17842 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

p.m. and Friday, May 11, 2007, from 

8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. The primary 

purpose of this meeting is to discuss 

NEHRP program activities. The NEHRP 

Advisory Committee will also discuss 

its annual report to the NIST Director. 

The agenda may change to 

accommodate Committee business. The 

final agenda will be posted on the 

NEHRP Web site at http://nehrp.gov/. 

DATES: The meeting will convene on 

May 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. and will 

adjourn at 5:45 p.m. on May 10, 2007. 

The meeting will resume on May 11, 

2007 at 8:30 a.m. and end at 12 p.m. The 

meeting will be open to the public. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Employee Lounge, in the 

Administration Building at NIST, 

Gaithersburg, Maryland. Please note 

admittance instructions under the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Jack Hayes, National Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Program Director, 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail 

Stop 8600, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

20899–8600. Dr. Hayes’ e-mail address 

is jack.hayes@nist.gov and his phone 

number is (301) 975–5640. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Committee was established in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Section 103 of the NEHRP 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 

108–360). The Committee is composed 

of 15 members appointed by the 

Director of NIST who were selected for 

their technical expertise and experience, 

established records of distinguished 

professional service, and their 

knowledge of issues affecting the 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program. In addition, the Chairperson of 

the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) Scientific Earthquake Studies 

Advisory Committee (SESAC) will serve 

in an ex officio capacity on the 

Committee. The Committee will assess: 

• Trends and developments in the 

science and engineering of earthquake 

hazards reduction; 

• The effectiveness of NEHRP in 

performing its statutory activities 

(improved design and construction 

methods and practices; land use 

controls and redevelopment; prediction 

techniques and early-warning systems; 

coordinated emergency preparedness 

plans; and public education and 

involvement programs); 

• Any need to revise NEHRP; and 

• The management, coordination, 

implementation, and activities of 

NEHRP. 

Background information on NEHRP 

and the Advisory Committee is available 

at http://nehrp.gov/. 

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice 

is hereby given that the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

(NEHRP) Advisory Committee on 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

(ACEHR), will meet Thursday, May 10, 

2007, at 9:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 

5:45 p.m. on May 10, 2007. The meeting 

will resume on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 

8:30 a.m. and end at 12 p.m. The 

meeting will be held at NIST 

headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

The primary purpose of this meeting 

is to discuss NEHRP program activities. 

The NEHRP Advisory Committee will 

also discuss its annual report to the 

NIST Director. The meeting will be open 

to the public. The final agenda will be 

posted on the NIST Web site at http:// 

nehrp.gov/. 

Individuals and representatives of 

organizations who would like to offer 

comments and suggestions related to the 

Committee’s affairs are invited to 

request a place on the agenda. On May 

10, 2007, approximately one-half hour 

will be reserved for public comments, 

and speaking times will be assigned on 

a first-come, first-serve basis. The 

amount of time per speaker will be 

determined by the number of requests 

received, but is likely to be about 3 

minutes each. Questions from the public 

will not be considered during this 

period. Speakers who wish to expand 

upon their oral statements, those who 

had wished to speak but could not be 

accommodated on the agenda, and those 

who were unable to attend in person are 

invited to submit written statements to 

the NEHRP Advisory Committee, 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 

8610, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–

8610, via fax at (301) 975–4032, or 

electronically by e-mail to 

info@nehrp.gov. 

All visitors to the NIST site are 

required to pre-register to be admitted. 

Anyone wishing to attend this meeting 

must register by close of business 

Thursday, May 3, 2007, in order to 

attend. Please submit your name, time 

of arrival, e-mail address and phone 

number to Amber Stillrich and she will 

provide you with instructions for 

admittance. Non-U.S. citizens must also 

submit their country of citizenship, title, 

employer/sponsor, and address. Ms. 

Stillrich’s e-mail address is 

amber.stillrich@nist.gov and her phone 

number is (301) 975–3777. 

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

William Jeffrey, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. E7–6746 Filed 4–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 030907B] 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Specified Activities; An On-ice 

Marine Geophysical Research and 

Development Program in the Beaufort 

Sea 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions 

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) as amended, notification is 

hereby given that an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to conducting an on-ice 

marine geophysical research and 

development (R&D) program in the U.S. 

Beaufort Sea, has been issued to Shell 

Offshore, Inc. (SOI) for a period between 

March and May 2007. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from March 30 until May 31, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, 

IHA, an Environmental Assessment (EA) 

on the Proposed OCS Lease Sale 202 

Beaufort Sea Planning Area by the 

Mineral Management Service (MMS), 

and/or a list of references used in this 

document may be obtained 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 (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext 

137 or Brad Smith, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, (907) 271–5006. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of marine mammals 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17843 

by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Permission shall be granted if NMFS 

finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, 

and that the permissible methods of 

taking and requirements pertaining to 

the mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting of such takings are set forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’

in 50 CFR 216.103 as ’’...an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. Except 

for certain categories of activities not 

pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–

day time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a 30–day public 

notice and comment period on any 

proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the comment period, NMFS must 

either issue or deny issuance of the 

authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On January 17, 2007, NMFS received 

an application from SOI for the taking, 

by harassment, of three species of 

marine mammals incidental to 

conducting an on-ice marine 

geophysical R&D program. 

The proposed R&D program would 

occur on the U.S. Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) lease blocks located offshore from 

Oliktok Point, Milne Point, West Dock, 

or Endeavor Islands, in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea. This on-ice R&D will 

consist of 35 linear miles (56 km) of 

surveying with in a 16 km2 (6.2 mi2) 

area. The prospective locations have 

been selected on the basis of suitability 

for the scientific testing and proximity 

to facilities to help minimize impact on 

the region. The water depth at each 

location is less than 20 m (66 ft); deep 

enough that the ice is not grounded. Ice 

conditions within the proposed survey 

area will determine the area selected, 

and SOI will consult with MMS and 

NMFS before the selection is made. The 

proposed program is expected to begin 

in March and last until May, 2007. 

Sources and receivers would be 

placed above and below the ice in 

attempts to find pairings that provide 

the best mitigation of seismic noise in 

a shallow marine environment where 

conventional seismic vessels cannot 

operate. A variety of instruments will be 

used to create a complete catalogue of 

data for development of noise mitigation 

techniques. Sources include standard 

and lightweight vibrators, accelerated 

weight drop (impact) sources on the ice, 

and small volume airgun arrays 

deployed through holes augered in the 

ice. Receivers will be deployed both on 

the ice surface, as well as below the ice 

suspended in the water column and on 

the ocean floor. The program will also 

require a temporary camp facility geared 

to accommodate up to 100 people. A 

detailed description of these activities 

was published in the Federal Register 

on February 6, 2007 (72 FR 5421). No 

changes have been made to these 

proposed R&D activities. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt and request for 

public comment on the application and 

proposed authorization was published 

on February 6, 2007 (72 FR 5421). 

During the 30–day public comment 

period, NMFS received the following 

comments from one private citizen, the 

North Slope Borough (NSB), the Inupiat 

Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), 

and the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission). Overall, the NSB 

supports the efforts to collect geological 

data from the ice instead of during the 

open water period when bowhead 

whales (Balaena mysticetus) and other 

marine mammals might be present and 

significant subsistence activity takes 

place. The Commission recommends 

that NMFS issue the IHA provided that 

the proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures are carried out as described in 

the application and the previous 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 5421, 

February 6, 2007), with the exception of 

the proposed adjustment of the initial 

exclusion zone around active seal 

structures (see Commission comments 

below). 

Comment 1: One private citizen 

opposes the project out of concern that 

marine mammals would be killed by the 

proposed project in Beaufort Sea. 

NMFS Response: As described in 

detail in the Federal Register notice of 

receipt of the application (72 FR 5421, 

February 6, 2007), no marine mammals 

will be killed or injured as a result of 

the proposed on-ice seismic R&D 

program by SOI. The project would only 

result in Level B behavioral harassment 

of a small number of ringed seals and 

bearded and spotted seals. No take by 

Level A harassment (injury) or death is 

anticipated or authorized from this 

project. 

Comment 2: The NSB questions the 

statement SOI stated in its application 

that it wants to ‘‘... create a complete 

catalogue of data for development of 

noise mitigation techniques.’’ NSB 

mentions that it is not clear what this 

statement means given that SOI would 

be using an airgun and vibrators, which 

would create noise, not mitigate it. 

SOI Response: The proposed on-ice 

work is being conducted in an effort to 

develop mitigative alternatives to open 

water seismic acquisition. Several 

technologies are being evaluated both 

for their efficacy for acquiring 

subsurface data and for reducing 

environmental impacts of seismic 

operations. By evaluating multiple 

technologies during an on-ice 

experiment, it is hoped that a mitigative 

alternative to open water seismic 

surveys can be identified or developed. 

Comment 3: The NSB points out that 

in the SOI’s application, it stated that 

the geophysical program would occur in 

a 16 km2 (6.2 mi2) area. However, the 

accompanying map shows a much larger 

area of approximately 15 by 60 miles (24 

x 97 km) in size. The NSB questions in 

which portion of this larger area the 

proposed on-ice R&D program would be 

conducted. 

SOI Response: The included map 

depicts general regions being considered 

for project placement. Final location 

will depend on a combination of 

suitable ice conditions, operational 

efficiency, and locations away from 

permit restrictions (e.g., seal lairs, etc.). 

SOI will consult with NMFS and MMS 

regarding the selection of the final 

location. Nonetheless, the project 

footprint is 16 km2 (6.2 mi2). 

Comment 4: The NSB states that in 

discussion with SOI, it appears that the 

company has already conducted 

considerable work for the establishment 

of a camp on the ice and perhaps has 

even already set up the camp or begun 

geophysical work. This is peculiar given 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
17844 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

that an IHA has not yet been issued and 

that comments are due on the 

application on March 8, 2007. If SOI is 

already conducting operations, 

especially seismic, it is likely they are 

already taking ringed seals. The NSB 

suggests that NMFS investigate SOI’s 

operations for the taking of marine 

mammals if those operations have 

already begun. 

SOI Response: SOI’s contractor, 

Veritas DGC has been performing ice 

profiling reconnaissance visits to 

measure ice thickness. These visits were 

necessary to assess at which location ice 

is thick enough to safely execute the 

project. Veritas DGC conducted these 

flights under the coverage of a USFWS 

Letter of Authorization for the 

incidental take of polar bears. Arnold 

Brower, Sr. accompanied Veritas DGC 

on these flights to provide wildlife 

observations and traditional knowledge 

on ice thicknesses based on his 

observations of surface ice conditions. 

No marine mammals were observed 

during these ice thickness assessments 

during which ice was bored and 

thicknesses measured. No marine 

mammals were taken. 

NMFS Response: NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources has contacted the 

Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) in the 

Alaska Division regarding NSB’s 

comment. The OLE has initiated an 

investigation on this issue. 

Comment 5: The NSB states that it 

agrees with NMFS and SOI’s assessment 

on the potential take of ringed, bearded, 

and spotted seas, and further states that 

it’s extremely unlikely that any spotted 

seal will be in the project vicinity. 

However, the NSB is concerned that 

bowhead whales and belugas 

(Delphinapterus leucas) could be 

potentially taken as a result of the 

proposed action. NSB states that 

bowheads and belugas typically begin 

passing by Barrow in mid-April, and 

that in a typical year, bowheads and 

belugas could be off the project area by 

mid-April within several days of 

passing Barrow. The NSB further states 

that in 2007, ice is very light and there 

are considerable areas of open water 

between Barrow and the Beaufort Sea. 

NMFS Response: The nature of the 

proposed on-ice seismic R&D program 

would require ice thickness of at least 

50 in (1.3 m) to support the heavy 

equipment and personnel, and the 

nearest lead would be at least 10 mi (16 

km) away. This is not typical habitat for 

cetacean species, including bowhead 

and beluga whales, thus, no cetacean 

species is likely to be found in the 

vicinity of the project area. Therefore, 

NMFS does not believe the proposed 

project would affect bowhead or beluga 

whales. Due to safety concerns, SOI will 

not operate in an area where the ice 

condition is thin enough to allow an 

open lead to develop. As stated in the 

previous Federal Register notice (72 FR 

5421, February 6, 2007), SOI will 

consult with NMFS and MMS before 

camp mobilization within the project 

area based on ice conditions and safety 

of access to ice. 

Comment 6: The NSB states that the 

propagation data from the open water 

period is not sufficient for establishing 

safety or disturbance zones. The NSB 

states that while the sea ice is likely to 

dampen some frequencies of sound, 

there is also the likelihood that the ice 

may channel sounds, especially just 

below the ice. 

NMFS Response: It is well supported 

by scientific research that a major 

source of low-frequency loss in the 

Arctic is conversion of acoustic waves 

into flexural waves of the ice sheet, thus 

attenuating acoustic propagation under 

ice (Richardson 3, 1995). Thus, NMFS 

does not believe there are sound 

channeling effects caused by ice in the 

proposed project area. In particular, the 

NSB did not provide any scientific 

support for its comment regarding ‘‘ice 

channeling sounds.’’

In the Arctic region, the axis of the 

deep sound channel may exist at or near 

the surface, which is due to cold 

temperature at the surface that causes 

the sound ray to refract upward, but it 

is not induced by ice-cover and it only 

occurs in area where the ocean is 

sufficiently deep (Urick, 1983). The 

proposed project area is only 20 m (66 

ft), therefore, it is highly unlikely an 

arctic surface channel will form in the 

proposed project area. 

Although Richardson et al. (1995) 

noted that smooth annual ice may 

enhance propagation of high-frequency 

sounds under-ice at compared with 

open water conditions, those sounds are 

not a major component from the 

proposed seismic program. In addition, 

the safety zone for seismic surveys by 

airgun will be empirically verified to 

match the 190 dB re: 1 microPa rms for 

pinnipeds to prevent any impacts on 

marine mammals from sound pressure 

levels higher than that. 

Comment 7: The NSB states that 

ambient sounds are often lower during 

periods of ice cover compared to the 

open water period. Thus, the NSB is 

concerned that if channeling occurs and 

ambient levels under ice are lower than 

open water, marine mammals may be 

subjected to louder SPLs at farther 

distances than suggested by data 

collected during the open water period. 

NMFS Response: Contrary to what the 

NSB claims in the comment, sea ice 

noise contributes a large part of the 

ambient sound level at high latitudes. 

Sea ice noise often results from (1) 

thermal stress, in which temperature 

changes induce cracking; and (2) 

mechanical stress, in which ice 

deformation under pressure from wind 

and currents; and causes significant 

noise at low frequencies (Richardson et 

al., 1995). It was noted that a pressure 

ridge active over a 3–day period 

produced tones at frequencies of 4 - 200 

Hz. Although ambient noise levels have 

been found lower under certain types of 

stable sea ice, it is actually a result from 

the dampening effects by ice, where 

there is 100 percent ice cover and no 

waves or surf are present (Richardson et 

al., 1995). As mentioned in Response to 

Comment 6, this dampening effect 

would reduce noise levels from the 

proposed project as well. 

Regarding the ‘‘ice channeling 

effects,’’ please refer to NMFS Response 

to Comment 6. 

Comment 8: The NSB is further 

concerned that if channeling occurs and 

leads in the Beaufort Sea are relatively 

near shore, bowheads and belugas could 

also be taken. 

NMFS Response: Regarding the ‘‘ice 

channeling affects,’’ please refer to 

NMFS Response to Comment 6. 

Also, as mentioned in Response to 

Comment 6 that although smooth 

annual ice may enhance propagation of 

high-frequency sounds under-ice at 

compared with open water conditions, 

with increased cracking, ridging, and 

other forms of roughness, transmission 

losses generally become higher than 

when the water is open (Richardson et 

al., 1995). In addition, as mentioned in 

Response to Comment 5, no seismic 

program will be conducted within 10 mi 

(16 km) of open lead for safety concerns. 

As a result, NMFS believes that, because 

channeling in shallow waters of the 

nearshore Beaufort Sea is unlikely, no 

cetaceans are likely to be taken by this 

activity. 

Comment 9: The NSB points out that 

the most recent information about 

spotted seal abundance in the Beaufort 

Sea was not included in the SOI’s 

application and NMFS Federal Register 

notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007). 

Citing R. Suydam’s personal 

communication, the NSB states that 

there is a haul out area for spotted seals 

in Dease Inlet, in addition to the spotted 

seal haul out area in the Colville Delta 

discussed in the notice. The NSB 

suggests that NMFS consider this 

information about spotted seal numbers 

in the Beaufort Sea in future 

assessments of industrial impacts. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has 

determined, and the NSB concurred (see 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17845 

Comment 5), that few, if any, spotted 

seals would be taken by Level B 

behavioral harassment as a result of the 

SOI’s on-ice geophysical R&D program. 

Nonetheless, the information NMFS 

uses for making a determination 

whether the issuance of an IHA is 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA is 

based on the best scientific information 

available. This best scientific 

information is usually in the form of 

peer-reviewed material and scientific 

publications resulted from empirical 

research. Personal communications are 

sometimes considered when there is a 

lack of other information for making a 

determination. In such case, NMFS 

would contact the information source 

and assess whether the information 

acquired based on personal 

communications is scientifically 

supported before such information is 

used in decision making. NMFS 

encourages the NSB to provide 

information regarding spotted seal 

population abundance in the Dease Inlet 

region. 

Comment 10: The NSB is concerned 

that not all the seal breathing holes or 

lairs will be located prior to SOI’s onice program. The NSB points out that 

the description of how lairs and 

breathing holes will be located is not 

adequate to assess whether all lairs will 

be located. Citing a personal 

communication with Tom Smith, the 

NSB also points out that the contractor 

that SOI is planning to use to locate lairs 

would only locate 80 percent of the lairs 

unless repeated surveys are conducted. 

NMFS Response: A detailed seal 

breathing holes and lairs survey 

protocol by 3 trained dogs by transects 

that are spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart was 

described in the Federal Register notice 

(72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007), and is 

not repeated here. A more detailed 

report using seal lair-detecting dogs by 

Smith (2006) is available upon request. 

This reported states that at distances of 

more than 0.25 miles (400 m, or 1,320 

ft) the dogs can detect 80 percent or 

more of the seal structures in an 

area.Since the seal structure transects 

are more closely spaced for the SOI’s 

on-ice program (250 m, or 820 ft), the 

detection rate will be over 90 percent (T. 

Smith. Eco Marine. Pers. Comm. March, 

2007). In addition, this project will use 

3 dogs, which would further increase 

the detection rate. It is also important to 

understand that even though 100 

percent ringed seals would not be 

detected within the 16 km2 (6.2 mi2) 

R&D project area, the site where the 

equipment will be placed and the route 

where vehicles travel will be adequately 

surveyed and marked so that Level A 

harassment will be prevented. 

Comment 11: The NSB states that 

ringed seals could also sustain hearing 

damage without understanding how 

sound may be channeled under the ice. 

NSB is concerned that female ringed 

seals will likely remain near their pups 

even with considerable amounts of 

human activities, therefore could be 

within the 190 dB zone of seismic 

activities if not all lairs are found or 

sound propagates farther than during 

the open water period. 

NMFS Response: Please refer to 

NMFS Response to Comment 6 

regarding ‘‘ice channeling effects.’’ As 

stated in the Federal Register notice (72 

FR 5421, February 6, 2007), during 

active seismic and impact source 

testing, an on-ice 500–m (1,640–ft) 

exclusion zone will be established. This 

500–m (1,640–ft) exclusion zone is 

much large than the 180 dB re: 1 

microPa isopleth (modeled at 330 m, or 

1,083 ft). The modeled 190 dB re: 1 

microPa coincides to a safety zone of 

120 m (394 ft) in radius, which is easily 

surveyed for the presence of seals, and 

will be monitored throughout the 

seismic operations by qualified NMFSapproved marine mammal observers 

(MMOs). The presence of any marine 

mammals will be detected first by dog 

surveys, and then by continued 

monitoring during the operations. 

Therefore, NMFS does not believe any 

marine mammals will be exposed to 

SPLs higher than 190 dB re: 1 microPa. 

Comment 12: The NSB points out that 

the data SOI used for ringed seal density 

estimates (Stirling et al., 1982; Kingsley, 

1986) are quite old. The NSB suggests 

that more recent data from BP’s 

Northstar development island and from 

recent work conducted by either Tom 

Smith or Brendon Kelly be used 

(references not provided). 

NMFS Response: In reviewing and 

making determination on the issuance 

of an IHA to SOI for its proposed on-ice 

R&D project, NMFS used the most 

recent available scientific data regarding 

ringed seal density in the proposed 

project area from works conducted by 

Kelly and Quakenbush (1990), Frost and 

Lowry (1999), and Moulton et al., 

(2002), which was based from studies at 

the Northstar development. Earlier 

ringed seal density estimates reported 

by Stirling et al. (1982) and Kingsley 

(1986) were not included in NMFS’

analysis. Please refer to Federal Register 

notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007) 

for a detailed description. 

Comment 13: The NSB points out that 

SOI’s statement that ‘‘[t]here has been 

no major displacement of seals away 

from on-ice seismic operations’’ is a 

misinterpretation of Frost et al.’s (1988) 

paper. Citing personal communication 

with K. Frost, the NSB states that 

surveys for seals in the mid–1980s 

occurred too far after on-ice seismic had 

occurred to make any conclusions about 

impacts from on-ice seismic on ringed 

seal distribution. The NSB suggests that 

NMFS requires SOI to conduct adequate 

studies to further the knowledge of 

impacts of seismic activities on ringed 

seals. 

NMFS Response: NMFS concurs with 

the NSB’s comment that SOI’s 

assessment regarding impacts of on-ice 

seismic operations on ringed seals based 

on research conducted in mid–1980s is 

inadequate. Nonetheless, the most 

recent studies by Moulton et al. (2005) 

and Williams et al. (2006) did show that 

effects of oil and gas development on 

local distribution of seals and seal lairs 

are no more than slight, and are small 

relative to the effects of natural 

environmental factors. A detailed 

description is provided in the February 

6, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 

5421). 

Although Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

to institute requirements to grantees of 

incidental take authorizations 

pertaining to mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting, NMFS has no clear 

legislative authority to require SOI to 

conduct studies to further the 

knowledge of impacts of seismic 

activities on ringed seals. 

Comment 14: The NSB points out that 

SOI relied on outdated ringed seal 

density data for calculating the number 

of seals for harassment. The NSB states 

that site-specific data area needed on 

seal density, and that if data are not 

available for assessing and mitigating 

impacts to seals, then SOI should be 

required to collect data during this 

season so that a reasonable assessment 

of takes of ringed seals and other marine 

mammals is possible and adequate 

mitigation measures are available for 

reducing impacts in the future. 

NMFS Response: NMFS concurs with 

the NSB that outdated ringed seal 

density data were used by SOI in 

calculating take estimates for the 

proposed on-ice R&D project. 

Nonetheless, these data were not used 

by NMFS in the analysis of the IHA 

issuance and the estimate of take 

numbers. NMFS used the most recent 

data regarding ringed seal abundance in 

the proposed project area from works 

conducted by Kelly and Quakenbush 

(1990), Frost and Lowry (1999), and 

Moulton et al., (2002) to calculate the 

estimated take number. Please refer to 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 5421, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
17846 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

February 6, 2007) for detailed 

description and calculation of estimated 

take levels. 

Comment 15: The Commission 

recommends that the safety zone for 

pinnipeds be enlarged to the 180 dB re: 

1 microPa rms isopleth. The 

Commission believes that a more 

conservative approach should be taken 

and that less drastic changes to the 

exclusion zone should be contemplated. 

The Commission states that this is 

because the susceptibility of seals to 

sounds when in lairs may be higher and 

their options for avoiding sound sources 

more limited. 

NMFS Response: The 190 dB re: 1 

microPa rms is used in estimating the 

onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

for pinniped hearing underwater when 

exposed to pulse sounds from airguns 

during seismic surveys. Based on the 

best available scientific information, 

this criteria is conservative in terms of 

preventing TTS occurrence in 

pinnipeds. Although it is tempting to set 

a larger safety zone to achieve a lower 

SPL for noise exposure, doing so often 

compromises the effectiveness of 

monitoring since a much larger area 

would have to be observed. Therefore, a 

larger safety zone based on 180 dB re: 

1 microPa rms will not necessarily 

provide extra protection for seals. 

Regarding the possibility of seals in 

the lairs being exposed to higher SPLs, 

NMFS does not believe that will occur 

under the proposed on-ice seismic R&D 

program. First, the work site will be 

surveyed by up to 3 trained dogs 

looking for seal structure prior to 

seismic operations. As a result, any 

work location will be at least 500 m 

(1,640 ft) away from the nearest seal 

structure, which corresponds to a zone 

with sound pressure levels below 180 

dB re: 1 microPa on its outer boundary. 

Second, even if there were seals in lairs 

within the safety zone, most acoustic 

energies from the airgun are emitted 

under the water and may not even be 

audible by seals in lairs. Third, if 

audible and annoying, ringed seals have 

a number of lairs and breathing holes 

available in their area. As noted in 

previous Federal Register notices, 

ringed seals, and even new born pups, 

move frequently from lair to lair for 

various biological reasons. If sounds 

from an acoustic source are annoying to 

the ringed seal, with or without a pup, 

these animals can easily move to a new 

location, a Level B harassment. 

Therefore, NMFS does not believe it is 

beneficial to enlarge the safety zone to 

180 dB re: 1 microPa rms isopleth. 

Comment 16: The ICAS points out 

that the proposed project area is known 

to get a lot of ice pressure ridges and a 

few open leads during the project 

period, and that the ice may only be 3.5 

ft (1 m) in thickness from the short time 

the ocean is frozen. The ICAS states that 

the early break-up of ice in recent years 

indicates that the proposed project may 

be jeopardized from unforeseen ice 

surges and movements. The ICAS is 

concerned that SOI may not be able to 

retrieve its heavy equipment if there is 

an early spring break-up, and that the 

sinking of any equipment into the ocean 

would affect bowhead migration later 

on. 

NMFS Response: As discussed in 

Response to Comment 5, the proposed 

on-ice seismic R&D program would 

require ice thickness of at least 50 in 

(1.3 m) to support the heavy equipment 

and personnel, and the nearest lead 

would be at least 10 mi (16 km) away. 

Due to safety concerns, SOI will not 

operate in an area where ice is thin 

enough to allow an open lead. As stated 

in the previous Federal Register notice 

(72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007), SOI will 

consult with NMFS and MMS before 

camp mobilization within the project 

area based on ice conditions and safety 

of access to ice. 

Comment 17: The ICAS recommends 

to SOI additional stipulations: 

(1) that SOI employ 4 subsistence 

representatives for safety of the group 

from possible sudden ice surges and 

look out for opening of new lead to 

warm SOI personnel by contract or 

internal hire from SOI of this project; 

(2) that the camp’s solid waste be 

transported daily, to prevent the added 

attraction from polar bears and foxes; 

(3) additional two night watchmen to 

look for open leads during down time of 

project; 

(4) two snow machines for the open 

lead watchman for quick travel; and 

(5) no fuel storage out on the ice road 

or ice pads. 

NMFS Response: SOI has informed 

NMFS of the following: 

(1) SOI, through its geophysical 

contractor, Veritas DGC, will employ 4 

Inupiat subsistence representatives, 2 

per 12–hour shift, to scout ice 

conditions and observe wildlife while 

the activities of the on-ice seismic 

project are conducted. 

(2) All solid waste will be incinerated 

on site. 

(3) Other than adverse weather days, 

there will be no down time on the 

project. Two Inupiat subsistence 

representatives will be on each shift 

scouting for open leads, in addition to 

observations of wildlife. 

(4) Veritas DGC will transport 

subsistence advisors via a Tucker or 

Haaglund from the project camp site to 

and from the watchmen’s on-ice shift 

duties. 

(5) Veritas DGC has permitted for fuel 

storage facilities at camp, as per NSB 

Permit 07–176 and Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Oil 

and Gas Permit MLUP/NS 06–14. 

Description of Marine Mammals 

Affected by the Activity 

Four marine mammal species are 

known to occur within the proposed 

survey area: ringed seal (Phoca hispida), 

bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), 

spotted seal (Phoca larghs), and polar 

bear (Ursus maritimus). Although polar 

bears are now proposed to be listed as 

threatened, none of these species are 

listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) as endangered or threatened 

species. Other marina mammal species 

that seasonally inhabit the Beaufort Sea, 

but are not anticipated to occur in the 

project area during the proposed R&D 

program, include bowhead whales and 

beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). 

SOI will seek a take Authorization from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) for the incidental taking of 

polar bears because USFWS has 

management authority for this species. 

A detailed description of these species 

can be found in Angliss and Outlaw 

(2005), which is available at the 

following URL: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ 

ak2005.pdf. A more detailed description 

of these species and stocks within the 

proposed action area provided in the 

February 6, 2007, Federal Register (72 

FR 5421). Therefore, it is not repeated 

here. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

and Their Habitat 

Seismic surveys using acoustic 

energy, such as airguns and weigh drop 

impact sources, may have the potential 

to adversely impact marine mammals in 

the vicinity of the activities (Gordon et 

al., 2004). The sound source level of the 

GL airgun to be used in the proposed 

project is 228 dB re: 1 microPa at 1 m, 

which is strong enough to cause hearing 

threshold shift (TS) in pinnipeds when 

exposed for an extended duration 

(Kastak et al., 1999). 

However, it is extremely unlikely that 

any animals would be exposed to a 

sound pressure level (SPL) of this 

magnitude since acoustic energy is 

attenuated as it propagates through the 

water column. Preliminary results of the 

acoustic modeling, which did not take 

the ice effects into consideration, shows 

that the received sound pressure levels 

(SPLs) dropped down to 190, 180, and 

160 dB re: 1 microPa root mean square 

(RMS) at distances of 120 m (394 ft), 330 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17847 

m (1,083 ft), and 2.22 km (1.38 mi), 

respectively. However, with the sea ice 

dampening effects, actual received SPLs 

at these distances are expected to be 

lower (Richardson et al., 1995). In 

addition, most acoustic energy from an 

airgun is directed downward, and the 

short duration of each pulse limits the 

total energy (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Intense acoustic signals from seismic 

surveys are also known to cause 

behavioral alteration in marine 

mammals such as reduced vocalization 

rates (Goold, 1996), avoidance (Malme 

et al., 1986, 1988; Richardson et al., 

1995; Harris et al., 2001), and changes 

in blow rates (Richardson et al., 1995) 

in several marine mammal species. One 

controlled exposure experiment using 

small airguns (source level: 215 224 dB 

re: 1 microPa peak-to-peak (p-p)) was 

conducted on harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) and gray seals (Halichoerus 

grypus) that had been fitted with 

telemetry devices showed fright 

responses in two harbor seals when 

playback started (Thompson et al., 

1998). Their heart rate dropped 

dramatically from 35 45 beats/min to 5 

10 beats/min. However, these responses 

were short-lived and following a typical 

surfacing tachycardia; there were no 

further dramatic drops in heart rate. 

Harbor seals showed strong avoidance 

behavior, swimming rapidly away from 

the source. Stomach temperature tags 

revealed that they ceased feeding during 

this time. Only one seal showed no 

detectable response to the airguns and 

approached to within 300 m (984 ft) of 

the sound source. The behavior of 

harbor seals seemed to return to normal 

soon after the end of each trial. Similar 

avoidance responses were also 

documented in gray seals. By contrast, 

sighting rates of ringed seals from a 

seismic vessel in shallow Arctic waters 

showed no difference between periods 

with the full array, partial array, or no 

airguns firing (Harris et al., 2001). 

Incidental harassment to marine 

mammals could also result from 

physical activities associated with onice seismic operations, which have the 

potential to disturb and temporarily 

displace some seals. Pup mortality 

could occur if any of these animals were 

nursing and displacement were 

protracted. However, it is unlikely that 

a nursing female would abandon her 

pup given the normal levels of 

disturbance from the proposed 

activities, potential predators, and the 

typical movement patterns of ringed 

seal pups among different holes. Seals 

also use as many as four lairs spaced as 

far as 3,437 m (11,276 ft) apart. In 

addition, seals have multiple breathing 

holes. Pups may use more holes than 

adults, but the holes are generally closer 

together than those used by adults. This 

indicates that adult seals and pups can 

move away from seismic activities, 

particularly since the seismic 

equipment does not remain in any 

specific area for a prolonged time. Given 

those considerations, combined with the 

small proportion of the population 

potentially disturbed by the proposed 

activity, impacts are expected to be 

negligible for the ringed, bearded, and 

spotted seal populations. 

The seismic surveys would only 

introduce acoustic energy into the water 

column and no objects would be 

released into the environment. In 

addition, the total footprint of the 

proposed seismic survey area covers 

approximately 16 km2 (6.2 mi2), which 

represents only a small fraction of the 

Beaufort Sea pinniped habitat. Sea-ice 

surface rehabilitation is often 

immediate, occurring during the first 

episode of snow and wind that follows 

passage of the equipment over the ice. 

There is a relative lack of knowledge 

about the potential impacts of seismic 

energy on marine fish and invertebrates. 

Available data suggest that there may be 

physical impacts on eggs and on larval, 

juvenile, and adult stages of fish at very 

close range (within meters) to seismic 

energy source. Considering typical 

source levels associated with seismic 

arrays, close proximity to the source 

would result in exposure to very high 

energy levels. Where eggs and larval 

stages are not able to escape such 

exposures, juvenile and adult fish most 

likely would avoid them. In the cases of 

eggs and larvae, it is likely that the 

numbers adversely affected by such 

exposure would be very small in 

relation to natural mortality. Studies on 

fish confined in cages that were exposed 

under intense sound for extended 

period showed physical or physiological 

impacts (Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; 

McCauley et al., 2003; Smith et al., 

2004). While limited data on seismic 

surveys regarding physiological effects 

on fish indicate that impacts are shortterm and are most apparent after 

exposure at very close range (McCauley 

et al., 2000a; 2000b; Dalen et al., 1996), 

other studies have demonstrated that 

seismic guns had little effect on the dayto-day behavior of marine fish and 

invertebrates (Knudsen et al., 1992; 

Wardle et al., 2001). It is more likely 

that fish will swim away upon hearing 

the seismic impulses (Engas et al., 

1996). 

Limited studies on physiological 

effects on marine invertebrates showed 

that no significant adverse effects from 

seismic energy were detected for Squid 

and cuttlefish (McCauley et al., 2000) or 

in snow crabs (Christian et al., 2003). 

Based on the foregoing discussion, 

NMFS finds preliminarily that the 

proposed seismic surveys would not 

cause any permanent impact on the 

physical habitats and marine mammal 

prey species in the proposed project 

area. 

Number of Marine Mammals Expected 

to Be Taken 

NMFS estimates that up to 30 ringed 

seals and much fewer bearded and 

spotted seals could be taken by Level B 

harassment as a result of the proposed 

on-ice geophysical R&D program. The 

estimate take number is based on 

consideration of the number of ringed 

seals that might be disturbed within the 

16 km2 proposed project area plus up to 

13 km (8 mi) travel route from camp site 

to work site (travel route is estimated to 

be 0.1 km wide), calculated from the 

adjusted ringed seal density of 1.73 seal 

per km2 (Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990). 

This number represents approximately 

0.17 percent of the total ringed seal 

population (estimated at 18,000) for the 

Beaufort Sea (Angliss and Outlaw, 

2005). 

Due to the unavailability of reliable 

bearded and spotted seals densities 

within the proposed project area, NMFS 

is unable to estimate take numbers for 

these two species. However, it is 

expected much fewer bearded and 

spotted seals would subject to takes by 

Level B harassment since their 

occurrence is much lower within the 

proposed project area, especially during 

spring (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; 

Treacy, 2002a; 2002b; Bengtson et al., 

2005). Consequently, the levels of take 

of these 2 pinniped species by Level B 

harassment within the proposed project 

area would represent only small 

fractions of the total population sizes of 

these species in Beaufort Sea. 

In addition, NMFS expected that the 

actual take of Level B harassment by the 

proposed geophysical program would be 

much lower with the implementation of 

the proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures discussed below. Therefore, 

NMFS believes that any potential 

impacts to ringed, bearded, and spotted 

seals to the proposed on-ice geophysical 

seismic program would be insignificant, 

and would be limited to distant and 

transient exposure. 

Potential Effects on Subsistence 

Residents of the village of Nuiqsut are 

the primary subsistence users in the 

activity area. The subsistence harvest 

during winter and spring is primarily 

ringed seals, but during the open-water 

period both ringed and bearded seals are 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
17848 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 

taken. Nuiqsut hunters may hunt year 

round; however, most of the harvest has 

been in open water instead of the more 

difficult hunting of seals at holes and 

lairs (McLaren, 1958; Nelson, 1969). 

Subsistence patterns may be reflected 

through the harvest data collected in 

1992, when Nuiqsut hunters harvested 

22 of 24 ringed seals and all 16 bearded 

seals during the open water season from 

July to October (Fuller and George, 

1997). Harvest data for 1994 and 1995 

show 17 of 23 ringed seals were taken 

from June to August, while there was no 

record of bearded seals being harvested 

during these years (Brower and Opie, 

1997). Only a small number of ringed 

seals was harvested during the winter to 

early spring period, which corresponds 

to the time of the proposed on-ice 

seismic operations. 

Based on harvest patterns and other 

factors, on-ice seismic operations in the 

activity area are not expected to have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses of ringed and bearded 

seals because: 

(1) Operations would end before the 

spring ice breakup, after which 

subsistence hunters harvest most of 

their seals. 

(2) The area where seismic operations 

would be conducted is small compared 

to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence 

hunting area associated with the 

extremely wide distribution of ringed 

seals. 

In order to ensure the least practicable 

adverse impact on the species and the 

subsistence use of ringed seals, SOI has 

notified and provided the affected 

subsistence community with a draft 

plan of cooperation. SOI held 

community meeting with the affected 

Beaufort Sea communities in midOctober 2006 and held meetings again 

in early 2007 to discuss proposed 

activities and to resolve potential 

conflicts regarding any aspects of either 

the operation or the plan of cooperation. 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

The following mitigation and 

monitoring measures are required for 

the subject on-ice seismic surveys. All 

activities shall be conducted as far as 

practicable from any observed ringed 

seal lair and no energy source will be 

placed over a seal lair. 

To further reduce potential impact to 

pinniped habitat, no ice road will be 

built between the mobile camp and 

work site. Travel between mobile camp 

and work site will be done by vehicles 

driving through snow road, which is 

about 4 - 8 mi (6 - 13 km) depending on 

camp location. 

SOI will employ trained seal lair 

sniffing dogs to locate seal structures 

under snow (subnivean) in the proposed 

work area and camp site before the 

seismic program begins. The 

recommended prospective area for the 

proposed project will be surveys for the 

subnivean seal structures using 3 

trained dogs running together. Transects 

will be spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart and 

oriented 90o to the prevailing wind 

direction. The search tracks of the dogs 

will be recorded by GPS units on the 

dogs and the tracks will be downloaded 

daily. Subnivean structures located will 

be probed by steel rod to check if each 

is open (active), or frozen (abandoned). 

Structures will be categorized by size, 

structure and odor to ascertain whether 

the structure is a birth lair, resting lair, 

resting lair of rutting male seals, or a 

breathing hole. Locations of seal 

structures will be marked and 

monitored and adjustment to the 

seismic operation will be made to avoid 

the lairs. 

SOI will also use trained dogs to 

survey the snow road and establish a 

route where no seal structure presents. 

The surveyed road will be entered into 

GPS and flagged for vehicles to follow. 

Vehicles must avoid any pressure 

ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation 

areas where seal structures are likely to 

be present. 

Seismic sources for the program will 

be recorded into 5 sensor groups: analog 

surface receivers, digital surface 

receivers, hydrophones in the water 

column, and 3 different types of 4–

component ocean bottom sensors on the 

seafloor. Each source will be recorded 

into the 5 receiver groups. Water 

column monitoring of SPLs will be most 

directly accomplished by monitoring 

SPLs from the hydrophones. Density of 

receivers is very high, with spacing of 

5 m (16.4 ft), so a detailed 

characterization of the SPLs can be 

accomplished. A range of receiver 

offsets will be available up to the 

maximum program offset of 4,000 m 

(13,123 ft). Additionally, the surface and 

ocean bottom censors can be used as 

supplemental information in the 

determination of source levels and 

propagation distances for the 

experiment. 

A 500–m (1,640–ft) exclusion zone 

will be established around all located 

active subnivean seal structures, within 

which no seismic or impact surveys will 

be conducted. During active seismic and 

impact source testing an on-ice 500–m 

(1,640–ft) safety zone will be 

established. The size of the safety zone 

shall then be adjusted to match the 190 

dB re: 1 microPa rms isopleth based on 

seismic source monitoring. On ice 

monitoring must be conducted by a 

trained, NMFS-approved marine 

mammal observer (MMO) for entry by 

any marine mammal. No seismic or 

impact surveys will be conducted if a 

marine mammal is observed entering 

the monitored safety zone. 

To further reduce the potential 

impacts to marine mammals, SOI must 

implement soft-start (ramp-up) 

procedure when starting operations of 

the airgun or impact sources. Airgun 

and impact sources will be initiated at 

50 percent of its full level and slowly 

(not more than 6 dB per 5 minutes) 

increase their power to full capacity. 

Reporting 

A final report must be submitted to 

NMFS within 90 days of completing the 

project.The report must contain detailed 

description of any marine mammal, by 

species, number, age class, and sex if 

possible, that is sighted in the vicinity 

of the proposed project area; location 

and time of the animal sighted; whether 

the animal exhibits a behavioral 

reaction to any on-ice activities or is 

injured or killed; and the context of the 

behavior change. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

NMFS has determined that no species 

listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA will be affected by 

issuing an incidental harassment 

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the MMPA to SOI for the proposed 

on-ice seismic survey. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The information provided in the EA 

on the Proposed OCS Lease Sale 202 

Beaufort Sea Planning Area by the MMS 

in August 2006 led NMFS to conclude 

that implementation of either the 

preferred alternative or other 

alternatives identified in the EA would 

not have a significant impact on the 

human environment. Therefore, an 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

not prepared. The proposed action 

discussed in this document is not 

substantially different from the 2006 

actions, and a reference search has 

indicated that no significant new 

scientific information or analyses have 

been developed that would warrant new 

NEPA documentation. NMFS has 

prepared a Finding of No Significant 

Impact statement. 

Determinations 

For the reasons discussed in this 

document and in the identified 

supporting documents, NMFS has 

determined that the impact of the on-ice 

seismic R&D program would result, at 

worst, in the Level B harassment of 

small numbers of ringed seals, and that 

such taking will have no more than a 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Notices 17849 

negligible impact on this species. In 

addition, NMFS has determined that 

bearded and spotted seals, if present 

within the vicinity of the project area 

could also be taken incidentally, by no 

more than Level B harassment and that 

such taking would have a negligible 

impact on such species or stocks. 

Although there is not a specfic number 

assessed for the taking of bearded and 

spotted seals due to their rare 

occurrence in the project area, NMFS 

believes that any take would be 

significantly lower than those of ringed 

seals. NMFS also finds that the action 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence uses. 

In addition, no take by Level A 

harassment (injury) or death is 

anticipated or authorized, and 

harassment takes should be at the 

lowest level practicable due to 

incorporation of the mitigation 

measures described in this document. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to SOI for 

the potential Level B harassment of 

small number of ringed seals, and 

potential Level B harassment of bearded 

and spotted seals incidental to 

conducting on-ice seismic R&D program 

in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: March 30, 2007. 

Angela Somma, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6653 Filed 4–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 040307B] 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; LowEnergy Marine Seismic Survey in the 

Northeastern Indian Ocean, MayAugust 2007 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

take authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from Scripps Institute of 

Oceanography (SIO) for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

marine mammals incidental to 

conducting a low-energy marine seismic 

survey in the northeastern Indian Ocean 

during May-August 2007. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an IHA to SIO 

to incidentally take, by Level B 

harassment only, several species of 

marine mammals during the 

aforementioned activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than May 10, 2007. 

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 

PR1.040307B@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e-mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e-mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10–megabyte file size. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the internet at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications. 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at the aforementioned 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie 

Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext 166. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of marine mammals 

by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization shall be granted if 

NMFS finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses 

(where relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ’’...an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’

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 approve or deny the 

authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On January 5, 2007, NMFS received 

an application from SIO for the taking, 

by Level B harassment only, of 32 

species of marine mammals incidental 

to conducting, with research funding 

from the National Science Foundation 

(NSF), a low-energy marine seismic 

survey in the northeastern Indian Ocean 

from May-August 2007. The purpose of 

the research program is to conduct a 

scientific rock-dredging, magnetic, 

bathymetric, and seismic survey 

program at nine sites on the Ninety East 

Ridge in the northeastern Indian Ocean. 

The results will be used to (1) determine 

the morphology, structure, and tectonics 

of ridge volcanoes to see whether they 

reflect centralized (plume) or 

distributed (crack) eruptions; (2) infer 

the magmatic evolution of the ridge, 

whether it fits the plume hypothesis, 

and its connection to existing hotspots; 

(3) examine the duration of volcanism at 

the various sites and along the ridge to 

see whether the age progression fits the 

simple plume model; and (4) survey 

broad characteristics of subseafloor in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES