20084 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD782 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Marine Seismic 

Survey in the Beaufort Sea, 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 has received an 

application from SAExploration, Inc. 

(SAE) for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

a marine 3-dimensional (3D) ocean 

bottom node (OBN) seismic surveys 

program in the state and federal waters 

of the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, during the 

open-water season of 2015. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an IHA to SAE 

to incidentally take, by Level A and 

Level B Harassments, marine mammals 

during the specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than May 14, 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. 

Comments sent via email, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. NMFS is not 

responsible for comments sent to 

addresses other than those provided 

here. 

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. 

An electronic copy of the application 

may be obtained by writing to the 

address specified above, telephoning the 

contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the 

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

pr/permits/incidental.htm. The 

following associated documents are also 

available at the same internet address: 

Plan of Cooperation. Documents cited in 

this notice may also be viewed, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

NMFS is also preparing draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

will consider comments submitted in 

response to this notice as part of that 

process. The draft EA will be posted at 

the foregoing internet site. 

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, NMFS received 

an application from SAE for the taking 

of marine mammals incidental to a 3D 

ocean bottom node (OBN) seismic 

survey program in the Beaufort Sea. 

After receiving NMFS comments, SAE 

made revisions and updated its IHA 

application on December 5, 2014, 

January 21, 2015, January 29, 2015, and 

again on February 16, 2015. In addition, 

NMFS received the marine mammal 

mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) 

from SAE on December 2, 2014, with an 

updated version on January 29, 2015. 

NMFS determined that the application 

and the 4MP were adequate and 

complete on February 17, 2015. 

SAE proposes to conduct 3D OBN 

seismic surveys in the state and federal 

waters of the U.S. Beaufort Sea during 

the 2015 Arctic open-water season. The 

proposed activity would occur between 

July 1 and October 15, 2015. The actual 

seismic survey is expected to take 

approximately 70 days, dependent of 

weather. The following specific aspects 

of the proposed activities are likely to 

result in the take of marine mammals: 

seismic airgun operations and 

associated navigation sonar and vessel 

movements. Takes, by Level A and/or 

Level B Harassments, of individuals of 

six species of marine mammals are 

anticipated to result from the specified 

activity. 

SAE also conducted OBN seismic 

surveys in the Beaufort Sea in the 2014 

Arctic open-water season (79 FR 51963; 

September 2, 2014). 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

On December 2, 2014, NMFS received 

an application from SAE requesting an 

authorization for the harassment of 

small numbers of marine mammals 

incidental to conducting an open-water 

3D OBN seismic survey in the Beaufort 

Sea off Alaska. After addressing 

comments from NMFS and the peerreview panel, SAE modified its 

application and submitted revised 

applications on December 5, 2014, 

January 21, 2015, January 29, 2015, and 

again on February 16, 2015, with 4MP 

on December 2, 2014 and an updated 

version on January 29, 2015. SAE’s 

proposed activities discussed here are 

based on its February 17, 2015, IHA 

application, and January 29, 2015, 4MP. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed 3D OBN seismic survey 

is planned for the 2015 open-water 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20085 

season (July 1 to October 15). The actual 

data acquisition is expected to take 

approximately 70 days, dependent of 

weather. Based on past similar seismic 

shoots in the Beaufort Sea, SAE expects 

that effective shooting would occur over 

about 70% of the 70 days (or about 49 

days). 

Specified Geographic Region 

SAE’s planned 3D seismic survey 

would occur in the nearshore waters of 

the Beaufort Sea between Harrison Bay 

and the Sagavanirktok River delta. SAE 

plans to survey a maximum of 777 km2

(300 mi2) in 2015, although the exact 

location is currently unknown other 

than it would occur somewhere within 

the 4,562-km2 (1,761-m2) box shown in 

Figure 1–1 of SAE’s IHA application. 

Detailed Description of Activities 

I. Survey Design 

The proposed marine seismic 

operations will be based on a ‘‘recording 

patch’’ or similar approach. Patches are 

groups of six receiver lines and 32 

source lines (Figure 1–2 of SAE’s IHA 

application). Each receiver line has 

submersible marine sensor nodes 

tethered equidistant (50 m; 165 ft) from 

each other along the length of the line. 

Each node is a multicomponent system 

containing three velocity sensors and a 

hydrophone. Each receiver line is 

approximately 8 km (5 mi) in length, 

and are spaced approximately 402 m 

(1,320 ft) apart. Each receiver patch is 

19.4 km2 (7.5 mi2) in area. The receiver 

patch is oriented such that the receiver 

lines run parallel to the shoreline. 

Source lines, 12 km (7.5 mi) long and 

spaced 502 m (1,650 ft) apart, run 

perpendicular to the receiver lines (and 

perpendicular to the coast) and, where 

possible, will extend approximately 5 

km (3 mi) beyond the outside receiver 

lines and approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) 

beyond each of the ends of the receiver 

lines. The outside dimensions of the 

maximum shot area during a patch 

shoot will be 12 km by 16 m (7.5 mi by 

10 mi) or 192 km2 (75 mi2). It is 

expected to take three to five days to 

shoot a patch, or 49 km2 (18.75 mi2) per 

day. Shot intervals along each source 

line will be 50 m (165 ft). All shot areas 

will be wholly contained within the 

4,562-km2 survey box (see Figure 1–1 in 

SAE’s IHA application), and, because of 

the tremendous overlap in shot area 

between adjacent patches, no more than 

777 km2 (300 mi2) of actual area will be 

shot in 2015. 

During recording of one patch, nodes 

from the previously surveyed patch will 

be retrieved, recharged, and data 

downloaded prior to redeployment of 

the nodes to the next patch. As patches 

are recorded, receiver lines are moved 

side to side or end to end to the next 

patch location so that receiver lines 

have continuous coverage of the 

recording area. 

Autonomous recording nodes lack 

cables but will be tethered together 

using a thin rope for ease of retrieval. 

This rope will lay on the seabed surface, 

as will the nodes, and will have no 

effect on marine traffic. Primary vessel 

positioning will be achieved using GPS 

with the antenna attached to the airgun 

array. Pingers deployed from the node 

vessels will be used for positioning of 

nodes. The geometry/patch could be 

modified as operations progress to 

improve sampling and operational 

efficiency. 

II. Acoustical Sources 

The acoustic sources of primary 

concern are the airguns that will be 

deployed from the seismic source 

vessels. However, there are other noise 

sources to be addressed including the 

pingers and transponders associated 

with locating receiver nodes, as well as 

propeller noise from the vessel fleet. 

Seismic Source Array 

The primary seismic source for 

offshore recording consists of a 620- 

cubic-inch (in3), 8-cluster array, 

although a 2 x 620-in3 array, totaling 

1,240 in3, may be used in deeper waters 

(>15 m). For conservative purposes, 

exposure estimates are based on the 

sound pressure levels associated with 

the larger array. The arrays will be 

centered approximately 15 m (50 ft) 

behind the source vessel stern, at a 

depth of 4 m (12 ft), and towed along 

predetermined source lines at speeds 

between 7.4 and 9.3 km/hr (4 and 5 

knots). Two vessels with full arrays will 

be operating simultaneously in an 

alternating shot mode; one vessel 

shooting while the other is recharging. 

Shot intervals are expected to be about 

16 s for each array resulting in an 

overall shot interval of 8 s considering 

the two alternating arrays. Operations 

are expected to occur 24 hrs a day, with 

actual daily shooting to total about 12 

hrs. 

Based on manufacturer specifications, 

the 1,240-in3 array has a zero-peak 

estimated sound source of 249 dB re 1 

mPa @1 m (13.8 bar-m), with a root mean 

square (rms) sound source of 224 dB re 

1 mPa, while for the 620-in3 array the 

zero-peak is 237 dB re 1 mPa (rms) (6.96 

bar-m) with an rms source level of 218 

dB re 1 mPa. 

Mitigation Airgun 

A 10-in3 mitigation airgun will be 

used during poor visibility conditions, 

and is intended to (a) alert marine 

mammals to the presence of airgun 

activity, and (b) retain the option of 

initiating a ramp-up to full operations 

under poor visibility conditions. The 

mitigation gun will be operated at 

approximately one shot per minute 

during these periods. The manufacturer 

specifications indicate a 214 dB re 1 mPa 

zero-peak (0.5 bar-m) sound source 

equating to a 195 dB re 1 mPa rms 

source. 

Pingers and Transponders 

An acoustical positioning (or pinger) 

system will be used to position and 

interpolate the location of the nodes. A 

vessel-mounted transceiver calculates 

the position of the nodes by measuring 

the range and bearing from the 

transceiver to a small acoustic 

transponder fitted to every third node. 

The transceiver uses sonar to interrogate 

the transponders, which respond with 

short pulses that are used in measuring 

the range and bearing. The system 

provides a precise location of every 

node as needed for accurate 

interpretation of the seismic data. The 

transceiver to be used is the Sonardyne 

Scout USBL, while transponders will be 

the Sonardyne TZ/OBC Type 7815–000– 

06. Because the transceiver and 

transponder communicate via sonar, 

they produce underwater sound levels. 

The Scout USBL transceiver has a 

transmission source level of 197 dB re 

1 mPa @ 1 m and operates at frequencies 

between 35 and 55 kHz. The 

transponder produces short pulses of 

184 to 187 dB re 1 mPa @ 1 m at 

frequencies also between 35 and 55 kHz. 

Both transceivers and transponders 

produce noise levels just above or 

within the most sensitive hearing range 

of seals (10 to 30 kHz; Schusterman 

1981) and odontocetes (12 to ∼100 kHz; 

Wartzok and Ketten 1999), and the 

functional hearing range of baleen 

whales (20 Hz to 30 kHz; NRC 2003); 

although baleen whale hearing is 

probably most sensitive nearer 1 kHz 

(Richardson et al. 1995). However, given 

the low acoustical output, the range of 

acoustical harassment to marine 

mammals (for the 197 dB transceiver) is 

about 100 m (328 ft), or significantly 

less than the output from the airgun 

arrays, and is not loud enough to reach 

injury levels in marine mammals 

beyond 9 m (30 ft). Marine mammals are 

likely to respond to pinger systems 

similar to airgun pulses, but only when 

very close (a few meters) to the sources. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20086 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

Vessels 

Several offshore vessels will be 

required to support recording, shooting, 

and housing in the marine and 

transition zone environments. The exact 

vessels that will be used have not yet 

been determined. However, the types of 

vessels that will be used to fulfill these 

roles are found in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—VESSELS TO BE USED DURING SAE’S 3D OBN SEISMIC SURVEYS

Vessel Size (ft) Activity and frequency Source level 

(dB) 

Source vessel 1 .................................. 120 x 25 Seismic data acquisition; 24 hr operation ...................................................... 179 

Source vessel 2 .................................. 80 x 25 Seismic data acquisition; 24 hr operation ...................................................... 166 

Node equipment vessel 1 .................. 80 x 20 Deploying and retrieving nodes; 24 hr operation ........................................... 165 

Node equipment vessel 2 .................. 80 x 20 Deploying and retrieving nodes; 24 hr operation ........................................... 165 

Mitigation/Housing vessel ................... 90 x 20 House crew; 24 hr operation .......................................................................... 200 

Crew transport vessel ........................ 30 x 20 Transport crew; intermittent 8 hrs .................................................................. 192 

Bow picker 1 ....................................... 30 x 20 Deploying and retrieving nodes; intermittent operation .................................. 172 

Bow picker 2 ....................................... 30 x 20 Deploying and retrieving nodes; intermittent operation .................................. 172 

Source Vessels—Source vessels will 

have the ability to deploy two arrays off 

the stern using large A-frames and 

winches and have a draft shallow 

enough to operate in waters less than 

1.5 m (5 ft) deep. On the source vessels 

the airgun arrays are typically mounted 

on the stern deck with an umbilical that 

allow the arrays to be deployed and 

towed from the stern without having to 

re-rig or move arrays. A large bow deck 

will allow for sufficient space for source 

compressors and additional airgun 

equipment to be stored. The marine 

vessels likely to be used will be the 

same or similar to those that were 

acoustically measured by Aerts et al. 

(2008). The source vessels were found to 

have sound source levels of 179.0 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) and 165.7 dB re 1 mPa (rms). 

Recording Deployment and Retrieval 

Vessels—Jet driven shallow draft vessels 

and bow pickers will be used for the 

deployment and retrieval of the offshore 

recording equipment. These vessels will 

be rigged with hydraulically driven 

deployment and retrieval squirters 

allowing for automated deployment and 

retrieval from the bow or stern of the 

vessel. These vessels will also carry the 

recording equipment on the deck in fish 

totes. Aerts et al. (2008) found the 

recording and deployment vessels to 

have a source level of approximately 

165.3 dB re 1 mPa (rms), while the 

smaller bow pickers produce more 

cavitation resulting in source levels of 

171.8 dB re 1 mPa (rms). 

Housing and Transfer Vessels— 

Housing vessel(s) will be larger with 

sufficient berthing to house crews and 

management. The housing vessel will 

have ample office and bridge space to 

facilitate the role as the mother ship and 

central operations. Crew transfer vessels 

will be sufficiently large to safely 

transfer crew between vessels as 

needed. Aerts et al. (2008) found the 

housing vessel to produce the loudest 

propeller noise of all the vessels in the 

fleet (200.1 dB re 1 mPa [rms]), but this 

vessel is mostly anchored up once it 

gets on site. The crew transfer vessel 

also travels only infrequently relative to 

other vessels, and is usually operated at 

different speeds. During higher speed 

runs to shore the vessel produces source 

noise levels of about 191.8 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms), while during slower on-site 

movements the vessel source levels are 

only 166.4 dB re 1 mPa (rms) (Aerts et 

al. 2008). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

The Beaufort Sea supports a diverse 

assemblage of marine mammals. Table 2 

lists the 12 marine mammal species 

under NMFS jurisdiction with 

confirmed or possible occurrence in the 

proposed project area. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES WITH CONFIRMED OR POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE IN THE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY

AREA

Common name Scientific name Status Occurrence Seasonality Range Abundance 

Odontocetes: 

Beluga whale (Beaufort 

Sea stock).

Delphinapterus 

leucas.

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

fall with some 

in summer.

Mostly Beaufort 

Sea.

39,258 

Beluga whale (eastern 

Chukchi Sea stock).

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

fall with some 

in summer.

Mostly Chukchi 

Sea.

3,710 

Killer whale ..................... Orcinus orca ........ .............................. Occasional/

Extralimital.

Mostly summer 

and early fall.

California to Alaska.552 

Harbor porpoise ............. Phocoena 

phocoena.

.............................. Occasional/

Extralimital.

Mostly summer 

and early fall.

California to Alaska.48,215 

Narwhal .......................... Monodon 

monoceros.

.............................. ...................... ............................. .............................. 45,358 

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 

Minke whale ................... Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata.

.............................. ...................... ............................. .............................. 810–1,003 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20087 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES WITH CONFIRMED OR POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE IN THE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY

AREA—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Status Occurrence Seasonality Range Abundance 

Humpback whale (Central North Pacific 

stock) *.

Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Endangered; Depleted....................... ............................. .............................. 21,063 

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 

* Endangered, threatened, or species of concern under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); Depleted under the MMPA. 

The highlighted (grayed out) species 

in Table 2 are so rarely sighted in the 

proposed project area that take is 

unlikely. Minke whales are relatively 

common in the Bering and southern 

Chukchi Seas and have recently also 

been sighted in the northeastern 

Chukchi Sea (Aerts et al., 2013; Clarke 

et al., 2013). Minke whales are rare in 

the Beaufort Sea. They have not been 

reported in the Beaufort Sea during the 

Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project/ 

Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine 

Mammals (BWASP/ASAMM) surveys 

(Clarke et al., 2011, 2012; 2013; Monnet 

and Treacy, 2005), and there was only 

one observation in 2007 during vesselbased surveys in the region (Funk et al., 

2010). Humpback whales have not 

generally been found in the Arctic 

Ocean. However, subsistence hunters 

have spotted humpback whales in low 

numbers around Barrow, and there have 

been several confirmed sightings of 

humpback whales in the northeastern 

Chukchi Sea in recent years (Aerts et al., 

2013; Clarke et al., 2013). The first 

confirmed sighting of a humpback 

whale in the Beaufort Sea was recorded 

in August 2007 (Hashagen et al., 2009), 

when a cow and calf were observed 54 

mi east of Point Barrow. No additional 

sightings have been documented in the 

Beaufort Sea. Narwhal are common in 

the waters of northern Canada, west 

Greenland, and in the European Arctic, 

but rarely occur in the Beaufort Sea 

(COSEWIC, 2004). Only a handful of 

sightings have occurred in Alaskan 

waters (Allen and Angliss, 2013). These 

three species are not considered further 

in this proposed IHA notice. Both the 

walrus and the polar bear could occur 

in the U.S. Beaufort Sea; however, these 

species are managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are 

not considered further in this Notice of 

Proposed IHA. 

The Beaufort Sea is a main corridor of 

the bowhead whale migration route. The 

main migration periods occur in spring 

from April to June and in fall from late 

August/early September through 

October to early November. During the 

fall migration, several locations in the 

U.S. Beaufort Sea serve as feeding 

grounds for bowhead whales. Small 

numbers of bowhead whales that remain 

in the U.S. Arctic Ocean during summer 

also feed in these areas. The U.S. 

Beaufort Sea is not a main feeding or 

calving area for any other cetacean 

species. Ringed seals breed and pup in 

the Beaufort Sea; however, this does not 

occur during the summer or early fall. 

Further information on the biology and 

local distribution of these species can be 

found in SAE’s application (see 

ADDRESSES) and the NMFS Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 

which are available online at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/. 

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., seismic airgun and pinger 

operation, vessel movement) 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. 

Background on Sound 

Sound is a physical phenomenon 

consisting of minute vibrations that 

travel through a medium, such as air or 

water, and is generally characterized by 

several variables. Frequency describes 

the sound’s pitch and is measured in 

hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while 

sound level describes the sound’s 

intensity and is measured in decibels 

(dB). Sound level increases or decreases 

exponentially with each dB of change. 

The logarithmic nature of the scale 

means that each 10-dB increase is a 10- 

fold increase in acoustic power (and a 

20-dB increase is then a 100-fold 

increase in power). A 10-fold increase in 

acoustic power does not mean that the 

sound is perceived as being 10 times 

louder, however. Sound levels are 

compared to a reference sound pressure 

(micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20088 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

For air and water, these reference 

pressures are ‘‘re: 20 mPa’’ and ‘‘re: 1 

mPa,’’ respectively. Root mean square 

(RMS) is the quadratic mean sound 

pressure over the duration of an 

impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring 

all of the sound amplitudes, averaging 

the squares, and then taking the square 

root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS 

accounts for both positive and negative 

values; squaring the pressures makes all 

values positive so that they may be 

accounted for in the summation of 

pressure levels. This measurement is 

often used in the context of discussing 

behavioral effects, in part, because 

behavioral effects, which often result 

from auditory cues, may be better 

expressed through averaged units rather 

than by peak pressures. 

Acoustic Impacts 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Based on available 

behavioral data, audiograms have been 

derived using auditory evoked 

potentials, anatomical modeling, and 

other data, Southall et al. (2007) 

designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 

for marine mammals and estimate the 

lower and upper frequencies of 

functional hearing of the groups. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (though 

animals are less sensitive to sounds at 

the outer edge of their functional range 

and most sensitive to sounds of 

frequencies within a smaller range 

somewhere in the middle of their 

functional hearing range): 

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): Functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, 

and four species of cephalorhynchids): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; 

• Phocid pinnipeds in Water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 75 Hz and 100 

kHz; and 

• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 100 Hz and 40 

kHz. 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, nine marine mammal species 

(five cetaceans and four phocid 

pinnipeds) may occur in the proposed 

seismic survey area. Of the five cetacean 

species likely to occur in the proposed 

project area and for which take is 

requested, two are classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., bowhead and 

gray whales), two are classified as midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and 

killer whales), and one is classified as 

a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor 

porpoise) (Southall et al., 2007). A 

species functional hearing group is a 

consideration when we analyze the 

effects of exposure to sound on marine 

mammals. 

1. Tolerance 

Numerous studies have shown that 

underwater sounds from industry 

activities are often readily detectable by 

marine mammals in the water at 

distances of many kilometers. 

Numerous studies have also shown that 

marine mammals at distances more than 

a few kilometers away often show no 

apparent response to industry activities 

of various types (Miller et al., 2005; Bain 

and Williams, 2006). This is often true 

even in cases when the sounds must be 

readily audible to the animals based on 

measured received levels and the 

hearing sensitivity of that mammal 

group. Although various baleen whales, 

toothed whales, and (less frequently) 

pinnipeds have been shown to react 

behaviorally to underwater sound such 

as airgun pulses or vessels under some 

conditions, at other times mammals of 

all three types have shown no overt 

reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 1986; 

Richardson et al., 1995). Weir (2008) 

observed marine mammal responses to 

seismic pulses from a 24 airgun array 

firing a total volume of either 5,085 in3

or 3,147 in3 in Angolan waters between 

August 2004 and May 2005. Weir 

recorded a total of 207 sightings of 

humpback whales (n = 66), sperm 

whales (n = 124), and Atlantic spotted 

dolphins (n = 17) and reported that 

there were no significant differences in 

encounter rates (sightings/hr) for 

humpback and sperm whales according 

to the airgun array’s operational status 

(i.e., active versus silent). The airgun 

arrays used in the Weir (2008) study 

were much larger than the array 

proposed for use during this seismic 

survey (total discharge volumes of 620 

to 1,240 in3). In general, pinnipeds and 

small odontocetes seem to be more 

tolerant of exposure to some types of 

underwater sound than are baleen 

whales. Richardson et al. (1995) found 

that vessel noise does not seem to 

strongly affect pinnipeds that are 

already in the water. Richardson et al. 

(1995) went on to explain that seals on 

haul-outs sometimes respond strongly to 

the presence of vessels and at other 

times appear to show considerable 

tolerance of vessels. 

2. Masking 

Masking is the obscuring of sounds of 

interest by other sounds, often at similar 

frequencies. Marine mammals use 

acoustic signals for a variety of 

purposes, which differ among species, 

but include communication between 

individuals, navigation, foraging, 

reproduction, avoiding predators, and 

learning about their environment (Erbe 

and Farmer, 2000). Masking, or auditory 

interference, generally occurs when 

sounds in the environment are louder 

than, and of a similar frequency as, 

auditory signals an animal is trying to 

receive. Masking is a phenomenon that 

affects animals that are trying to receive 

acoustic information about their 

environment, including sounds from 

other members of their species, 

predators, prey, and sounds that allow 

them to orient in their environment. 

Masking these acoustic signals can 

disturb the behavior of individual 

animals, groups of animals, or entire 

populations. 

Masking occurs when anthropogenic 

sounds and signals (that the animal 

utilizes) overlap at both spectral and 

temporal scales. For the airgun sound 

generated from the proposed seismic 

survey, sound will consist of low 

frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with 

extremely short durations (less than one 

second). Lower frequency man-made 

sounds are more likely to affect 

detection of communication calls and 

other potentially important natural 

sounds such as surf and prey noise. 

There is little concern regarding 

masking near the sound source due to 

the brief duration of these pulses and 

relatively longer silence between airgun 

shots (approximately 5–6 seconds). 

However, at long distances (over tens of 

kilometers away), due to multipath 

propagation and reverberation, the 

durations of airgun pulses can be 

‘‘stretched’’ to seconds with long decays 

(Madsen et al., 2006), although the 

intensity of the sound is greatly 

reduced. 

This could affect communication 

signals used by low frequency 

mysticetes when they occur near the 

noise band and thus reduce the 

communication space of animals (e.g., 

Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased 

stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt 

et al., 2009). Marine mammals are 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20089 

thought to be able to compensate for 

masking by adjusting their acoustic 

behavior by shifting call frequencies, 

and/or increasing call volume and 

vocalization rates. For example, blue 

whales are found to increase call rates 

when exposed to seismic survey noise 

in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio 

and Clark, 2010). The North Atlantic 

right whales exposed to high shipping 

noise increase call frequency (Parks et 

al., 2007), while some humpback 

whales respond to low-frequency active 

sonar playbacks by increasing song 

length (Miller el al., 2000). Bowhead 

whale calls are frequently detected in 

the presence of seismic pulses, although 

the number of calls detected may 

sometimes be reduced (Richardson et 

al., 1986), possibly because animals 

moved away from the sound source or 

ceased calling (Blackwell et al., 2013). 

Additionally, beluga whales have been 

known to change their vocalizations in 

the presence of high background noise 

possibly to avoid masking calls (Lesage 

et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005). 

Although some degree of masking is 

inevitable when high levels of manmade 

broadband sounds are introduced into 

the sea, marine mammals have evolved 

systems and behavior that function to 

reduce the impacts of masking. 

Structured signals, such as the 

echolocation click sequences of small 

toothed whales, may be readily detected 

even in the presence of strong 

background noise because their 

frequency content and temporal features 

usually differ strongly from those of the 

background noise (Au and Moore, 

1990). The components of background 

noise that are similar in frequency to the 

sound signal in question primarily 

determine the degree of masking of that 

signal. 

Redundancy and context can also 

facilitate detection of weak signals. 

These phenomena may help marine 

mammals detect weak sounds in the 

presence of natural or manmade noise. 

Most masking studies in marine 

mammals present the test signal and the 

masking noise from the same direction. 

The sound localization abilities of 

marine mammals suggest that, if signal 

and noise come from different 

directions, masking would not be as 

severe as the usual types of masking 

studies might suggest (Richardson et al., 

1995). The dominant background noise 

may be highly directional if it comes 

from a particular anthropogenic source 

such as a ship or industrial site. 

Directional hearing may significantly 

reduce the masking effects of these 

sounds by improving the effective 

signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of 

higher frequency hearing by the 

bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, and 

killer whale, empirical evidence 

confirms that masking depends strongly 

on the relative directions of arrival of 

sound signals and the masking noise 

(Dubrovskiy, 1990; Bain and Dahlheim, 

1994). Toothed whales, and probably 

other marine mammals as well, have 

additional capabilities besides 

directional hearing that can facilitate 

detection of sounds in the presence of 

background noise. There is evidence 

that some toothed whales can shift the 

dominant frequencies of their 

echolocation signals from a frequency 

range with a lot of ambient noise toward 

frequencies with less noise (Moore and 

Pawloski, 1990; Thomas and Turl, 1990; 

Romanenko and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et 

al., 1999). A few marine mammal 

species are known to increase the source 

levels or alter the frequency of their 

calls in the presence of elevated sound 

levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Lesage et al., 

1999; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007, 2009; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; 

Holt et al., 2009). 

These data demonstrating adaptations 

for reduced masking pertain mainly to 

the very high frequency echolocation 

signals of toothed whales. There is less 

information about the existence of 

corresponding mechanisms at moderate 

or low frequencies or in other types of 

marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva 

et al. (1980) found that, for the 

bottlenose dolphin, the angular 

separation between a sound source and 

a masking noise source had little effect 

on the degree of masking when the 

sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast 

to the pronounced effect at higher 

frequencies. Directional hearing has 

been demonstrated at frequencies as low 

as 0.5–2 kHz in several marine 

mammals, including killer whales 

(Richardson et al., 1995). This ability 

may be useful in reducing masking at 

these frequencies. In summary, high 

levels of sound generated by 

anthropogenic activities may act to 

mask the detection of weaker 

biologically important sounds by some 

marine mammals. This masking may be 

more prominent for lower frequencies. 

For higher frequencies, such as that 

used in echolocation by toothed whales, 

several mechanisms are available that 

may allow them to reduce the effects of 

such masking. 

3. Behavioral Disturbance 

Marine mammals may behaviorally 

react when exposed to anthropogenic 

sound. These behavioral reactions are 

often shown as: Changing durations of 

surfacing and dives, number of blows 

per surfacing, or moving direction and/ 

or speed; reduced/increased vocal 

activities; changing/cessation of certain 

behavioral activities (such as socializing 

or feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into water from haulouts or 

rookeries). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification have the potential to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, or 

reproduction. Examples of significant 

behavioral modifications include: 

• Drastic change in diving/surfacing 

patterns (such as those thought to be 

causing beaked whale stranding due to 

exposure to military mid-frequency 

tactical sonar); 

• Habitat abandonment due to loss of 

desirable acoustic environment; and 

• Cessation of feeding or social 

interaction. 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic noise depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

noise sources and their paths) and the 

receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, current 

activity, reproductive state) and is also 

difficult to predict (Gordon et al., 2004; 

Southall et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 

2011). 

Mysticetes: Baleen whales generally 

tend to avoid operating airguns, but 

avoidance radii are quite variable. 

Whales are often reported to show no 

overt reactions to pulses from large 

arrays of airguns at distances beyond a 

few kilometers, even though the airgun 

pulses remain well above ambient noise 

levels out to much greater distances 

(Miller et al., 2005). However, baleen 

whales exposed to strong noise pulses 

often react by deviating from their 

normal migration route (Richardson et 

al., 1999). Migrating gray and bowhead 

whales were observed avoiding the 

sound source by displacing their 

migration route to varying degrees but 

within the natural boundaries of the 

migration corridors (Schick and Urban, 

2000; Richardson et al., 1999). Baleen 

whale responses to pulsed sound, 

however, may depend on the type of 

activity in which the whales are 

engaged. Some evidence suggests that 

feeding bowhead whales may be more 

tolerant of underwater sound than 

migrating bowheads (Miller et al., 2005; 

Lyons et al., 2009; Christie et al., 2010). 

Results of studies of gray, bowhead, 

and humpback whales have determined 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

that received levels of pulses in the 

160–170 dB re 1 mPa rms range seem to 

cause obvious avoidance behavior in a 

substantial fraction of the animals 

exposed. In many areas, seismic pulses 

from large arrays of airguns diminish to 

those levels at distances ranging from 

2.8–9 mi (4.5–14.5 km) from the source. 

For the much smaller airgun array used 

during SAE’s proposed survey (total 

discharge volume of 640 in3), distances 

to received levels in the 160 dB re 1 mPa 

rms range are estimated to be 0.5–3 mi 

(0.8–5 km). Baleen whales within those 

distances may show avoidance or other 

strong disturbance reactions to the 

airgun array. Subtle behavioral changes 

sometimes become evident at somewhat 

lower received levels, and recent studies 

have shown that some species of baleen 

whales, notably bowhead and 

humpback whales, at times show strong 

avoidance at received levels lower than 

160–170 dB re 1 mPa rms. Bowhead 

whales migrating west across the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea in autumn, in 

particular, are unusually responsive, 

with avoidance occurring out to 

distances of 12.4–18.6 mi (20–30 km) 

from a medium-sized airgun source 

(Miller et al., 1999; Richardson et al., 

1999). However, more recent research 

on bowhead whales (Miller et al., 2005) 

corroborates earlier evidence that, 

during the summer feeding season, 

bowheads are not as sensitive to seismic 

sources. In summer, bowheads typically 

begin to show avoidance reactions at a 

received level of about 160–170 dB re 1 

mPa rms (Richardson et al., 1986; 

Ljungblad et al., 1988; Miller et al., 

2005). 

Malme et al. (1986) studied the 

responses of feeding eastern gray whales 

to pulses from a single 100 in3 airgun off 

St. Lawrence Island in the northern 

Bering Sea. They estimated, based on 

small sample sizes, that 50% of feeding 

gray whales ceased feeding at an average 

received pressure level of 173 dB re 1 

mPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and 

that 10% of feeding whales interrupted 

feeding at received levels of 163 dB. 

Those findings were generally 

consistent with the results of 

experiments conducted on larger 

numbers of gray whales that were 

migrating along the California coast and 

on observations of the distribution of 

feeding Western Pacific gray whales off 

Sakhalin Island, Russia, during a 

seismic survey (Yazvenko et al., 2007). 

Data on short-term reactions (or lack of 

reactions) of cetaceans to impulsive 

noises do not necessarily provide 

information about long-term effects. 

While it is not certain whether 

impulsive noises affect reproductive 

rate or distribution and habitat use in 

subsequent days or years, certain 

species have continued to use areas 

ensonified by airguns and have 

continued to increase in number despite 

successive years of anthropogenic 

activity in the area. Gray whales 

continued to migrate annually along the 

west coast of North America despite 

intermittent seismic exploration and 

much ship traffic in that area for 

decades (Appendix A in Malme et al., 

1984). Bowhead whales continued to 

travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each 

summer despite seismic exploration in 

their summer and autumn range for 

many years (Richardson et al., 1987). 

Populations of both gray whales and 

bowhead whales grew substantially 

during this time. In any event, the 

proposed survey will occur in summer 

(July through late August) when most 

bowhead whales are commonly feeding 

in the Mackenzie River Delta, Canada. 

During their study, Patenaude et al. 

(2002) observed one bowhead whale 

cow-calf pair during four passes totaling 

2.8 hours of the helicopter and two pairs 

during Twin Otter overflights. All of the 

helicopter passes were at altitudes of 

49–98 ft (15–30 m). The mother dove 

both times she was at the surface, and 

the calf dove once out of the four times 

it was at the surface. For the cow-calf 

pair sightings during Twin Otter 

overflights, the authors did not note any 

behaviors specific to those pairs. Rather, 

the reactions of the cow-calf pairs were 

lumped with the reactions of other 

groups that did not consist of calves. 

Richardson et al. (1995) and Moore 

and Clarke (2002) reviewed a few 

studies that observed responses of gray 

whales to aircraft. Cow-calf pairs were 

quite sensitive to a turboprop survey 

flown at 1,000 ft (305 m) altitude on the 

Alaskan summering grounds. In that 

survey, adults were seen swimming over 

the calf, or the calf swam under the 

adult (Ljungblad et al., 1983, cited in 

Richardson et al., 1995 and Moore and 

Clarke, 2002). However, when the same 

aircraft circled for more than 10 minutes 

at 1,050 ft (320 m) altitude over a group 

of mating gray whales, no reactions 

were observed (Ljungblad et al., 1987, 

cited in Moore and Clarke, 2002). 

Malme et al. (1984, cited in Richardson 

et al., 1995 and Moore and Clarke, 2002) 

conducted playback experiments on 

migrating gray whales. They exposed 

the animals to underwater noise 

recorded from a Bell 212 helicopter 

(estimated altitude=328 ft [100 m]), at 

an average of three simulated passes per 

minute. The authors observed that 

whales changed their swimming course 

and sometimes slowed down in 

response to the playback sound but 

proceeded to migrate past the 

transducer. Migrating gray whales did 

not react overtly to a Bell 212 helicopter 

at greater than 1,394 ft (425 m) altitude, 

occasionally reacted when the 

helicopter was at 1,000–1,198 ft (305– 

365 m), and usually reacted when it was 

below 825 ft (250 m; Southwest 

Research Associates, 1988, cited in 

Richardson et al., 1995 and Moore and 

Clarke, 2002). Reactions noted in that 

study included abrupt turns or dives or 

both. Greene et al. (1992, cited in 

Richardson et al., 1995) observed that 

migrating gray whales rarely exhibited 

noticeable reactions to a straight-line 

overflight by a Twin Otter at 197 ft (60 

m) altitude. 

Odontocetes: Few systematic data are 

available describing reactions of toothed 

whales to noise pulses. However, 

systematic work on sperm whales is 

underway, and there is an increasing 

amount of information about responses 

of various odontocetes to seismic 

surveys based on monitoring studies 

(e.g., Stone, 2003). Miller et al. (2009) 

conducted at-sea experiments where 

reactions of sperm whales were 

monitored through the use of controlled 

sound exposure experiments from large 

airgun arrays consisting of 20-guns and 

31-guns. Of 8 sperm whales observed, 

none changed their behavior when 

exposed to either a ramp-up at 4–8 mi 

(7–13 km) or full array exposures at 0.6– 

8 mi (1–13 km). 

Seismic operators and marine 

mammal observers sometimes see 

dolphins and other small toothed 

whales near operating airgun arrays, 

but, in general, there seems to be a 

tendency for most delphinids to show 

some limited avoidance of seismic 

vessels operating large airgun systems. 

However, some dolphins seem to be 

attracted to the seismic vessel and 

floats, and some ride the bow wave of 

the seismic vessel even when large 

arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, 

there have been indications that small 

toothed whales sometimes move away 

or maintain a somewhat greater distance 

from the vessel when a large array of 

airguns is operating than when it is 

silent (e.g., 1998; Stone, 2003). The 

beluga may be a species that (at least in 

certain geographic areas) shows longdistance avoidance of seismic vessels. 

Aerial surveys during seismic 

operations in the southeastern Beaufort 

Sea recorded much lower sighting rates 

of beluga whales within 10–20 km (6.2– 

12.4 mi) of an active seismic vessel. 

These results were consistent with the 

low number of beluga sightings reported 

by observers aboard the seismic vessel, 

suggesting that some belugas might have 

been avoiding the seismic operations at 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20091 

distances of 10–20 km (6.2–12.4 mi) 

(Miller et al., 2005). 

Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of 

more relevance in this project) beluga 

whales exhibit changes in behavior 

when exposed to strong pulsed sounds 

similar in duration to those typically 

used in seismic surveys (Finneran et al., 

2002, 2005). However, the animals 

tolerated high received levels of sound 

(pk–pk level >200 dB re 1 mPa) before 

exhibiting aversive behaviors. 

Observers stationed on seismic 

vessels operating off the United 

Kingdom from 1997–2000 have 

provided data on the occurrence and 

behavior of various toothed whales 

exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 2003; 

Gordon et al., 2004). Killer whales were 

found to be significantly farther from 

large airgun arrays during periods of 

shooting compared with periods of no 

shooting. The displacement of the 

median distance from the array was 

approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) or more. 

Killer whales also appear to be more 

tolerant of seismic shooting in deeper 

water. 

Reactions of toothed whales to large 

arrays of airguns are variable and, at 

least for delphinids, seem to be confined 

to a smaller radius than has been 

observed for mysticetes. However, based 

on the limited existing evidence, 

belugas should not be grouped with 

delphinids in the ‘‘less responsive’’ 

category. 

Patenaude et al. (2002) reported that 

beluga whales appeared to be more 

responsive to aircraft overflights than 

bowhead whales. Changes were 

observed in diving and respiration 

behavior, and some whales veered away 

when a helicopter passed at ≤820 ft (250 

m) lateral distance at altitudes up to 492 

ft (150 m). However, some belugas 

showed no reaction to the helicopter. 

Belugas appeared to show less response 

to fixed-wing aircraft than to helicopter 

overflights. 

Pinnipeds: Pinnipeds are not likely to 

show a strong avoidance reaction to the 

airgun sources proposed for use. Visual 

monitoring from seismic vessels has 

shown only slight (if any) avoidance of 

airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if 

any) changes in behavior. Monitoring 

work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 

1996–2001 provided considerable 

information regarding the behavior of 

Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic 

pulses (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and 

Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects 

usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 

airguns with total volumes of 560 to 

1,500 in3. The combined results suggest 

that some seals avoid the immediate 

area around seismic vessels. In most 

survey years, ringed seal sightings 

tended to be farther away from the 

seismic vessel when the airguns were 

operating than when they were not 

(Moulton and Lawson, 2002). However, 

these avoidance movements were 

relatively small, on the order of 100 m 

(328 ft) to a few hundreds of meters, and 

many seals remained within 100–200 m 

(328–656 ft) of the trackline as the 

operating airgun array passed by. Seal 

sighting rates at the water surface were 

lower during airgun array operations 

than during no-airgun periods in each 

survey year except 1997. Similarly, seals 

are often very tolerant of pulsed sounds 

from seal-scaring devices (Richardson et 

al., 1995). However, initial telemetry 

work suggests that avoidance and other 

behavioral reactions by two other 

species of seals to small airgun sources 

may at times be stronger than evident to 

date from visual studies of pinniped 

reactions to airguns (Thompson et al., 

1998). Even if reactions of the species 

occurring in the present study area are 

as strong as those evident in the 

telemetry study, reactions are expected 

to be confined to relatively small 

distances and durations, with no longterm effects on pinniped individuals or 

populations. 

Blackwell et al. (2004) observed 12 

ringed seals during low-altitude 

overflights of a Bell 212 helicopter at 

Northstar in June and July 2000 (9 

observations took place concurrent with 

pipe-driving activities). One seal 

showed no reaction to the aircraft while 

the remaining 11 (92%) reacted, either 

by looking at the helicopter (n=10) or by 

departing from their basking site (n=1). 

Blackwell et al. (2004) concluded that 

none of the reactions to helicopters were 

strong or long lasting, and that seals 

near Northstar in June and July 2000 

probably had habituated to industrial 

sounds and visible activities that had 

occurred often during the preceding 

winter and spring. There have been few 

systematic studies of pinniped reactions 

to aircraft overflights, and most of the 

available data concern pinnipeds hauled 

out on land or ice rather than pinnipeds 

in the water (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Born et al., 1999). 

4. Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss 

of Hearing) 

When animals exhibit reduced 

hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be 

louder for an animal to detect them) 

following exposure to an intense sound 

or sound for long duration, it is referred 

to as a noise-induced threshold shift 

(TS). An animal can experience 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) or 

permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS 

can last from minutes or hours to days 

(i.e., there is complete recovery), can 

occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., 

an animal might only have a temporary 

loss of hearing sensitivity between the 

frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 

be of varying amounts (for example, an 

animal’s hearing sensitivity might be 

reduced initially by only 6 dB or 

reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, 

but some recovery is possible. PTS can 

also occur in a specific frequency range 

and amount as mentioned above for 

TTS. 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory TS: effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 

The amplitude, duration, frequency, 

temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of sound exposure all can 

affect the amount of associated TS and 

the frequency range in which it occurs. 

As amplitude and duration of sound 

exposure increase, so, generally, does 

the amount of TS, along with the 

recovery time. For intermittent sounds, 

less TS could occur than compared to a 

continuous exposure with the same 

energy (some recovery could occur 

between intermittent exposures 

depending on the duty cycle between 

sounds) (Ward, 1997). For example, one 

short but loud (higher SPL) sound 

exposure may induce the same 

impairment as one longer but softer 

sound, which in turn may cause more 

impairment than a series of several 

intermittent softer sounds with the same 

total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally, 

though TTS is temporary, prolonged 

exposure to sounds strong enough to 

elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to 

sound levels well above the TTS 

threshold, can cause PTS, at least in 

terrestrial mammals. Although in the 

case of the proposed seismic survey, 

animals are not expected to be exposed 

to sound levels high for a long enough 

period to result in PTS. 

PTS is considered auditory injury 

(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable 

damage to the inner or outer cochlear 

hair cells may cause PTS; however, 

other mechanisms are also involved, 

such as exceeding the elastic limits of 

certain tissues and membranes in the 

middle and inner ears and resultant 

changes in the chemical composition of 

the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Although the published body of 

scientific literature contains numerous 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20092 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

theoretical studies and discussion 

papers on hearing impairments that can 

occur with exposure to a loud sound, 

only a few studies provide empirical 

information on the levels at which 

noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity 

occurs in nonhuman animals. For 

marine mammals, published data are 

limited to the captive bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and 

Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et 

al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007; 

Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et 

al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009; Popov et 

al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; 

Schlundt et al., 2006; Nachtigall et al., 

2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, 

data are limited to measurements of TTS 

in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and 

California sea lions (Kastak et al., 2005; 

Kastelein et al., 2012b). 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, above). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that occurs during a 

time where ambient noise is lower and 

there are not as many competing sounds 

present. Alternatively, a larger amount 

and longer duration of TTS sustained 

during time when communication is 

critical for successful mother/calf 

interactions could have more serious 

impacts. Also, depending on the degree 

and frequency range, the effects of PTS 

on an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious because it is a permanent 

condition. Of note, reduced hearing 

sensitivity as a simple function of aging 

has been observed in marine mammals, 

as well as humans and other taxa 

(Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer 

that strategies exist for coping with this 

condition to some degree, though likely 

not without cost. 

5. Non-Auditory Physical Effects 

Non-auditory physical effects might 

occur in marine mammals exposed to 

strong underwater sound. Possible types 

of non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

mammals close to a strong sound source 

include stress, neurological effects, 

bubble formation, and other types of 

organ or tissue damage. Some marine 

mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) 

may be especially susceptible to injury 

and/or stranding when exposed to 

strong pulsed sounds. 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; 

Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central 

nervous system perceives a threat, it 

mounts a biological response or defense 

that consists of a combination of the 

four general biological defense 

responses: Behavioral responses; 

autonomic nervous system responses; 

neuroendocrine responses; or immune 

responses. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and most economical (in 

terms of biotic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor or avoidance of continued 

exposure to a stressor. An animal’s 

second line of defense to stressors 

involves the sympathetic part of the 

autonomic nervous system and the 

classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response, 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effects on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine or 

sympathetic nervous systems; the 

system that has received the most study 

has been the hypothalmus-pituitaryadrenal system (also known as the HPA 

axis in mammals or the hypothalamuspituitary-interrenal axis in fish and 

some reptiles). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuroendocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987), altered metabolism 

(Elasser et al., 2000), reduced immune 

competence (Blecha, 2000), and 

behavioral disturbance. Increases in the 

circulation of glucocorticosteroids 

(cortisol, corticosterone, and 

aldosterone in marine mammals; see 

Romano et al., 2004) have been equated 

with stress for many years. 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

distress is the biotic cost of the 

response. During a stress response, an 

animal uses glycogen stores that can be 

quickly replenished once the stress is 

alleviated. In such circumstances, the 

cost of the stress response would not 

pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. 

However, when an animal does not have 

sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the 

energetic costs of a stress response, 

energy resources must be diverted from 

other biotic functions, which impair 

those functions that experience the 

diversion. For example, when mounting 

a stress response diverts energy away 

from growth in young animals, those 

animals may experience stunted growth. 

When mounting a stress response 

diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s 

reproductive success and fitness will 

suffer. In these cases, the animals will 

have entered a pre-pathological or 

pathological state which is called 

‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or 

‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 

will last until the animal replenishes its 

biotic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. Note that these 

examples involved a long-term (days or 

weeks) stress response exposure to 

stimuli. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiment; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see, 

Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; 

Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Although no information has 

been collected on the physiological 

responses of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic sound exposure, studies 

of other marine animals and terrestrial 

animals would lead us to expect some 

marine mammals experience 

physiological stress responses and, 

perhaps, physiological responses that 

would be classified as ‘‘distress’’ upon 

exposure to anthropogenic sounds. 

For example, Jansen (1998) reported 

on the relationship between acoustic 

exposures and physiological responses 

that are indicative of stress responses in 

humans (e.g., elevated respiration and 

increased heart rates). Jones (1998) 

reported on reductions in human 

performance when faced with acute, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20093 

repetitive exposures to acoustic 

disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) 

reported on the physiological stress 

responses of osprey to low-level aircraft 

noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 

reported on the auditory and physiology 

stress responses of endangered Sonoran 

pronghorn to military overflights. Smith 

et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noiseinduced physiological transient stress 

responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e., 

goldfish) that accompanied short- and 

long-term hearing losses. Welch and 

Welch (1970) reported physiological 

and behavioral stress responses that 

accompanied damage to the inner ears 

of fish and several mammals. 

Hearing is one of the primary senses 

marine mammals use to gather 

information about their environment 

and communicate with conspecifics. 

Although empirical information on the 

relationship between sensory 

impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic 

masking) on marine mammals remains 

limited, we assume that reducing a 

marine mammal’s ability to gather 

information about its environment and 

communicate with other members of its 

species would induce stress, based on 

data that terrestrial animals exhibit 

those responses under similar 

conditions (NRC, 2003) and because 

marine mammals use hearing as their 

primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, 

we assume that acoustic exposures 

sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS 

would be accompanied by physiological 

stress responses. More importantly, 

marine mammals might experience 

stress responses at received levels lower 

than those necessary to trigger onset 

TTS. Based on empirical studies of the 

time required to recover from stress 

responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also 

assumes that stress responses could 

persist beyond the time interval 

required for animals to recover from 

TTS and might result in pathological 

and pre-pathological states that would 

be as significant as behavioral responses 

to TTS. 

Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and 

direct noise-induced bubble formations 

(Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in 

the case of exposure to an impulsive 

broadband source like an airgun array. 

If seismic surveys disrupt diving 

patterns of deep-diving species, this 

might result in bubble formation and a 

form of the bends, as speculated to 

occur in beaked whales exposed to 

sonar. However, there is no specific 

evidence of this upon exposure to 

airgun pulses. Additionally, no beaked 

whale species occur in the proposed 

project area. 

In general, very little is known about 

the potential for strong, anthropogenic 

underwater sounds to cause nonauditory physical effects in marine 

mammals. Such effects, if they occur at 

all, would presumably be limited to 

short distances and to activities that 

extend over a prolonged period. The 

available data do not allow 

identification of a specific exposure 

level above which non-auditory effects 

can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) 

or any meaningful quantitative 

predictions of the numbers (if any) of 

marine mammals that might be affected 

in those ways. There is no definitive 

evidence that any of these effects occur 

even for marine mammals in close 

proximity to large arrays of airguns, 

which are not proposed for use during 

this program. In addition, marine 

mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of industry activities, 

including bowheads, belugas, and some 

pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to 

incur non-auditory impairment or other 

physical effects. 

6. Stranding and Mortality 

Marine mammals close to underwater 

detonations of high explosive can be 

killed or severely injured, and the 

auditory organs are especially 

susceptible to injury (Ketten et al., 1993; 

Ketten, 1995). Airgun pulses are less 

energetic and their peak amplitudes 

have slower rise times. To date, there is 

no evidence that serious injury, death, 

or stranding by marine mammals can 

occur from exposure to airgun pulses, 

even in the case of large airgun arrays. 

Additionally, SAE’s project will use 

small and medium sized airgun arrays 

in shallow water. NMFS does not expect 

any marine mammals will incur serious 

injury or mortality in the shallow waters 

off Beaufort Sea or strand as a result of 

the proposed seismic survey. 

7. Potential Effects From Pingers on 

Marine Mammals 

Active acoustic sources other than the 

airguns have been proposed for SAE’s 

2015 seismic survey in Beaufort Sea, 

Alaska. In general, the potential effects 

of this equipment on marine mammals 

are similar to those from the airguns, 

except the magnitude of the impacts is 

expected to be much less due to the 

lower intensity of the source. 

Vessel Impacts 

Vessel activity and noise associated 

with vessel activity will temporarily 

increase in the action area during SAE’s 

seismic survey as a result of the 

operation of about 8 vessels. To 

minimize the effects of vessels and 

noise associated with vessel activity, 

SAE will alter speed if a marine 

mammal gets too close to a vessel. In 

addition, source vessels will be 

operating at slow speed (4–5 knots) 

when conducting surveys. Marine 

mammal monitoring observers will alert 

vessel captains as animals are detected 

to ensure safe and effective measures are 

applied to avoid coming into direct 

contact with marine mammals. 

Therefore, NMFS neither anticipates nor 

authorizes takes of marine mammals 

from ship strikes. 

McCauley et al. (1996) reported 

several cases of humpback whales 

responding to vessels in Hervey Bay, 

Australia. Results indicated clear 

avoidance at received levels between 

118 to 124 dB in three cases for which 

response and received levels were 

observed/measured. 

Palka and Hammond (2001) analyzed 

line transect census data in which the 

orientation and distance off transect line 

were reported for large numbers of 

minke whales. The authors developed a 

method to account for effects of animal 

movement in response to sighting 

platforms. Minor changes in locomotion 

speed, direction, and/or diving profile 

were reported at ranges from 1,847 to 

2,352 ft (563 to 717 m) at received levels 

of 110 to 120 dB. 

Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, 

killer whales, and harbor porpoises, 

often show tolerance to vessel activity; 

however, they may react at long 

distances if they are confined by ice, 

shallow water, or were previously 

harassed by vessels (Richardson et al., 

1995). Beluga whale response to vessel 

noise varies greatly from tolerance to 

extreme sensitivity depending on the 

activity of the whale and previous 

experience with vessels (Richardson et 

al., 1995). Reactions to vessels depend 

on whale activities and experience, 

habitat, boat type, and boat behavior 

(Richardson et al., 1995) and may 

include behavioral responses, such as 

altered headings or avoidance (Blane 

and Jaakson, 1994; Erbe and Farmer, 

2000); fast swimming; changes in 

vocalizations (Lesage et al., 1999; 

Scheifele et al., 2005); and changes in 

dive, surfacing, and respiration patterns. 

There are few data published on 

pinniped responses to vessel activity, 

and most of the information is anecdotal 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Generally, sea 

lions in water show tolerance to close 

and frequently approaching vessels and 

sometimes show interest in fishing 

vessels. They are less tolerant when 

hauled out on land; however, they 

rarely react unless the vessel approaches 

within 100–200 m (330–660 ft; reviewed 

in Richardson et al., 1995). 

The addition of the vessels and noise 

due to vessel operations associated with 

the seismic survey is not expected to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20094 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

have effects that could cause significant 

or long-term consequences for 

individual marine mammals or their 

populations. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The primary potential impacts to 

marine mammal habitat and other 

marine species are associated with 

elevated sound levels produced by 

airguns and other active acoustic 

sources. However, other potential 

impacts to the surrounding habitat from 

physical disturbance are also possible. 

This section describes the potential 

impacts to marine mammal habitat from 

the specified activity. Because the 

marine mammals in the area feed on 

fish and/or invertebrates there is also 

information on the species typically 

preyed upon by the marine mammals in 

the area. 

Common Marine Mammal Prey in the 

Project Area 

All of the marine mammal species 

that may occur in the proposed project 

area prey on either marine fish or 

invertebrates. The ringed seal feeds on 

fish and a variety of benthic species, 

including crabs and shrimp. Bearded 

seals feed mainly on benthic organisms, 

primarily crabs, shrimp, and clams. 

Spotted seals feed on pelagic and 

demersal fish, as well as shrimp and 

cephalopods. They are known to feed on 

a variety of fish including herring, 

capelin, sand lance, Arctic cod, saffron 

cod, and sculpins. Ribbon seals feed 

primarily on pelagic fish and 

invertebrates, such as shrimp, crabs, 

squid, octopus, cod, sculpin, pollack, 

and capelin. Juveniles feed mostly on 

krill and shrimp. 

Bowhead whales feed in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea during summer and early 

autumn but continue feeding to varying 

degrees while on their migration 

through the central and western 

Beaufort Sea in the late summer and fall 

(Richardson and Thomson [eds.], 2002). 

When feeding in relatively shallow 

areas, bowheads feed throughout the 

water column. However, feeding is 

concentrated at depths where 

zooplankton is concentrated (Wursig et 

al., 1984, 1989; Richardson [ed.], 1987; 

Griffiths et al., 2002). Lowry and 

Sheffield (2002) found that copepods 

and euphausiids were the most common 

prey found in stomach samples from 

bowhead whales harvested in the 

Kaktovik area from 1979 to 2000. Areas 

to the east of Barter Island (which is 

approximately 120 mi east of SAE’s 

proposed seismic area) appear to be 

used regularly for feeding as bowhead 

whales migrate slowly westward across 

the Beaufort Sea (Thomson and 

Richardson, 1987; Richardson and 

Thomson [eds.], 2002). 

Recent articles and reports have noted 

bowhead whales feeding in several areas 

of the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The Barrow 

area is commonly used as a feeding area 

during spring and fall, with a higher 

proportion of photographed individuals 

displaying evidence of feeding in fall 

rather than spring (Mocklin, 2009). A 

bowhead whale feeding ‘‘hotspot’’ 

(Okkonen et al., 2011) commonly forms 

on the western Beaufort Sea shelf off 

Point Barrow in late summer and fall. 

Favorable conditions concentrate 

euphausiids and copepods, and 

bowhead whales congregate to exploit 

the dense prey (Ashjian et al., 2010, 

Moore et al., 2010; Okkonen et al., 

2011). Surveys have also noted bowhead 

whales feeding in the Camden Bay area 

during the fall (Koski and Miller, 2009; 

Quakenbush et al., 2010). 

The 2006–2008 BWASP Final Report 

(Clarke et al., 2011a) and the 2009 

BWASP Final Report (Clarke et al., 

2011b) note sightings of feeding 

bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea 

during the fall season. During that 4 

year period, the largest groups of 

feeding whales were sighted between 

Smith Bay and Point Barrow (hundreds 

of miles to the west of Prudhoe Bay), 

and none were sighted feeding in 

Camden Bay (Clarke et al., 2011a,b). 

Clarke and Ferguson (undated) 

examined the raw BWASP data from the 

years 2000–2009. They noted that 

feeding behavior was noted more often 

in September than October and that 

while bowheads were observed feeding 

throughout the study area (which 

includes the entire U.S. Beaufort Sea), 

sightings were less frequent in the 

central Alaskan Beaufort than they were 

east of Kaktovik and west of Smith Bay. 

Additionally, Clarke and Ferguson 

(undated) and Clarke et al. (2011b) refer 

to information from Ashjian et al. 

(2010), which describes the importance 

of wind-driven currents that produce 

favorable feeding conditions for 

bowhead whales in the area between 

Smith Bay and Point Barrow. Increased 

winds in that area may be increasing the 

incidence of upwelling, which in turn 

may be the reason for increased 

sightings of feeding bowheads in the 

area. Clarke and Ferguson (undated) 

also note that the incidence of feeding 

bowheads in the eastern Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea has decreased since the 

early 1980s. 

Beluga whales feed on a variety of 

fish, shrimp, squid and octopus (Burns 

and Seaman, 1985). Very few beluga 

whales occur nearshore; their main 

migration route is much further 

offshore. Like several of the other 

species in the area, harbor porpoise feed 

on demersal and benthic species, 

mainly schooling fish and cephalopods. 

Depending on the type of killer whale 

(transient or resident), they feed on fish 

and/or marine mammals. However, 

harbor porpoises and killer whales are 

not commonly found in Prudhoe Bay. 

Gray whales are primarily bottom 

feeders, and benthic amphipods and 

isopods form the majority of their 

summer diet, at least in the main 

summering areas west of Alaska (Oliver 

et al., 1983; Oliver and Slattery, 1985). 

Farther south, gray whales have also 

been observed feeding around kelp 

beds, presumably on mysid crustaceans, 

and on pelagic prey such as small 

schooling fish and crab larvae (Hatler 

and Darling, 1974). However, the central 

Beaufort Sea is not known to be a 

primary feeding ground for gray whales. 

Two kinds of fish inhabit marine 

waters in the study area: (1) True marine 

fish that spend all of their lives in salt 

water, and (2) anadromous species that 

reproduce in fresh water and spend 

parts of their life cycles in salt water. 

Most arctic marine fish species are 

small, benthic forms that do not feed 

high in the water column. The majority 

of these species are circumpolar and are 

found in habitats ranging from deep 

offshore water to water as shallow as 

16.4–33 ft (5–10 m; Fechhelm et al., 

1995). The most important pelagic 

species, and the only abundant pelagic 

species, is the Arctic cod. The Arctic 

cod is a major vector for the transfer of 

energy from lower to higher trophic 

levels (Bradstreet et al., 1986). In 

summer, Arctic cod can form very large 

schools in both nearshore and offshore 

waters (Craig et al., 1982; Bradstreet et 

al., 1986). Locations and areas 

frequented by large schools of Arctic 

cod cannot be predicted but can be 

almost anywhere. The Arctic cod is a 

major food source for beluga whales, 

ringed seals, and numerous species of 

seabirds (Frost and Lowry, 1984; 

Bradstreet et al., 1986). 

Anadromous Dolly Varden char and 

some species of whitefish winter in 

rivers and lakes, migrate to the sea in 

spring and summer, and return to fresh 

water in autumn. Anadromous fish form 

the basis of subsistence, commercial, 

and small regional sport fisheries. Dolly 

Varden char migrate to the sea from May 

through mid-June (Johnson, 1980) and 

spend about 1.5–2.5 months there 

(Craig, 1989). They return to rivers 

beginning in late July or early August 

with the peak return migration 

occurring between mid-August and 

early September (Johnson, 1980). At sea, 

most anadromous corregonids 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20095 

(whitefish) remain in nearshore waters 

within several kilometers of shore 

(Craig, 1984, 1989). They are often 

termed ‘‘amphidromous’’ fish in that 

they make repeated annual migrations 

into marine waters to feed, returning 

each fall to overwinter in fresh water. 

Benthic organisms are defined as 

bottom dwelling creatures. Infaunal 

organisms are benthic organisms that 

live within the substrate and are often 

sedentary or sessile (bivalves, 

polychaetes). Epibenthic organisms live 

on or near the bottom surface sediments 

and are mobile (amphipods, isopods, 

mysids, and some polychaetes). 

Epifauna, which live attached to hard 

substrates, are rare in the Beaufort Sea 

because hard substrates are scarce there. 

A small community of epifauna, the 

Boulder Patch, occurs in Stefansson 

Sound. 

Many of the nearshore benthic marine 

invertebrates of the Arctic are 

circumpolar and are found over a wide 

range of water depths (Carey et al., 

1975). Species identified include 

polychaetes (Spio filicornis, Chaetozone 

setosa, Eteone longa), bivalves 

(Cryrtodaria kurriana, Nucula tenuis, 

Liocyma fluctuosa), an isopod (Saduria 

entomon), and amphipods (Pontoporeia 

femorata, P. affinis). 

Nearshore benthic fauna have been 

studied in Beaufort Sea lagoons and 

near the mouth of the Colville River 

(Kinney et al., 1971, 1972; Crane and 

Cooney, 1975). The waters of Simpson 

Lagoon, Harrison Bay, and the nearshore 

region support a number of infaunal 

species including crustaceans, mollusks, 

and polychaetes. In areas influenced by 

river discharge, seasonal changes in 

salinity can greatly influence the 

distribution and abundance of benthic 

organisms. Large fluctuations in salinity 

and temperature that occur over a very 

short time period, or on a seasonal basis, 

allow only very adaptable, opportunistic 

species to survive (Alexander et al., 

1974). Since shorefast ice is present for 

many months, the distribution and 

abundance of most species depends on 

annual (or more frequent) recolonization 

from deeper offshore waters (Woodward 

Clyde Consultants, 1995). Due to ice 

scouring, particularly in water depths of 

less than 8 ft (2.4 m), infaunal 

communities tend to be patchily 

distributed. Diversity increases with 

water depth until the shear zone is 

reached at 49–82 ft (15–25 m; Carey, 

1978). Biodiversity then declines due to 

ice gouging between the landfast ice and 

the polar pack ice (Woodward Clyde 

Consultants, 1995). 

Potential Impacts From Sound 

Generation 

With regard to fish as a prey source 

for odontocetes and seals, fish are 

known to hear and react to sounds and 

to use sound to communicate (Tavolga 

et al., 1981) and possibly avoid 

predators (Wilson and Dill, 2002). 

Experiments have shown that fish can 

sense both the strength and direction of 

sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 

determining whether a fish can sense a 

sound signal, and potentially react to it, 

are the frequency of the signal and the 

strength of the signal in relation to the 

natural background noise level. 

Fishes produce sounds that are 

associated with behaviors that include 

territoriality, mate search, courtship, 

and aggression. It has also been 

speculated that sound production may 

provide the means for long distance 

communication and communication 

under poor underwater visibility 

conditions (Zelick et al., 1999), although 

the fact that fish communicate at lowfrequency sound levels where the 

masking effects of ambient noise are 

naturally highest suggests that very long 

distance communication would rarely 

be possible. Fishes have evolved a 

diversity of sound generating organs and 

acoustic signals of various temporal and 

spectral contents. Fish sounds vary in 

structure, depending on the mechanism 

used to produce them (Hawkins, 1993). 

Generally, fish sounds are 

predominantly composed of low 

frequencies (less than 3 kHz). 

Since objects in the water scatter 

sound, fish are able to detect these 

objects through monitoring the ambient 

noise. Therefore, fish are probably able 

to detect prey, predators, conspecifics, 

and physical features by listening to 

environmental sounds (Hawkins, 1981). 

There are two sensory systems that 

enable fish to monitor the vibrationbased information of their surroundings. 

The two sensory systems, the inner ear 

and the lateral line, constitute the 

acoustico-lateralis system. 

Although the hearing sensitivities of 

very few fish species have been studied 

to date, it is becoming obvious that the 

intra- and inter-specific variability is 

considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell 

et al. (2004) compiled and published 

available fish audiogram information. A 

noninvasive electrophysiological 

recording method known as auditory 

brainstem response is now commonly 

used in the production of fish 

audiograms (Yan, 2004). Generally, most 

fish have their best hearing in the lowfrequency range (i.e., less than 1 kHz). 

Even though some fish are able to detect 

sounds in the ultrasonic frequency 

range, the thresholds at these higher 

frequencies tend to be considerably 

higher than those at the lower end of the 

auditory frequency range. 

Literature relating to the impacts of 

sound on marine fish species can be 

divided into the following categories: (1) 

Pathological effects; (2) physiological 

effects; and (3) behavioral effects. 

Pathological effects include lethal and 

sub-lethal physical damage to fish; 

physiological effects include primary 

and secondary stress responses; and 

behavioral effects include changes in 

exhibited behaviors of fish. Behavioral 

changes might be a direct reaction to a 

detected sound or a result of the 

anthropogenic sound masking natural 

sounds that the fish normally detect and 

to which they respond. The three types 

of effects are often interrelated in 

complex ways. For example, some 

physiological and behavioral effects 

could potentially lead to the ultimate 

pathological effect of mortality. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) reviewed what is 

known about the effects of sound on 

fishes and identified studies needed to 

address areas of uncertainty relative to 

measurement of sound and the 

responses of fishes. Popper et al. (2003/ 

2004) also published a paper that 

reviews the effects of anthropogenic 

sound on the behavior and physiology 

of fishes. 

Potential effects of exposure to sound 

on marine fish include TTS, physical 

damage to the ear region, physiological 

stress responses, and behavioral 

responses such as startle response, 

alarm response, avoidance, and perhaps 

lack of response due to masking of 

acoustic cues. Most of these effects 

appear to be either temporary or 

intermittent and therefore probably do 

not significantly impact the fish at a 

population level. The studies that 

resulted in physical damage to the fish 

ears used noise exposure levels and 

durations that were far more extreme 

than would be encountered under 

conditions similar to those expected 

during SAE’s proposed survey. 

The level of sound at which a fish 

will react or alter its behavior is usually 

well above the detection level. Fish 

have been found to react to sounds 

when the sound level increased to about 

20 dB above the detection level of 120 

dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response 

threshold can depend on the time of 

year and the fish’s physiological 

condition (Engas et al., 1993). In 

general, fish react more strongly to 

pulses of sound rather than a 

continuous signal (Blaxter et al., 1981), 

such as the type of sound that will be 

produced by the drillship, and a quicker 

alarm response is elicited when the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20096 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

sound signal intensity rises rapidly 

compared to sound rising more slowly 

to the same level. 

Investigations of fish behavior in 

relation to vessel noise (Olsen et al., 

1983; Ona, 1988; Ona and Godo, 1990) 

have shown that fish react when the 

sound from the engines and propeller 

exceeds a certain level. Avoidance 

reactions have been observed in fish 

such as cod and herring when vessels 

approached close enough that received 

sound levels are 110 dB to 130 dB 

(Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and 

Godo, 1990; Ona and Toresen, 1988). 

However, other researchers have found 

that fish such as polar cod, herring, and 

capeline are often attracted to vessels 

(apparently by the noise) and swim 

toward the vessel (Rostad et al., 2006). 

Typical sound source levels of vessel 

noise in the audible range for fish are 

150 dB to 170 dB (Richardson et al., 

1995a). In calm weather, ambient noise 

levels in audible parts of the spectrum 

lie between 60 dB to 100 dB. 

Short, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior. 

Chapman and Hawkins (1969) tested the 

reactions of whiting (hake) in the field 

to an airgun. When the airgun was fired, 

the fish dove from 82 to 180 ft (25 to 55 

m) depth and formed a compact layer. 

The whiting dove when received sound 

levels were higher than 178 dB re 1 mPa 

(Pearson et al., 1992). 

Pearson et al. (1992) conducted a 

controlled experiment to determine 

effects of strong noise pulses on several 

species of rockfish off the California 

coast. They used an airgun with a 

source level of 223 dB re 1 mPa. They 

noted: 

• Startle responses at received levels 

of 200–205 dB re 1 mPa and above for 

two sensitive species, but not for two 

other species exposed to levels up to 

207 dB; 

• Alarm responses at 177–180 dB for 

the two sensitive species, and at 186 to 

199 dB for other species; 

• An overall threshold for the above 

behavioral response at about 180 dB; 

• An extrapolated threshold of about 

161 dB for subtle changes in the 

behavior of rockfish; and 

• A return to pre-exposure behaviors 

within the 20–60 minute exposure 

period. 

In summary, fish often react to 

sounds, especially strong and/or 

intermittent sounds of low frequency. 

Sound pulses at received levels of 160 

dB re 1 mPa may cause subtle changes 

in behavior. Pulses at levels of 180 dB 

may cause noticeable changes in 

behavior (Chapman and Hawkins, 1969; 

Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 

1992). It also appears that fish often 

habituate to repeated strong sounds 

rather rapidly, on time scales of minutes 

to an hour. However, the habituation 

does not endure, and resumption of the 

strong sound source may again elicit 

disturbance responses from the same 

fish. 

Some of the fish species found in the 

Arctic are prey sources for odontocetes 

and pinnipeds. A reaction by fish to 

sounds produced by SAEs proposed 

survey would only be relevant to marine 

mammals if it caused concentrations of 

fish to vacate the area. Pressure changes 

of sufficient magnitude to cause that 

type of reaction would probably occur 

only very close to the sound source, if 

any would occur at all. Impacts on fish 

behavior are predicted to be 

inconsequential. Thus, feeding 

odontocetes and pinnipeds would not 

be adversely affected by this minimal 

loss or scattering, if any, of reduced prey 

abundance. 

Some mysticetes, including bowhead 

whales, feed on concentrations of 

zooplankton. Some feeding bowhead 

whales may occur in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea in July and August, but 

feeding bowheads are more likely to 

occur in the area after the cessation of 

airgun operations. Reactions of 

zooplankton to sound are, for the most 

part, not known. Their ability to move 

significant distances is limited or nil, 

depending on the type of zooplankton. 

Behavior of zooplankters is not expected 

to be affected by the survey. These 

animals have exoskeletons and no air 

bladders. Many crustaceans can make 

sounds, and some crustacea and other 

invertebrates have some type of sound 

receptor. A reaction by zooplankton to 

sounds produced by the seismic survey 

would only be relevant to whales if it 

caused concentrations of zooplankton to 

scatter. Pressure changes of sufficient 

magnitude to cause that type of reaction 

would probably occur only very close to 

the sound source, if any would occur at 

all. Impacts on zooplankton behavior 

are predicted to be inconsequential. 

Thus, feeding mysticetes would not be 

adversely affected by this minimal loss 

or scattering, if any, of reduced 

zooplankton abundance. 

Based on the preceding discussion, 

the proposed activity is not expected to 

have any habitat-related effects that 

could cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

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). 

For the proposed SAE open-water 3D 

OBN seismic surveys in the Beaufort 

Sea, NMFS worked with SAE to propose 

the following mitigation measures to 

minimize the potential impacts to 

marine mammals in the project vicinity 

as a result of SAE’s survey activities. 

The primary purpose of these mitigation 

measures is to detect marine mammals 

within, or about to enter, designated 

exclusion zones and to initiate 

immediate shutdown or power down of 

the airgun(s). 

(1) Establishing Exclusion and 

Disturbance Zones 

Under current NMFS guidelines, the 

‘‘exclusion zone’’ for marine mammal 

exposure to impulse sources is 

customarily defined as the area within 

which received sound levels are ≥180 

dB (rms) re 1 mPa for cetaceans and ≥190 

dB (rms) re 1 mPa for pinnipeds. These 

safety criteria are based on an 

assumption that SPL received at levels 

lower than these will not injure these 

animals or impair their hearing abilities, 

but at higher levels might have some 

such effects. Disturbance or behavioral 

effects to marine mammals from 

underwater sound may occur after 

exposure to sound at distances greater 

than the exclusion zones (Richardson et 

al. 1995). Currently, NMFS uses 160 dB 

(rms) re 1 mPa as the threshold for Level 

B behavioral harassment from impulse 

noise. 

In 2014, Heath et al. (2014) conducted 

a sound source verification (SSV) of the 

very same 620-in3 array SAE plans to 

use in 2015. The SSV was conducted in 

generally the same survey area of SAE’s 

planned 2015 work. They empirically 

determined that the distances to the 

190, 180, and 160 dB isopleths for 

sound pressure levels emanating from 

the 620-in3 array was 195, 635, and 

1,820 m, respectively (Table 3). Heath et 

al. (2014) also measured sound pressure 

levels from an active 10-in3 gun during 

SAE’s 2014 Beaufort operations and 

found noise levels exceeding 190 dB 

extended out 54 m, exceeding 180 dB 

out to 188 m, and exceeding 160 dB out 

to 1,050 m (Table 3). 

Sound source studies have not been 

done for the 1,240-in3 array; however, 

Austin and Warner (2013) conducted a 

sound source verification of a 1,200-in3

array operated by SAE in Cook Inlet 

found the radius to the 190 dB isopleth 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20097 

to be 250 m, to the 180 dB isopleth to 

be 910 m, and to the 160 dB isopleth to 

be 5,200 m. These are the distance 

values SAE intends to use before the 

SSV for the 1,240 in3 airgun arrays are 

obtained before the survey. If SAE plans 

to use the 1,240 in3 airgun arrays, SSV 

of these zones will be empirically 

measured before the 2015 open-water 

seismic survey for monitoring and 

mitigation measures. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF AIRGUN ARRAY SOURCE LEVELS AND PROPOSED EXCLUSION ZONE AND ZONES OF INFLUENCE

RADII

Array size 

(in3) 

Source level 

(dB) 

190 dB radius 

(m) 

180 dB radius 

(m) 

160 dB radius 

(m) 

10 ..................................................................................................................... 195 54 188 1,050 

620 ................................................................................................................... 218 195 635 1,820 

1,240 * .............................................................................................................. 224 250 910 5,200 

* Denotes modelled source level that need to be empirically measured before the seismic survey. 

(2) Vessel Related Mitigation Measures 

These mitigation measures apply to 

all vessels that are part of SAE’s 

Beaufort Sea seismic survey activities, 

including supporting vessels. 

• Avoid concentrations or groups of 

whales. Operators of vessels should, at 

all times, conduct their activities at the 

maximum distance possible from such 

concentrations or groups of whales. 

• If any vessel approaches within 1.6 

km (1 mi) of observed whales, except 

when providing emergency assistance to 

whalers or in other emergency 

situations, the vessel operator will take 

reasonable precautions to avoid 

potential interaction with the whales by 

taking one or more of the following 

actions, as appropriate: 

Æ Reducing vessel speed to less than 

5 knots within 300 yards (900 feet or 

274 m) of the whale(s); 

Æ Steering around the whale(s) if 

possible; 

Æ Operating the vessel(s) in such a 

way as to avoid separating members of 

a group of whales from other members 

of the group; 

Æ Operating the vessel(s) to avoid 

causing a whale to make multiple 

changes in direction; and 

Æ Checking the waters immediately 

adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that 

no whales will be injured when the 

propellers are engaged. 

• Reduce vessel speed, not to exceed 

5 knots, when weather conditions 

require, such as when visibility drops, 

to avoid the likelihood of injury to 

whales. 

(3) Mitigation Measures for Airgun 

Operations 

The primary requirements for airgun 

mitigation during the seismic surveys 

are to monitor marine mammals near 

the airgun array during all daylight 

airgun operations and during any 

nighttime start-up of the airguns and, if 

any marine mammals are observed, to 

adjust airgun operations, as necessary, 

according to the mitigation measures 

described below. During the seismic 

surveys, PSOs will monitor the preestablished exclusion zones for the 

presence of marine mammals. When 

marine mammals are observed within, 

or about to enter, designated safety 

zones, PSOs have the authority to call 

for immediate power down (or 

shutdown) of airgun operations, as 

required by the situation. A summary of 

the procedures associated with each 

mitigation measure is provided below. 

Ramp Up Procedure 

A ramp up of an airgun array provides 

a gradual increase in sound levels, and 

involves a step-wise increase in the 

number and total volume of airguns 

firing until the full volume is achieved. 

The purpose of a ramp up (or ‘‘soft 

start’’) is to ‘‘warn’’ cetaceans and 

pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns 

and to provide time for them to leave 

the area and thus avoid any potential 

injury or impairment of their hearing 

abilities. 

During the open-water survey 

program, the seismic operator will ramp 

up the airgun arrays slowly. Full ramp 

ups (i.e., from a cold start after a 

shutdown, when no airguns have been 

firing) will begin by firing a single 

airgun in the array (i.e., the mitigation 

airgun). A full ramp up, after a 

shutdown, will not begin until there has 

been a minimum of 30 minutes of 

observation of the safety zone by PSOs 

to assure that no marine mammals are 

present. The entire exclusion zone must 

be visible during the 30-minute lead-in 

to a full ramp up. If the entire exclusion 

zone is not visible, then ramp up from 

a cold start cannot begin. If a marine 

mammal is sighted within the exclusion 

zone during the 30-minute watch prior 

to ramp up, ramp up will be delayed 

until the marine mammal is sighted 

outside of the exclusion zone or the 

animal is not sighted for at least 15 

minutes, for small odontocetes (harbor 

porpoise) and pinnipeds, or 30 minutes, 

for baleen whales and large odontocetes 

(including beluga and killer whales and 

narwhal). 

Use of a Small-Volume Airgun During 

Turns and Transits 

Throughout the seismic survey, 

during turning movements and short 

transits, SAE will employ the use of the 

smallest-volume airgun (i.e., ‘‘mitigation 

airgun’’) to deter marine mammals from 

being within the immediate area of the 

seismic operations. The mitigation 

airgun will be operated at 

approximately one shot per minute and 

will not be operated for longer than 

three hours in duration (turns may last 

two to three hours for the project). 

During turns or brief transits (i.e., less 

than three hours) between seismic 

tracklines, one mitigation airgun will 

continue operating. The ramp up 

procedures described above will be 

followed when increasing the source 

levels from the one mitigation airgun to 

the full airgun array. However, keeping 

one airgun firing during turns and brief 

transits will allow SAE to resume 

seismic surveys using the full array 

without having to ramp up from a ‘‘cold 

start,’’ which requires a 30-minute 

observation period of the full exclusion 

zone and is prohibited during darkness 

or other periods of poor visibility. PSOs 

will be on duty whenever the airguns 

are firing during daylight and during the 

30-minute periods prior to ramp-ups 

from a ‘‘cold start.’’ 

Power Down and Shutdown Procedures 

A power down is the immediate 

reduction in the number of operating 

energy sources from all firing to some 

smaller number (e.g., a single mitigation 

airgun). A shutdown is the immediate 

cessation of firing of all energy sources. 

The array will be immediately powered 

down whenever a marine mammal is 

sighted approaching close to or within 

the applicable exclusion zone of the full 

array, but is outside the applicable 

exclusion zone of the single mitigation 

airgun. If a marine mammal is sighted 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20098 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

within or about to enter the applicable 

exclusion zone of the single mitigation 

airgun, the entire array will be shut 

down (i.e., no sources firing). In 

addition, SAE will implement 

shutdown measures when aggregations 

of bowhead whales or gray whales that 

appear to be engaged in non-migratory 

significant biological behavior (e.g., 

feeding, socializing) are observed within 

the 160-dB harassment zone around the 

seismic operations. 

Poor Visibility Conditions 

SAE plans to conduct 24-hour 

operations. PSOs will not be on duty 

during ongoing seismic operations 

during darkness, given the very limited 

effectiveness of visual observation at 

night (there will be no periods of 

darkness in the survey area until midAugust). The provisions associated with 

operations at night or in periods of poor 

visibility include the following: 

• If during foggy conditions, heavy 

snow or rain, or darkness (which may be 

encountered starting in late August), the 

full 180 dB exclusion zone is not 

visible, the airguns cannot commence a 

ramp-up procedure from a full shutdown. 

• If one or more airguns have been 

operational before nightfall or before the 

onset of poor visibility conditions, they 

can remain operational throughout the 

night or poor visibility conditions. In 

this case ramp-up procedures can be 

initiated, even though the exclusion 

zone may not be visible, on the 

assumption that marine mammals will 

be alerted by the sounds from the single 

airgun and have moved away. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated SAE’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 measures are 

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 seismic airguns, 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 

seismic airguns 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). 

4. A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to received levels of seismic 

airguns or other activities expected to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, 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. SAE submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring plan as part of the 

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 our understanding 

of the likely occurrence of marine 

mammal species in the vicinity of the 

action, i.e., presence, abundance, 

distribution, and/or density of species. 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of the nature, scope, or context of the 

likely exposure of marine mammal 

species to any of the potential stressor(s) 

associated with the action (e.g. sound or 

visual stimuli), through better 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: the action itself and its 

environment (e.g. sound source 

characterization, propagation, and 

ambient noise levels); the affected 

species (e.g. life history or dive pattern); 

the likely co-occurrence of marine 

mammal species with the action (in 

whole or part) associated with specific 

adverse effects; and/or the likely 

biological or behavioral context of 

exposure to the stressor for the marine 

mammal (e.g. age class of exposed 

animals or known pupping, calving or 

feeding areas). 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how individual marine mammals 

respond (behaviorally or 

physiologically) to the specific stressors 

associated with the action (in specific 

contexts, where possible, e.g., at what 

distance or received level). 

4. An increase in our understanding 

of how anticipated individual 

responses, to individual stressors or 

anticipated combinations of stressors, 

may impact either: the long-term fitness 

and survival of an individual; or the 

population, species, or stock (e.g. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20099 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival). 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of how the activity affects marine 

mammal habitat, such as through effects 

on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., 

through characterization of longer-term 

contributions of multiple sound sources 

to rising ambient noise levels and 

assessment of the potential chronic 

effects on marine mammals). 

6. An increase in understanding of the 

impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals in combination with the 

impacts of other anthropogenic 

activities or natural factors occurring in 

the region. 

7. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of mitigation and 

monitoring measures. 

8. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals (through 

improved technology or methodology), 

both specifically within the safety zone 

(thus allowing for more effective 

implementation of the mitigation) and 

in general, to better achieve the above 

goals. 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

Monitoring will provide information 

on the numbers of marine mammals 

potentially affected by the exploration 

operations and facilitate real-time 

mitigation to prevent injury of marine 

mammals by industrial sounds or 

activities. These goals will be 

accomplished in the Beaufort Sea 

during 2015 by conducting vessel-based 

monitoring and passive acoustic 

monitoring to document marine 

mammal presence and distribution in 

the vicinity of the survey area. 

Visual monitoring by Protected 

Species Observers (PSOs) during 

seismic survey operations, and periods 

when these surveys are not occurring, 

will provide information on the 

numbers of marine mammals potentially 

affected by these activities and facilitate 

real-time mitigation to prevent impacts 

to marine mammals by industrial 

sounds or operations. Vessel-based 

PSOs onboard the survey vessels and 

mitigation vessel will record the 

numbers and species of marine 

mammals observed in the area and any 

observable reaction of marine mammals 

to the survey activities in the Beaufort 

Sea. 

Visual-Based PSOs 

The visual-based marine mammal 

monitoring will be implemented by a 

team of experienced PSOs, including 

both biologists and Inupiat personnel. 

PSOs will be stationed aboard both 

survey vessels through the duration of 

the project. The vessel-based marine 

mammal monitoring will provide the 

basis for real-time mitigation measures 

as discussed in the Mitigation Measures 

section. In addition, monitoring results 

of the vessel-based monitoring program 

will include the estimation of the 

number of ‘‘takes’’ as stipulated in the 

IHA. 

(1) PSOs 

Vessel-based monitoring for marine 

mammals will be done by trained PSOs 

throughout the period of survey 

activities. The observers will monitor 

the occurrence of marine mammals near 

the survey vessel during all daylight 

periods during operation, and during 

most daylight periods when operations 

are not occurring. PSO duties will 

include watching for and identifying 

marine mammals; recording their 

numbers, distances, and reactions to the 

survey operations; and documenting 

‘‘take by harassment.’’ 

A sufficient number of PSOs will be 

required onboard each survey vessel to 

meet the following criteria: 

• 100% Monitoring coverage during 

all periods of survey operations in 

daylight; 

• Maximum of 4 consecutive hours 

on watch per PSO; and 

• Maximum of 12 hours of watch 

time per day per PSO. 

PSO teams will consist of Inupiat 

observers and experienced field 

biologists. Each vessel will have an 

experienced field crew leader to 

supervise the PSO team. The total 

number of PSOs may decrease later in 

the season as the duration of daylight 

decreases. 

(2) PSO Role and Responsibilities 

When onboard the seismic and 

support vessels, there are three major 

parts to the PSO position: 

• Observe and record sensitive 

wildlife species; 

• Ensure mitigation procedures are 

followed accordingly; and 

• Follow monitoring and data 

collection procedures. 

The main roles of the PSO and the 

monitoring program are to ensure 

compliance with regulations set in place 

by NMFS to ensure that disturbance of 

marine mammals is minimized, and 

potential effects on marine mammals are 

documented. The PSOs will implement 

the monitoring and mitigation measures 

specified in the IHA (if issued). The 

primary purposes of the PSOs on board 

of the vessels are: 

• Mitigation: Implement mitigation 

clearing and ramp up measures, observe 

for and detect marine mammals within, 

or about to enter the applicable safety 

zone and implement necessary shut 

down, power down and speed/course 

alteration mitigation procedures when 

applicable. Advise marine crew of 

mitigation procedures. 

• Monitoring: Observe for marine 

mammals and determine numbers of 

marine mammals exposed to sound 

pulses and their reactions (where 

applicable) and document those as 

required. 

(3) Observer Qualifications and Training 

Crew leaders and most PSOs will be 

individuals with experience as 

observers during recent seismic, site 

clearance and shallow hazards, and 

other monitoring projects in Alaska or 

other offshore areas in recent years. New 

or inexperienced PSOs will be paired 

with an experienced PSO or 

experienced field biologist so that the 

quality of marine mammal observations 

and data recording is kept consistent. 

Biologist-observers will have previous 

marine mammal observation experience, 

and field crew leaders will be highly 

experienced with previous vessel-based 

marine mammal monitoring and 

mitigation projects. Resumes for those 

individuals will be provided to NMFS 

for review and acceptance of their 

qualifications. Inupiat observers will be 

experienced in the region and familiar 

with the marine mammals of the area. 

All observers will complete a NMFSapproved observer training course 

designed to familiarize individuals with 

monitoring and data collection 

procedures. 

PSOs will complete a 2-day or 3-day 

training and refresher session on marine 

mammal monitoring, to be conducted 

shortly before the anticipated start of the 

2015 open-water season. Any 

exceptions will have or receive 

equivalent experience or training. The 

training session(s) will be conducted by 

qualified marine mammalogists with 

extensive crew-leader experience during 

previous vessel-based seismic 

monitoring programs. 

(4) Marine Mammal Observer Protocol 

Source vessels will employ PSOs to 

identify marine mammals during all 

hours of airgun operations. To better 

observe the exclusion zone, a lead PSO, 

one or two PSOs, and an Inupiaq 

communicator will be on primary 

source vessel and two PSOs will be 

stationed aboard the secondary source 

vessel. (The total number of observers is 

limited by available berthing space 

aboard the vessels.) The three to four 

total observers aboard the primary 

source vessel will allow two observers 

simultaneously on watch during 

daylight hours. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20100 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

The PSOs will watch for marine 

mammals during all periods of source 

operations and for a minimum of 30 

minutes prior to the planned start of 

airgun or pinger operations after an 

extended shutdown. Marine mammal 

monitoring shall continue throughout 

airgun operations and last for 30 

minutes after the finish of airgun firing. 

SAE vessel crew and operations 

personnel will also watch for marine 

mammals, as practical, to assist and 

alert the PSOs for the airgun(s) to be 

shut down if marine mammals are 

observed in or about to enter the 

exclusion zone. 

The PSOs will watch for marine 

mammals from the best available 

vantage point on the survey vessels, 

typically the bridge. The PSOs will scan 

the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7 × 50 and 16–40 × 80) and with 

the naked eye. Laser range finders (Leica 

LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or 

equivalent) will be available to assist 

with distance estimation. 

The observers will give particular 

attention to the areas within the marine 

mammal exclusion zones around the 

source vessels. These zones are the 

maximum distances within which 

received levels may exceed 180 dB (rms) 

re 1 mPa (rms) for cetaceans, or 190 dB 

(rms) re 1 mPa for pinnipeds. 

When a marine mammal is seen 

approaching or within the exclusion 

zone applicable to that species, the 

seismic survey crew will be notified 

immediately so that mitigation measures 

called for in the applicable 

authorization(s) can be implemented. 

Night-vision equipment (Generation 3 

binocular image intensifiers or 

equivalent units) will be available for 

use if and when needed. Past experience 

with night-vision devices (NVDs) in the 

Beaufort Sea and elsewhere has 

indicated that NVDs are not nearly as 

effective as visual observation during 

daylight hours (e.g., Harris et al. 1997, 

1998; Moulton and Lawson 2002). 

(5) Field Data-Recording 

The PSOs will record field 

observation data and information about 

marine mammal sightings that include: 

• Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable); 

• Physical description of features that 

were observed or determined not to be 

present in the case of unknown or 

unidentified animals; 

• Behavior when first sighted and 

after initial sighting, heading (if 

consistent); 

• Bearing and distance from observer, 

apparent reaction to activities (e.g., 

none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, 

etc.), closest point of approach, and 

behavioral pace; 

• Time, location, speed, and activity 

of the source and mitigation vessels, sea 

state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; 

and 

• Positions of other vessel(s) in the 

vicinity. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

(1) Sound Source Measurements 

Since the same airgun array of 620 in3

and a single mitigation airgun of 10 in3 

to be used were empirically measured in 

the generally same seismic survey 

vicinity in 2014 (Heath 2014), NMFS 

does not think additional SSV tests for 

this array and a single airgun is 

necessary for the 2015 seismic survey. 

However, if SAE decides to use the 

1,240 in3 airgun arrays for deeper water, 

SSV on these arrays is required before 

the commencement of the surveys. 

Results of the acoustic characterization 

and SSV will be used to establish the 

190 dB, 180 dB, 170 dB, and 160 dB 

isopleths for the 1,240 in3 airgun arrays. 

The results of the SSV will be 

submitted to NMFS within five days 

after completing the measurements, 

followed by a report to be submitted 

within 14 days after completion of the 

measurements. A more detailed report 

will be provided to NMFS as part of the 

required 90-day report following 

completion of the acoustic program. 

(2) Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

SAE proposes to conduct Passive 

Acoustical Monitoring (PAM) using 

specialized autonomous passive 

acoustical recorders. These recorders 

will be deployed on the seabed and will 

record continuously. The recorders will 

sit directly on the seabed and will be 

attached to a ground line with a small 

weight at its end. Each recorder will be 

retrieved by using a grapple to catch the 

ground line and recover the unit. 

PAM Deployment 

Passive acoustic recorders will be 

deployed in an arrangement 

surrounding the survey area for the 

purposes of PAM. The data collected 

will be used for post-season analysis of 

marine mammal vocalization detections 

to help inform an assessment of 

potential disturbance effects. The PAM 

data will also provide information about 

the long-range propagation of the airgun 

noise. 

Data Analysis 

PAM recordings will be processed at 

the end of the season using marine 

mammal detection and classification 

software capable of detecting 

vocalizations from marine mammals. 

Particular attention will be given to the 

detection of bowhead whale 

vocalizations since this is a species of 

particular concern due to its importance 

for local subsistence hunting. 

PAM recordings will also be used to 

detect and quantify airgun pulses from 

the survey as recorded on the PAM 

recorders, to provide information about 

the long-range propagation of the survey 

noise. 

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)). 

NMFS has established an 

independent peer review panel to 

review SAE’s 4MP for the proposed 

seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. The 

panel has met in early March 2015, and 

will provide comments to NMFS in 

April 2015. 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) Sound Source Verification Report 

As discussed earlier, if SAE plans to 

use the 1,240 in3 airgun arrays, SSV 

tests on these arrays will be required. A 

report on the preliminary results of the 

sound source verification 

measurements, including the measured 

190, 180, 170, and 160 dB (rms) radii of 

the 1,240 in3 airgun array, would be 

submitted within 14 days after 

collection of those measurements at the 

start of the field season. This report will 

specify the distances of the exclusion 

zones that were adopted for the survey. 

(2) Weekly Reports 

SAE will submit weekly reports to 

NMFS no later than the close of 

business (Alaska Time) each Thursday 

during the weeks when seismic surveys 

take place. The field reports will 

summarize species detected, in-water 

activity occurring at the time of the 

sighting, behavioral reactions to inVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:20 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN2.SGM 14APN2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20101 

water activities, and the number of 

marine mammals exposed to harassment 

level noise. 

(3) Monthly Reports 

SAE will submit monthly reports to 

NMFS for all months during which 

seismic surveys take place. The monthly 

reports will contain and summarize the 

following information: 

• Dates, times, locations, heading, 

speed, weather, sea conditions 

(including Beaufort Sea state and wind 

force), and associated activities during 

the seismic survey and marine mammal 

sightings. 

• Species, number, location, distance 

from the vessel, and behavior of any 

sighted marine mammals, as well as 

associated surveys (number of 

shutdowns), observed throughout all 

monitoring activities. 

• An estimate of the number (by 

species) of: (i) Pinnipeds that have been 

exposed to the seismic surveys (based 

on visual observation) at received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with 

a discussion of any specific behaviors 

those individuals exhibited; and (ii) 

cetaceans that have been exposed to the 

geophysical activity (based on visual 

observation) at received levels greater 

than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a 

discussion of any specific behaviors 

those individuals exhibited. 

(4) Technical Report 

The results of SAE’s 2015 vesselbased monitoring, including estimates 

of ‘‘take’’ by harassment, will be 

presented first in a ‘‘90-day’’ draft 

Technical Report, to be submitted to 

NMFS within 90 days after the end of 

the seismic survey, and then in a final 

Technical Report, which will address 

any comments NMFS had on the draft. 

The Technical Report will include: 

(a) Summaries of monitoring effort 

(e.g., total hours, total distances, and 

marine mammal distribution through 

the study period, accounting for sea 

state and other factors affecting 

visibility and detectability of marine 

mammals); 

(b) Analyses of the effects of various 

factors influencing detectability of 

marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number 

of observers, and fog/glare); 

(c) Species composition, occurrence, 

and distribution of marine mammal 

sightings, including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender categories (if 

determinable), group sizes, and ice 

cover; 

(d) Data analysis separated into 

periods when a seismic airgun array (or 

a single mitigation airgun) is operating 

and when it is not, to better assess 

impacts to marine mammals—the final 

and comprehensive report to NMFS 

should summarize and plot: 

• Data for periods when a seismic 

array is active and when it is not; and 

• The respective predicted received 

sound conditions over fairly large areas 

(tens of km) around operations; 

(e) Sighting rates of marine mammals 

during periods with and without airgun 

activities (and other variables that could 

affect detectability), such as: 

• Initial sighting distances versus 

airgun activity state; 

• Closest point of approach versus 

airgun activity state; 

• Observed behaviors and types of 

movements versus airgun activity state; 

• Numbers of sightings/individuals 

seen versus airgun activity state; 

• Distribution around the survey 

vessel versus airgun activity state; and 

• Estimates of take by harassment; 

(f) Results from all hypothesis tests, 

including estimates of the associated 

statistical power, when practicable; 

(g) Estimates of uncertainty in all take 

estimates, with uncertainty expressed 

by the presentation of confidence limits, 

a minimum-maximum, posterior 

probability distribution, or another 

applicable method, with the exact 

approach to be selected based on the 

sampling method and data available; 

(h) A clear comparison of authorized 

takes and the level of actual estimated 

takes; and 

(5) Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA, such as a serious 

injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, 

gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 

SAE would immediately cease the 

specified activities and immediately 

report the incident to the Chief of the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinators. The report would include 

the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with SAE to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. SAE would not be able to 

resume its activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that SAE discovers a dead 

marine mammal, and the lead PSO 

determines that the cause of the 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), SAE would 

immediately report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding 

Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinators. The 

report would include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities would be able to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with SAE to determine 

whether modifications in the activities 

are appropriate. 

In the event that SAE discovers a dead 

marine mammal, and the lead PSO 

determines that the death is not 

associated with or related to the 

activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

SAE would report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding 

Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 

24 hours of the discovery. SAE would 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

SAE can continue its operations under 

such a case. 

Monitoring Results From Previously 

Authorized Activities 

SAE was issued an IHA for a 3D OBN 

seismic survey in the same area of the 

proposed 2015 seismic survey in the 

Beaufort Sea during the 2014 Arctic 

open-water season. SAE conducted the 

seismic survey between August 25 and 

September 30, 2014. The technical 

report (90-day report) submitted by SAE 

indicates that one beluga whale and 2 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

spotted seals were observed within the 

180-dB exclusion zones during the 

survey that prompted immediate 

shutdown. Two additional spotted seals 

were detected within the zone of 

influence when the airgun arrays were 

firing. Post-activity analysis based on 

total sighting data concluded that up to 

approximately 5 beluga whales and 264 

pinnipeds (likely all spotted seals due to 

their large numbers) could be exposed 

to received levels above 160-dB re 1 

mPa. Some of these could be exposed to 

levels that may have Level A 

harassment which was not authorized 

under the previous IHA. Nevertheless, 

take of Level B harassment were under 

the take limits allowed by the IHA 

issued to SAE. 

Based on the monitoring results from 

SAE’s 2014 seismic survey, NMFS is reevaluating the potential effects on 

marine mammals and requested SAE to 

conduct analysis on potential Level A 

takes (see ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section below). 

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]. 

Takes by Level A and Level B 

harassments of some species are 

anticipated as a result of SAE’s 

proposed 3D seismic survey. NMFS 

expects marine mammal takes could 

result from noise propagation from 

operation of seismic airguns. NMFS 

does not expect marine mammals would 

be taken by collision with seismic and 

support vessels, because the vessels will 

be moving at low speeds, and PSOs on 

the survey vessels and the mitigation 

vessel will be monitoring for marine 

mammals and will be able to alert the 

vessels to avoid any marine mammals in 

the area. 

For impulse sounds, such as those 

produced by the airguns proposed to be 

used in SAE’s 3D OBN seismic surveys, 

NMFS uses the 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 

1 mPa isopleth to indicate the onset of 

Level A harassment for cetaceans and 

pinnipeds, respectively; and the 160 dB 

(rms) re 1 mPa isopleth for Level B 

harassment of all marine mammals. SAE 

provided calculations of the 190-, 

180-, and 160-dB isopleths expected to 

be produced by the proposed seismic 

surveys and then used those isopleths to 

estimate takes by harassment. NMFS 

used those calculations to make the 

necessary MMPA findings. SAE 

provided a full description of the 

methodology used to estimate takes by 

harassment in its IHA application, 

which is also provided in the following 

sections. 

Acoustic Footprint 

The acoustical footprint that could 

cause harassment (Levels A and B) was 

determined by placing a 160-dB isopleth 

buffer around the area that would be 

surveyed (shot) during the 2015 open 

water season (777 km2). SAE stated that 

for the majority of its proposed 2015 

seismic survey, a 620 in3 airgun array 

would be used. However, to make 

conservative impact analysis, SAE uses 

the acoustic footprint of a large 1,240 

in3 array for this analysis. 

There are no precise estimates for the 

1,240-in3 array. The estimated distances 

to the 160 dB isopleth for the 1,240-in3

array is based on the sound source 

measurements from Austin and Warner 

(2012) for a 1,200-in3 array in Cook 

Inlet. The results showed a measured 

distance of 5.2 km to the 160 dB 

isopleths (Table 3). Placing a 5.2-km 

buffer around the 777 km2 maximum 

shot area results in an estimated annual 

ZOI of 1,463 km2 (565 mi2), which is the 

ZOI value used in the exposure estimate 

calculations. 

Because the exact location of the 2015 

shoot area is currently unknown, the 

distribution of marine mammal habitat 

within the shoot area is unknown. 

However, within the 4,562 km2

potential survey box, 18% (860 km2) 

falls within the 0 to 1.5 m water depth 

range, 17% (753 km2) falls within the 

1.5 to 5 m range, 36% (1,635 km2) 

within the 5 to 15 m range, and 30 

percent% (1,348 km2) within waters 

greater than 15 m deep (bowhead 

migration corridor). Thus, not all the 

area that could be surveyed in 2015 

constitutes bowhead summer (>5 m 

depth) or fall migrating (>15 m depth) 

habitat. Further, few of the lease areas 

that could be shot in 2015 extend into 

the deeper waters of the potential 

survey box. The distribution of these 

depth ranges is found in Figure 6–1 of 

SAE’s IHA application. 

Marine Mammal Densities 

Density estimates were derived for 

bowhead whales, beluga whales, ringed 

seals, spotted seals, and bearded seals as 

described below and shown in Table 4. 

There are no available Beaufort Sea 

density estimates for gray whales, or 

extralimital species such as humpback 

whales, narwhals, and ribbon seals. 

Encountering these animals during the 

seismic program would be unexpected. 

The density derivations for the five 

species presented in Table 4 are 

provided in the discussions below. 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES

(#/km2) IN THE BEAUFORT SEA

Species Summer Fall 

Bowhead whale ............ 0.0049 0.0066 

Beluga whale ................ 0.0020 0.0057 

Ringed seal ................... 0.3547 0.2510 

Spotted seal .................. 0.0177 0.0125 

Bearded seal ................ 0.0177 0.0125 

Bowhead Whale: The summer density 

estimate for bowhead whales was 

derived from July and August aerial 

survey data collected in the Beaufort 

Sea during the Aerial Surveys of Arctic 

Marine Mammals (ASAMM) program in 

2012 and 2013. During this period, 276 

bowhead whales were record along 

24,560 km of transect line, or 0.0112 

whales per km of transect line. 

Applying an effective strip half-width 

(ESW) of 1.15 (Ferguson and Clarke 

2013), results in an uncorrected density 

of 0.0049. This is a much higher density 

than previous estimates (e.g., Brandon et 

al. 2011) due to relatively high numbers 

of whales recorded in the Beaufort Sea 

in August 2013. In 2013, 205 whales 

were recorded along 9,758 km of 

transect line, with 78% of the sightings 

(160 whales) recorded the eastern most 

blocks 4, 5, 6, and 7. In contrast, 26 of 

the 71 whales (37%) recorded ontransect during summer 2012 were at or 

near Barrow Canyon (Block 12), or the 

western extreme of the Alaskan Beaufort 

Sea, while another 26 (37%) were 

recorded at the eastern extreme (Blocks 

4, 5, 6, and 7). During these years lesser 

numbers were observed in Blocks 1 and 

3 where the actual seismic survey is 

planned. 

Fall density estimate was determined 

from September and October ASAMM 

data collected from 2006 to 2013. The 

Western Arctic stock of bowhead whale 

has grown considerably since the late 

1970s; thus, data collected prior to 2006 

probably does not well represent current 

whale densities. From 2006 to 2013, 

1,286 bowhead whales were recorded 

along 84,400 km of transect line, or 

0.1524 per km. Using an ESW of 1.15 

results in an uncorrected density of 

0.0066. 

ASAMM aerial survey data was 

collected during summer and fall 2014, 

and is available to view as daily reports 

(http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/NMML/

cetacean/bwasp/flights_2014.php), but 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20103 

because this data has not yet been fully 

vetted, it is not yet appropriate for use 

in estimating bowhead densities in the 

Beaufort Sea (SAE, 2015). Nevertheless, 

the daily reports do indicate unusual 

nearshore concentrations of (Beaufort 

Sea) bowheads in both late August and 

late September of 2014. 

Beluga Whale: There is little 

information on summer use by beluga 

whales in the Beaufort Sea. Moore et al. 

(2000) reported that only nine beluga 

whales were recorded in waters less 

than 50 m deep during 11,985 km of 

transect survey effort, or about 0.00057 

whales per km. Assuming an ESW of 

0.614, the derived corrected density 

would be 0.00046 whales per square 

mile. The same data did show much 

higher beluga numbers in deeper waters. 

During the summer aerial surveys 

conducted during the 2012 and 2013 

ASAMM program (Clarke et al. 2013, 

2014), six beluga whales were observed 

along 2,497 km of transect in waters less 

than 20 m deep and between longitudes 

140 °W and 154 °W (the area within 

which the seismic survey would fall). 

This equates to 0.0024 whales per km of 

trackline and an uncorrected density of 

0.0020 assuming an ESW of 0.614. 

Calculated fall beluga densities are 

approximately twice as high as summer. 

Between 2006 and 2013, 2,356 beluga 

were recorded along 83,631 km of 

transect line flown during September 

and October, or 0.0281 beluga per km of 

transect. Assuming an ESW of 0.614 

gives an uncorrected density of 0.0229. 

However, unlike in summer, almost 

none of the fall migrating belugas were 

recorded in waters less than 20 m deep. 

For years where depth data is available 

(2006, 2009–2013), only 11 of 1,605 

(1%) recorded belugas were found in 

waters less than 20 m during the fall. To 

take into account this bias in 

distribution, but to remain conservative, 

the corrected density estimate is 

reduced to 25%, or 0.0057. 

Summer and fall beluga data was also 

collected in 2014, but as with the 

bowhead data mentioned above, it has 

not yet been checked for accuracy and, 

therefore, is not yet appropriate for 

estimating density (SAE, 2015). 

Regardless, the data that is available 

from online daily reports (http://

www.afsc.noaa.gov/NMML/cetacean/

bwasp/flights_2014.php) indicates that a 

number of belugas were observed near 

shore in 2014, especially during the 

summer. 

Spotted Seal: Surveys for ringed seals 

have been recently conducted in the 

Beaufort Sea by Kingsley (1986), Frost et 

al. (2002), Moulton and Lawson (2002), 

Green and Negri (2005), and Green et al. 

(2006, 2007). The shipboard monitoring 

surveys by Green and Negri (2005) and 

Green et al. (2006, 2007) were not 

systematically based, but are useful in 

estimating the general composition of 

pinnipeds in the Beaufort nearshore, 

including the Colville River Delta. Frost 

et al.’s aerial surveys were conducted 

during ice coverage and do not fully 

represent the summer and fall 

conditions under which the Beaufort 

surveys will occur. Moulton and 

Lawson (2002) conducted summer 

shipboard-based surveys for pinnipeds 

along the nearshore Beaufort Sea coast 

and developed seasonal average and 

maximum densities representative of 

SAE’s Beaufort summer seismic project, 

while the Kingsley (1986) conducted 

surveys along the ice margin 

representing fall conditions. 

Green and Negri (2005) and Green et 

al. (2006, 2007) recorded pinnipeds 

during barging activity between West 

Dock and Cape Simpson, and found 

high numbers of ringed seal in Harrison 

Bay, and peaks in spotted seal numbers 

off the Colville River Delta where 

haulout sites are located. Approximately 

5% of all phocid sightings recorded by 

Green and Negri (2005) and Green et al. 

(2006, 2007) were spotted seals, which 

provide a estimate of the proportion of 

ringed seals versus spotted seals in the 

Colville River Delta and Harrison Bay. 

Thus, the estimated densities of spotted 

seals in the seismic survey area were 

derived by multiplying the ringed seal 

densities from Moulton and Lawson 

(2002) and Kingsley (1986) by 0.05. 

However, monitoring conducted by 

Lomac-MacNair et al. (2014a) of SAE’s 

2014 seismic program near the Colville 

River Delta showed higher than 

expected spotted seal use of the 

potential seismic survey area, probably 

due to repeated sightings of local 

spotted seals closer to the Delta haul out 

sites. This information was used to 

adjust the take requests. 

Bearded Seal: Bearded seals were also 

recorded in Harrison Bay and the 

Colville River Delta by Green and Negri 

(2005) and Green et al. (2006, 2007), but 

at lower proportions to ringed seals than 

spotted seals. However, estimating 

bearded seal densities based on the 

proportion of bearded seals observed 

during the barge-based surveys results 

in densities estimates that appear 

unrealistically low given density 

estimates from other studies, especially 

given that nearby Thetis Island is used 

as a base for annually hunting this seal 

(densities are seasonally high enough 

for focused hunting). For conservative 

purposes, the bearded seal density 

values used in this application are 

derived from Stirling et al.’s (1982) 

observations that the proportion of 

eastern Beaufort Sea bearded seals is 5% 

that of ringed seals, similar as was done 

for spotted seals. 

Level B Exposure Calculations 

The estimated potential harassment 

take of local marine mammals by the 

SAE’s Beaufort seismic project was 

determined by multiplying the seasonal 

animal densities in Table 4 with the 

seasonal area that would be ensonified 

by seismic-generated noise greater than 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms). The total area 

that would be ensonified during 2015 is 

1,463 km2 (565 mi2). Assuming that half 

this area would be ensonified in 

summer and half in fall, the seasonal 

ZOI would be half 1,463 km2, or 731.5 

km2 (282.5 mi2). The resulting exposure 

calculations are found in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO RECEIVED SOUND LEVELS

GREATER THAN 160 dB 

Species 

Seasonal 

ZOI 

(km2) 

Summer 

density 

Summer 

exposure 

Fall 

density 

Fall 

exposure Total 

Bowhead Whale ............................................................... 731.5 0.0049 4 0.0066 5 9 

Beluga Whale ................................................................... 731.5 0.0020 1 0.0057 4 7 

Ringed Seal ..................................................................... 731.5 0.3547 259 0.2510 184 443 

Spotted Seal .................................................................... 731.5 0.0177 13 0.0125 9 22 

Bearded Seal ................................................................... 731.5 0.0177 13 0.0125 9 22 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20104 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

The requested take authorization is 

found in Table 6, and includes 

requested authorization for gray whales 

in which the estimated take is zero, but 

for which records for the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea occur. The requested take 

authorization for ringed seals and 

spotted seals has also been adjusted 

based on observations during SAE’s 

2014 seismic operations immediately 

east of the Colville River Delta (LomacMacNair et al. 2014a). Lomac-MacNair 

et al. (2014a) only observed 5 confirmed 

sightings of ringed seals, none of which 

were observed during active seismic 

activity. But they also observed 40 

spotted seals (4 during active seismic) 

and an additional 28 seals (also 4 during 

active seismic) that were either a ringed 

or spotted seal. Given only 88 km2 (34 

mi2) were shot in 2014, this would 

extrapolate to about 353 spotted seals 

potential observed and 35 spotted seals 

observed during seismic activity, during 

the planned 777 km2 (300 mi2) of 

operation planned in 2015. If 80% of the 

ringed/spotted seal sightings were 

actually spotted seals, then an 

additional 200 spotted seals would be 

observed and an additional 28 observed 

during seismic activity. Given the 

nearshore location of the planned 

seismic activities and proximity to 

Colville River Delta spotted seal haulout 

sites, and likelihood that a number of 

seals that were exposed to seismic noise 

exceeding 160 dB were not observed, 

the requested take authorization for 

spotted seals has been increased to 500. 

Level A Exposure Calculations 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

NMFS considers that exposures to 

pinnipeds at noise levels above 190 dB 

and cetaceans at noise levels above 180 

dB constitute Level A takes under the 

MMPA. Although brief exposure of 

marine mammals at these levels are not 

likely to cause TTS or PTS (Southall et 

al. 2007), this consideration is a 

precaution NMFS takes for its effect 

analysis. 

The methods used in estimate Level A 

exposure is the same for Level B 

estimates, i.e., multiplying the total 

amount of area that could be seasonally 

ensonified by noise levels exceeding 

190 and 180 dB by density of each 

species. Because the radii to both the 

190 dB (250 m) and 180 dB (910 m) are 

essentially equal to or larger than the 

mid-point (250 m) between the seismic 

source lines, the entire 777-km2 seismic 

maximum source area would be 

ensonified, plus protective buffers of 

250 m and 910 m around the source 

area. Thus, the 190 dB ZOI relative to 

pinnipeds would be 805 km2, or 402.5 

km2 for each the summer and fall 

season, while the 180 dB ZOI would be 

883 km2, or 441.5 km2 each season. 

Multiplying these values by the animal 

densities provides the Level A exposure 

estimates shown in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—THE ESTIMATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENTS AND REQUESTED TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS

Species Stock 

abundance 

Estimated 

level B 

exposures 

Level B 

take 

requested 

Estimated 

level A 

exposure 

Percent of 

take by 

stock 

Bowhead whale ....................................................................................... 19,534 9 15 5 0.10 

Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea stock) ......................................................... 39,258 7 15 4 0.05 

Beluga whale (E. Chukchi Sea stock) ..................................................... 3,710 7 15 4 0.51 

Gray whale ............................................................................................... 19,126 0 2 0 0.00 

Ringed seal .............................................................................................. 300,000 443 500 246 0.25 

Spotted seal ............................................................................................. 141,479 22 500 12 0.36

Bearded seal ............................................................................................ 155,000 22 25 12 0.02 

The estimated Level A and Level B 

takes as a percentage of the marine 

mammal stock are 0.11% and 0.40% or 

less, respectively, in all cases (Table 6). 

The highest percent of population 

estimated to be taken is 0.11% for Level 

A and 0.40% for Level B harassments 

for the East Chukchi Sea stock of beluga 

whale. However, that percentage 

assumes that all beluga whales taken are 

from that population. Similarly, the 

0.01% potential Level A and 0.04% 

Level B take percentage for the Beaufort 

Sea stock of beluga whale assumes that 

all 15 beluga whales are taken from the 

Beaufort Sea stock. Most likely, some 

beluga whales would be taken from each 

stock, meaning fewer than 15 beluga 

whales would be taken from either 

individual stock. Therefore, the Level A 

take of beluga whales as a percentage of 

populations would likely be below 0.11 

and 0.01% for the Beaufort Sea and East 

Chukchi Sea stocks, respectively. The 

Level B takes of beluga whales as a 

percentage of populations would likely 

be below 0.40 and 0.04% for the 

Beaufort Sea and East Chukchi Sea 

stocks, respectively. However, the 

estimated numbers of Level A 

harassment do not take into 

consideration either avoidance or 

mitigation effectiveness. The actual 

takes are expected to be lower as 

animals will avoid areas where noise is 

intense. In addition, the prescribed 

mitigation measure will further reduce 

the number of animals being exposed to 

noise levels that constitute a Level A, 

thus further reducing Level A 

harassment. 

The total takes represent less than 

0.51% of any stocks of marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the action area (Table 

6). 

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 serious injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of SAE’s 

proposed 3D seismic survey, and none 

are proposed to be authorized. The takes 

that are anticipated and authorized are 

expected to be limited to short-term 

Level B behavioral harassment, and 

limited Level A harassment in terms of 

potential hearing threshold shifts. While 

the airguns are expected to be operated 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20105 

for approximately 49 days within a 70- 

day period, the project timeframe will 

occur when cetacean species are 

typically not found in the project area 

or are found only in low numbers. 

While pinnipeds are likely to be found 

in the proposed project area more 

frequently, their distribution is 

dispersed enough that they likely will 

not be in the Level A or Level B 

harassment zone continuously. As 

mentioned previously in this document, 

pinnipeds appear to be more tolerant of 

anthropogenic sound than mysticetes. 

Most of the bowhead whales 

encountered will likely show overt 

disturbance (avoidance) only if they 

receive airgun sounds with levels ≥ 160 

dB re 1 mPa. Odontocete reactions to 

seismic airgun pulses are generally 

assumed to be limited to shorter 

distances from the airgun than are those 

of mysticetes, in part because 

odontocete low-frequency hearing is 

assumed to be less sensitive than that of 

mysticetes. However, at least when in 

the Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, 

belugas appear to be fairly responsive to 

seismic energy, with few being sighted 

within 6–12 mi (10–20 km) of seismic 

vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et 

al. 2005). Belugas will likely occur in 

small numbers in the Beaufort Sea 

during the survey period and few will 

likely be affected by the survey activity. 

As noted, elevated background noise 

level from the seismic airgun 

reverberant field could cause acoustic 

masking to marine mammals and reduce 

their communication space. However, 

even though the decay of the signal is 

extended, the fact that pulses are 

separated by approximately 8 to 10 

seconds for each individual source 

vessel (or 4 to 5 seconds when taking 

into account the two separate source 

vessels stationed 300 to 335 m apart) 

means that overall received levels at 

distance are expected to be much lower, 

thus resulting in less acoustic masking. 

Most cetaceans (and particularly 

Arctic cetaceans) show relatively high 

levels of avoidance when received 

sound pulse levels exceed 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms), and it is uncommon to sight 

Arctic cetaceans within the 180 dB 

radius, especially for prolonged 

duration. Results from monitoring 

programs associated with seismic 

activities in the Arctic indicate that 

cetaceans respond in different ways to 

sound levels lower than 180 dB. These 

results have been used by agencies to 

support monitoring requirements within 

distances where received levels fall 

below 160 dB and even 120 dB. Thus, 

very few animals would be exposed to 

sound levels of 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

regardless of detectability by PSOs. 

Avoidance varies among individuals 

and depends on their activities or 

reasons for being in the area, and 

occasionally a few individual Arctic 

cetaceans will tolerate sound levels 

above 160 dB. Tolerance of levels above 

180 dB is infrequent regardless of the 

circumstances, and marine mammals 

exposed to levels this high are expected 

to avoid the source, thereby minimizing 

the probability of TTS. Therefore, a 

calculation of the number of cetaceans 

potentially exposed to >180 dB that is 

based simply on density would be a 

gross overestimate of the numbers 

expected to be exposed to 180 dB. Such 

calculations would be misleading unless 

avoidance response behaviors were 

taken into account to estimate what 

fraction of those originally present 

within the soon-to-be ensonified to >180 

dB zone (as estimated from density) 

would still be there by the time levels 

reach 180 dB. 

It is estimated that up to 5 bowhead 

whales and 4 beluga whales could be 

exposed to received noise levels above 

180 dB re 1 mPa (rms), and 246 ringed 

seals and 12 bearded and spotted seals 

could be exposed to received noise 

levels above 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

durations long enough to cause TTS if 

the animals do not avoid are area for 

some reason and are not detected in 

time to have mitigation measures 

implemented (or even PTS if such 

exposures occurred repeatedly). None of 

the other species are expected to be 

exposed to received sound levels 

anticipated to cause TTS or PTS. 

However, the actual Level A takes are 

likely to be lower due to animals 

avoiding the injury zone and the 

mitigation implementation. The Level A 

takes estimated do not take into 

consideration either avoidance or 

mitigation effectiveness. 

Marine mammals that are taken by 

TTS are expected to receive minor (in 

the order of several dBs) and brief 

(minutes to hours) temporary hearing 

impairment because (1) animals are not 

likely to remain for prolonged periods 

within high intensity sound fields, and 

(2) both the seismic vessel and the 

animals are constantly moving, and it is 

unlikely that the animal will be moving 

along with the vessel during the survey. 

Although repeated experience to TTS 

could result in PTS (Level A 

harassment), for the same reasons 

discussed above, even if marine 

mammals experience PTS, the degree of 

PTS is expected to be mild, resulting in 

a few dB elevation of hearing threshold. 

Therefore, even if a few marine 

mammals receive TTS or PTS, the 

degree of these effects are expected to be 

minor and, in the case of TTS, brief, and 

are not expected to be biologically 

significant for the population or species. 

Taking into account the mitigation 

measures that are planned, effects on 

marine mammals are generally expected 

to be restricted to avoidance of a limited 

area around SAE’s proposed open-water 

activities and short-term changes in 

behavior, falling within the MMPA 

definition of ‘‘Level A and Level B 

harassments.’’ The many reported cases 

of apparent tolerance by cetaceans to 

seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and 

some other human activities show that 

co-existence is possible. Mitigation 

measures, such as controlled vessel 

speed, dedicated marine mammal 

observers, non-pursuit, ramp up 

procedures, and shut downs or power 

downs when marine mammals are seen 

within defined ranges, will further 

reduce short-term reactions and 

minimize any effects on hearing 

sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are 

expected to be short-term, with no 

lasting biological consequence. 

Of the marine mammal species or 

stocks likely to occur in the proposed 

seismic survey area, two are listed 

under the ESA: The bowhead whale and 

ringed seal. Those two species are also 

designated as ‘‘depleted’’ under the 

MMPA. Despite these designations, the 

Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort 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, and are considered 

depleted under the MMPA. On July 25, 

2014, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Alaska vacated NMFS’ rule 

listing the Beringia bearded seal DPS as 

threatened 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 

species. 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

this document (see the ‘‘Anticipated 

Effects on Habitat’’ section). Although 

some disturbance of food sources of 

marine mammals is possible, any 

impacts are anticipated to be minor 

enough as to not affect rates of 

recruitment or survival of marine 

mammals in the area. The marine 

survey activities would occur in a 

localized area, and given the vast area 

of the Arctic Ocean where feeding by 

marine mammals occurs, any missed 

feeding opportunities in the direct 

project area could be offset by feeding 

opportunities in other available feeding 

areas. 

In addition, no important feeding or 

reproductive areas are known in the 

vicinity of SAE’s proposed seismic 

surveys at the time the proposed 

surveys are to take place. No critical 

habitat of ESA-listed marine mammal 

species occurs in the Beaufort Sea. 

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 

SAE’s proposed 3D seismic survey in 

the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

The requested takes proposed to be 

authorized represent less than 0.4% for 

Level B harassment and 0.11% for Level 

A harassment of all populations or 

stocks potentially impacted (see Table 6 

in this document). These take estimates 

represent the percentage of each species 

or stock that could be taken by Level B 

behavioral harassment if each animal is 

taken only once. The numbers of marine 

mammals estimated to be taken are 

small proportions of the total 

populations of the affected species or 

stocks. In addition, the mitigation and 

monitoring measures (described 

previously in this document) proposed 

for inclusion in the IHA (if issued) are 

expected to reduce even further any 

potential disturbance and injuries to 

marine mammals. 

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 

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 

Relevant Subsistence Uses 

The proposed seismic activities will 

occur within the marine subsistence 

area used by the village of Nuiqsut. 

Nuiqsut was established in 1973 at a 

traditional location on the Colville River 

providing equal access to upland (e.g., 

caribou, Dall sheep) and marine (e.g., 

whales, seals, and eiders) resources 

(Brown 1979). Although Nuiqsut is 

located 40 km (25 mi) inland, bowhead 

whales are still a major fall subsistence 

resource. Although bowhead whales 

have been harvested in the past all along 

the barrier islands, Cross Island is the 

site currently used as the fall whaling 

base, as it includes cabins and 

equipment for butchering whales. 

However, whalers must travel about 160 

km (100 mi) to annually reach the Cross 

Island whaling camp, which is located 

in a direct line over 110 direct km (70 

mi) from Nuiqsut. Whaling activity 

usually begins in late August with the 

arrival whales migrating from the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea, and may occur 

as late as early October, depending on 

ice conditions and quota fulfillment. 

Most whaling occurs relatively near 

(<16 km or <10 mi) the island, largely 

to prevent meat spoilage that can occur 

with a longer tow back to Cross Island. 

Since 1993, Cross Island hunters have 

harvested one to four whales annually, 

averaging three. 

Cross Island is located 70 km (44 mi) 

east of the eastern boundary of the 

seismic survey box. (Point Barrow is 

over 180 km [110 mi] outside the 

potential survey box.) Seismic activities 

are unlikely to affect Barrow or Cross 

Island based whaling, especially if the 

seismic operations temporarily cease 

during the fall bowhead whale hunt. 

Although Nuiqsut whalers may 

incidentally harvest beluga whales 

while hunting bowheads, these whales 

are rarely seen and are not actively 

pursued. Any harvest that would occur 

would most likely be in association with 

Cross Island. 

The potential seismic survey area is 

also used by Nuiqsut villagers for 

hunting seals. All three seal species that 

are likely to be taken—ringed, spotted, 

and bearded—are hunted. Sealing 

begins in April and May when villagers 

hunt seals at breathing holes in Harrison 

Bay. In early June, hunting is 

concentrated at the mouth of the 

Colville River, where ice breakup 

flooding results in the ice thinning and 

seals becoming more visible. 

Once the ice is clear of the Delta (late 

June), hunters will hunt in open boats 

along the ice edge from Harrison Bay to 

Thetis Island in a route called ‘‘round 

the world.’’ Thetis Island is important as 

it provides a weather refuge and a base 

for hunting bearded seals. During July 

and August, ringed and spotted seals are 

hunted in the lower 65 km (40 mi) of the 

Colville River proper. 

In terms of pounds, approximately 

one-third of the village of Nuiqsut’s 

annual subsistence harvest is marine 

mammals (fish and caribou dominate 

the rest), of which bowhead whales 

contribute by far the most (Fuller and 

George 1999). Seals contribute only 2 to 

3% of annual subsistence harvest 

(Brower and Opie 1997, Brower and 

Hepa 1998, Fuller and George 1999). 

Fuller and George (1999) estimated that 

46 seals were harvested in 1992. The 

more common ringed seals appear to 

dominate the harvest, although the 

larger and thicker-skinned bearded seals 

are probably preferred. Spotted seals 

occur in the Colville River Delta in 

small numbers, which is reflected in the 

harvest. 

Available harvest records suggest that 

most seal harvest occurs in the months 

preceding the proposed August start of 

the seismic survey, when waning ice 

conditions provide the best opportunity 

to approach and kill hauled out seals. 

Much of the late summer seal harvest 

occurs in the Colville River as the seals 

follow fish runs upstream. Still, openwater seal hunting could occur 

coincident with the seismic surveys, 

especially bearded seal hunts based 

from Thetis Island. In general, however, 

given the relatively low contribution of 

seals to the Nuiqsut subsistence, and the 

greater opportunity to hunt seals earlier 

in the season, any potential impact by 

the seismic survey on seal hunting is 

likely remote. 

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. 

Noise and general activity during 

SAE’s proposed 3D OBN seismic survey 

have the potential to impact marine 

mammals hunted by Native Alaskans. In 

the case of cetaceans, the most common 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20107 

reaction to anthropogenic sounds (as 

noted previously) is avoidance of the 

ensonified area. In the case of bowhead 

whales, this often means that the 

animals divert from their normal 

migratory path by several kilometers. 

Additionally, general vessel presence in 

the vicinity of traditional hunting areas 

could negatively impact a hunt. Native 

knowledge indicates that bowhead 

whales become increasingly ‘‘skittish’’ 

in the presence of seismic noise. Whales 

are more wary around the hunters and 

tend to expose a much smaller portion 

of their back when surfacing, which 

makes harvesting more difficult. 

Additionally, natives report that 

bowheads exhibit angry behaviors, such 

as tail-slapping, in the presence of 

seismic activity, which translate to 

danger for nearby subsistence 

harvesters. 

Responses of seals to seismic airguns 

are expected to be negligible. Bain and 

Williams (2006) studied the responses 

of harbor seals, California sea lions, and 

Steller sea lions to seismic airguns and 

found that seals at exposure levels 

above 170 dB re 1 mPa (peak-peak) often 

showed avoidance behavior, including 

generally staying at the surface and 

keeping their heads out of the water, but 

that the responses were not overt, and 

there were no detectable responses at 

low exposure levels. 

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. 

SAE has prepared a draft POC, which 

was developed by identifying and 

evaluating any potential effects the 

proposed seismic survey might have on 

seasonal abundance that is relied upon 

for subsistence use. For the proposed 

project, SAE states that it is working 

closely with the North Slope Borough 

(NSB) and its partner Kuukpik 

Corporation, to identify subsistence 

communities and activities that may 

take place within or near the project 

area. The draft POC is attached to SAE’s 

IHA application. 

As a joint venture partner with 

Kuukpik, SAE will be working closely 

with them and the communities on the 

North Slope to plan operations that will 

include measures that are 

environmentally suitable and that do 

not impact local subsistence use. A 

Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) 

will be developed that will include such 

measures. 

SAE adopted a three-stage process to 

develop its POC: 

Stage 1: To open communications 

SAE has presented the program 

description to the AEWC during their 

quarterly meeting in December, 2014. 

SAE will also be presenting the project 

at the open water meeting in March 

2015 in Anchorage. Collaboration 

meetings will be held in March and 

April 2015 with Kuukpik Corporation 

leaders. Kuukpik Corporation is a joint 

venture partner in the project. Permits 

to all federal, state and local government 

agencies will be submitted in the spring 

of 2015. Ongoing discussions and 

meeting with these agencies have been 

occurring in order to meet our 

operational window in the project area. 

Prior to offshore activities, SAE will 

meet and consult with nearby 

communities, namely the North Slope 

Borough (NSB) planning department 

and the NSB Fish and Wildlife division. 

SAE will also present its project during 

a community meeting in the villages of 

Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik to discuss the 

planned activities. The discussions will 

include the project description, the Plan 

of Cooperation, resolution of potential 

conflicts, and proposed operational 

window. These meetings will help to 

identify any subsistence conflicts. These 

meetings will allow SAE to understand 

community concerns, and requests for 

communication or mitigation. 

Additional communications will 

continue throughout the project. 

Stage 2: SAE will document results of 

all meetings and incorporate to mitigate 

concerns into the POC. There shall be a 

review of permit stipulations and a 

permit matrix developed for the crews. 

The means of communications and 

contacts list will be developed and 

implemented into operations. The use of 

scientific and Inupiat PSOs/

Communicators on board the vessels 

will ensure that appropriate precautions 

are taken to avoid harassment of marine 

mammals, including whales, seals, 

walruses, or polar bears. SAE will 

coordinate the timing and location of 

operations with the Com-Centers in 

Deadhorse and Kaktovik to minimize 

impact to the subsistence activities or 

the Nuiqsut/Kaktovik bowhead whale 

hunt. 

Stage 3: If a conflict does occur with 

project activities and subsistence 

hunting, the SAs will immediately 

contact the project manager and the 

Com Center. If avoidance is not 

possible, the project manager will 

initiate communication with a 

representative from the impacted 

subsistence hunter group(s) to resolve 

the issue and to plan an alternative 

course of action (which may include 

ceasing operations during the whale 

hunt). 

In addition, the following mitigation 

measures will be imposed in order to 

effect the least practicable adverse 

impact on the availability of marine 

mammal species for subsistence uses: 

(i) Establishment and operations of 

Communication and Call Centers (ComCenter) Program 

• For the purposes of reducing or 

eliminating conflicts between 

subsistence whaling activities and 

SAE’s survey program, SAE will 

participate with other operators in the 

Com-Center Program. Com-Centers will 

be operated to facilitate communication 

of information between SAE and 

subsistence whalers. The Com-Centers 

will be operated 24 hours/day during 

the 2015 fall subsistence bowhead 

whale hunt. 

• All vessels shall report to the 

appropriate Com-Center at least once 

every six hours, commencing each day 

with a call at approximately 06:00 

hours. 

• The appropriate Com-Center shall 

be notified if there is any significant 

change in plans, such as an 

unannounced start-up of operations or 

significant deviations from announced 

course, and that Com-Center shall notify 

all whalers of such changes. The 

appropriate Com-Center also shall be 

called regarding any unsafe or 

unanticipated ice conditions. 

(ii) SAE shall monitor the positions of 

all of its vessels and exercise due care 

in avoiding any areas where subsistence 

activity is active. 

(iii) Routing barge and transit vessels: 

• Vessels transiting in the Beaufort 

Sea east of Bullen Point to the Canadian 

border shall remain at least 5 miles 

offshore during transit along the coast, 

provided ice and sea conditions allow. 

During transit in the Chukchi Sea, 

vessels shall remain as far offshore as 

weather and ice conditions allow, and at 

all times at least 5 miles offshore. 

• From August 31 to October 31, 

vessels in the Chukchi Sea or Beaufort 

Sea shall remain at least 20 miles 

offshore of the coast of Alaska from Icy 

Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on 

the east side of Smith Bay in the 

Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an 

emergency that threatens the safety of 

the vessel or crew prevents compliance 

with this requirement. This condition 

shall not apply to vessels actively 

engaged in transit to or from a coastal 

community to conduct crew changes or 

logistical support operations. 

• Vessels shall be operated at speeds 

necessary to ensure no physical contact 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20108 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

with whales occurs, and to make any 

other potential conflicts with bowheads 

or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall 

be less than 10 knots in the proximity 

of feeding whales or whale aggregations. 

• If any vessel inadvertently 

approaches within 1.6 kilometers 

(1 mile) of observed bowhead whales, 

except when providing emergency 

assistance to whalers or in other 

emergency situations, the vessel 

operator will take reasonable 

precautions to avoid potential 

interaction with the bowhead whales by 

taking one or more of the following 

actions, as appropriate: 

Æ reducing vessel speed to less than 

5 knots within 900 feet of the whale(s); 

Æ steering around the whale(s) if 

possible; 

Æ operating the vessel(s) in such a 

way as to avoid separating members of 

a group of whales from other members 

of the group; 

Æ operating the vessel(s) to avoid 

causing a whale to make multiple 

changes in direction; and 

Æ checking the waters immediately 

adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that 

no whales will be injured when the 

propellers are engaged. 

(iv) Limitation on seismic surveys in 

the Beaufort Sea 

• Kaktovik: No seismic survey from 

the Canadian Border to the Canning 

River from around August 25 to close of 

the fall bowhead whale hunt in 

Kaktovik and Nuiqsut, based on the 

actual hunt dates. From around August 

10 to August 25, based on the actual 

hunt dates, SAE will communicate and 

collaborate with the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission (AEWC) on any 

planned vessel movement in and 

around Kaktovik and Cross Island to 

avoid impacts to whale hunting. 

• Nuiqsut: 

Æ Pt. Storkerson to Thetis Island: No 

seismic survey prior to July 25 inside 

the Barrier Islands. No seismic survey 

from around August 25 to close of fall 

bowhead whale hunting outside the 

Barrier Island in Nuiqsut, based on the 

actual hunt dates. 

Æ Canning River to Pt. Storkerson: No 

seismic survey from around August 25 

to the close of bowhead whale 

subsistence hunting in Nuiqsut, based 

on the actual hunt dates. 

• Barrow: No seismic survey from Pitt 

Point on the east side of Smith Bay to 

a location about half way between 

Barrow and Peard Bay from September 

15 to the close of the fall bowhead 

whale hunt in Barrow. 

(v) SAE shall complete operations in 

time to allow such vessels to complete 

transit through the Bering Strait to a 

point south of 59 degrees North latitude 

no later than November 15, 2015. Any 

vessel that encounters weather or ice 

that will prevent compliance with this 

date shall coordinate its transit through 

the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 

degrees North latitude with the 

appropriate Com-Centers. SAE vessels 

shall, weather and ice permitting, transit 

east of St. Lawrence Island and no 

closer than 10 miles from the shore of 

St. Lawrence Island. 

Finally, SAE plans to sign a Conflict 

Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the 

Alaska whaling communities to further 

ensure that its proposed open-water 

seismic survey activities in the Beaufort 

Sea will not have unmitigable impacts 

to subsistence activities. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Preliminary Determination 

SAE has adopted a spatial and 

temporal strategy for its 3D OBN seismic 

survey that should minimize impacts to 

subsistence hunters and ensure the 

sufficient availability of species for 

hunters to meet subsistence needs. SAE 

will temporarily cease seismic activities 

during the fall bowhead whale hunt, 

which will allow the hunt to occur 

without any adverse impact from SAE’s 

activities. Although some seal hunting 

co-occurs temporally with SAE’s 

proposed seismic survey, the locations 

do not overlap, so SAE’s activities will 

not impact the hunting areas and will 

not directly displace sealers or place 

physical barriers between the sealers 

and the seals. In addition, SAE is 

conducting the seismic surveys in a 

joint partnership agreement with 

Kuukpik Corporation, which allows 

SAE to work closely with the native 

communities on the North Slope to plan 

operations that include measures that 

are environmentally suitable and that do 

not impact local subsistence use, and to 

adjust the operations, if necessary, to 

minimize any potential impacts that 

might arise. 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 SAE’s proposed 

activities. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Within the project area, the bowhead 

whale is listed as endangered and the 

ringed seal is listed as threatened under 

the ESA. NMFS’ Permits and 

Conservation Division has initiated 

consultation with staff in NMFS’ Alaska 

Region Protected Resources Division 

under section 7 of the ESA on the 

issuance of an IHA to SAE 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 SAE for its 3D seismic survey in 

the Beaufort Sea during the 2015 Arctic 

open-water season 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 SAE for conducting a 3D OBN 

seismic survey in Beaufort Sea during 

the 2015 Arctic open-water season, 

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 

July 1, 2015, through October 15, 2015. 

(2) This Authorization is valid only 

for activities associated with open-water 

3D seismic surveys and related activities 

in the Beaufort Sea. The specific areas 

where SAE’s surveys will be conducted 

are within the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, as 

shown in Figure 1–1 of SAE’s IHA 

application. 

(3)(a) The species authorized for 

incidental harassment takings, Level A 

and Level B harassment, are: beluga 

whales (Delphinapterus leucas); 

bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus); 

gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), 

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus); 

spotted seals (Phoca largha); and ringed 

seals (P. hispida) (Table 6). 

(3)(b) The authorization for taking by 

harassment is limited to the following 

acoustic sources and from the following 

activities: 

(i) 620-in3 and 1,240-in3 airgun arrays 

and other acoustic sources for 3D openwater seismic surveys; and 

(ii) Vessel activities related to openwater seismic surveys listed in (i). 

(3)(c) The taking of any marine 

mammal in a manner prohibited under 

this Authorization must be reported 

within 24 hours of the taking to the 

Alaska Regional Administrator (907– 

586–7221) or his designee in Anchorage 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20109 

(907–271–3023), National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Chief 

of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at (301) 427–8401, or her 

designee (301–427–8418). 

(4) 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 collecting seismic 

data (unless constrained by the date of 

issuance of this Authorization in which 

case notification shall be made as soon 

as possible). 

(5) Prohibitions 

(a) The taking, by incidental 

harassment only, is limited to the 

species listed under condition 3(a) 

above and by the numbers listed in 

Table 6. The taking by serious injury or 

death of these species or the taking by 

harassment, injury or death of any other 

species of marine mammal is prohibited 

and may result in the modification, 

suspension, or revocation of this 

Authorization. 

(b) The taking of any marine mammal 

is prohibited whenever the required 

source vessel protected species 

observers (PSOs), required by condition 

7(a)(i), are not onboard in conformance 

with condition 7(a)(i) of this 

Authorization. 

(6) Mitigation 

(a) Establishing Exclusion and 

Disturbance Zones 

(i) Establish and monitor with trained 

PSOs exclusion zones surrounding the 

10 in3 and 620 in3 airgun arrays on the 

source vessel where the received level 

would be 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 1 mPa 

for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 

respectively. The sizes of these zones 

are provided in Table 3. 

(ii) Establish and monitor with trained 

PSOs preliminary exclusion zones 

surrounding the 1,240 in3 airgun arrays 

on the source vessel where the received 

level would be 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 

1 mPa for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 

respectively. For purposes of the field 

verification test, described in condition 

7(e)(i), these zones are estimated to be 

250 m and 910 m from the seismic 

source for 190 and 180 dB (rms) re 1 

mPa, respectively. 

(iii) Establish zones of influence 

(ZOIs) surrounding the 10 in3 and 620 

in3 airgun arrays on the source vessel 

where the received level would be 160 

(rms) re 1 mPa. The sizes of these zones 

are provided in Table 3. 

(iv) Establish the ZOI surrounding the 

1,240 in3 airgun arrays on the source 

vessel where the received level would 

be 160 dB (rms) re 1 mPa for marine 

mammals. For purposes of the field 

verification test, described in condition 

7(e)(i), the zone is estimated to be 5,200 

m from the source. 

(v) Immediately upon completion of 

data analysis of the field verification 

measurements required under condition 

7(e)(i) below, the new 160-dB, 180-dB, 

and 190-dB marine mammal ZOI and 

exclusion zones for the 1,240 in3 airgun 

array shall be established based on the 

sound source verification. 

(b) Vessel Movement Mitigation: 

(i) Avoid concentrations or groups of 

whales by all vessels under the 

direction of SAE. Operators of support 

vessels should, at all times, conduct 

their activities at the maximum distance 

possible from such concentrations or 

groups of whales. 

(ii) If any vessel approaches within 

1.6 km (1 mi) of observed bowhead 

whales, except when providing 

emergency assistance to whalers or in 

other emergency situations, the vessel 

operator will take reasonable 

precautions to avoid potential 

interaction with the bowhead whales by 

taking one or more of the following 

actions, as appropriate: 

(A) Reducing vessel speed to less than 

5 knots within 300 yards (900 feet or 

274 m) of the whale(s); 

(B) Steering around the whale(s) if 

possible; 

(C) Operating the vessel(s) in such a 

way as to avoid separating members of 

a group of whales from other members 

of the group; 

(D) Operating the vessel(s) to avoid 

causing a whale to make multiple 

changes in direction; and 

(E) Checking the waters immediately 

adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that 

no whales will be injured when the 

propellers are engaged. 

(iii) When weather conditions require, 

such as when visibility drops, adjust 

vessel speed accordingly, but not to 

exceed 5 knots, to avoid the likelihood 

of injury to whales. 

(c) Mitigation Measures for Airgun 

Operations 

(i) Ramp-up: 

(A) A ramp up, following a cold start, 

can be applied if the exclusion zone has 

been free of marine mammals for a 

consecutive 30-minute period. The 

entire exclusion zone must have been 

visible during these 30 minutes. If the 

entire exclusion zone is not visible, then 

ramp up from a cold start cannot begin. 

(B) If a marine mammal(s) is sighted 

within the exclusion zone during the 

30-minute watch prior to ramp up, ramp 

up will be delayed until the marine 

mammal(s) is sighted outside of the 

exclusion zone or the animal(s) is not 

sighted for at least 15 minutes for 

pinnipeds, or 30 minutes for cetaceans. 

(C) If, for any reason, electrical power 

to the airgun array has been 

discontinued for a period of 10 minutes 

or more, ramp-up procedures shall be 

implemented. If the PSO watch has been 

suspended during that time, a 30- 

minute clearance of the exclusion zone 

is required prior to commencing rampup. Discontinuation of airgun activity 

for less than 10 minutes does not 

require a ramp-up. 

(D) The seismic operator and PSOs 

shall maintain records of the times 

when ramp-ups start and when the 

airgun arrays reach full power. 

(ii) Power-down/Shutdown: 

(A) The airgun array shall be 

immediately powered down whenever a 

marine mammal is sighted approaching 

close to or within the applicable 

exclusion zone of the full array, but is 

outside the applicable exclusion zone of 

the single mitigation airgun. 

(B) If a marine mammal is already 

within or is about to enter the exclusion 

zone when first detected, the airguns 

shall be powered down immediately. 

(C) Following a power-down, firing of 

the full airgun array shall not resume 

until the marine mammal has cleared 

the exclusion zone. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the 

exclusion zone if it is visually observed 

to have left the exclusion zone of the 

full array, or has not been seen within 

the zone for 15 minutes for pinnipeds, 

or 30 minutes for cetaceans. 

(D) If a marine mammal is sighted 

within or about to enter the 190 or 180 

dB (rms) applicable exclusion zone of 

the single mitigation airgun, the airgun 

array shall be shutdown. 

(E) Firing of the full airgun array or 

the mitigation gun shall not resume 

until the marine mammal has cleared 

the exclusion zone of the full array or 

mitigation gun, respectively. The animal 

will be considered to have cleared the 

exclusion zone as described above 

under ramp up procedures. 

(iii) Poor Visibility Conditions: 

(A) If during foggy conditions, heavy 

snow or rain, or darkness, the full 180 

dB exclusion zone is not visible, the 

airguns cannot commence a ramp-up 

procedure from a full shut-down. 

(B) If one or more airguns have been 

operational before nightfall or before the 

onset of poor visibility conditions, they 

can remain operational throughout the 

night or poor visibility conditions. In 

this case ramp-up procedures can be 

initiated, even though the exclusion 

zone may not be visible, on the 

assumption that marine mammals will 

be alerted by the sounds from the single 

airgun and have moved away. 

(iv) Use of a Small-volume Airgun 

During Turns and Transits 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20110 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

(A) Throughout the seismic survey, 

during turning movements and short 

transits, SAE will employ the use of the 

smallest-volume airgun (i.e., ‘‘mitigation 

airgun’’) to deter marine mammals from 

being within the immediate area of the 

seismic operations. The mitigation 

airgun would be operated at 

approximately one shot per minute and 

would not be operated for longer than 

three hours in duration (turns may last 

two to three hours for the proposed 

project). 

(B) During turns or brief transits (i.e., 

less than three hours) between seismic 

tracklines, one mitigation airgun will 

continue operating. The ramp up 

procedures described above will be 

followed when increasing the source 

levels from the one mitigation airgun to 

the full airgun array. However, keeping 

one airgun firing during turns and brief 

transits allow SAE to resume seismic 

surveys using the full array without 

having to ramp up from a ‘‘cold start,’’ 

which requires a 30-minute observation 

period of the full exclusion zone and is 

prohibited during darkness or other 

periods of poor visibility. PSOs will be 

on duty whenever the airguns are firing 

during daylight and during the 30- 

minute periods prior to ramp-ups from 

a ‘‘cold start.’’ 

(d) Mitigation Measures for 

Subsistence Activities: 

(i) For the purposes of reducing or 

eliminating conflicts between 

subsistence whaling activities and 

SAE’s survey program, the holder of this 

Authorization will participate with 

other operators in the Communication 

and Call Centers (Com-Center) Program. 

Com-Centers will be operated to 

facilitate communication of information 

between SAE and subsistence whalers. 

The Com-Centers will be operated 24 

hours/day during the 2015 fall 

subsistence bowhead whale hunt. 

(ii) All vessels shall report to the 

appropriate Com-Center at least once 

every six hours, commencing each day 

with a call at approximately 06:00 

hours. 

(iii) The appropriate Com-Center shall 

be notified if there is any significant 

change in plans. The appropriate ComCenter also shall be called regarding any 

unsafe or unanticipated ice conditions. 

(iv) Upon notification by a ComCenter operator of an at-sea emergency, 

the holder of this Authorization shall 

provide such assistance as necessary to 

prevent the loss of life, if conditions 

allow the holder of this Authorization to 

safely do so. 

(v) SAE shall monitor the positions of 

all of its vessels and exercise due care 

in avoiding any areas where subsistence 

activity is active. 

(vi) Routing barge and transit vessels: 

(A) Vessels transiting in the Beaufort 

Sea east of Bullen Point to the Canadian 

border shall remain at least 5 miles 

offshore during transit along the coast, 

provided ice and sea conditions allow. 

During transit in the Chukchi Sea, 

vessels shall remain as far offshore as 

weather and ice conditions allow, and at 

all times at least 5 miles offshore. 

(B) From August 31 to October 31, 

vessels in the Chukchi Sea or Beaufort 

Sea shall remain at least 20 miles 

offshore of the coast of Alaska from Icy 

Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on 

the east side of Smith Bay in the 

Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an 

emergency that threatens the safety of 

the vessel or crew prevents compliance 

with this requirement. This condition 

shall not apply to vessels actively 

engaged in transit to or from a coastal 

community to conduct crew changes or 

logistical support operations. 

(C) Vessels shall be operated at speeds 

necessary to ensure no physical contact 

with whales occurs, and to make any 

other potential conflicts with bowheads 

or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall 

be less than 10 knots in the proximity 

of feeding whales or whale aggregations. 

(D) If any vessel inadvertently 

approaches within 1.6 kilometers (1 

mile) of observed bowhead whales, 

except when providing emergency 

assistance to whalers or in other 

emergency situations, the vessel 

operator will take reasonable 

precautions to avoid potential 

interaction with the bowhead whales by 

taking one or more of the following 

actions, as appropriate: 

• Reducing vessel speed to less than 

5 knots within 900 feet of the whale(s); 

• Steering around the whale(s) if 

possible; 

• Operating the vessel(s) in such a 

way as to avoid separating members of 

a group of whales from other members 

of the group; 

• Operating the vessel(s) to avoid 

causing a whale to make multiple 

changes in direction; and 

• Checking the waters immediately 

adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that 

no whales will be injured when the 

propellers are engaged. 

(vii) Limitation on seismic surveys in 

the Beaufort Sea 

(A) Kaktovik: No seismic survey from 

the Canadian Border to the Canning 

River from August 25 to close of the fall 

bowhead whale hunt in Kaktovik and 

Nuiqsut. From around August 10 to 

August 25, based on the actual hunt 

date, SAE will communicate and 

collaborate with the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission (AEWC) on any 

planned vessel movement in and 

around Kaktovik and Cross Island to 

avoid impacts to whale hunting. 

(B) Nuiqsut: 

• Pt. Storkerson to Thetis Island: No 

seismic survey prior to July 25 inside 

the Barrier Islands. No seismic survey 

from around August 25 to close of fall 

bowhead whale hunting outside the 

Barrier Island in Nuiqsut, based on 

actual hunt dates. 

• Canning River to Pt. Storkerson: No 

seismic survey from around August 25 

to the close of bowhead whale 

subsistence hunting in Nuiqsut, based 

on actual hunt dates. 

(C) Barrow: No seismic survey from 

Pitt Point on the east side of Smith Bay 

to a location about half way between 

Barrow and Peard Bay from September 

15 to the close of the fall bowhead 

whale hunt in Barrow. 

(viii) SAE shall complete operations 

in time to allow such vessels to 

complete transit through the Bering 

Strait to a point south of 59 degrees 

North latitude no later than November 

15, 2015. Any vessel that encounters 

weather or ice that will prevent 

compliance with this date shall 

coordinate its transit through the Bering 

Strait to a point south of 59 degrees 

North latitude with the appropriate 

Com-Centers. SAE vessels shall, weather 

and ice permitting, transit east of St. 

Lawrence Island and no closer than 10 

miles from the shore of St. Lawrence 

Island. 

(7) Monitoring: 

(a) Vessel-based Visual Monitoring: 

(i) Vessel-based visual monitoring for 

marine mammals shall be conducted by 

NMFS-approved PSOs throughout the 

period of survey activities. 

(ii) PSOs shall be stationed aboard the 

seismic survey vessels and mitigation 

vessel through the duration of the 

surveys. 

(iii) A sufficient number of PSOs shall 

be onboard the survey vessel to meet the 

following criteria: 

(A) 100% monitoring coverage during 

all periods of survey operations in 

daylight; 

(B) maximum of 4 consecutive hours 

on watch per PSO; and 

(C) maximum of 12 hours of watch 

time per day per PSO. 

(iv) The vessel-based marine mammal 

monitoring shall provide the basis for 

real-time mitigation measures as 

described in (6)(c) above. 

(v) Results of the vessel-based marine 

mammal monitoring shall be used to 

calculate the estimation of the number 

of ‘‘takes’’ from the marine surveys and 

equipment recovery and maintenance 

program. 

(b) Protected Species Observers and 

Training 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20111 

(i) PSO teams shall consist of Inupiat 

observers and NMFS-approved field 

biologists. 

(ii) Experienced field crew leaders 

shall supervise the PSO teams in the 

field. New PSOs shall be paired with 

experienced observers to avoid 

situations where lack of experience 

impairs the quality of observations. 

(iii) Crew leaders and most other 

biologists serving as observers in 2015 

shall be individuals with experience as 

observers during recent seismic or 

shallow hazards monitoring projects in 

Alaska, the Canadian Beaufort, or other 

offshore areas in recent years. 

(iv) Resumes for PSO candidates shall 

be provided to NMFS for review and 

acceptance of their qualifications. 

Inupiat observers shall be experienced 

in the region and familiar with the 

marine mammals of the area. 

(v) All observers shall complete a 

NMFS-approved observer training 

course designed to familiarize 

individuals with monitoring and data 

collection procedures. The training 

course shall be completed before the 

anticipated start of the 2015 open-water 

season. The training session(s) shall be 

conducted by qualified marine 

mammalogists with extensive crewleader experience during previous 

vessel-based monitoring programs. 

(vi) Training for both Alaska native 

PSOs and biologist PSOs shall be 

conducted at the same time in the same 

room. There shall not be separate 

training courses for the different PSOs. 

(vii) Crew members should not be 

used as primary PSOs because they have 

other duties and generally do not have 

the same level of expertise, experience, 

or training as PSOs, but they could be 

stationed on the fantail of the vessel to 

observe the near field, especially the 

area around the airgun array, and 

implement a power-down or shutdown 

if a marine mammal enters the safety 

zone (or exclusion zone). 

(viii) If crew members are to be used 

as PSOs, they shall go through some 

basic training consistent with the 

functions they will be asked to perform. 

The best approach would be for crew 

members and PSOs to go through the 

same training together. 

(ix) PSOs shall be trained using visual 

aids (e.g., videos, photos), to help them 

identify the species that they are likely 

to encounter in the conditions under 

which the animals will likely be seen. 

(x) SAE shall train its PSOs to follow 

a scanning schedule that consistently 

distributes scanning effort according to 

the purpose and need for observations. 

All PSOs should follow the same 

schedule to ensure consistency in their 

scanning efforts. 

(xi) PSOs shall be trained in 

documenting the behaviors of marine 

mammals. PSOs should record the 

primary behavioral state (i.e., traveling, 

socializing, feeding, resting, 

approaching or moving away from 

vessels) and relative location of the 

observed marine mammals. 

(c) Marine Mammal Observation 

Protocol 

(i) PSOs shall watch for marine 

mammals from the best available 

vantage point on the survey vessels, 

typically the bridge. 

(ii) Observations by the PSOs on 

marine mammal presence and activity 

shall begin a minimum of 30 minutes 

prior to the estimated time that the 

seismic source is to be turned on and/ 

or ramped-up. Monitoring shall 

continue during the airgun operations 

and last until 30 minutes after airgun 

array stops firing. 

(iii) For comparison purposes, PSOs 

shall also document marine mammal 

occurrence, density, and behavior 

during at least some periods when 

airguns are not operating 

(iv) PSOs shall scan systematically 

with the unaided eye and 7 × 50 reticle 

binoculars, supplemented with 20 × 60 

image-stabilized binoculars or 25 × 150 

binoculars, and night-vision equipment 

when needed. 

(v) Personnel on the bridge shall assist 

the marine mammal observer(s) in 

watching for marine mammals. 

(vi) PSOs aboard the marine survey 

vessel shall give particular attention to 

the areas within the marine mammal 

exclusion zones around the source 

vessel, as noted in (6)(a)(i) and (ii). They 

shall avoid the tendency to spend too 

much time evaluating animal behavior 

or entering data on forms, both of which 

detract from their primary purpose of 

monitoring the exclusion zone. 

(vii) Monitoring shall consist of 

recording of the following information: 

(A) The species, group size, age/size/ 

sex categories (if determinable), the 

general behavioral activity, heading (if 

consistent), bearing and distance from 

seismic vessel, sighting cue, behavioral 

pace, and apparent reaction of all 

marine mammals seen near the seismic 

vessel and/or its airgun array (e.g., none, 

avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc); 

(B) The time, location, heading, 

speed, and activity of the vessel 

(shooting or not), along with sea state, 

visibility, cloud cover and sun glare at 

(I) any time a marine mammal is sighted 

(including pinnipeds hauled out on 

barrier islands), (II) at the start and end 

of each watch, and (III) during a watch 

(whenever there is a change in one or 

more variable); 

(C) The identification of all vessels 

that are visible within 5 km of the 

seismic vessel whenever a marine 

mammal is sighted and the time 

observed; 

(D) Any identifiable marine mammal 

behavioral response (sighting data 

should be collected in a manner that 

will not detract from the PSO’s ability 

to detect marine mammals); 

(E) Any adjustments made to 

operating procedures; and 

(F) Visibility during observation 

periods so that total estimates of take 

can be corrected accordingly. 

(vii) Distances to nearby marine 

mammals will be estimated with 

binoculars (7 × 50 binoculars) 

containing a reticle to measure the 

vertical angle of the line of sight to the 

animal relative to the horizon. 

Observers may use a laser rangefinder to 

test and improve their abilities for 

visually estimating distances to objects 

in the water. 

(viii) PSOs shall understand the 

importance of classifying marine 

mammals as ‘‘unknown’’ or 

‘‘unidentified’’ if they cannot identify 

the animals to species with confidence. 

In those cases, they shall note any 

information that might aid in the 

identification of the marine mammal 

sighted. For example, for an 

unidentified mysticete whale, the 

observers should record whether the 

animal had a dorsal fin. 

(ix) Additional details about 

unidentified marine mammal sightings, 

such as ‘‘blow only,’’ mysticete with (or 

without) a dorsal fin, ‘‘seal splash,’’ etc., 

shall be recorded. 

(x) When a marine mammal is seen 

approaching or within the exclusion 

zone applicable to that species, the 

marine survey crew shall be notified 

immediately so that mitigation measures 

described in (6) can be promptly 

implemented. 

(xi) SAE shall use the best available 

technology to improve detection 

capability during periods of fog and 

other types of inclement weather. Such 

technology might include night-vision 

goggles or binoculars as well as other 

instruments that incorporate infrared 

technology. 

(d) Field Data-Recording and 

Verification 

(i) PSOs aboard the vessels shall 

maintain a digital log of seismic 

surveys, noting the date and time of all 

changes in seismic activity (ramp-up, 

power-down, changes in the active 

seismic source, shutdowns, etc.) and 

any corresponding changes in 

monitoring radii in a software 

spreadsheet. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20112 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

(ii) PSOs shall utilize a standardized 

format to record all marine mammal 

observations and mitigation actions 

(seismic source power-downs, shutdowns, and ramp-ups). 

(iii) Information collected during 

marine mammal observations shall 

include the following: 

(A) Vessel speed, position, and 

activity 

(B) Date, time, and location of each 

marine mammal sighting 

(C) Number of marine mammals 

observed, and group size, sex, and age 

categories 

(D) Observer’s name and contact 

information 

(E) Weather, visibility, and ice 

conditions at the time of observation 

(F) Estimated distance of marine 

mammals at closest approach 

(G) Activity at the time of observation, 

including possible attractants present 

(H) Animal behavior 

(I) Description of the encounter 

(J) Duration of encounter 

(K) Mitigation action taken 

(iv) Data shall be recorded directly 

into handheld computers or as a backup, transferred from hard-copy data 

sheets into an electronic database. 

(v) A system for quality control and 

verification of data shall be facilitated 

by the pre-season training, supervision 

by the lead PSOs, and in-season data 

checks, and shall be built into the 

software. 

(vi) Computerized data validity 

checks shall also be conducted, and the 

data shall be managed in such a way 

that it is easily summarized during and 

after the field program and transferred 

into statistical, graphical, or other 

programs for further processing. 

(e) Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

(i) Sound Source Measurements: 

Using a hydrophone system, the holder 

of this Authorization is required to 

conduct sound source verification tests 

for the 1,240 in3 seismic airgun array, if 

this array is involved in the open-water 

seismic surveys. 

(A) Sound source verification shall 

consist of distances where broadside 

and endfire directions at which 

broadband received levels reach 190, 

180, 170, 160, and 120 dB (rms) re 1 mPa 

for the airgun array(s). 

(B) The test results shall be reported 

to NMFS within 5 days of completing 

the test. 

(ii) SAE shall conduct passive 

acoustic monitoring using fixed 

hydrophone(s) to 

(A) Collect information on the 

occurrence and distribution of marine 

mammals that may be available to 

subsistence hunters near villages 

located on the Beaufort Sea coast and to 

document their relative abundance, 

habitat use, and migratory patterns; and 

(B) Measure the ambient soundscape 

throughout the Beaufort Sea coast and to 

record received levels of sounds from 

industry and other activities 

(g) SAE shall engage in consultation 

and coordination with other oil and gas 

companies and with federal, state, and 

borough agencies to ensure that they 

have the most up-to-date information 

and can take advantage of other 

monitoring efforts. 

(8) Data Analysis and Presentation in 

Reports: 

(a) Estimation of potential takes or 

exposures shall be improved for times 

with low visibility (such as during fog 

or darkness) through interpolation or 

possibly using a probability approach. 

Those data could be used to interpolate 

possible takes during periods of 

restricted visibility. 

(b) SAE shall provide a database of 

the information collected, plus a 

number of summary analyses and 

graphics to help NMFS assess the 

potential impacts of SAE’s survey. 

Specific summaries/analyses/graphics 

would include: 

(i) Sound verification results, 

including isopleths of sound pressure 

levels plotted geographically; 

(ii) A table or other summary of 

survey activities (i.e., did the survey 

proceed as planned); 

(iii) A table of sightings by time, 

location, species, and distance from the 

survey vessel; 

(iv) A geographic depiction of 

sightings for each species by area and 

month; 

(v) A table and/or graphic 

summarizing behaviors observed by 

species; 

(vi) A table and/or graphic 

summarizing observed responses to the 

survey by species; 

(vii) A table of mitigation measures 

(e.g., power-downs, shutdowns) taken 

by date, location, and species; 

(viii) A graphic of sightings by 

distance for each species and location; 

(ix) A table or graphic illustrating 

sightings during the survey versus 

sightings when the airguns were silent; 

and 

(x) A summary of times when the 

survey was interrupted because of 

interactions with marine mammals. 

(c) To help evaluate the effectiveness 

of PSOs and more effectively estimate 

take, if appropriate data are available, 

SAE shall perform analysis of 

sightability curves (detection functions) 

for distance-based analyses. 

(d) SAE shall collaborate with other 

industrial operators in the area to 

integrate and synthesize monitoring 

results as much as possible (such as 

submitting ‘‘sightings’’ from their 

monitoring projects to an online data 

archive, such as OBIS–SEAMAP) and 

archive and make the complete 

databases available upon request. 

(9) Reporting: 

(a) Sound Source Verification Report: 

A report on the preliminary results of 

the sound source verification 

measurements, including the measured 

190, 180, 160, and 120 dB (rms) radii of 

the 1,240 in3 airgun array, shall be 

submitted within 14 days after 

collection of those measurements at the 

start of the field season. This report will 

specify the distances of the exclusion 

zones that were adopted for the survey. 

(b) Throughout the survey program, 

PSOs shall prepare a report each day, or 

at such other interval as is necessary, 

summarizing the recent results of the 

monitoring program. The reports shall 

summarize the species and numbers of 

marine mammals sighted. These reports 

shall be provided to NMFS. 

(c) Weekly Reports: SAE will submit 

weekly reports to NMFS no later than 

the close of business (Alaska Time) each 

Thursday during the weeks when 

seismic surveys take place. The field 

reports will summarize species 

detected, in-water activity occurring at 

the time of the sighting, behavioral 

reactions to in-water activities, and the 

number of marine mammals exposed to 

harassment level noise. 

(d) Monthly Reports: SAE will submit 

monthly reports to NMFS for all months 

during which seismic surveys take 

place. The monthly reports will contain 

and summarize the following 

information: 

(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, 

speed, weather, sea conditions 

(including Beaufort Sea state and wind 

force), and associated activities during 

the seismic survey and marine mammal 

sightings. 

(ii) Species, number, location, 

distance from the vessel, and behavior 

of any sighted marine mammals, as well 

as associated surveys (number of 

shutdowns), observed throughout all 

monitoring activities. 

(iii) An estimate of the number (by 

species) of: 

(A) Pinnipeds that have been exposed 

to the seismic surveys (based on visual 

observation) at received levels greater 

than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

and/or 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with a 

discussion of any specific behaviors 

those individuals exhibited; and 

(B) Cetaceans that have been exposed 

to the geophysical activity (based on 

visual observation) at received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) with 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20113 

a discussion of any specific behaviors 

those individuals exhibited. 

(e) Seismic Vessel Monitoring 

Program: A draft report will be 

submitted to the Director, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 

days after the end of SAE’s 2015 openwater seismic surveys in the Beaufort 

Sea. The report will describe in detail: 

(i) Summaries of monitoring effort 

(e.g., total hours, total distances, and 

marine mammal distribution through 

the study period, accounting for sea 

state and other factors affecting 

visibility and detectability of marine 

mammals); 

(ii) Summaries that represent an 

initial level of interpretation of the 

efficacy, measurements, and 

observations, rather than raw data, fully 

processed analyses, or a summary of 

operations and important observations; 

(iii) Summaries of all mitigation 

measures (e.g., operational shutdowns if 

they occur) and an assessment of the 

efficacy of the monitoring methods; 

(iv) Analyses of the effects of various 

factors influencing detectability of 

marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number 

of observers, and fog/glare); 

(v) Species composition, occurrence, 

and distribution of marine mammal 

sightings, including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender categories (if 

determinable), group sizes, and ice 

cover; 

(vi) Data analysis separated into 

periods when an airgun array (or a 

single airgun) is operating and when it 

is not, to better assess impacts to marine 

mammals; 

(vii) Sighting rates of marine 

mammals during periods with and 

without airgun activities (and other 

variables that could affect detectability), 

such as: 

(A) Initial sighting distances versus 

airgun activity state; 

(B) Closest point of approach versus 

airgun activity state; 

(C) Observed behaviors and types of 

movements versus airgun activity state; 

(D) Numbers of sightings/individuals 

seen versus airgun activity state; 

(E) Distribution around the survey 

vessel versus airgun activity state; and 

(F) Estimates of take by harassment; 

(viii) Reported results from all 

hypothesis tests, including estimates of 

the associated statistical power, when 

practicable; 

(ix) Estimates of uncertainty in all 

take estimates, with uncertainty 

expressed by the presentation of 

confidence limits, a minimummaximum, posterior probability 

distribution, or another applicable 

method, with the exact approach to be 

selected based on the sampling method 

and data available; 

(x) A clear comparison of authorized 

takes and the level of actual estimated 

takes; and 

(xi) A complete characterization of the 

acoustic footprint resulting from various 

activity states. 

(d) The draft report shall 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. The draft report 

will be considered the final report for 

this activity under this Authorization if 

NMFS has not provided comments and 

recommendations within 90 days of 

receipt of the draft report. 

(10) (a) In the unanticipated event that 

survey operations clearly cause the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this Authorization, such 

as an serious injury or mortality (e.g., 

ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 

entanglement), SAE shall immediately 

cease survey operations and 

immediately report the incident to the 

Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by 

email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

Shane.Guan@noaa.gov and the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinators 

(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov and 

Barbara.Mahoney@noaa.gov). 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); and 

(xi) Photographs or video footage of 

the animal (if equipment is available). 

(b) Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with SAE to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. SAE may not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS via 

letter, email, or telephone. 

(c) In the event that SAE 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), SAE 

will immediately report the incident to 

the Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at 301–427–8401, and/or by 

email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

Shane.Guan@noaa.gov and the NMFS 

Alaska Stranding Hotline (1–877–925– 

7773) and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinators 

(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov and 

Barabara.Mahoney@noaa.gov). The 

report must include the same 

information identified in Condition 

10(a) above. Activities may continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS will work with 

SAE to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

(d) In the event that SAE 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 

3 of this Authorization (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), SAE shall report the 

incident to the Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401, and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

Shane.Guan@noaa.gov and the NMFS 

Alaska Stranding Hotline (1–877–925– 

7773) and/or by email to the Alaska 

Regional Stranding Coordinators 

(Aleria.Jensen@noaa.gov and 

Barbara.Mahoney@noaa.gov), within 24 

hours of the discovery. SAE shall 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

SAE can continue its operations under 

such a case. 

(11) Activities related to the 

monitoring described in this 

Authorization do not require a separate 

scientific research permit issued under 

section 104 of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 

(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) 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20114 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

is an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. 

(14) A copy of this Authorization and 

the Incidental Take Statement must be 

in the possession of each seismic vessel 

operator taking marine mammals under 

the authority of this Incidental 

Harassment Authorization. 

(15) SAE is required to comply with 

the Terms and Conditions of the 

Incidental Take Statement 

corresponding to NMFS’ Biological 

Opinion. 

Request for Public Comments 

NMFS requests comment on our 

analysis, the draft authorization, and 

any other aspect of the Notice of 

Proposed IHA for SAE’s proposed 3D 

seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform our final decision on SAE’s 

request for an MMPA authorization. 

Dated: April 8, 2015. 

Wanda Cain, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08481 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES