions will be taken (i.e., 

either further course alterations or shut 

down of the airguns). 

Power-down and Shut-down Procedures 

A power-down involves decreasing 

the number of airguns in use such that 

the radii of the 190–dB and 180–dB 

zones are decreased to the extent that 

observed marine mammals are not in 

the applicable safety zone. A powerdown may also occur when the vessel 

is moving from one seismic line to 

another. During a power-down, one 

airgun (or some other number of airguns 

less than the full airgun array) is 

operated. The continued operation of 

one airgun is intended to (a) alert 

marine mammals to the presence of the 

seismic vessel in the area, and (b) retain 

the option of initiating a ramp up to full 

operations under poor visibility 

conditions. In contrast, a shut down 

occurs when all airgun activity is 

suspended. 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the safety radius but appears 

likely to enter the safety radius, and if 

the vessel’s speed and/or course cannot 

be changed to avoid having the mammal 

enter the safety radius, the airguns may 

(as an alternative to a complete shut 

down) be powered down before the 

mammal is within the safety radius. 

Likewise, if a mammal is already within 

the safety zone when first detected, the 

airguns will be powered down 

immediately if this is a reasonable 

alternative to a complete shut down. 

During a power-down of the 36–airgun 

array, the number of guns operating will 

be reduced to a single 40 in3 sleeve 

airgun. The 190–dB (rms) safety radius 

around the 40 in3 airgun had not been 

modeled previously, but will 

empirically measured during acoustic 

verification measurements made at the 

start of seismic operations. If a marine 

mammal is detected within or near the 

smaller safety radius around the single 

40 in3 sleeve airgun, all airguns will be 

shut down. 

Following a power-down, operation of 

the full airgun array will not resume 

until the marine mammal has cleared 

the safety zone. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the safety 

zone if it is visually observed to have 

left the safety zone, or has not been seen 

within the zone for 15 minutes in the 

case of small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds, and for 30 minutes in the 

case of mysticetes (large odontocetes do 

not occur within the activity area). 

Shut-down Procedures 

The operating airgun(s) will be shut 

down completely if a marine mammal 

approaches or enters the applicable 

safety radius and a power down is not 

practical or adequate to reduce exposure 

to less than 190 or 180 dB (rms), as 

appropriate. The operating airgun(s) 

will also be shut down completely if a 

marine mammal approaches or enters 

the estimated safety radius around the 

reduced source (one 40 in3 sleeve gun) 

that will be used during a power down. 

Airgun activity will not resume until 

the marine mammal has cleared the 

safety radius. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the safety 

radius as described previously. Rampup procedures will be followed during 

resumption of full seismic operations. 

Ramp-up Procedure 

A ‘‘ramp up’’ or ‘‘soft start’’ procedure 

will be followed when the airgun array 

begins operating after a specifiedduration period with no or reduced 

airgun operations. The specified period 

depends on the speed of the source 

vessel, the size of the airgun array that 

is being used, and the size of the safety 

radii, but is typically about 10 minutes 

or the time the vessel would reach the 

location of the 180–dB radius at the 

time of shut-down or power-down, 

whichever is greater. 

Ramp-up will likely begin with a 

single airgun (the smallest, or 40 in3). 

The precise ramp-up procedure will be 

determined prior to start-up (based 

upon array configuration), but will 

proceed at a ramp-up rate of no more 

than 6 dB per 5 min period. The 

standard industry procedure is to 

double the number of operating airguns 

at 5–minute intervals which is equal to 

about a 6 dB increase. During the rampup, the safety zone for the full 36–airgun 

array (or whatever smaller source might 

then be in use) will be maintained. If the 

complete 180–dB safety radius has not 

been visible for at least 30 minutes prior 

to the planned start of a ramp-up in 

either daylight or nighttime, ramp-up 

will not commence unless at least one 

airgun has been operating during that 

period. This means that it will not be 

permissible to ramp up the 36–airguns 

from a complete shut down in thick fog, 

when the entire 180–dB safety zone is 

not visible. If the entire safety radius is 

visible using vessel lights and/or nightvision devices (NVDs), then start up of 

the airguns from a complete shut down 

may occur at night. If one airgun has 

operated during a power-down period, 

ramp-up to full power will be 

permissible at night or in poor visibility, 

on the assumption that marine 

mammals will either be alerted by the 

sounds from the single airgun and could 

move away, or may be detected by 

visual observations. Given the 

responsiveness of bowhead and beluga 

whales to airgun sounds, it can be 

assumed that those species, in 

particular, will move away during a 

ramp-up. 

Ramp-up of the airguns will not be 

initiated during the day or at night if a 

marine mammal has been sighted 

within or near the applicable safety 

radius during the previous 15 minutes. 

Mitigation for Subsistence Needs 

GXT has signed a Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement (CAA) for the proposed 2006 

seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea, in 

consultation with representatives of 

communities along the Alaska coast 

including Pt. Hope, Pt. Lay, Wainwright, 

and Barrow. The signed CAA provides 

NMFS with information to make a 

determination that the activity will not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the subsistence use of marine mammals. 

GXT worked with representatives of 

these communities to identify and avoid 

areas of potential conflict, and provided 

a presentation at the AEWC miniconvention in Anchorage, Alaska, on 15 

March 2006. Meetings with AEWC and 

NSB representatives also occurred at the 

time of the convention. Also, GXT 

participated in the open water peer/ 

stakeholder review meeting that was 

convened by NMFS in Anchorage on 

April 18–21, 2006, along with 

representatives of the AEWC and NSB. 

The signed CAA covers GXT’s seismic 

survey planned to occur in the Chukchi 

Sea between July 1 and November 30, 

2006. The purpose is to identify 

measures that will be taken to minimize 

any adverse effects on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence uses, 

and to ensure good communication 

between GXT (including the project 

leaders and the M/V Discoverer), native 

communities along the coast, and 

subsistence hunters at sea. 

The CAA also addresses the 

following: (1) operational agreement and 

communications procedures; (2) where/ 

when agreement becomes effective; (3) 

general communications scheme; (4) onboard Inupiat observer; identification of 

seasonally sensitive areas; (5) vessel 

navigation; (6) air navigation; (7) marine 

mammal monitoring activities; (7) 

measures to avoid impacts to marine 

mammals; (8) measures to avoid 

conflicts in areas of active whaling; (9) 

emergency assistance; and (10) dispute 

resolution process. 

In the unlikely event that subsistence 

hunting or fishing is occurring within 5 

km (3 mi) of the M/V Discoverer’s 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
49430 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

trackline, or in other situations 

inconsistent with the CAA, the airgun 

operations will be suspended until the 

vessel is greater than 5 km (3 mi) away 

and otherwise in compliance with the 

CAA. 

Monitoring 

GXT will implement a marine 

mammal monitoring program during the 

present project, in order to implement 

the mitigation measures that require 

real-time monitoring, to satisfy the 

anticipated monitoring requirements of 

the NMFS and USFWS IHAs, and to 

meet any monitoring requirements 

agreed to as part of the CAA. The 

monitoring work described here has 

been planned as a self-contained project 

independent of any other related 

monitoring projects that may be 

occurring simultaneously in the same 

regions. 

Vessel-based Visual Monitoring 

Vessel-based observers will monitor 

marine mammals near the seismic 

source vessel during all daytime hours 

and during any power ups of the 

airgun(s) at night. Airgun operations 

will be powered down or (if necessary) 

shut down when marine mammals are 

observed within, or about to enter, 

designated safety radii. Vessel-based 

marine mammal observers (MMOs) will 

also watch for marine mammals near the 

seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes 

prior to the planned start of airgun 

operations and after any shut downs of 

the airgun array that do not have at least 

30 minutes of continuous marine 

mammal observations prior to start-up. 

When feasible, observations will also be 

made during daytime periods without 

seismic operations (e.g., during transits). 

During seismic operations when there 

is 24 hrs of daylight, four observers will 

be based aboard the vessel. As the 

number of hours of daylight decreases 

in the fall, the number of MMOs on the 

vessel will be reduced to three MMOs. 

MMOs will be appointed by GXT with 

NMFS and USFWS concurrence. An 

Alaska native resident knowledgeable 

about the mammals and fish of the area 

is expected to be included as one of the 

team of MMOs aboard the M/V 

Discoverer. At least one observer, and 

when practical two observers, will 

monitor marine mammals near the 

seismic vessel during ongoing daytime 

operations and any nighttime start ups 

of the airguns. (There will be no periods 

of total darkness until mid-August.) Use 

of two simultaneous observers will 

increase the proportion of the animals 

present near the source vessel that are 

detected. MMOs will be on duty in 

shifts of duration no longer than 4 

hours. The M/V Discoverer crew will be 

instructed by the MMOs onboard to 

assist in detecting marine mammals and 

implementing mitigation requirements 

(if practical). Before the start of the 

seismic survey the crew will be given 

additional instruction by the MMOs 

regarding implementation of mitigation 

measures. 

The M/V Discoverer is a suitable 

platform for marine mammal 

observations. Observations will be made 

from either the bridge or the flying 

bridge, which are greater than 12 m (40 

ft) above sea level. From the bridge, 

about 45° of the view will be obstructed 

directly to the stern. During daytime, 

the MMO(s) will scan the area around 

the vessel systematically with reticle 

binoculars (e.g., 7 50 Fujinon), and with 

the naked eye. During any periods of 

darkness, NVDs will be available (ITT 

F500 Series Generation 3 binocularimage intensifier or equivalent), if and 

when required. Laser rangefinding 

binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser 

rangefinder or equivalent) will be 

available to assist with distance 

estimation; these are useful in training 

observers to estimate distances visually, 

but are generally not useful in 

measuring distances to animals directly. 

When marine mammals in the water 

are detected within or about to enter the 

designated safety radius, the airgun(s) 

will be powered down or shut down 

immediately. To assure prompt 

implementation of shut downs, multiple 

channels of communication between the 

MMOs and the airgun technicians will 

be established. During power downs 

and shut downs, the MMO(s) will 

continue to maintain watch to 

determine when the animal(s) are 

outside the safety radius. Airgun 

operations will not resume until the 

animal is outside the safety radius. 

Marine mammals will be considered to 

have cleared the safety radius if they are 

visually observed to have left the safety 

radius, or if they have not been seen 

within the radius for 15 minutes 

(pinnipeds and small cetaceans) or for 

30 minutes (large cetaceans). 

All observations and airgun power 

downs or shut downs will be recorded 

in a standardized format. Data will be 

entered into a custom database using a 

notebook computer. The accuracy of the 

data entry will be verified by 

computerized validity data checks as 

the data are entered and by subsequent 

manual checking of the database. These 

procedures will allow initial summaries 

of data to be prepared during and 

shortly after the field program, and will 

facilitate transfer of the data to 

statistical, graphical, or other programs 

for further processing and archiving. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide: (1) the basis 

for real-time mitigation (airgun power or 

shut down), (2) information needed to 

estimate the number of marine 

mammals potentially taken by 

harassment, (3) data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted, (4) information to 

compare the distance and distribution of 

marine mammals relative to the source 

vessel at times with and without seismic 

activity, and (5) data on the behavior 

and movement patterns of marine 

mammals seen at times with and 

without seismic activity. 

Acoustic Verification and Modeling 

Measurements of received sound 

levels as a function of distance and 

direction from the proposed airgun 

arrays will be made prior to beginning 

the seismic survey. Results of this 

acoustic characterization/verification 

will be used to refine the pre-season 

estimates of safety and disturbance radii 

applicable to the sources during the 

remainder of seismic operations. A 

preliminary report of the measurement 

results concerning the 190–dB and 180- 

dB (rms) safety radii will be submitted 

shortly after data collection. 

Additionally, more extensive 

modeling of the sounds that will be 

produced by the airgun array may be 

completed prior to the field season. The 

results of this modeling, if done, will be 

made available before the field season 

and the safety radii adjusted 

accordingly. 

Additional Mitigation and Monitoring 

Measures 

As part of NMFS’ week-long openwater meeting in Anchorage, on April 

19–20, 2006, participants had a 

discussion on appropriate mitigation 

and monitoring measures for Arctic 

Ocean seismic activities in 2006. In 

addition to the standard mitigation and 

monitoring measures, additional 

measures, such as expanded 

monitoring-safety zones for bowhead 

and gray whales, and having those 

zones monitored effectively, have been 

implemented in order for NMFS to meet 

its requirements under NEPA. The 

additional mitigation measures 

reviewed here are specific for this 

project. They do not establish NMFS 

policy applicable to other projects or 

other locations under NMFS’

jurisdiction, as each application for an 

IHA is context dependent, that is, 

judged independently as to which 

measures are practicable and necessary 

to reduce impacts to the lowest level 

and to ensure that takings do not have 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49431 

an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses. These measures have 

been developed based upon available 

data specific to the project areas. NMFS 

and MMS intend to collect additional 

information from all sources, including 

industry, non-governmental 

organizations, Alaska Natives and other 

federal and state agencies regarding 

measures necessary for effectively 

monitoring marine mammal 

populations, assessing impacts from 

seismic on marine mammals, and 

determining practicable measures for 

mitigating those impacts. MMS and 

NMFS anticipate that mitigation 

measures applicable to future seismic 

and other activities may change and 

evolve based on newly-acquired data. 

Research 

GXT, Shell and ConocoPhillips have 

developed, and will implement, a jointresearch component to their individual 

marine mammal monitoring programs 

that will further improve the 

understanding of impacts of seismic 

exploration on marine mammals, 

particularly bowhead whales. A 

preliminary description of this research 

was outlined in NMFS’ proposed notice 

(71 FR 32045, June 6, 2006). Following 

NMFS’ open water meeting in 

Anchorage, AK on April 19–24, 2006, a 

more detailed research plan was 

developed for the seismic industry. The 

latest version of this report is available 

for downloading (see ADDRESSES). This 

plan includes: 

Vessel-based Surveys: MMOs will 

conduct observations onboard a 

dedicated vessel conducting at least 

three individual surveys early in the 

seismic season, in the middle of the 

season and late in the season, as well as 

opportunistic surveys while the vessel 

is being used for crew changes/supply 

runs. The survey will systematically 

cover broad areas of the Chukchi 

planning area in order to obtain 

adequate coverage across multiple 

habitat types (subject to vessel 

operational limitations near ice pack). 

The surveys will provide: (1) 

quantitative data on distribution and 

densities for each marine mammal 

species by habitat (depth and ice); (2) 

sighting data to compute densities 

during seismic and non seismic periods; 

(3) density information during nonseismic periods to be used to estimate 

numbers of marine mammals that would 

have been exposed to various sound 

levels (160, 180, 190 dB re 1 microPa), 

if they had not moved away from the 

seismic vessel; and (4) sighting and 

density information from operating 

seismic vessel will provide data on 

numbers that did not avoid the vessel 

and were exposed to the same sound 

levels. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM): A 

towed hydrophone array will be used to 

monitor for vocalizing marine mammals 

during the dedicated marine mammal 

surveys. The array will contain two 

hydrophone elements designed to 

receive sounds in approximately the 100 

Hz to 45 kHz range. This range covers 

the frequency of calls known to be 

produced by cetaceans and pinnipeds 

likely to be encountered in the Chukchi 

Sea during the open-water season (gray 

and bowhead whales ranging from 100 

Hz–4 kHz; beluga whales ranging up to 

approximately 10 kHz; pinnipeds 

ranging up to 5 kHz). The hydrophone 

array will be monitored during daylight 

hours by at least one bioacoustician. 

Sightings rates, and depending on the 

amount of data collected, the densities 

of marine mammals in the survey area 

will be estimated during the three 

surveys. Most likely the R/V Torsvik, 

the dedicated marine mammal 

monitoring vessel will tow the PAM. 

Chukchi Sea Coastal Aerial Survey: 

An aerial survey program will be 

conducted in support of the seismic 

programs in the Chukchi Sea during 

summer and fall of 2006. The objectives 

of the aerial survey will be: (1) to 

address data deficiencies in the 

distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals in coastal areas of the eastern 

Chukchi Sea; and (2) to collect and 

report data on the distribution, 

numbers, orientation and behavior of 

marine mammals, particularly beluga 

whales, near traditional hunting areas in 

the eastern Chukchi Sea. 

Acoustic ‘‘Net’’ Array: A suite of 

autonomous seafloor recorders (popups) will be deployed to collect acoustic 

data from strategically situated sites in 

the Chukchi Sea. The basic plan is to 

deploy horizontal line arrays (HLA) of 

pop-ups in four areas from 

approximately Pt. Hope to the western 

Beaufort Sea east of Barrow, Alaska. 

Each of the four HLAs will contain four 

pop-ups separated by approximately 6–

8 nm (11–15 km) so as to have an endto-end length of approximately 18–24 

nm (33–44 km) thus forming an inshoreto-offshore ‘‘net.’’ An additional four 

pop-ups will be deployed at sites about 

50–75 nm (93–139 km) offshore. The 

acoustic ‘‘net’’ array has been designed 

to accomplish two main objectives: (1) 

to collect information on the occurrence 

and distribution of beluga whales that 

may be available to subsistence hunters 

near villages located on the Chukchi Sea 

coast, and (2) to measure the ambient 

noise levels near these villages and 

record received levels of sounds from 

seismic survey activities should they be 

detectable. 

Reporting 

During the field season, brief biweekly progress reports on the status of 

the activity and level of marine mammal 

interactions will be submitted. A report 

on the preliminary results of the 

acoustic verification measurements, 

including as a minimum the measured 

180- and 190–dB (rms) radii of the 

airgun sources, will be submitted 

shortly after collection and analysis of 

those measurements at the start of the 

field season. This report will specify the 

refinements to the safety radii that are 

proposed for adoption. 

A report on GXT’s seismic activities 

and on the relevant monitoring and 

mitigation results will be submitted to 

NMFS within 90 days after the end of 

the Chukchi sea seismic work. The 

report will provide full documentation 

of methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all acoustic 

characterization work and vessel-based 

monitoring. The 90–day report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all cetacean and 

seal sightings (dates, times, locations, 

activities, associated seismic survey 

activities). The number and 

circumstances of ramp-ups, powerdowns, shutdowns, and other mitigation 

actions will be reported. The report will 

also include estimates of the numbers of 

mammals affected and the nature of 

observed impacts on cetaceans and 

seals. 

Following the 2006 open water 

season, a single comprehensive report 

describing the acoustic, vessel-based, 

and aerial monitoring programs for all 

industrial seismic programs will be 

prepared. This comprehensive report 

will describe the methods, results, 

conclusions and limitations of each of 

the individual data sets in detail. The 

report will also integrate (to the extent 

possible) the studies into a broad based 

assessment of industry activities and 

their impacts on marine mammals in the 

Chukchi Sea during 2006. The report 

will help to establish long-term data sets 

that can assist with the evaluation of 

changes in the Chukchi Sea ecosystem. 

The report will also incorporate studies 

being conducted in the Beaufort Sea and 

will attempt to provide a regional 

synthesis of available data on industry 

activity in offshore areas of northern 

Alaska that may influence marine 

mammal density, distribution and 

behavior. 

This comprehensive report will 

consider data from many different 

sources including two relatively 

different types of aerial surveys, several 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
49432 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 

types of acoustic systems for data 

collection, and vessel based 

observations. Collection of comparable 

data across the wide array of programs 

will help with the synthesis of 

information. However, interpretation of 

broad patterns in data from a single year 

is inherently limited. Many of the 2006 

data will be used to assess the efficacy 

of the various data collection methods 

and to help establish protocols that will 

provide a basis for integration of the 

data sets over a period of years. Because 

of the complexity of this comprehensive 

report, NMFS is requiring that this 

report be submitted in draft to NMFS by 

April 1, 2007 in order for consideration, 

review and comment at the 2007 open 

water meeting. 

ESA 

NMFS has issued a biological opinion 

regarding the effects of this action on 

ESA-listed species and critical habitat 

under the jurisdiction of NMFS. That 

biological opinion concluded that this 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. A copy 

of the Biological Opinion is available 

upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

NEPA 

The MMS prepared a Draft PEA for 

the 2006 Arctic Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) Seismic Surveys. NMFS was a 

cooperating agency in the preparation of 

the MMS Draft and Final PEAs and 

made this Draft PEA available upon 

request (71 FR 26055, May 3, 2006). In 

accordance with NOAA Administrative 

Order 216–6 (Environmental Review 

Procedures for Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act, May 

20, 1999), NMFS has determined that 

the MMS Final PEA contains an indepth and detailed description of the 

seismic survey activities, reasonable 

alternatives to the proposed action, the 

affected environment, mitigation and 

monitoring measures identified to 

reduce impacts on the human 

environment to non-significant levels, 

and the potential effects of the action on 

the human environment. In view of the 

information presented in this document 

and the analysis contained in the 

supporting PEA, NMFS has determined 

that issuance by NMFS of an IHA to 

GXT and other companies for 

conducting seismic surveys this year in 

the Arctic Ocean will not significantly 

impact the quality of the human 

environment as described above and in 

the supporting Final PEA. 

This determination is predicated on 

full implementation of standard 

mitigation measures for preventing 

injury or mortality to marine mammals, 

in addition to area-specific mitigation 

measures, such as implementation of (1) 

a 120–dB rms monitoring-safety zone for 

cow/calf pairs of bowhead whales in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi seas; (2) a 160–dB 

rms monitoring-safety zone for 

aggregations of feeding bowheads and 

gray whales in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi seas; (3) seismic shut-down 

criteria to protect bowhead and gray 

whales when inside the 120–dB or 160–

dB monitoring-safety zones; and (4) a 

joint industry cooperative program on 

marine mammal research in the 

Chukchi Sea. These mitigation measures 

were incorporated into NMFS’ Selected 

Alternative and IHA conditions for this 

year’s seismic survey operations. 

Accordingly, NMFS adopts MMS’ Final 

PEA and has determined that the 

preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement for this action is not 

necessary. A copy of the MMS Final 

PEA for this activity is available upon 

request and is available online (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

The action area has been identified 

and described as EFH for 5 species of 

Pacific salmon (pink (humpback), chum 

(dog), sockeye (red), chinook (king), and 

coho (silver)) occurring in Alaska. The 

issuance of this proposed incidental 

harassment authorization is not 

anticipated to have any adverse effects 

on EFH, and therefore no consultation is 

required. 

Determinations 

Summary 

Based on the information provided in 

GXT’s application and the MMS Final 

PEA, NMFS has determined that GXT’s 

seismic surveys in the northern Chukchi 

Sea in 2006 will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals, result in the taking 

of small numbers of marine mammals, 

and will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impacts on their availability for 

taking for subsistence uses, provided the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

required under the IHA are 

implemented and the POC/CAA is 

implemented. 

Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals 

NMFS has determined that the impact 

of conducting relatively short-term 

seismic surveys in the U.S. Chukchi Sea 

may result, at worst, in a temporary 

modification in behavior by certain 

species of marine mammals. While 

behavioral and avoidance reactions may 

occur in response to the resultant 

seismic noise and vessel appearance, 

this behavioral change is expected to 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

species and stocks of marine mammals. 

While the number of potential 

incidental harassment takes will depend 

on the distribution and abundance of 

marine mammals in the area of seismic 

operations, which will vary annually 

due to variable ice conditions and other 

factors, the number of potential 

harassment takings is estimated to be 

small relative to the population 

estimates (see Table 2 in this 

document). 

In addition, no take by death or 

serious injury is anticipated, and the 

potential for temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment will be avoided 

through the incorporation of the 

mitigation measures proposed for GXT’s 

IHA. This determination is supported 

by: (1) the likelihood that, given 

sufficient notice through slow ship 

speed and ramp-up of the seismic array, 

marine mammals (especially bowhead, 

gray, and beluga whales in Arctic 

waters) are expected to move away from 

seismic noise that is annoying prior to 

its becoming potentially injurious; (2) 

recent research that indicates that TTS 

is unlikely at SPLs as low as 180 dB re 

1 microPa; (3) the fact that injurious 

levels would be very close to the vessel; 

and (4) the likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

observers is close to 100 percent during 

daytime and remains high at night close 

to the seismic vessel. Finally, no known 

rookeries, mating grounds, areas of 

concentrated feeding, or other areas of 

special significance for marine 

mammals are known to occur within or 

near the planned areas of operations 

during the season of operations. 

Potential Impacts on Subsistence Uses 

of Marine Mammals 

NMFS believes that the proposed 

seismic activity by GXT in the northern 

Chukchi Sea in 2006, in combination 

with other seismic and oil and gas 

programs in this area, will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

subsistence uses of bowhead whales and 

other marine mammals. This 

determination is supported by the 

following: (1) seismic activities in the 

Chukchi Sea will not begin until after 

the spring bowhead hunt is expected to 

have ended; (2) the CAA conditions 

should significantly reduce impacts on 

subsistence hunters; (3) while it is 

possible that accessibility to belugas 

during the spring subsistence beluga 

hunt could be impaired by the survey, 

it is unlikely because little to none of 

GXT’s proposed survey is within 25 km 

(15.5 mi) of the Chukchi coast, meaning 

the vessel will usually be well offshore 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Notices 49433 

and away from areas where seismic 

surveys would influence beluga hunting 

by communities; and (4) because seals 

(ringed, spotted, bearded) are hunted in 

nearshore waters and the seismic survey 

will remain offshore of the coastal and 

nearshore areas of these seals where 

natives would harvest these seals, it 

should not conflict with harvest 

activities. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to GXT to take 

small numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to conducting a 

seismic survey in the northern Chukchi 

Sea in 2006, provided the mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

described in this document are 

undertaken. 

Dated: August 15, 2006. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–7097 Filed 8–22–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 080806A] 

Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Construction of 

the Knik Arm Bridge 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application 

for an incidental take authorization; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll 

Authority (KABATA) for an 

authorization to take small numbers of 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to construction of the Knik 

Arm Bridge at the Knik Arm Crossing in 

Alaska during the period 2007 through 

2012. In order to promulgate regulations 

and issue annual Letters of 

Authorization (LOAs) to KABATA, 

NMFS must determine that these 

takings will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species and stocks of 

marine mammals and not have an 

unmitigable impact on subsistence uses 

of marine mammals. NMFS invites 

comment on the application and 

suggestions on the content of the 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than September 22, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is 

PR1.080806A @noaa.gov. Comments 

sent via e-mail, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 10–

megabyte file size. A copy of the 

application (which includes the 

reference citations found in this Federal 

Register document) may be obtained by 

writing to this address or by telephoning 

the contact listed here and are also 

available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–

2289, ext 128. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 

et seq.) (MMPA) 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 regulations are issued. 

Permission may be granted for periods 

of 5 years or less if the Secretary 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 if 

regulations are prescribed setting forth 

the permissible methods of taking and 

the requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking. 

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.’’ An 

authorization may be granted for 

periods of 5 years or less if the Secretary 

finds that the total 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 regulations are prescribed setting 

forth the permissible methods of taking 

and the requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

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]. 

Summary of Request 

On May 6, 2006, NMFS received an 

application, under section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA, from KABATA to take 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to construction of the Knik 

Arm Bridge in Alaska. KABATA 

proposes to construct an 8,180 ft (2,493 

m) pile-supported steel bridge spanning 

Knik Arm in Upper Cook Inlet, in 

Alaska. The project area is located north 

of Anchorage and west of Elmendorf Air 

Force Base in the southern portion of 

Knik Arm. The crossing would traverse 

Knik Arm over waters between zero and 

70 ft (0–20 m) in depth. 

According to KABATA, the bridge 

would be used for vehicular traffic in 

order to: (1) Move freight and goods 

between the Port of Anchorage/Ship 

Creek industrial areas and the Port 

MacKenzie district; (2) provide safety 

and redundant overland routes 

connecting area airports, military bases, 

ports and hospitals for emergency 

response; (3) provide transportation 

infrastructure to meet projected local 

population and economic growth 

forecasts; and (4) support economic 

advancement in the region. 

Three alternatives for the crossing 

alignment have been proposed. A 

complete description of these 

alternatives are discussed in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 

EIS) for the Knik Arm Crossing that will 

be released to the public shortly. A 

bridge across lower Knik Arm in the 

southern alignment is KABATA’s 

preferred alternative identified in that 

document. For the southern alignment, 

causeways approximately 3,600 ft (1,100 

m) and 2,100 ft (640 m) in length would 

be constructed from the east and west 

shores, respectively. During year one for 

construction (presently scheduled for 

2007), the east and west bridge 

causeway foundations and abutments 

would be constructed in April-May 

following the establishment of access 

roads. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES