[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20084-20114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08481]



[[Page 20083]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 71

April 14, 2015

Part II





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking 
Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Seismic Survey in the Beaufort Sea, 
Alaska; Notice

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

[[Page 20084]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#543d20247a3321353a143a3b35357a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="48213c38662f3d29260826272929662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 peer-review 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

[[Page 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 km\2\ (300 mi\2\) in 2015, 
although the exact location is currently unknown other than it would 
occur somewhere within the 4,562-km\2\ (1,761-m\2\) 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 km\2\ (7.5 mi\2\) 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 km\2\ (75 mi\2\). It is expected to take three 
to five days to shoot a patch, or 49 km\2\ (18.75 mi\2\) 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-km\2\ 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 km\2\ (300 
mi\2\) 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 (in\3\), 8-cluster array, although a 2 x 620-in\3\ 
array, totaling 1,240 in\3\, 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-in\3\ array has a 
zero-peak estimated sound source of 249 dB re 1 [mu]Pa @1 m (13.8 bar-
m), with a root mean square (rms) sound source of 224 dB re 1 [mu]Pa, 
while for the 620-in\3\ array the zero-peak is 237 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
(6.96 bar-m) with an rms source level of 218 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.

Mitigation Airgun

    A 10-in\3\ 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 [mu]Pa 
zero-peak (0.5 bar-m) sound source equating to a 195 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 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 [mu]Pa @ 1 m and operates at frequencies 
between 35 and 55 kHz. The transponder produces short pulses of 184 to 
187 dB re 1 [mu]Pa @ 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.

[[Page 20086]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Activity and      Source
            Vessel              Size (ft)      frequency      level (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source vessel 1..............     120 x 25  Seismic data             179
                                             acquisition;
                                             24 hr
                                             operation.
Source vessel 2..............      80 x 25  Seismic data             166
                                             acquisition;
                                             24 hr
                                             operation.
Node equipment vessel 1......      80 x 20  Deploying and            165
                                             retrieving
                                             nodes; 24 hr
                                             operation.
Node equipment vessel 2......      80 x 20  Deploying and            165
                                             retrieving
                                             nodes; 24 hr
                                             operation.
Mitigation/Housing vessel....      90 x 20  House crew; 24           200
                                             hr operation.
Crew transport vessel........      30 x 20  Transport crew;          192
                                             intermittent 8
                                             hrs.
Bow picker 1.................      30 x 20  Deploying and            172
                                             retrieving
                                             nodes;
                                             intermittent
                                             operation.
Bow picker 2.................      30 x 20  Deploying and            172
                                             retrieving
                                             nodes;
                                             intermittent
                                             operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [mu]Pa (rms) and 165.7 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (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 [mu]Pa (rms), while the smaller bow pickers produce more cavitation 
resulting in source levels of 171.8 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (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 [mu]Pa 
[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 [mu]Pa (rms), while during slower on-site movements the 
vessel source levels are only 166.4 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (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      Delphinapterus       ...................  Common..............  Mostly spring and   Mostly Beaufort             39,258
   stock).                         leucas.                                                         fall with some in   Sea.
                                                                                                   summer.
  Beluga whale (eastern Chukchi   ...................  ...................  Common..............  Mostly spring and   Mostly Chukchi Sea           3,710
   Sea stock).                                                                                     fall with some in
                                                                                                   summer.
  Killer whale..................  Orcinus orca.......  ...................  Occasional/           Mostly summer and   California to                  552
                                                                             Extralimital.         early fall.         Alaska.
  Harbor porpoise...............  Phocoena phocoena..  ...................  Occasional/           Mostly summer and   California to               48,215
                                                                             Extralimital.         early fall.         Alaska.
  Narwhal.......................  Monodon monoceros..  ...................  ....................  ..................  ..................          45,358
Mysticetes:
   Bowhead whale *..............  Balaena mysticetus.  Endangered;          Common..............  Mostly spring and   Russia to Canada..          19,534
                                                        Depleted.                                  fall with some in
                                                                                                   summer.
  Gray whale....................  Eschrichtius         ...................  Somewhat common.....  Mostly summer.....  Mexico to the U.S.          19,126
                                   robustus.                                                                           Arctic Ocean.
  Minke whale...................  Balaenoptera         ...................  ....................  ..................  ..................       810-1,003
                                   acutorostrata.

[[Page 20087]]

 
  Humpback whale (Central North   Megaptera            Endangered;          ....................  ..................  ..................          21,063
   Pacific stock) *.               novaeangliae.        Depleted.
Pinnipeds:
  Bearded seal (Beringia          Erigathus barbatus.  Candidate..........  Common..............  Spring and summer.  Bering, Chukchi,           155,000
   distinct population segment).                                                                                       and Beaufort Seas.
  Ringed seal (Arctic stock) *..  Phoca hispida......  Threatened;          Common..............  Year round........  Bering, Chukchi,           300,000
                                                        Depleted.                                                      and Beaufort Seas.
  Spotted seal..................  Phoca largha.......  ...................  Common..............  Summer............  Japan to U.S.              141,479
                                                                                                                       Arctic Ocean.
  Ribbon seal...................  Histriophoca         Species of concern.  Occasional..........  Summer............  Russia to U.S.              49,000
                                   fasciata.                                                                           Arctic Ocean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 
vessel-based 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.

[[Page 20088]]

For air and water, these reference pressures are ``re: 20 [mu]Pa'' and 
``re: 1 [mu]Pa,'' 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):
    <bullet> Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
30 kHz;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Phocid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated 
to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; and
    <bullet> 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 low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., bowhead and gray 
whales), two are classified as mid-frequency 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 in\3\ or 3,147 
in\3\ 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 in\3\). 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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic 
environment; and
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 20090]]

that received levels of pulses in the 160-170 dB re 1 [micro]Pa 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 in\3\), distances to received levels in the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
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 [mu]Pa 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 [mu]Pa 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 in\3\ 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 [mu]Pa 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 long-distance 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

[[Page 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 [mu]Pa) 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 in\3\. 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 long-term 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

[[Page 20092]]

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-pituitary-adrenal 
system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-
pituitary-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 free-living 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,

[[Page 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 noise-
induced 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 non-auditory 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

[[Page 20094]]

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

[[Page 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 low-frequency 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 vibration-based 
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 low-frequency 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

[[Page 20096]]

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 [mu]Pa (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 [micro]Pa. They noted:
    <bullet> Startle responses at received levels of 200-205 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa and above for two sensitive species, but not for two other 
species exposed to levels up to 207 dB;
    <bullet> Alarm responses at 177-180 dB for the two sensitive 
species, and at 186 to 199 dB for other species;
    <bullet> An overall threshold for the above behavioral response at 
about 180 dB;
    <bullet> An extrapolated threshold of about 161 dB for subtle 
changes in the behavior of rockfish; and
    <bullet> 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 [micro]Pa 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 [mu]Pa for 
cetaceans and >=190 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa 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 [mu]Pa 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-in\3\ 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-in\3\ array was 195, 635, and 1,820 m, respectively (Table 3). 
Heath et al. (2014) also measured sound pressure levels from an active 
10-in\3\ 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-in\3\ array; 
however, Austin and Warner (2013) conducted a sound source verification 
of a 1,200-in\3\ array operated by SAE in Cook Inlet found the radius 
to the 190 dB isopleth

[[Page 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 in\3\ airgun arrays are obtained 
before the survey. If SAE plans to use the 1,240 in\3\ 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Source level    190 dB radius   180 dB radius   160 dB radius
               Array size  (in\3\)                     (dB)             (m)             (m)             (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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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:
    [cir] Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 300 yards 
(900 feet or 274 m) of the whale(s);
    [cir] Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
    [cir] Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating 
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
    [cir] Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make 
multiple changes in direction; and
    [cir] Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to 
ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
    <bullet> 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 pre-
established 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

[[Page 20098]]

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 mid-August). The 
provisions associated with operations at night or in periods of poor 
visibility include the following:
    <bullet> 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 shut-down.
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
    <bullet> The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
    <bullet> 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.

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 100% Monitoring coverage during all periods of survey 
operations in daylight;
    <bullet> Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Observe and record sensitive wildlife species;
    <bullet> Ensure mitigation procedures are followed accordingly; and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 NMFS-approved 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.

[[Page 20100]]

    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 x 50 and 16-40 x 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 [micro]Pa (rms) for cetaceans, or 190 dB (rms) re 1 
[micro]Pa 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:
    <bullet> Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if 
determinable);
    <bullet> Physical description of features that were observed or 
determined not to be present in the case of unknown or unidentified 
animals;
    <bullet> Behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, 
heading (if consistent);
    <bullet> Bearing and distance from observer, apparent reaction to 
activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), 
closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
    <bullet> Time, location, speed, and activity of the source and 
mitigation vessels, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; 
and
    <bullet> Positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity.

Acoustic Monitoring

(1) Sound Source Measurements
    Since the same airgun array of 620 in\3\ 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 
in\3\ 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 in\3\ 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 in\3\ 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 in\3\ 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 in-

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (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 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of 
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
(4) Technical Report
    The results of SAE's 2015 vessel-based 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:
    <bullet> Data for periods when a seismic array is active and when 
it is not; and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state;
    <bullet> Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state;
    <bullet> Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun 
activity state;
    <bullet> Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun 
activity state;
    <bullet> Distribution around the survey vessel versus airgun 
activity state; and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
    <bullet> Name and type of vessel involved;
    <bullet> Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
    <bullet> Description of the incident;
    <bullet> Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
    <bullet> Water depth;
    <bullet> Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    <bullet> Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
    <bullet> Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    <bullet> Fate of the animal(s); and
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 20102]]

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 [micro]Pa. 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 re-evaluating 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 [mu]Pa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level A 
harassment for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; and the 160 dB 
(rms) re 1 [mu]Pa 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 
km\2\). SAE stated that for the majority of its proposed 2015 seismic 
survey, a 620 in\3\ airgun array would be used. However, to make 
conservative impact analysis, SAE uses the acoustic footprint of a 
large 1,240 in\3\ array for this analysis.
    There are no precise estimates for the 1,240-in\3\ array. The 
estimated distances to the 160 dB isopleth for the 1,240-in\3\ array is 
based on the sound source measurements from Austin and Warner (2012) 
for a 1,200-in\3\ 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 km\2\ maximum shot area results in an estimated 
annual ZOI of 1,463 km\2\ (565 mi\2\), 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 km\2\ potential survey box, 
18% (860 km\2\) falls within the 0 to 1.5 m water depth range, 17% (753 
km\2\) falls within the 1.5 to 5 m range, 36% (1,635 km\2\) within the 
5 to 15 m range, and 30 percent% (1,348 km\2\) 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 (#/km\2\) 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 on-transect 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

[[Page 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 [deg]W and 154 [deg]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 
[mu]Pa (rms). The total area that would be ensonified during 2015 is 
1,463 km\2\ (565 mi\2\). Assuming that half this area would be 
ensonified in summer and half in fall, the seasonal ZOI would be half 
1,463 km\2\, or 731.5 km\2\ (282.5 mi\2\). 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Seasonal      Summer       Summer        Fall         Fall
              Species               ZOI (km\2\)    density      exposure     density      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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 20104]]

    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 (Lomac-MacNair 
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 km\2\ 
(34 mi\2\) 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 km\2\ (300 mi\2\) 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-km\2\ 
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 km\2\, or 402.5 km\2\ for each the 
summer and fall season, while the 180 dB ZOI would be 883 km\2\, or 
441.5 km\2\ 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Estimated     Level B     Estimated    Percent of
                    Species                         Stock       level B        take       level A      take by
                                                  abundance    exposures    requested     exposure      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., population-
level 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

[[Page 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 [mu]Pa. 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 [mu]Pa (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 [mu]Pa (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 [mu]Pa 
(rms), and 246 ringed seals and 12 bearded and spotted seals could be 
exposed to received noise levels above 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (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

[[Page 20106]]

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, open-
water 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

[[Page 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 [mu]Pa (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 
(Com-Center) Program
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Vessels shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no 
physical contact

[[Page 20108]]

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.
    <bullet> 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:
    [cir] reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet of 
the whale(s);
    [cir] steering around the whale(s) if possible;
    [cir] operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating 
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
    [cir] operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make 
multiple changes in direction; and
    [cir] 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
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Nuiqsut:
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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.
    <bullet> 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-in\3\ and 1,240-in\3\ airgun arrays and other acoustic 
sources for 3D open-water seismic surveys; and
    (ii) Vessel activities related to open-water 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

[[Page 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 in\3\ and 620 in\3\ airgun arrays on the source 
vessel where the received level would be 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 1 
[mu]Pa 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 in\3\ airgun arrays on the source vessel 
where the received level would be 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa 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 [mu]Pa, respectively.
    (iii) Establish zones of influence (ZOIs) surrounding the 10 in\3\ 
and 620 in\3\ airgun arrays on the source vessel where the received 
level would be 160 (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa. The sizes of these zones are 
provided in Table 3.
    (iv) Establish the ZOI surrounding the 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays on 
the source vessel where the received level would be 160 dB (rms) re 1 
[mu]Pa 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 in\3\ 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 ramp-up. 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

[[Page 20110]]

    (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 Com-Center also shall be 
called regarding any unsafe or unanticipated ice conditions.
    (iv) Upon notification by a Com-Center 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:
    <bullet> Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet 
of the whale(s);
    <bullet> Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
    <bullet> Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid 
separating members of a group of whales from other members of the 
group;
    <bullet> Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make 
multiple changes in direction; and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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 crew-leader 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 x 50 
reticle binoculars, supplemented with 20 x 60 image-stabilized 
binoculars or 25 x 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 x 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.

[[Page 20112]]

    (ii) PSOs shall utilize a standardized format to record all marine 
mammal observations and mitigation actions (seismic source power-downs, 
shut-downs, 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 back-up, 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 in\3\ 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 [mu]Pa 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 in\3\ 
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 [micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (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 [micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with

[[Page 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 open-water 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 
minimum-maximum, 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce84a1a2a7abe086afbcbca7bda1a08ea0a1afafe0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcb693909599d2b49d8e8e958f9392bc92939d9dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1b289808f84cfa694808fa18f8e8080cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f4c777e717a31586a7e715f71707e7e31787069">[email protected]</span></a> and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#06476a63746f67284c6368756368466869676728616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a4b666f78636b24406f64796f644a64656b6b246d657c">[email protected]</span></a> and 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eaa88b98888b988bc4a78b8285848f93aa84858b8bc48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d0f2c3f2f2c3f2c63002c25222328340d23222c2c632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>). 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8dc7e2e1e4e8a3c5ecffffe4fee2e3cde3e2ececa3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="de94b1b2b7bbf096bfacacb7adb1b09eb0b1bfbff0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a> and 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#df8cb7beb1baf198aabeb19fb1b0bebef1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="affcc7cec1ca81e8dacec1efc1c0cece81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a> and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-
7773) and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cddf0f9eef5fdb2d6f9f2eff9f2dcf2f3fdfdb2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abeac7ced9c2ca85e1cec5d8cec5ebc5c4caca85ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4301223122212231226d0e222b2c2d263a032d2c22226d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ecceffcefeceffcefa0c3efe6e1e0ebf7cee0e1efefa0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>). 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4eecbc8cdc18aecc5d6d6cdd7cbcae4cacbc5c58ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="612b0e0d08044f2900131308120e0f210f0e00004f060e17">[email protected]</span></a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#683b0009060d462f1d09062806070909460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbe8d3dad5de95fccedad5fbd5d4dada95dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a> and the NMFS Alaska 
Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-7773) and/or by email to the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinators (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5e4c9c0d7ccc48befc0cbd6c0cbe5cbcac4c48bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bffed3dacdd6de91f5dad1ccdad1ffd1d0dede91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a> and 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bffddecddddecdde91f2ded7d0d1dac6ffd1d0dede91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85c7e4f7e7e4f7e4abc8e4edeaebe0fcc5ebeae4e4abe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>), 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

[[Page 20114]]

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>