11398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

merchandise will continue unless and 

until it is modified pursuant to the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review. 

This initiation, preliminary results of 

review and notice are published in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 

351.221(b)(1) and (4), and 351.222(g). 

Dated: February 23, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04279 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD739 

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery; Application for an 

Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of EFP 

applications; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the receipt 

of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) 

application for 2015 and 2016 that 

would continue work done in 2013 and 

2014, and is considering issuance of 

EFPs for vessels participating in the EFP 

fishery. The EFPs are necessary to allow 

activities that are otherwise prohibited 

by Federal regulations. The EFPs would 

be effective no earlier than March 18, 

2015, and would expire no later than 

December 31, 2016, but could be 

terminated earlier under terms and 

conditions of the EFPs and other 

applicable laws. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m., local time on March 

18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–XD739, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Email: EFPs.2015@noaa.gov. 

• Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Colby 

Brady. 

• Mail: William W. Stelle, Regional 

Administrator, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 

Seattle, WA 98115–0070, Attn: Colby 

Brady. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colby Brady (West Coast Region, 

NMFS), phone: 206–526–6117, fax: 206– 

526–6736. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action is authorized by the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act provisions at 50 CFR 600.745, 

which states that EFPs may be used to 

authorize fishing activities that would 

otherwise be prohibited. At the June 

2014 Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) meeting in Garden 

Grove, CA, the Council considered an 

EFP application from the San Francisco 

Community Fishing Association and 

Dan Platt. An opportunity for public 

testimony was provided during the 

Council meeting. For more details on 

this EFP application and to view a copy 

of the application, see the Council’s 

Web site at www.pcouncil.org and 

browse the June 2014 Briefing Book. 

The Council recommended that NMFS 

consider issuing the following EFP, and 

that this EFP be issued for 2 years. The 

2-year duration is intended to coincide 

with the 2015–2016 biennial harvest 

specifications and management 

measures process. Therefore, to reduce 

the administrative burden of issuing 

annual EFPs during the 2-year 

management cycle, NMFS is 

considering issuing the EFP described 

below for a 2-year period. The EFP 

issued for this 2-year period would 

expire no later than December 31, 2016, 

but could be terminated earlier under 

terms and conditions of the EFP and 

other applicable laws. 

Commercial Yellowtail EFP 

The San Francisco Community 

Fishing Association and Dan Platt 

submitted an application to continue 

their 2013–2014 EFP work for two more 

years. The primary purpose of the EFP 

is to test a commercial hook and line 

gear to target underutilized yellowtail 

rockfish, while keeping bycatch of 

overfished species low. During their 

work in 2013 and 2014, a total of 

approximately 3.6 mt (3,600 kg) of 

yellowtail rockfish was harvested with 

very little bycatch of co-occurring 

overfished species. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 

U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. 

Dated: February 25, 2015. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04355 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD732 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Shell Ice 

Overflight Surveys in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS received an 

application from Shell Gulf of Mexico 

Inc. (Shell) for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

ice overflight surveys in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an IHA to Shell 

to take, by Level B harassment only, 

seven species of marine mammals 

during the specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than April 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The 

mailbox address for providing email 

comments is ITP.Guan@noaa.gov. 

NMFS is not responsible for email 

comments sent to addresses other than 

the one provided here. Comments sent 

via email, including all attachments, 

must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http://

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

incidental.htm without change. All 

Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

A copy of the application, which 

contains several attachments used in 

this document, including Shell’s marine 

mammal mitigation and monitoring 

plan (4MP) and Plan of Cooperation, 

may be obtained by writing to the 

address specified above, telephoning the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11399 

contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the 

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

pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents 

cited in this notice may also be viewed, 

by appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On December 2, 2014, Shell submitted 

an application to NMFS for the taking 

of marine mammals incidental to ice 

overflight surveys the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas, Alaska. After receiving 

comments and questions from NMFS, 

Shell revised its IHA application on 

January 13, 2015. NMFS determined 

that the application was adequate and 

complete on January 15, 2015. 

The proposed activity would occur 

between May 1, 2015 and April 30, 

2016. The following specific aspects of 

the proposed activities are likely to 

result in the take of marine mammals: 

Ice overflight surveys using fixed and 

rotate winged aircraft when flying at 

low altitudes. 

Shell has requested an authorization 

to take seven marine mammal species 

by Level B harassment. These species 

include: Beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas); bowhead whale (Balaena 

mysticetus); gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus); bearded seal (Erignathus 

barbatus); ringed seal (Phoca hispida); 

spotted seal (P. largha); and ribbon seal 

(Histriophoca fasciata). 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

Shell plans to conduct two periods of 

ice overflight surveys during May 2015– 

April 2016: Break-up surveys and 

freeze-up surveys. 

Shell plans to conduct the overflight 

surveys from fixed wing and rotary 

aircraft. The aircraft to be used for the 

surveys are not currently under contract 

to Shell or a contractor to Shell. Ice and 

weather conditions will influence when 

and where the surveys can be 

conducted. 

Dates and Duration 

For initial planning purposes, Shell 

proposes to conduct the overflight 

surveys during May 1, 2015 to April 30, 

2016. 

Specified Geographic Region 

The ice overflight survey areas are the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska, as 

indicated in Figure 1–1 of Shell’s IHA 

application. Aircraft supporting these 

surveys will operate out of Barrow and 

Deadhorse, Alaska. 

Detailed Description of Activities 

(1) Proposed Break-Up Surveys 

The break-up surveys will occur 

between June and July in either the 

Chukchi or Beaufort Sea and will 

include: 

• Up to five fixed-wing flights of 

approximately 1,500 nm total for up to 

approximately 13 hours total; 

• One helicopter flight totaling of 

approximately 200 nm total for up to 

approximately 3 hours total. 

Flight altitudes for fixed wing surveys 

will range from 30 to 610 m (100 to 

2,000 ft) but will mostly be at or above 

152 m (500 ft). For helicopter flights, the 

altitude will range from 15 to 152 m (50 

to 500 ft) but will mostly be at or above 

61 m (200 ft). Flights will occur when 

there is daylight. Aircraft are not 

scheduled to fly at the same time. 

(2) Proposed Freeze-Up Surveys 

The freeze-up surveys will occur 

between November 2015 and March 

2016 in either the Chukchi or Beaufort 

Sea and will include: 

• Up to seven fixed-wing flights of 

approximately 2,500 nautical miles (nm) 

total in early winter for up to 

approximately 21 hours total; 

• One helicopter flight in the Beaufort 

of approximately 200 nm that will 

include approximately 4 landings to 

collect ice measurements during late 

freeze-up including sampling with a 

battery powered ice auger for up to 

approximately 3 hours total. 

Flight altitudes for fixed wing surveys 

will range from 30 to 610 m (100 to 

2,000 ft) but will mostly be at or above 

152 m (500 ft). For helicopter flights, the 

altitude will range from 15 to 152 m (50 

to 500 ft) but will mostly be at or above 

61 m (200 ft). Helicopter flights will also 

include landings. Flights will occur 

when there is daylight. Aircraft are not 

scheduled to fly at the same time. 

Proposed Aircraft To Conduct Ice 

Overflight Surveys 

Shell plans to conduct the ice 

overflight surveys with an Aero 

Commander (or similar) fixed winged 

aircraft and a Bell 412, AW 139, EC 145 

(or similar) helicopter. 

Shell will also have a dedicated 

helicopter for Search and Rescue (SAR) 

for the spring 2015 surveys. The SAR 

helicopter is expected to be a Sikorsky 

S–92 (or similar). This aircraft will stay 

grounded at the Barrow shorebase 

location except during training drills, 

emergencies, and other non-routine 

events. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

support a diverse assemblage of marine 

mammals, including: Bowhead, gray, 

beluga, killer, minke, humpback, and fin 

whales; harbor porpoise; ringed, ribbon, 

spotted, and bearded seals; narwhals; 

polar bears; and walruses. Both the 

walrus and the polar bear are managed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and are not considered further 

in this proposed IHA notice. 

Among the rest of marine mammal 

species, only beluga, bowhead, and gray 

whales, and ringed, spotted, bearded, 

and ribbon seals could potentially be 

affected by the proposed ice overflight 

activity. The remaining cetacean species 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

are rare and not likely to be encountered 

during Shell’s ice overflight surveys, 

which are planned either during winter 

when nearly 10/10 ice coverage is 

present, or during spring when sea ice 

also pre-dominants the study area. 

Therefore, these species are not further 

discussed. 

The bowhead whale is listed as 

‘‘endangered’’ under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and as depleted 

under the MMPA. The ringed seal is 

listed as ‘‘threatened’’ under the ESA. 

Certain stocks or populations of gray 

and beluga whales and spotted seals are 

listed as endangered under the ESA; 

however, none of those stocks or 

populations occur in the proposed 

activity area. 

Shell’s application contains 

information on the status, distribution, 

seasonal distribution, abundance, and 

life history of each of the species under 

NMFS’ jurisdiction mentioned in this 

document. When reviewing the 

application, NMFS determined that the 

species descriptions provided by Shell 

correctly characterized the status, 

distribution, seasonal distribution, and 

abundance of each species. Please refer 

to the application for that information 

(see ADDRESSES). Additional information 

can also be found in the NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR). The Alaska 

2013 SAR is available at: http://

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

ak2013_final.pdf. 

Table 1 lists the seven marine 

mammal species under NMFS’ 

jurisdiction with confirmed or possible 

occurrence in the proposed project area. 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES AND STOCKS THAT COULD BE AFFECTED BY SHELL’S ICE OVERFLIGHT SURVEYS IN

THE BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS

Common name Scientific name Status Occurrence Seasonality Range Abundance 

Odontocetes 

Beluga whale 

(Eastern 

Chukchi Sea 

stock).

Dephinapterus 

leucas.

........................ Common ......... Mostly spring and fall 

with some in summer.

Russia to Canada ................... 3,710 

Beluga whale 

(Beaufort Sea 

stock).

Delphinapterus 

leucas.

........................ Common ......... Mostly spring and fall 

with some in summer.

Russia to Canada ................... 39,258 

Mysticetes 

Bowhead whale Balaena 

mysticetus.

Endangered; 

Depleted.

Common ......... Mostly spring and fall 

with some in summer.

Russia to Canada ................... 19,534 

Gray whale ...... Eschrichtius 

robustus.

........................ Somewhat 

common.

Mostly summer ........... Mexico to the U.S. Arctic 

Ocean.

19,126 

Pinnipeds 

Bearded seal 

(Beringia distinct population segment).

Erigathus 

barbatus.

Candidate ....... Common ......... Spring and summer .... Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 

Seas.

155,000 

Ringed seal 

(Arctic stock).

Phoca hispida Threatened; 

Depleted.

Common ......... Year round .................. Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 

Seas.

300,000 

Spotted seal .... Phoca largha .. ........................ Common ......... Summer ...................... Japan to U.S. Arctic Ocean .... 141,479 

Ribbon seal ..... Histriophoca 

fasciata.

Species of 

concern.

Occasional ..... Summer ...................... Russia to U.S. Arctic Ocean ... 49,000 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that the types of 

stressors associated with the specified 

activity (e.g., aircraft overflight) have 

been observed to or are thought to 

impact marine mammals. This section 

may include a discussion of known 

effects that do not rise to the level of an 

MMPA take (for example, with 

acoustics, we may include a discussion 

of studies that showed animals not 

reacting at all to sound or exhibiting 

barely measurable avoidance). The 

discussion may also include reactions 

that we consider to rise to the level of 

a take and those that we do not consider 

to rise to the level of a take. This section 

is intended as a background of potential 

effects and does not consider either the 

specific manner in which this activity 

will be carried out or the mitigation that 

will be implemented or how either of 

those will shape the anticipated impacts 

from this specific activity. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’ section will include the 

analysis of how this specific activity 

will impact marine mammals and will 

consider the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, the ‘‘Mitigation’’ 

section, and the ‘‘Anticipated Effects on 

Marine Mammal Habitat’’ section to 

draw conclusions regarding the likely 

impacts of this activity on the 

reproductive success or survivorship of 

individuals and from that on the 

affected marine mammal populations or 

stocks. 

The reasonably expected or 

reasonably likely impacts of the 

specified activities on marine mammals 

will be related primarily to localized, 

short-term acoustic disturbance from 

aircraft flying primarily over areas 

covered by sea ice with limited flight 

activity over open water and adjacent 

ice edges. The acoustic sense of marine 

mammals probably constitutes their 

most important distance receptor 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11401 

system. Potential acoustic effects relate 

to sound produced by helicopters and 

fixed-wing aircraft. 

Dominant tones in noise spectra from 

helicopters are generally below 500 Hz 

(Greene and Moore 1995). Harmonics of 

the main rotor and tail rotor usually 

dominate the sound from helicopters; 

however, many additional tones 

associated with the engines and other 

rotating parts are sometimes present. 

Because of Doppler shift effects, the 

frequencies of tones received at a 

stationary site diminish when an aircraft 

passes overhead. The apparent 

frequency is increased while the aircraft 

approaches and is reduced while it 

moves away. 

Aircraft flyovers are not heard 

underwater for very long, especially 

when compared to how long they are 

heard in air as the aircraft approaches 

an observer. Very few cetaceans, 

including the species in the proposed 

ice overflight survey areas, are expected 

to be encountered during ice overflights 

due to the low density of cetacean 

species in the winter survey area and 

small area to be flown over open water 

during spring. Most of these effects are 

expected in open-water where limited 

aircraft noise could penetrate into the 

water column. For cetaceans under the 

ice, the noise levels from the aircraft are 

expected to be dramatically reduced by 

floating ice. Long-term or population 

level effects are not expected. 

Evidence from flyover studies of 

ringed and bearded seals suggests that a 

reaction to helicopters is more common 

than to fixed wing aircraft, all else being 

equal (Born et al. 1999; Burns and Frost 

1979). Under calm conditions, rotor and 

engine sounds are coupled into the 

water through ice within a 26° cone 

beneath the aircraft (Richardson et al. 

1995). Scattering and absorption, 

however, will limit lateral propagation 

in the shallow water (Greene and Moore 

1995). The majority of seals encountered 

by fixed wing aircraft are unlikely to 

show a notable disturbance reaction, 

and approximately half of the seals 

encountered by helicopters may react by 

moving from ice into the water (Born et 

al. 1999). Any potential disturbance 

from aircraft to seals in the area of ice 

overflights will be localized and shortterm in duration with no population 

level effects. 

Historically, there have been far 

greater levels of aviation activity in the 

offshore Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

compared with that of the proposed ice 

overflights. None of this previous 

offshore aviation activity is believed to 

have resulted in long-term impacts to 

marine mammals, as demonstrated by 

results from a wide range of monitoring 

programs and scientific studies. Impacts 

to marine mammals from aviation 

activities in Arctic offshore habitats 

have been shown to be, at most, shortterm and highly-localized in nature 

(e.g., Funk et al. 2013; Richardson et al. 

1985a, b; Patenaude et al. 2002; Born et 

al. 1999). 

The effect of aircraft overflight on 

marine mammals will depend on the 

behavior of the animal at the time of 

reception of the stimulus, as well as the 

distance from the aircraft and received 

level of sound. Cetaceans (such as 

bowhead, gray, and beluga whales) will 

only be present, and thus have the 

potential to be disturbed, when aircraft 

fly over open water in between ice floes; 

seals may be disturbed when aircraft are 

over open water or over ice on which 

seals may be present. Disturbance 

reactions are likely to vary among some 

of the seals in the general vicinity, and 

not all of the seals present are expected 

to react to fixed wing aircraft and 

helicopters. 

Behavioral distances from marine 

mammals also depend on the altitudes 

of the aircraft overflight. Marine 

mammals are not likely to be affected by 

aircraft overflights that are above 1,000 

ft. Therefore, behavioral harassments 

discussed above are only limited to 

those aircraft flying at lower altitudes. 

Proposed monitoring measures 

discussed below would further reduce 

potential affects from Shell’s proposed 

ice overflight surveys. 

In light of the nature of the activities, 

and for the reasons described below, 

NMFS does not expect marine mammals 

will be injured or killed as a result of 

ice overflight surveys. In addition, due 

to the low received noise levels from 

aircraft overflights, NMFS does not 

expect marine mammals will experience 

hearing impairment such as TTS or PTS. 

Of the seal species which may be 

encountered, only ringed seals are 

abundant in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas during the winter and early spring 

when the overflights are scheduled to 

occur. In March–April, ringed seals give 

birth in subnivean lairs established on 

shorefast and stable pack ice (Smith and 

Stirling 1975; Smith 1973). Ringed seals 

in subnivean layers have been known to 

react to aircraft overhead by entering the 

water in some instances (Kelly et al. 

1986); however, there is no evidence to 

indicate injurious effects to adults or 

pups from such a response. 

Bearded seals spend the winter season 

in the Bering Sea, and then follow the 

ice edge as it retreats in spring 

(MacIntyre and Stafford 2011). Large 

numbers of bearded seals are unlikely to 

be present in the project area during the 

time of planned operations. However, 

some individuals may be encountered. 

Spotted seals are found in the Bering 

Sea in winter and spring where they 

breed, molt, and pup in large groups 

(Quakenbush 1988; Rugh et al. 1997). 

Few spotted seals are expected to be 

encountered in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas until July. Even then, they 

are rarely seen on pack ice but are 

commonly observed hauled out on land 

or swimming in open water (Lowry et 

al. 1998). The ice overflights are 

designed to maximize flying over ice, 

avoiding coastal and terrestrial areas. 

Haul outs for spotted seals are generally 

known, and Shell will avoid these areas 

during the break up surveys. 

Based on extensive analysis of digital 

imagery taken during aerial surveys in 

support of Shell’s 2012 operations in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, ice seals are 

very infrequently observed hauled out 

on the ice in groups of greater than one 

individual (Shell 2015). Tens of 

thousands of images from 17 flights that 

took place from July through October 

were reviewed in detail. Of 107 total 

observations of spotted or ringed seals 

on ice, only three of those sightings 

were of a group of two individuals 

(Shell 2015). Since seals typically are 

found as individuals or in very small 

groups when they are in the project 

area, the chance of a stampede event is 

very unlikely. Finally, ice seals are well 

adapted to move between ice and water 

without injury, including ‘‘escape 

reactions’’ to avoid predators. 

Ringed and bearded seals sometimes, 

but not always, dive when approached 

by low-flying aircraft (Burns and Frost 

1979; Burns et al. 1982). Ringed and 

bearded seals may be more sensitive to 

helicopter sounds than to fixed-wing 

aircraft (Burns and Frost 1979). In 2000, 

during a study on the impacts of pipedriving sounds on pinnipeds at 

Northstar in the Beaufort Sea which 

involved helicopter, only some of the 

ringed seals present exhibited a reaction 

to an approaching helicopter (Blackwell 

et al. 2001). Of 23 individuals, only 11 

reacted; of those 11, 10 increased 

alertness and only 1 moved into the 

water (when the helicopter was 100 m 

away; Blackwell et al. 2004). Reactions 

of ringed seals while they are in 

subnivean lairs vary with the 

characteristics of the flyover, including 

lateral distance and altitude of aircraft 

(Kelly et al. 1986). 

The sound of aircraft is also reduced 

by the snow of the lair (Cummings and 

Holliday 1983). Spotted seals are 

sensitive to aircraft, reacting erratically 

at considerable distances which may 

result in mother-pup separation or 

injury to pups (Frost et al. 1993, Rugh 

et al. 1993). However, as previously 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11402 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

noted, few spotted seals are expected to 

be present in the project area during the 

time of planned ice overflights, and 

overflights will focus on offshore areas 

as opposed to terrestrial habitat with 

potential spotted seal haulouts. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

Shell’s planned 2015/16 ice overflight 

surveys will not result in any permanent 

impact on habitats used by marine 

mammals, or to their prey sources. The 

primary potential impacts on marine 

mammal habitat and prey resources that 

are reasonably expected or reasonably 

likely are associated with elevated 

sound levels from the aircraft passing 

overhead. Effects on marine mammal 

habitat from the generation of sound 

from the planned surveys would be 

negligible and temporary, lasting only as 

long as the aircraft is overhead. Water 

column effects will be localized and 

ephemeral, lasting only the duration of 

the aircrafts presence. All effects on 

marine mammal habitat from the 

planned surveys are expected to be 

negligible and confined to very small 

areas within the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas. 

The primary effect of the sound 

energy generated by ice overflight 

survey activities on marine mammal 

habitat will be the ensonification of the 

water column and air at the surface. 

Sound energy can also affect 

invertebrates and fish that are marine 

mammal prey, and thereby indirectly 

impact the marine mammals. 

Levels and duration of sounds 

received by marine mammals 

underwater from a passing helicopter or 

fixed-wing aircraft are a function of the 

type of aircraft, orientation and altitude 

of the aircraft, depth of the animal, and 

water depth. Aircraft sounds are 

detectable underwater at greater 

distances when the receiver is in 

shallow rather than deep water. 

Generally, sound levels received 

underwater decrease as the altitude of 

the aircraft increases (Richardson et al. 

1995a). The nature of sounds produced 

by aircraft activities does not pose a 

direct threat to the underwater marine 

mammal habitat or prey. 

Aircraft sounds are audible for much 

greater distances in air than in water. 

Under calm conditions, rotor and engine 

sounds are coupled into the water 

within a 26° cone beneath the aircraft. 

Some of the sound will transmit beyond 

the immediate area, and some sound 

will enter the water outside the 26 

degree area when the sea surface is 

rough. However, scattering and 

absorption will limit lateral propagation 

in shallow water. Dominant tones in 

noise spectra from helicopters are 

generally below 500 Hz (Greene and 

Moore 1995). Because of Doppler shift 

effects, the frequencies of tones received 

at a stationary site diminish when an 

aircraft passes overhead. The apparent 

frequency is increased while the aircraft 

approaches and is reduced while it 

moves away. Sounds generated 

underwater from aircraft flyovers are of 

short duration. 

Helicopters will generally maintain 

straight-line routes, thereby limiting the 

sound levels at and below the surface. 

Given the timing and location of the 

proposed ice overflight activities, as 

well as the mitigation measures that will 

be implemented as a part of the 

program, any impacts from aircraft 

traffic on marine mammal habitat or 

prey will be localized and temporary 

with no anticipated population level 

effects. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must, where applicable, set forth 

the permissible methods of taking 

pursuant to such activity, and other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on such species or stock and its 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(where relevant). This section 

summarizes the contents of Shell’s 

Marine Mammal Monitoring and 

Mitigation Plan (4MP). Later in this 

document in the ‘‘Proposed Incidental 

Harassment Authorization’’ section, 

NMFS lays out the proposed conditions 

for review, as they would appear in the 

final IHA (if issued). 

Shell submitted a 4MP as part of its 

application (see ADDRESSES). Shell 

proposes a suite of mitigation measures 

to minimize any adverse impacts 

associated with the ice overflight 

surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Sea. These include, among others 

discussed in the 4MP (See Attachment 

A of Shell’s IHA application), the 

following: (1) The timing and locations 

for active survey acquisition work; and 

(2) increasing altitude or deviating from 

survey tract when the protected species 

observers sight visually (from the 

aircraft) the presence of marine 

mammals. The mitigation measures are 

presented in the 4MP. To summarize: 

• A PSO will be aboard all flights 

recording all sightings/observations (e.g. 

including number of individuals, 

approximate age (when possible to 

determine), and any type of potential 

reaction to the aircraft). Environmental 

information the observer will record 

includes weather, air temperature, cloud 

and ice cover, visibility conditions, and 

wind speed. 

• The aircraft will maintain a 1 mi 

radius when flying over areas where 

seals appear to be concentrated in 

groups of ≥5 individuals; 

• The aircraft will not land on ice 

within 0.5 mi of hauled out pinnipeds 

or polar bears; 

• The aircraft will avoid flying over 

polynyas and along adjacent ice margins 

as much as possible to minimize 

potential disturbance to cetaceans; and 

• Shell will routinely engage with 

local communities and subsistence 

groups to ensure no disturbance of 

whaling or other subsistence activities. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures and considered a range of 

other measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned, and 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

1. Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

2. A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of noises generated from ice overflight 

surveys, or other activities expected to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

3. A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to received levels of 

noises generated from ice overflight 

surveys, or other activities expected to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11403 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

4. A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to received levels of noises 

generated from ice overflight surveys, or 

other activities expected to result in the 

take of marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to a, above, or to reducing the 

severity of harassment takes only). 

5. Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

6. For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on marine mammals 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed measures to ensure 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for certain subsistence uses are 

discussed later in this document (see 

‘‘Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses’’ section). 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for ITAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. Shell submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring plan as part of the 

IHA application. It can be found in 

Appendix B of the Shell’s IHA 

application. The plan may be modified 

or supplemented based on comments or 

new information received from the 

public during the public comment 

period or from the peer review panel 

(see the ‘‘Monitoring Plan Peer Review’’ 

section later in this document). 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

1. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the mitigation zone (thus allowing for 

more effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the analyses 

mentioned below; 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of noises 

generated from ice overflight surveys 

that we associate with specific adverse 

effects, such as behavioral harassment, 

TTS, or PTS; 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

stimuli expected to result in take and 

how anticipated adverse effects on 

individuals (in different ways and to 

varying degrees) may impact the 

population, species, or stock 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

D Behavioral observations in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

D Physiological measurements in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

D Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated stimuli versus times or 

areas without stimuli; 

4. An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; and 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

(1) Protected Species Observers 

Aerial monitoring for marine 

mammals will be conducted by a 

trained protected species observer (PSO) 

aboard each flight. PSO duties will 

include watching for and identifying 

marine mammals, recording their 

numbers, distances from, and potential 

reactions to the presence of the aircraft, 

in addition to working with the 

helicopter pilots to identify areas for 

landings on ice that is clear of marine 

mammals. 

(2) Observer Qualifications and Training 

Observers will have previous marine 

mammal observation experience in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. All 

observers will be trained and familiar 

with the marine mammals of the area, 

data collection protocols, reporting 

procedures, and required mitigation 

measures. 

(3) Specialized Field Equipment 

The following specialized field 

equipment for use by the onboard PSO: 

Fujinon 7 X 50 binoculars for visual 

monitoring, a GPS unit to document the 

route of each ice overflight, a laptop 

computer for data entry, a voice 

recorder to capture detailed 

observations and data for post flight 

entry into the computer, and digital still 

cameras. 

(4) Field Data-Recording 

The observer on the aircraft will 

record observations directly into 

computers using a custom software 

package. The accuracy of the data entry 

will be verified in the field by 

computerized validity checks as the 

data are entered, and by subsequent 

manual checking following the flight. 

Additionally, observers will capture the 

details of sightings and other 

observations with a voice recorder, 

which will maximize observation time 

and the collection of data. These 

procedures will allow initial summaries 

of data to be prepared during and 

shortly after the surveys, and will 

facilitate transfer of the data to 

statistical, graphical or other programs 

for further processing. 

During the course of the flights, the 

observer will record information for 

each sighting including number of 

individuals, approximate age (when 

possible to determine), and any type of 

potential reaction to the aircraft. 

Environmental information the observer 

will record includes weather, air 

temperature, cloud and ice cover, 

visibility conditions, and wind speed. 

Monitoring Plan Peer Review 

The MMPA requires that monitoring 

plans be independently peer reviewed 

‘‘where the proposed activity may affect 

the availability of a species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this 

requirement, NMFS’ implementing 

regulations state, ‘‘Upon receipt of a 

complete monitoring plan, and at its 

discretion, [NMFS] will either submit 

the plan to members of a peer review 

panel for review or within 60 days of 

receipt of the proposed monitoring plan, 

schedule a workshop to review the 

plan’’ (50 CFR 216.108(d)). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

NMFS has established an 

independent peer review panel to 

review Shell’s 4MP for ice overflight 

survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

Seas. The panel is scheduled to meet in 

early March 2015, and will provide 

comments to NMFS shortly after they 

meet. After completion of the peer 

review, NMFS will consider all 

recommendations made by the panel, 

incorporate appropriate changes into the 

monitoring requirements of the IHA (if 

issued), and publish the panel’s findings 

and recommendations in the final IHA 

notice of issuance or denial document. 

Reporting Measures 

(1) Final Report 

The results of Shell’s ice overflight 

monitoring report will be presented in 

the ‘‘90-day’’ final report, as required by 

NMFS under the proposed IHA. The 

initial final report is due to NMFS 

within 90 days after the expiration of 

the IHA (if issued). The report will 

include: 

• Summaries of monitoring effort: 

Total hours, total distances flown, and 

environmental conditions during 

surveys; 

• Summaries of occurrence, species 

composition, and distribution of all 

marine mammal sightings including 

date, numbers, age/size/gender 

categories (when discernible), group 

sizes, ice cover and other environmental 

variables; data will be visualized by 

plotting sightings relative to the position 

of the aircraft; and 

• Analyses of the potential effects of 

ice overflights on marine mammals and 

the number of individuals that may 

have been disturbed by aircraft. 

The ‘‘90-day’’ report will be subject to 

review and comment by NMFS. Any 

recommendations made by NMFS must 

be addressed in the final report prior to 

acceptance by NMFS. 

(2) Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

Shell will be required to notify NMFS’ 

Office of Protected Resources and 

NMFS’ Stranding Network of any 

sighting of an injured or dead marine 

mammal. Based on different 

circumstances, Shell may or may not be 

required to stop operations upon such a 

sighting. Shell will provide NMFS with 

the species or description of the 

animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead), location, time of first 

discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), 

and photo or video (if available). The 

specific language describing what Shell 

must do upon sighting a dead or injured 

marine mammal can be found in the 

‘‘Proposed Incidental Harassment 

Authorization’’ section of this 

document. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. Only take by Level B 

behavioral harassment is anticipated as 

a result of the proposed ice overflight 

surveys. 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

potential noise impacts to marine 

mammals from ice overflight surveys 

would be limited in a 26° cone under 

the flight path. The intensity of noise 

enters the water depends on the altitude 

of the aircraft (Richardson et al. 1995). 

Scattering and absorption, however, will 

limit lateral propagation in the shallow 

water (Greene and Moore 1995). 

Basis for Estimating ‘‘Take by 

Harassment’’ 

Exposures were calculated in the 

following sections for cetaceans and 

seals. The methods used to estimate 

exposure for each species group was 

fundamentally the same with minor 

differences as described below. 

Exposure estimates for cetaceans were 

calculated by multiplying the 

anticipated area to be flown over open 

water each season (winter and spring) 

by the expected densities of cetaceans 

that may occur in the survey area. 

Exposures of seals were calculated by 

multiplying the anticipated area to be 

flown over open water and ice in each 

season (winter and spring) by the 

expected densities of seals that may 

occur in the survey area by the 

proportion of seals on ice that may 

actually show a disturbance reaction to 

each type of aircraft (Born et al. 1999). 

Marine Mammal Density Estimates 

Marine mammal density estimates in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas have 

been derived for two time periods: The 

winter period covering November 

through April, and the spring period 

including May through early July. 

There is some uncertainty about the 

representativeness of the data and 

assumptions used in the calculations. 

To provide some allowance for 

uncertainties, ‘‘average’’ as well as 

‘‘maximum’’ estimates of the numbers of 

marine mammals potentially affected 

have been derived. For a few species, 

several density estimates were available. 

In those cases, the mean and maximum 

estimates were determined from the 

reported densities or survey data. In 

other cases, only one or no applicable 

estimate was available, so correction 

factors were used to arrive at ‘‘average’’ 

and ‘‘maximum’’ estimates. These are 

described in detail in the following 

sections. 

In Polar Regions, most pinnipeds are 

associated with sea ice and typical 

census methods involve counting 

pinnipeds when they are hauled out on 

ice. In the Beaufort Sea, abundance 

surveys typically occur in spring when 

ringed seals emerge from their lairs 

(Frost et al. 2004). Depending on the 

species and study, a correction factor for 

the proportion of animals hauled out at 

any one time may or may not have been 

applied (depending on whether an 

appropriate correction factor was 

available for the particular species, area, 

and time period). By applying a 

correction factor, the density of the 

pinniped species in an area can be 

estimated. 

Detectability bias, quantified in part 

by f(0), is associated with diminishing 

sightability with increasing lateral 

distance from the survey trackline. 

Availability bias, g(0), refers to the fact 

that there is <100 percent probability of 

sighting an animal that is present along 

the survey trackline. Some sources 

below included these correction factors 

in the reported densities (e.g. ringed 

seals in Bengtson et al. 2005) and the 

best available correction factors were 

applied to reported results when they 

had not already been included (e.g. 

bearded seals in Bengtson et al. 2005). 

(1) Cetaceans: Winter 

(A) Beluga Whales 

Beluga whale density estimates were 

calculated based on aerial survey data 

collected in October in the eastern 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea by the NMML (as 

part of the BWASP program funded by 

BOEMRE) in 2007–2010. They reported 

31 sightings of 66 individual whales 

during 1597 km of on-transect effort 

over waters 200–2000 m deep. An f(0) 

value of 2.326 was applied and it was 

calculated using beluga whale sightings 

data collected in the Canadian Beaufort 

Sea (Innes et al. 2002). A g(0) value of 

0.419 was used that represents a 

combination of ga(0) = 0.55 (Innes et al. 

2002) and gd(0) = 0.762 (Harwood et al. 

1996). The resulting densities were then 

multiplied by 0.10 because the Beaufort 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11405 

Sea and north-eastern Chukchi Sea is 

believed to be at the edge of the species’ 

range in by November. Belugas typically 

migrate into the Bering Sea for the 

winter (Allen and Angliss 2014) and are 

not expected to be present in the study 

area in the winter. Satellite tagging data 

support this and indicate belugas 

migrate out of the Beaufort Sea in the 

October–November period (Suydam et 

al. 2005). 

(B) Bowhead Whales 

Bowhead whale density estimates in 

the winter in the planned ice overflight 

area are expected to be quite low. Miller 

et al. (2002) presented a 10-day moving 

average of bowhead whale abundance in 

the eastern Beaufort Sea using data from 

1979–2000 that showed a decrease of 

∼90% from early to late October. Based 

on these data, it is expected that almost 

all whales that had been in the Chukchi 

Sea during early October would likely 

have migrated beyond the survey areas 

by November–December. In addition, 

kernel density estimates and animal 

tracklines generated from satellitetagged bowhead whales, along with 

acoustic monitoring data, suggest that 

few bowhead whales are present in the 

proposed survey area in November (near 

Point Barrow), and no whales were 

present in December (ADFG 2010; 

Moore et al. 2010). Therefore, minimal 

density estimates (0.0001 whales/km2) 

were used. 

(C) Gray whales 

Gray whales may be encountered as 

they have been detected near Pt. Barrow 

throughout the winter (Moore et al. 

2006, Stafford et al. 2007), but they are 

expected to be very rare. Thus no 

density estimate is available. 

(2) Cetaceans: Spring 

(A) Beluga Whales 

Spring densities of beluga whales in 

offshore waters are expected to be low, 

with somewhat higher densities in icemargin and nearshore areas. Past aerial 

surveys have recorded few belugas in 

the offshore Chukchi Sea during the 

summer months and belugas are most 

likely encountered in offshore waters of 

the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea (Moore 

et al. 2000). More recent aerial surveys 

from 2008–2012 flown by the National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) as 

part of the Chukchi Offshore Monitoring 

in Drilling Area (COMIDA) project, now 

part of the Aerial Surveys of Arctic 

Marine Mammals (ASAMM) project, 

reported 10 beluga sightings (22 

individuals) in offshore waters during 

22,154 km of on-transect effort. Larger 

groups of beluga whales were recorded 

in nearshore areas, especially in June 

and July during the spring migration 

(Clarke and Ferguson in prep; Clarke et 

al. 2012, 2013). Effort and sightings 

reported by Clarke and Ferguson (in 

prep.) and Clarke et al. (2012, 2013) 

were used to calculate the average openwater density estimate. 

Those aerial surveys recorded 10 ontransect beluga sightings (22 

individuals) during 22,154 km of on 

transect effort in waters 36–50 m deep 

in the Chukchi Sea during July and 

August. The mean group size of the 

sightings was 2.2. An f(0) value of 2.841 

and g(0) value of 0.58 from Harwood et 

al. (1996) were also used in the density 

calculation resulting in an average openwater density of 0.0024 belugas/km2. 

Specific data on the relative abundance 

of beluga whales in open-water versus 

ice-margin habitat during the summer in 

the Chukchi Sea is not available. 

However, belugas are commonly 

associated with ice, particularly ice 

edges and adjacent polynyas, so an 

inflation factor of 4 was used to estimate 

the ice-margin densities from the openwater densities. 

(B) Bowhead Whales 

Eastward migrating bowhead whales 

were recorded during industry aerial 

surveys of the continental shelf near 

Camden Bay in 2008 until 12 July 

(Christie et al. 2010). No bowhead 

sightings were recorded again, despite 

continued flights, until 19 August. 

Aerial surveys by industry operators did 

not begin until late August of 2006 and 

2007, but in both years bowheads were 

also recorded in the region before the 

end of August (Lyons et al. 2009). The 

late August sightings were likely of 

bowheads beginning their fall migration 

so the densities calculated from those 

surveys were not used to estimate 

summer densities in this region. The 

three surveys in July of 2008 resulted in 

density estimates of 0.0099, 0.0717, and 

0.0186 bowhead whales/km2, 

respectively (Christie et al. 2010). The 

estimate of 0.0186 whales/km2 was used 

as the average nearshore density and the 

estimate of 0 0.0717 whales/km2 was 

used as the maximum. Sea ice was not 

present during these surveys. Moore et 

al. (2000) reported that bowhead whales 

in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea were 

distributed uniformly relative to sea ice. 

(C) Gray Whales 

Gray whales are expected to be 

present in the Chukchi Sea but are 

unlikely in the Beaufort Sea. Moore et 

al. (2000) found the distribution of gray 

whales in Chukchi Sea was scattered 

and limited to nearshore areas where 

most whales were observed in water less 

than 35 m deep. The average open-water 

summer density (Table 2) was 

calculated from 2008–2012 aerial survey 

effort and sightings in Clarke and 

Ferguson (in prep) and Clarke et al. 

(2012, 2013) for water depths 36–50 m 

including 98 sightings (137 individuals) 

during 22,154 km of on-transect effort. 

The average group size of those 

sightings was 1.4. Correction factors f(0) 

= 2.49 (Forney and Barlow 1998) and 

g(0) = 0.30 (Forney and Barlow 1998, 

Mallonee 1991) were used to calculate 

and average open-water density of 

0.0253 gray whales/km2 (Table 2). The 

highest density from the survey periods 

reported in Clarke and Ferguson (in 

prep) and Clarke et al. (2012, 2013) was 

0.0268 gray whales/km2 in 2012 and 

this was used as the maximum openwater density. 

(3) Pinnipeds: Winter 

(A) Ringed Seals 

Ringed seal densities were taken from 

offshore aerial surveys of the pack ice 

zone conducted in spring 1999 and 2000 

(Bengtson et al. 2005). Seal distribution 

and density in spring, prior to break-up, 

are thought to reflect distribution 

patterns established earlier in the year 

(i.e., during the winter months; Frost et 

al. 2004). The average density from 

those two years (weighted by survey 

effort) was 0.4892 seals/km2. This value 

served as the average density while the 

highest density from the two years 

(0.8100 seals/km2 in 1999) was used as 

the maximum density. 

(B) Other Seal Species 

Other seal species are not expected to 

be present in the ice overflight survey 

area in large numbers during the winter 

period of the ice overflights. Bearded, 

spotted, and ribbon seals would be 

present in the area in smaller numbers 

than ringed seals during spring through 

fall summer, but these less common seal 

species generally migrate into the 

southern Chukchi and Bering Seas 

during fall and remain there through the 

winter (Allen and Angliss 2014). Few 

satellite-tagging studies have been 

conducted on these species in the 

Beaufort Sea, winter surveys have not 

been conducted, and a few bearded 

seals have been reported over the 

continental shelf in spring prior to 

general break-up. However, the tracks of 

three bearded seals tagged in 2009 

moved south into the Bering Sea along 

the continental shelf by November 

(Cameron and Boveng 2009). These 

species would be more common in the 

area during spring through fall, but it is 

possible that some individuals, bearded 

seals in particular, may be present in the 

area surveyed in winter. Ribbon seals 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

are unlikely to be present in the survey 

area during winter as they also migrate 

southward from the northeastern 

Chukchi Sea during this period. In the 

absence of better information from the 

published literature or other sources 

that would indicate that significant 

numbers of any of these species might 

be present during winter, minimal 

density estimates were used for these 

species. Estimates for bearded seals 

were assumed to be slightly higher than 

those for spotted and ribbon seals. 

(4) Pinnipeds: Spring 

Three species of pinnipeds under 

NMFS’ jurisdiction are likely to be 

encountered in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas during planned ice 

overflights in spring of 2015: Ringed, 

bearded, and spotted seals. Ringed and 

bearded seals are associated with both 

the ice margin and the nearshore open 

water area during spring. Spotted seals 

are often considered to be 

predominantly a coastal species except 

in the spring when they may be found 

in the southern margin of the retreating 

sea ice. However, satellite tagging has 

shown that some individuals undertake 

long excursions into offshore waters 

during summer (Lowry et al. 1994, 

1998). Ribbon seals have been reported 

in very small numbers within the 

Chukchi Sea by observers on industry 

vessels (Patterson et al. 2007, Hartin et 

al. 2013). 

(A) Ringed Seal and Bearded Seal 

Ringed seal and bearded seal 

‘‘average’’ and ‘‘maximum’’ spring 

densities were available in Bengtson et 

al. (2005) from spring surveys in the 

offshore pack ice zone (zone 12P) of the 

northern Chukchi Sea. However, 

corrections for bearded seal availability, 

g(0), based on haulout and diving 

patterns were not available. 

(B) Spotted Seal 

Little information on spotted seal 

densities in offshore areas of the 

Alaskan Arctic is available. Spotted seal 

densities in the spring were estimated 

by multiplying the ringed seal densities 

by 0.02. This was based on the ratio of 

the estimated occurrence of the two 

species during ice overflight surveys 

and the assumption that the vast 

majority of seals present in areas of pack 

ice would be ringed seals (Funk et al., 

2010; 2013). 

(C) Ribbon Seal 

Four ribbon seal sightings were 

reported during industry vessel 

operations in the Chukchi Sea in 2006– 

2010 (Hartin et al. 2013). The resulting 

density estimate of 0.0007/km2 was 

used as the average density and 4 times 

that was used as the maximum for the 

spring season. 

Estimated Areas Where Cetaceans May 

Be Encountered by Aircraft 

Encounters that may result in 

potential disturbance of cetaceans will 

likely occur only in open water. Flight 

paths over open water and adjacent ice 

edges will be minimized by the 

objectives of the program as an effort to 

reduce encounters with cetaceans. It is 

estimated that five to ten percent of 

distance flown in winter will be over 

open water, and ten to twenty percent 

of distance flown in spring will be over 

open water. We applied the most 

conservative of these percentages to the 

proposed tracklines in winter and 

spring to estimate the area of open water 

exposed by planned ice overflights. 

The potential disturbance area for 

each season was based on flight altitude 

and lateral distance of cetaceans from 

the center trackline. Based on known 

air-to-water propagation paths, 

cetaceans may be exposed to sounds 

produced by the aircraft when 

individuals are up to 13 degrees from 

the aircraft’s center (Snell’s law; Urick 

1972 in Richardson et al. 1995). It was 

assumed that cetaceans in open water 

could be disturbed within 13 degrees of 

vertical (i.e., a 26-degree cone) from the 

location of an aircraft when aircraft are 

305 m (1,000 ft) or lower. NMFS 

considers aircraft above this altitude 

would not appreciably disturb cetaceans 

in open water below. This 305-m 

maximum disturbance altitude and 

Snell’s law results in a maximum 

potential disturbance radius of 

approximately 70 m. Based on Snell’s 

law (Richardson et al. 1995) and a 305 

m flight altitude, we used a conservative 

radius of 75 m to calculate the potential 

disturbance area beneath an aircraft for 

cetaceans in open-water conditions. 

Table 2 summarizes potential 

disturbance radii, maximum flight 

distances over open water, and potential 

disturbance areas for cetaceans from 

fixed wing aircraft and helicopters 

during Shell’s proposed ice overflights 

program in winter (November through 

April) and spring (May through early 

July). Maximum percentage of total 

trackline over open water, as based on 

previous surveys, is 10% and 20% of 

the total trackline for winter and spring, 

respectively. Based on maximum flight 

distances, percent open water, and a 

potential disturbance radius of 75 m for 

fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, a 

total of 169 km2 of open-water could be 

disturbed. Approximately 45% of this 

total estimated open-water area would 

be surveyed in winter and the remaining 

55% would be surveyed during spring. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11407 

Estimated Areas Where Seals May Be 

Encountered by Aircraft 

Fixed wing and helicopter flights over 

ice at ice overflight survey altitudes 

have the potential to disturb seals 

hauled out on ice, although the flight 

altitude and lateral distances at which 

seals may react to aircraft are highly 

variable (Born et al. 1999; Burns et al. 

1982; Burns and Frost 1979). The 

probability of a seal hauled out on ice 

reacting to a fixed wing aircraft or 

helicopter is influenced by a 

combination of variables such as flight 

altitude, lateral distance from the 

aircraft, ambient conditions (e.g., wind 

chill), activity, and time of day (Born et 

al. 1999). Evidence from flyover studies 

of ringed and bearded seals suggests that 

a reaction to helicopters is more 

common than to fixed wing aircraft, all 

else being equal (Born et al. 1999; Burns 

and Frost 1979). 

Born et al. (1999) investigated the 

reactions of ringed seals hauled out on 

ice to aircraft. The threshold lateral 

distances from the aircraft trackline out 

to which the vast majority of reactions 

were observed were 600 and 1500 m for 

fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, 

respectively. Many individual ringed 

seals within these distances; however, 

did not react (Born et al. 1999). Results 

indicated ∼6% and ∼49% of total seals 

observed reacted to fixed wing aircraft 

and helicopters, respectively, by 

entering the water when aircraft were 

flown over ice at altitudes similar to 

those proposed for Shell’s ice overflight 

surveys as described in the Description 

of the Specific Activity section. These 

lateral distances and reaction 

probabilities were used as guidelines for 

estimating the area of sea ice habitat 

within which hauled out seals may be 

disturbed by aircraft and the number of 

seals that might react. Born et al. 1999, 

also was used as a guideline in a similar 

fashion for estimating the numbers of 

seals that would react to helicopters 

during U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

polar bear tagging in 2011 and 2012, in 

which an IHA was issued by NMFS 

(NMFS 2011). 

Table 3 summarizes potential 

disturbance radii, maximum flight 

distances, and potential disturbance 

areas for seals from fixed wing aircraft 

and helicopters during Shell’s proposed 

ice overflights program in winter 

(November through April) and spring 

(May through early July). Based on 

maximum flight distances and potential 

disturbance radii of 600 and 1500 m for 

fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, 

respectively, a total of 11,112 km2 (of 

sea ice could be disturbed. Based on 

Born et al.’s (1999) observations, 

however, it is estimated that only ∼6 

and ∼49% of seals in these areas will 

exhibit a notable reaction to fixed wing 

aircraft and helicopters, respectively, by 

entering the water. Approximately 60% 

of this total area would be surveyed in 

winter and the remaining 40% would be 

surveyed during spring. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN03MR15.010</GPH>
11408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

Potential Number of ‘‘Takes by 

Harassment’’ 

(1) Cetaceans 

This subsection provides estimates of 

the number of individual cetaceans that 

could potentially be disturbed by 

aircraft during Shell’s proposed ice 

overflights. The estimates are based on 

an estimate of the anticipated openwater area that could be subjected to 

disturbance from overflights, proximity 

of cetaceans in open water to the 

aircraft, and expected cetacean densities 

in those areas during each season. 

The number of individuals of each 

cetacean species potentially disturbed 

by fixed wing aircraft or helicopters was 

estimated by multiplying: 

• The potential disturbance area from 

each aircraft (fixed wing and 

helicopter) for each season (winter 

and spring), by 

• The percentage of survey area 

expected to be over open water as 

opposed to ice in each season, by 

• The expected cetacean density for 

each season. 

The numbers of individual cetaceans 

potentially disturbed were then 

summed for each species across the two 

seasons. 

Estimates of the average and 

maximum number of individual 

cetaceans that may be disturbed are 

shown by season in Table 4. Less than 

one individual of each cetacean species 

was estimated to be disturbed in winter. 

This was due to the low density of 

cetaceans in the survey area in winter 

and extensive ice cover during this 

period. In spring, a few beluga whales, 

bowhead whales, and gray whales are 

estimated to potentially be disturbed 

during ice overflights when aircraft 

transit over open water for short 

periods. The numbers of individuals 

exposed represent very small 

proportions of their populations. 

(2) Pinnipeds 

This subsection provides estimates of 

the number of individual ice seals that 

could potentially be disturbed by 

aircraft during Shell’s proposed ice 

overflights. The estimates are based on 

a consideration of the proposed flight 

distances, proximity of seals to the 

aircraft trackline, and the proportion of 

ice seals present that might actually be 

disturbed appreciably (i.e. moving from 

the ice into the water) by flight 

operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas and the anticipated area that could 

be subjected to disturbance from 

overflights. 

The number of individuals of each ice 

seal species potentially disturbed by 

fixed wing aircraft or helicopters was 

estimated by multiplying: 

• The potential disturbance area from 

each aircraft (fixed wing and 

helicopter) for each season (winter 

and spring), by 

• The expected seal density in each 

season, and by 

• The expected proportion of seals 

expected to react to each type of 

aircraft in a way that could be 

interpreted as disturbance. 

The numbers of individuals 

potentially disturbed were then 

summed for each species across the two 

seasons. 

Estimates of the average number of 

individual seals that may be disturbed 

are shown by season in Table 4. The 

estimates shown represent proportions 

of the total number of seals encountered 

that may actually demonstrate a 

disturbance reaction to each type of 

aircraft. Estimates shown in Table 4 

were based on Born et al. 1999, which 

assumed that ∼6 and ∼49% of seals 

would react within lateral distances of 

600 and 1,500 m of fixed wing aircraft 

and helicopters, respectively. 

Ringed seal is by far the most 

abundant species expected to be 

encountered during the planned ice 

overflights. The best (average) estimate 

of the numbers of ringed seals 

potentially disturbed during ice 

overflights is 793 individuals, which 

represents only a small proportion of 

the estimated population of ringed seals 

in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

Fewer individuals of other pinniped 

species are estimated to be encountered 

during ice overflights, also representing 

very small proportions of their 

populations. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN03MR15.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11409 

TABLE 4—THE TOTAL NUMBER OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES OF MARINE MAMMALS DURING THE SHELL’S PROPOSED ICE

OVERFLIGHT SURVEYS IN THE CHUKCHI AND BEAUFORT SEAS, ALASKA, 2015–2016 

[Estimates are also shown as a percent of each population] 

Species Abundance 

Number 

potential 

exposure 

Estimated 

population 

(percent) 

Beluga (E. Chukchi Sea) ............................................................................................................. 3,710 1 0.027 

Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea) ...................................................................................................... 39,258 1 0.003 

Bowhead whale ........................................................................................................................... 19,534 2 0.010 

Gray whale ................................................................................................................................... 19,126 2 0.010 

Bearded seal ................................................................................................................................ 155,000 11 0.007 

Ribbon seal .................................................................................................................................. 49,000 1 0.002 

Ringed seal .................................................................................................................................. 300,000 793 0.264 

Spotted seal ................................................................................................................................. 141,479 7 0.005 

Analysis and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Negligible Impact 

Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of Level B harassment takes, alone, is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

migration, etc.), as well as the number 

and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, 

and the status of the species. 

No injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of Shell’s 

proposed ice overflight surveys in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and none 

are proposed to be authorized. 

Additionally, animals in the area are not 

expected to incur hearing impairment 

(i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory 

physiological effects. Instead, any 

impact that could result from Shell’s 

activities is most likely to be behavioral 

harassment and is expected to be of 

brief duration and the aircraft flies by. 

Although it is possible that some 

individuals may be exposed to sounds 

from aircraft overflight more than once, 

during the migratory periods it is less 

likely that this will occur since animals 

will continue to move across the 

Chukchi Sea towards their wintering 

grounds. 

Aircraft flyovers are not heard 

underwater for very long, especially 

when compared to how long they are 

heard in air as the aircraft approaches 

an observer. Very few cetaceans are 

expected to be encountered during ice 

overflights due to the low density of 

cetacean species in the winter survey 

area and small area to be flown over 

open water during spring. Long-term or 

population level effects are not 

expected. The majority of seals 

encountered by fixed wing aircraft will 

unlikely show a notable disturbance 

reaction, and approximately half of the 

seals encountered by helicopters may 

react by moving from ice into the water. 

Any potential disturbance from aircraft 

to seals in the area of ice overflights will 

be localized and short-term in duration 

with no population level effects. 

Of the seven marine mammal species 

likely to occur in the proposed ice 

overflight survey area, only the 

bowhead whale and ringed seal are 

listed as endangered under the ESA. 

These two species are also designated as 

‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA. Despite 

these designations, the Bering-ChukchiBeaufort stock of bowheads has been 

increasing at a rate of 3.4% annually for 

nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 

2011), even in the face of ongoing 

industrial activity. Additionally, during 

the 2001 census, 121 calves were 

counted, which was the highest yet 

recorded. The calf count provides 

corroborating evidence for a healthy and 

increasing population (Allen and 

Angliss, 2011). Certain stocks or 

populations of gray and beluga whales 

and spotted seals are listed as 

endangered or are proposed for listing 

under the ESA; however, none of those 

stocks or populations occur in the 

proposed activity area. Ringed seals 

were recently listed under the ESA as 

threatened species. On July 25, 2014 the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Alaska vacated the rule listing to the 

Beringia bearded seal DPS and 

remanded the rule to NMFS to correct 

the deficiencies identified in the 

opinion. None of the other species that 

may occur in the project area is listed 

as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the 

MMPA. There is currently no 

established critical habitat in the 

proposed project area for any of these 

seven species. 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in 

this document (see the ‘‘Anticipated 

Effects on Habitat’’ section). Although 

some disturbance is possible to food 

sources of marine mammals, the 

impacts are anticipated to be minor. 

Based on the vast size of the Arctic 

Ocean where feeding by marine 

mammals occurs versus the localized 

area of the ice overflight surveys, any 

missed feeding opportunities in the 

direct project area would be of little 

consequence, as marine mammals 

would have access to other feeding 

grounds. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

Shell’s proposed 2015 ice overflight 

surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas will have a negligible impact on 

the affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

The estimated takes proposed to be 

authorized represent less than 0.3% of 

the affected population or stock for all 

species in the survey area. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the populations of the 

affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses 

NMFS has defined ‘‘unmitigable 

adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as: 

‘‘an impact resulting from the specified 

activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the 

availability of the species to a level 

insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

Subsistence hunting continues to be 

an essential aspect of Inupiat Native life, 

especially in rural coastal villages. The 

Inupiat participate in subsistence 

hunting activities in and around the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The animals 

taken for subsistence provide a 

significant portion of the food that will 

last the community through the year. 

Marine mammals represent on the order 

of 60–80% of the total subsistence 

harvest. Along with the nourishment 

necessary for survival, the subsistence 

activities strengthen bonds within the 

culture, provide a means for educating 

the younger generation, provide 

supplies for artistic expression, and 

allow for important celebratory events. 

Bowhead Whale 

Activities associated with Shell’s 

planned ice overflight survey program is 

not likely to have an un-mitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

bowhead whales for taking for 

subsistence uses. Ice overflight surveys 

that may occur near Point Lay, 

Wainwright, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and 

Kaktovik would traverse bowhead 

subsistence areas. Most flights would 

take place after the date of fall and prior 

to spring bowhead whale hunting from 

the villages. The most commonly 

observed reactions of bowheads to 

aircraft traffic are hasty dives, but 

changes in orientation, dispersal, and 

changes in activity are sometimes noted. 

Such reactions could potentially affect 

subsistence hunts if the flights occurred 

near and at the same time as the hunt. 

Shell has developed and proposes to 

implement a number of mitigation 

measures to avoid such impacts. These 

mitigation measures include minimum 

flight altitudes, use of Village 

Community Liaison Officers (CLOs), 

Subsistence Advisors (SAs), and 

Communication Centers in order to 

avoid conflicts with subsistence 

activities. SA calls will be held while 

subsistence activities are underway 

during the ice overflight survey program 

and are attended by operations staff, 

logistics staff, and CLOs. Aircraft flights 

are adjusted as needed and planned in 

a manner that avoids potential impacts 

to bowhead whale hunts and other 

subsistence activities. With these 

mitigation measures any effects on the 

bowhead whale as a subsistence 

resource, or effects on bowhead 

subsistence hunts would be minimal. 

Beluga Whale 

Activities associated with Shell’s 

planned ice overflight survey program 

will not have an un-mitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of beluga 

whales for taking for subsistence uses. 

Ice overflight surveys may occur near 

Point Lay, Wainwright, Barrow, 

Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik would and 

traverse beluga whale hunt subsistence 

areas. Most flights would take place 

when belugas are not typically 

harvested. Survey activities could 

potentially affect subsistence hunts if 

the flights occurred near and at the same 

time as the hunt. Shell has developed 

and proposes to implement a number of 

mitigation measures to avoid such 

impacts. These mitigation measures 

include minimum flight altitudes, use of 

CLOs, SAs, and Communication 

Centers. SA calls will be held while 

subsistence activities are underway 

during the ice overflight survey program 

and are attended by operations staff, 

logistics staff, and CLOs. Aircraft flights 

are adjusted as needed and planned in 

a manner that avoids potential impacts 

to beluga whale hunts and other 

subsistence activities. With these 

mitigation measures any effects on the 

beluga whale as a subsistence resource, 

or effects on beluga subsistence hunts 

would be minimal. 

Seals 

Seals are an important subsistence 

resource with ringed and bearded seals 

making up the bulk of the seal harvest. 

The survey areas are far outside of areas 

reportedly utilized for the harvest of 

seals by the villages of Point Hope, thus 

the ice overflight surveys will not have 

an un-mitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of ice seals for taking for 

subsistence uses. The survey areas 

encompass some areas utilized by 

residents of Point Lay, Wainwright, 

Barrow, Nuiqsut and Kaktovik for the 

harvest of seals. Most ringed and 

bearded seals are harvested in the 

winter and a harvest of seals could 

possibly be affected by Shell’s planned 

activities. Spotted seals are harvested 

during the summer and may overlap 

briefly with Shell’s planned activities. 

Most seals are harvested in coastal 

waters, with available maps of recent 

and past subsistence use areas 

indicating that seal harvests have 

occurred only within 30–40 mi (48–64 

km) off the coastline. Some of the 

planned ice overflight surveys would 

take place in areas used by the village 

residents for the harvest of seals. The 

survey aircraft could potentially travel 

over areas used by residents for seal 

hunting and could potentially disturb 

seals and, therefore, subsistence hunts 

for seals. Any such effects from the 

survey activities would be minimal due 

to the infrequency of the planned 

surveys. Shell has developed and 

proposes to implement a number of 

mitigation measures which include a 

proposed 4MP, use of CLOs, SAs, 

operation of Communication Centers, 

and minimum altitude requirements. SA 

calls will be held while subsistence 

activities are underway during the ice 

overflight survey program and are 

attended by operations staff, logistics 

staff, and CLOs. Aircraft movements and 

activities are adjusted as needed and 

planned in a manner that avoids 

potential impacts to subsistence 

activities. With these mitigation 

measures any effects on ringed, bearded, 

and spotted seals as subsistence 

resources, or effects on subsistence 

hunts for seals, would be minimal. 

Plan of Cooperation or Measures To 

Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts 

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) 

require IHA applicants for activities that 

take place in Arctic waters to provide a 

Plan of Cooperation (POC) or 

information that identifies what 

measures have been taken and/or will 

be taken to minimize adverse effects on 

the availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence purposes. 

Shell is preparing to implement a 

POC in accordance with NMFS’ 

regulations. The POC relies upon the 

Chukchi Sea Communication Plans to 

identify the measures that Shell has 

developed in consultation with North 

Slope subsistence communities and will 

implement during its planned 2015/

2016 ice overflight surveys to minimize 

any adverse effects on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence uses. 

In addition, the POC will detail Shell’s 

communications and consultations with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11411 

local subsistence communities 

concerning its planned 2015/2016 

program, potential conflicts with 

subsistence activities, and means of 

resolving any such conflicts (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(12)(i), (ii), and (iv)). Shell 

continues to document its contacts with 

the North Slope subsistence 

communities, as well as the substance of 

its communications with subsistence 

stakeholder groups. 

The POC identifies and documents 

potential conflicts and associated 

measures that will be taken to minimize 

any adverse effects on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence use. 

Outcomes of POC meetings are typically 

included in updates attached to the POC 

as addenda and distributed to federal, 

state, and local agencies as well as local 

stakeholder groups that either 

adjudicate or influence mitigation 

approaches for Shell’s activities. 

Shell will engage with the villages 

potentially impacted by the 2015/2016 

ice overflight surveys in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas in 2014 and early 

2015. Meetings were held in Barrow and 

Point Lay in early November 2014 and 

additional engagements are scheduled 

with other villages in early 2015. 

Throughout 2015, and 2016 Shell 

anticipates continued engagement with 

the marine mammal commissions and 

committees active in the subsistence 

harvests and marine mammal research. 

Following the 2015/2016 season, 

Shell intends to have a post-season comanagement meeting with the 

commissioners and committee heads to 

discuss results of mitigation measures 

and outcomes of the preceding season. 

The goal of the post-season meeting is 

to build upon the knowledge base, 

discuss successful or unsuccessful 

outcomes of mitigation measures, and 

possibly refine plans or mitigation 

measures if necessary. 

In addition to the POC, the following 

subsistence mitigation measures will be 

implemented for Shell’s proposed ice 

overflight surveys. 

(1) Communications 

• Shell has developed a 

Communication Plan and will 

implement this plan before initiating ice 

overflight survey operations to 

coordinate activities with local 

subsistence users, as well as Village 

Whaling Captains’ Associations, to 

minimize the risk of interfering with 

subsistence hunting activities, and keep 

current as to the timing and status of the 

bowhead whale hunt and other 

subsistence hunts. 

• Shell will employ local CLOs and/ 

or SAs from the Chukchi Sea villages 

that are potentially impacted by Shell’s 

ice overflight surveys. The CLOs and 

SAs will provide consultation and 

guidance regarding the whale migration 

and subsistence activities. There will be 

one per village. The CLO and/or SA will 

use local knowledge (Traditional 

Knowledge) to gather data on the 

subsistence lifestyle within the 

community and provide advice on ways 

to minimize and mitigate potential 

negative impacts to subsistence 

resources during the survey season. 

Responsibilities include reporting any 

subsistence concerns or conflicts; 

coordinating with subsistence users; 

reporting subsistence-related comments, 

concerns, and information; and advising 

how to avoid subsistence conflicts. 

(2) Aircraft Travel 

• The aircraft will maintain a 1 mi 

(1.6 km) radius when flying over areas 

where seals appear to be concentrated in 

groups of ≥5 individuals. 

• The aircraft will not land on ice 

within 0.5 mi (805 m) of hauled out 

pinnipeds. 

• The aircraft will avoid flying over 

polynyas and along adjacent ice margins 

as much as possible to minimize 

potential disturbance to cetaceans. 

• Aircraft shall not operate below 

1,500 ft (457 m) in areas of active whale 

hunting; such areas to be identified 

through communications with the Com 

Centers and SAs. 

• Shell will routinely engage with 

local communities and subsistence 

groups to ensure no disturbance of 

whaling or other subsistence activities. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Preliminary Determination 

NMFS considers that these mitigation 

measures including measures to reduce 

overall impacts to marine mammals in 

the vicinity of the proposed ice 

overflight survey area and measures to 

mitigate any potential adverse effects on 

subsistence use of marine mammals are 

adequate to ensure subsistence use of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of 

Shell’s proposed ice overflight surveys 

in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from Shell’s proposed 

activities. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are two marine mammal 

species listed as endangered under the 

ESA with confirmed or possible 

occurrence in the proposed project area: 

The bowhead whale and ringed seal. 

NMFS’ Permits and Conservation 

Division will initiate consultation with 

NMFS’ Endangered Species Division 

under section 7 of the ESA on the 

issuance of an IHA to Shell under 

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

this activity. Consultation will be 

concluded prior to a determination on 

the issuance of an IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS is preparing an Environmental 

Assessment (EA), pursuant to NEPA, to 

determine whether the issuance of an 

IHA to Shell for its 2015/2016 ice 

overflight surveys may have a 

significant impact on the human 

environment. NMFS has released a draft 

of the EA for public comment along 

with this proposed IHA. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Shell for conducting ice 

overflight surveys in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas during 2015/2016, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. The 

proposed IHA language is provided 

next. 

This section contains a draft of the 

IHA itself. The wording contained in 

this section is proposed for inclusion in 

the IHA (if issued). 

(1) This Authorization is valid from 

May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. 

(2) This Authorization is valid only 

for activities associated with Shell’s 

2015/2016 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

ice overflight surveys. The specific areas 

where Shell’s ice overflight surveys will 

be conducted are the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas, Alaska, as indicated in 

Figure 1–1 of Shell’s IHA application. 

(3)(a) The incidental taking of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

is limited to the following species: 

Bowhead whale; gray whale; beluga 

whale; ringed seal; bearded seal; spotted 

seal; and ribbon seal. 

(3)(b) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in Condition 

3(a) or the taking of any kind of any 

other species of marine mammal is 

prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension or revocation 

of this Authorization. 

(4) The authorization for taking by 

harassment is limited to the following 

activities: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 

Ice overflight surveys during freezeup, winter, and break-up periods in 

2015 and 2016 by aircraft. 

(5) The taking of any marine mammal 

in a manner prohibited under this 

Authorization must be reported 

immediately to the Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS or her 

designee. 

(6) The holder of this Authorization 

must notify the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, at least 48 hours 

prior to the start of ice overflight 

surveys (unless constrained by the date 

of issuance of this Authorization in 

which case notification shall be made as 

soon as possible). 

(7) Ice Overflight Mitigation and 

Monitoring Requirements: The Holder 

of this Authorization is required to 

implement the following mitigation and 

monitoring requirements when 

conducting the specified activities to 

achieve the least practicable impact on 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks: 

(a) A PSO will be aboard all flights 

recording all sightings/observations (e.g. 

including number of individuals, 

approximate age (when possible to 

determine)), and any type of potential 

reaction to the aircraft. Environmental 

information the observer will record 

includes weather, air temperature, cloud 

and ice cover, visibility conditions, and 

wind speed. 

(b) The aircraft will maintain a 1 mi 

radius when flying over areas where 

seals appear to be concentrated in 

groups of ≥5 individuals; 

(c) The aircraft will not land on ice 

within 0.5 mi of hauled out pinnipeds 

or polar bears; and 

(d) The aircraft will avoid flying over 

polynyas and along adjacent ice margins 

as much as possible to minimize 

potential disturbance to cetaceans. 

(8) Subsistence Mitigation Measures: 

To ensure no unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses of marine 

mammals, the Holder of this 

Authorization shall: 

(a) Develop and implement a 

Communication Plan before initiating 

ice overflight survey operations to 

coordinate activities with local 

subsistence users, as well as Village 

Whaling Captains’ Associations, to 

minimize the risk of interfering with 

subsistence hunting activities, and keep 

current as to the timing and status of the 

bowhead whale hunt and other 

subsistence hunts. 

(b) Employ local Community Liaison 

Officers (CLOs) and/or Subsistence 

Advisors (SAs) from the Chukchi Sea 

villages that are potentially impacted by 

the ice overflight surveys. 

(A) The CLOs and SAs will provide 

consultation and guidance regarding the 

whale migration and subsistence 

activities. 

(B) The CLOs and SAs will also report 

any subsistence concerns or conflicts; 

coordinate with subsistence users; 

report subsistence-related comments, 

concerns, and information; and advise 

how to avoid subsistence conflicts. 

(c) Routinely engage with local 

communities and subsistence groups to 

ensure no disturbance of whaling or 

other subsistence activities. 

(9) Monitoring Measures: 

(a) Protected Species Observers: 

(A) Aerial monitoring for marine 

mammals will be conducted by a 

trained protected species observer (PSO) 

aboard each flight. 

(B) PSO duties will include watching 

for and identifying marine mammals, 

recording their numbers, distances from, 

and potential reactions to the presence 

of the aircraft, in addition to working 

with the helicopter pilots to identify 

areas for landings on ice that is clear of 

marine mammals. 

(b) Observer Qualifications and 

Training: 

(A) Observers will have previous 

marine mammal observation experience 

in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

(B) All observers will be trained and 

familiar with the marine mammals of 

the area, data collection protocols, 

reporting procedures, and required 

mitigation measures. 

(c) Specialized Field Equipment: 

(A) Fujinon 7 × 50 binoculars for 

visual monitoring, 

(B) GPS unit to document the route of 

each ice overflight, 

(C) Laptop computer for data entry, 

(D) Voice recorder to capture detailed 

observations and data for post flight 

entry into the computer, 

(E) Digital still cameras. 

(d) Field Data-Recording 

(A) The observer on the aircraft will 

record observations directly into 

computers using a custom software 

package. 

(B) The accuracy of the data entry will 

be verified in the field by computerized 

validity checks as the data are entered, 

and by subsequent manual checking 

following the flight. 

(C) Observers will capture the details 

of sightings and other observations with 

a voice recorder, which will maximize 

observation time and the collection of 

data. 

(D) During the course of the flights, 

the observer will record information for 

each sighting including: 

• Number of individuals, 

• Approximate age (when possible to 

determine), 

• Any type of potential reaction to the 

aircraft. 

• Weather, air temperature, wind 

speed, cloud and ice cover, and 

• Visibility conditions. 

(10) Reporting Requirements: 

(a) Final Report: The results of Shell’s 

ice overflight monitoring report will be 

presented in the ‘‘90-day’’ final report, 

as required by NMFS under the 

proposed IHA. The initial final report is 

due to NMFS within 90 days after the 

expiration of the IHA. The report will 

include: 

(A) Summaries of monitoring effort: 

Total hours, total distances flown, and 

environmental conditions during 

surveys; 

(B) Summaries of occurrence, species 

composition, and distribution of all 

marine mammal sightings including 

date, numbers, age/size/gender 

categories (when discernible), group 

sizes, ice cover and other environmental 

variables; data will be visualized by 

plotting sightings relative to the position 

of the aircraft; and 

(C) Analyses of the potential effects of 

ice overflights on marine mammals and 

the number of individuals that may 

have been disturbed by aircraft. 

(b) The ‘‘90-day’’ report will be 

subject to review and comment by 

NMFS. Any recommendations made by 

NMFS must be addressed in the final 

report prior to acceptance by NMFS. 

(11)(a) In the unanticipated event that 

the ice overflight surveys clearly cause 

the take of a marine mammal in a 

manner prohibited by this 

Authorization, such as an injury (Level 

A harassment), serious injury or 

mortality, Shell shall immediately cease 

operations and immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, by phone 

or email and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinators. The report must 

include the following information: (i) 

Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; (ii) the name 

and type of vessel involved; (iii) the 

vessel’s speed during and leading up to 

the incident; (iv) description of the 

incident; (v) status of all sound source 

use in the 24 hours preceding the 

incident; (vi) water depth; (vii) 

environmental conditions (e.g., wind 

speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, 

cloud cover, and visibility); (viii) 

description of marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; (ix) species identification 

or description of the animal(s) involved; 

(x) the fate of the animal(s); (xi) and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11413 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal (if equipment is available). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with Shell to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Shell may not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS via 

letter, email, or telephone. 

(b) In the event that Shell discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 

than a moderate state of decomposition 

as described in the next paragraph), 

Shell will immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, by phone 

or email and the NMFS Alaska 

Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. 

The report must include the same 

information identified in Condition 

12(a) above. Activities may continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS will work with 

Shell to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

(c) In the event that Shell discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in Condition 

2 of this Authorization (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), Shell shall report 

the incident to the Chief of the Permits 

and Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, by phone 

or email and the NMFS Alaska 

Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the 

Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, 

within 24 hours of the discovery. Shell 

shall provide photographs or video 

footage (if available) or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS and the Marine 

Mammal Stranding Network. Activities 

may continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. 

(12) The Plan of Cooperation 

outlining the steps that will be taken to 

cooperate and communicate with the 

native communities to ensure the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses must be implemented. 

(13) Shell is required to comply with 

the Terms and Conditions of the 

Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 

corresponding to NMFS’s Biological 

Opinion issued to NMFS’s Office of 

Protected Resources. 

(14) A copy of this Authorization and 

the ITS must be in the possession of all 

contractors and PSOs operating under 

the authority of this Incidental 

Harassment Authorization. 

(15) Penalties and Permit Sanctions: 

Any person who violates any provision 

of this Incidental Harassment 

Authorization is subject to civil and 

criminal penalties, permit sanctions, 

and forfeiture as authorized under the 

MMPA. 

(16) This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the Holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein or if the 

authorized taking is having more than a 

negligible impact on the species or stock 

of affected marine mammals, or if there 

is an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. 

Request for Public Comment 

As noted above, NMFS requests 

comment on our analysis, the draft 

authorization, and any other aspect of 

the Notice of Proposed IHA for Shell’s 

2015/2016 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

ice overflight surveys. Please include, 

with your comments, any supporting 

data or literature citations to help 

inform our final decision on Shell’s 

request for an MMPA authorization. 

Dated: February 25, 2015. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04345 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS 

Notice of Meeting 

The next meeting of the U.S. 

Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 

for 19 March 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in the 

Commission offices at the National 

Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary 

Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20001–2728. Items of discussion 

may include buildings, parks and 

memorials. 

Draft agendas and additional 

information regarding the Commission 

are available on our Web site: 

www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the 

agenda and requests to submit written 

or oral statements should be addressed 

to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. 

Commission of Fine Arts, at the above 

address; by emailing staff@cfa.gov; or by 

calling 202–504–2200. Individuals 

requiring sign language interpretation 

for the hearing impaired should contact 

the Secretary at least 10 days before the 

meeting date. 

Dated: February 24, 2015, in Washington, 

DC. 

Thomas Luebke, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04272 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6330–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 15–09] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 15–09 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: February 25, 2015. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES