Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32379 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW13 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Open Water 

Marine Seismic Survey in the Chukchi 

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 received an 

application from Statoil USA E&P Inc. 

(Statoil) for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

a proposed open water marine seismic 

survey in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska, 

between July through November 2010. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an IHA to Statoil to take, by Level 

B harassment only, twelve species of 

marine mammals during the specified 

activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is PR1.0648– 

XW13@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10 megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

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

incidental.htm without change. All 

Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

A copy of the application used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the internet at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may also be viewed, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713 2289, ext 

137. 

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. 

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.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the U.S. can apply for 

an authorization to incidentally take 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) 

establishes a 45 day time limit for 

NMFS review of an application 

followed by a 30 day public notice and 

comment period on any proposed 

authorizations for the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals. Within 

45 days of the close of the comment 

period, NMFS must either issue or deny 

the authorization. 

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 

NMFS received an application on 

December 24, 2009, from Statoil for the 

taking, by harassment, of marine 

mammals incidental to a 3D marine 

seismic surveys in the Chukchi Sea, 

Alaska, during the 2010 open-water 

season. After addressing comments from 

NMFS, Statoil modified its application 

and submitted a revised application on 

April 12, 2010. The April 12, 2010, 

application is the one available for 

public comment (see ADDRESSES) and 

considered by NMFS for this proposed 

IHA. 

This proposed marine seismic survey 

will use two towed airgun array 

consisting of 26 active (10 spare) airguns 

with a maximum discharge volume of 

3,000 cubic inch (in3). The proposed 3D 

survey will take place in a 915 mi2

(2,370 km2) survey area approximately 

150 mi (241 km) west of Barrow in 

water depth of approximately 100 to 165 

ft (30 to 50 m). The seismic survey is 

designed to collect 3D data of the deep 

sub-surface in Statoil’s Chukchi leases 

in support of future oil and gas 

development within the area of 

coverage. The data will help identify 

source rocks, migration pathways, and 

play types. In addition, a 2D tie line 

survey has been designed as a second 

priority program to acquire useful 

information in the region. The four 

stand alone 2D lines (with a total length 

of approximately 420 mi or 675 km) are 

designed to tie the details of the new 

high resolution 3D image to the 

surrounding regional geology to 

facilitate interpretation of more regional 

trends. The number of 2D km acquired 

will to some degree be dependent on the 

2010 season’s restrictive ice coverage 

and the 3D data acquisition progress. 

Statoil intends to conduct these 

marine surveys during the 2010 Arctic 

open-water season (July through 

November). Impacts to marine mammals 

may occur from noise produced by 

airgun sources used in the surveys. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Statoil plans to conduct geophysical 

data acquisition activities in the 

Chukchi Sea in the period July 15 

through November 30, 2010. Data 

acquisition is expected to take 

approximately 60 days (including 

anticipated downtime), but the total 

period for this request is from July 15 

through November 30 to allow for 

unexpected downtime. The project area 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32380 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

encompasses approximately 915 mi2

(2,370 km2) in Statoil lease holdings in 

the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

Lease Sale 193 area in the northern 

Chukchi Sea (Figure 1 of the Statoil IHA 

application). The activities consist of 3D 

seismic data acquisition and a 2D tie 

line survey as a second priority 

program. 

The entire 3D program, if it can be 

completed, will consist of 

approximately 3,100 mi (4,990 km) of 

production line, not including line 

turns. A total of four 2D well tie lines 

with a total length of approximately 420 

mi (675 km) are included in the survey 

plan as a second priority program. The 

3D seismic data acquisition will be 

conducted from the M/V Geo Celtic. The 

M/V Geo Celtic will tow two identical 

airgun arrays at approximately 20 ft (6 

m) depth and at a distance of about 902 

ft (275 m) behind the vessel. Each array 

is composed of three strings for a total 

of 26 active G-guns (4 60 in3, 8 70 in3, 

6 100 in3, 4 150 in3, and 4 250 in3) with 

a total discharge volume of 3000 in3. 

Each array also consists of 5 clusters of 

10 inactive airguns that will be used as 

spares. One of the smallest guns in the 

array (60 in3) will be used as the 

mitigation gun. More details of the 

airgun array and its components are 

described in Appendix B of Statoil’s 

IHA application. In addition to the 

airgun array, pinger systems 

(DigiRANGE II, or similar systems) will 

be used to position the streamer array 

relative to the vessel. 

The estimated source level for the full 

3000 in3 array is 245 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

at 1 m. The maximum distances to 

received levels of 190, 180 160, and 120 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) from sound source 

verification (SSV) measurements of the 

3,147 in3 airgun array used in the 

Chukchi Sea during 2006–2008 were 

used to model the received levels at 

these distances, which show that the 

maximum distances are 700, 2,500, 

13,000, and 120,000 m, respectively. 

The estimated source level of this 

single 60 in3 airgun is 230 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) at 1 m, and the modeled distances 

to received levels of 190, 180 160, and 

120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are 75, 220, 1,800, 

and 50,000 m, respectively. 

The DigiRANGE II pinger system 

produces very short pulses, occurring 

for 10 ms, with source level 

approximately 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) at 

1 m at 55 kHz, 188 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

at 1 m at 75 kHz, and 184 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) at 1 m at 95 kHz. One pulse is 

emitted on command from the operator 

aboard the source vessel, which under 

normal operating conditions is once 

every 10 s. Most of the energy in the 

sound pulses emitted by this pinger is 

between 50 and 100 kHz. The signal is 

omnidirectional. Using simple spherical 

spreading modeling for sound 

propagation, the calculated distances to 

received levels of 180, 160, and 120 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms) are 2.5 m, 25 m, and 

2,512 m, respectively. These distances 

are well within the radii for airgun 

arrays and that of a single mitigation 

gun. 

The vessel will travel along predetermined lines at a speed of about 4 

- 5 knots while one of the airgun arrays 

discharges every 8 - 10 seconds (shot 

interval 61.52 ft [18.75 m]). The 

streamer hydrophone array will consist 

of twelve streamers of up to 

approximately 2.2 mi (4 km) in length, 

with a total of 20,000 - 25,000 

hydrophones at 6.6 ft (2 m) spacing. 

This large hydrophone streamer receiver 

array, designed to maximize efficiency 

and minimize the number of source 

points, will receive the reflected signals 

from the airgun array and transfer the 

data to an on-board processing system. 

A 2D tie line survey has been 

designed as a second priority program to 

allow the vessel to acquire useful 

information in the region. The four 

stand alone 2D lines have a total length 

of approximately 420 mi (675 km) and 

are designed to tie the details of the new 

high resolution 3D image to known 

surrounding regional geology. 

The approximate boundaries of the 

total surface area are between 71° 30’ N 

and 72° 00’ N and between 165° W and 

162° 30’ W. The water depth in the 

survey area varies from 100 to 165 ft (30 

to 50 m). 

The vessels involved in the seismic 

survey activities will consist of at least 

three vessels as listed below. 

Specifications of these vessels (or 

equivalent vessels if availability 

changes) are provided in Appendix A of 

Statoil’s IHA application. 

• One (1) seismic source vessel, the 

M/V Geo Celtic or similar equipped 

vessel, to tow the two 3,000 in3 airgun 

arrays and hydrophone streamer for the 

3D (and 2D) seismic data acquisition 

and to serve as a platform for marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• One (1) chase/monitoring vessel, 

the M/V Gulf Provider or similar 

equipped vessel, for marine mammal 

monitoring, crew transfer, support and 

supply duties. 

• One (1) chase/monitoring vessel, 

the M/V Thor Alpha or similar 

equipped vessel, for marine mammal 

monitoring, support and supply duties. 

The M/V Geo Celtic, or similar vessel, 

will arrive in Dutch Harbor around mid 

July 2010. The vessels will be 

resupplied and the crew changed at this 

port. Depending on ice conditions, all 

three vessels will depart Dutch Harbor 

around mid/end July with an expected 

transit time of approximately 5 days 

(weather depending). Directly upon 

arrival in the 3D survey area, depending 

on ice conditions, the M/V Geo Celtic 

will deploy the airgun array and start 

operating their guns for the purpose of 

sound source verification measurements 

(see Statoil IHA application for more 

details). The startup date of seismic data 

acquisition is expected to be early/mid 

August but depends on local ice 

conditions. 

Upon completion of these 

measurements the seismic data 

acquisition in the Chukchi Sea will start 

and, depending on the start date, is 

expected to be completed in the first 

half of October. This is based on an 

estimated duration of 60 days from first 

to last shot point (including anticipated 

downtime). The data acquisition is a 

24–hour operation. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Eight cetacean and four pinniped 

species under NMFS jurisdiction could 

occur in the general area of Statoil’s 

open water marine seismic survey area 

in the Chukchi Sea. These species most 

likely to occur in the general area 

project vicinity include two cetacean 

species: beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) 

and bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus), and three seal species: 

ringed (Phoca hispida), spotted (P. 

largha), and bearded seals (Erignathus 

barbatus). Most encounters are likely to 

occur in nearshore shelf habitats or 

along the ice edge. The marine mammal 

species that is likely to be encountered 

most widely (in space and time) 

throughout the period of the open water 

seismic survey is the ringed seal. 

Encounters with bowhead and beluga 

whales are expected to be limited to 

particular regions and seasons, as 

discussed below. 

Other marine mammal species that 

have been observed in the Chukchi Sea 

but are less frequent or uncommon in 

the project area include harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena), narwhal 

(Monodon monoceros), killer whale 

(Orcinus orca), fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus), minke whale (B. 

acutorostrata), humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), and ribbon seal 

(Histriophoca fasciata). These species 

could occur in the project area, but each 

of these species is uncommon or rare in 

the area and relatively few encounters 

with these species are expected during 

the proposed marine seismic survey. 

The narwhal occurs in Canadian waters 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32381 

and occasionally in the Beaufort Sea, 

but it is rare there and is not expected 

to be encountered. There are scattered 

records of narwhal in Alaskan waters, 

including reports by subsistence 

hunters, where the species is considered 

extralimital (Reeves et al. 2002). Point 

Barrow, Alaska, is the approximate 

northeastern extent of the harbor 

porpoise’s regular range (Suydam and 

George 1992). Humpback, fin, and 

minke whales have recently been 

sighted in the Chukchi Sea but very 

rarely in the Beaufort Sea. Greene et al. 

(2007) reported and photographed a 

humpback whale cow/calf pair east of 

Barrow near Smith Bay in 2007, which 

is the first known occurrence of 

humpbacks in the Beaufort Sea. 

Savarese et al. (2009) reported one 

minke whale sighting in the Beaufort 

Sea in 2007 and 2008. Ribbon seals do 

not normally occur in the Beaufort Sea; 

however, two ribbon seal sightings were 

reported during vessel-based activities 

near Prudhoe Bay in 2008 (Savarese et 

al. 2009). 

The bowhead, fin, and humpback 

whales are listed as ‘‘endangered’’ under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

as depleted under the MMPA. Certain 

stocks or populations of gray, beluga, 

and killer whales and spotted seals are 

listed as endangered or proposed for 

listing under the ESA; however, none of 

those stocks or populations occur in the 

proposed activity area. Additionally, the 

ribbon seal is considered a ‘‘species of 

concern’’ under the ESA, and the 

bearded and ringed seals are ‘‘candidate 

species’’ under the ESA, meaning they 

are currently being considered for 

listing. 

Statoil’s application contains 

information on the status, distribution, 

seasonal distribution, and abundance of 

each of the species under NMFS 

jurisdiction mentioned in this 

document. Please refer to the 

application for that information (see 

ADDRESSES). Additional information can 

also be found in the NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR). The Alaska 

2009 SAR is available at: http:// 

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

ak2009.pdf. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

Operating active acoustic sources 

such as an airgun array has the potential 

for adverse effects on marine mammals. 

Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on 

Marine Mammals 

The effects of sounds from airgun 

pulses might include one or more of the 

following: tolerance, masking of natural 

sounds, behavioral disturbance, and 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment or non-auditory effects 

(Richardson et al. 1995). As outlined in 

previous NMFS documents, the effects 

of noise on marine mammals are highly 

variable, and can be categorized as 

follows (based on Richardson et al. 

1995): 

(1) Tolerance 

Numerous studies have shown that 

pulsed sounds from airguns are often 

readily detectable in the water at 

distances of many kilometers. 

Numerous studies have shown that 

marine mammals at distances more than 

a few kilometers from operating seismic 

vessels often show no apparent 

response. That is often true even in 

cases when the pulsed 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 airgun pulses under 

some conditions, at other times, 

mammals of all three types have shown 

no overt reactions. In general, pinnipeds 

and small odontocetes seem to be more 

tolerant of exposure to airgun pulses 

than baleen whales. 

(2) Behavioral Disturbance 

Marine mammals may behaviorally 

react to sound when exposed to 

anthropogenic noise. 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 noise 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 could be expected to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, and 

reproduction. Some of these significant 

behavioral modifications include: 

• Drastic change in diving/surfacing 

patterns (such as those thought to be 

causing beaked whale stranding due to 

exposure to military mid-frequency 

tactical sonar); 

• Habitat abandonment due to loss of 

desirable acoustic environment; and 

• Cease 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) and is also 

difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007). 

Currently NMFS uses 160 dB re 1 μPa 

at received level for impulse noises 

(such as airgun pulses) as the onset of 

marine mammal behavioral harassment. 

(3) Masking 

Chronic exposure to excessive, though 

not high-intensity, noise could cause 

masking at particular frequencies for 

marine mammals that utilize sound for 

vital biological functions. Masking can 

interfere with detection of acoustic 

signals such as communication calls, 

echolocation sounds, and 

environmental sounds important to 

marine mammals. Since marine 

mammals depend on acoustic cues for 

vital biological functions, such as 

orientation, communication, finding 

prey, and avoiding predators, marine 

mammals that experience severe 

acoustic masking will have reduced 

fitness in survival and reproduction. 

Masking occurs when noise and 

signals (that animal utilizes) overlap at 

both spectral and temporal scales. For 

the airgun noise generated from the 

proposed marine seismic survey, these 

are low frequency (under 1 kHz) pulses 

with extremely short durations (in the 

scale of milliseconds). Lower frequency 

man-made noises 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 due to the brief duration of 

these pulses and relatively longer 

silence between airgun shots (9 - 12 

seconds) near the noise source, 

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). Therefore it 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). 

Nevertheless, the intensity of the noise 

is also greatly reduced at such long 

distances (for example, the modeled 

received level drops below 120 dB re 1 

μPa rms at 14,900 m from the source). 

Marine mammals are thought to be 

able to compensate for masking by 

adjusting their acoustic behavior such as 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32382 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

shifting call frequencies, 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 (Eubalaena 

glacialis) 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). 

(4) Hearing Impairment 

Marine mammals exposed to high 

intensity sound repeatedly or for 

prolonged periods can experience 

hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 

the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain 

frequency ranges (Kastak et al. 1999; 

Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 

2002; 2005). TS can be permanent 

(PTS), in which case the loss of hearing 

sensitivity is unrecoverable, or 

temporary (TTS), in which case the 

animal’s hearing threshold will recover 

over time (Southall et al. 2007). Just like 

masking, marine mammals that suffer 

from PTS or TTS will have reduced 

fitness in survival and reproduction, 

either permanently or temporarily. 

Repeated noise exposure that leads to 

TTS could cause PTS. For transient 

sounds, the sound level necessary to 

cause TTS is inversely related to the 

duration of the sound. 

Experiments on a bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncates) and beluga whale 

showed that exposure to a single 

watergun impulse at a received level of 

207 kPa (or 30 psi) peak-to-peak (p-p), 

which is equivalent to 228 dB re 1 μPa 

(p-p), resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in 

the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, 

respectively. Thresholds returned to 

within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level 

within 4 minutes of the exposure 

(Finneran et al. 2002). No TTS was 

observed in the bottlenose dolphin. 

Although the source level of pile driving 

from one hammer strike is expected to 

be much lower than the single watergun 

impulse cited here, animals being 

exposed for a prolonged period to 

repeated hammer strikes could receive 

more noise exposure in terms of SEL 

than from the single watergun impulse 

(estimated at 188 dB re 1 μPa2–s) in the 

aforementioned experiment (Finneran et 

al. 2002). 

For baleen whales, there are no data, 

direct or indirect, on levels or properties 

of sound that are required to induce 

TTS. The frequencies to which baleen 

whales are most sensitive are lower than 

those to which odontocetes are most 

sensitive, and natural ambient noise 

levels at those low frequencies tend to 

be higher (Urick 1983). As a result, 

auditory thresholds of baleen whales 

within their frequency band of best 

hearing are believed to be higher (less 

sensitive) than are those of odontocetes 

at their best frequencies (Clark and 

Ellison, 2004). From this, it is suspected 

that received levels causing TTS onset 

may also be higher in baleen whales. 

However, no cases of TTS are expected 

given the small size of the airguns 

proposed to be used and the strong 

likelihood that baleen whales 

(especially migrating bowheads) would 

avoid the approaching airguns (or 

vessel) before being exposed to levels 

high enough for there to be any 

possibility of TTS. 

In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds 

associated with exposure to brief pulses 

(single or multiple) of underwater sound 

have not been measured. Initial 

evidence from prolonged exposures 

suggested that some pinnipeds may 

incur TTS at somewhat lower received 

levels than do small odontocetes 

exposed for similar durations (Kastak et 

al. 1999, 2005; Ketten et al. 2001). 

However, more recent indications are 

that TTS onset in the most sensitive 

pinniped species studied (harbor seal, 

which is closely related to the ringed 

seal) may occur at a similar SEL as in 

odontocetes (Kastak et al., 2004). 

NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that 

cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be 

exposed to pulsed underwater noise at 

received levels exceeding, respectively, 

180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa rms. The 

established 180- and 190–dB re 1 μPa 

rms criteria are not considered to be the 

levels above which TTS might occur. 

Rather, they are the received levels 

above which, in the view of a panel of 

bioacoustics specialists convened by 

NMFS before TTS measurements for 

marine mammals started to become 

available, one could not be certain that 

there would be no injurious effects, 

auditory or otherwise, to marine 

mammals. As summarized above, data 

that are now available to imply that TTS 

is unlikely to occur unless bow-riding 

odontocetes are exposed to airgun 

pulses much stronger than 180 dB re 1 

μPa rms (Southall et al. 2007). 

No cases of TTS are expected as a 

result of Statoil’s proposed seismic 

activity due to the fact that much higher 

received levels than 180- and 190–dB 

would be needed to induce TTS. In 

addition, the strong likelihood that 

baleen whales (especially migrating 

bowheads) would avoid the 

approaching airguns (or vessel) before 

being exposed to levels high enough for 

there to be any possibility of TTS, and 

the mitigation and monitoring measures 

prescribed (described below in the 

document) will largely prevent marine 

mammals from being exposed to SPL 

above 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

There is no empirical evidence that 

exposure to pulses of airgun sound can 

cause PTS in any marine mammal, even 

with large arrays of airguns (see 

Southall et al., 2007). However, given 

the possibility that mammals close to an 

airgun array might incur TTS, there has 

been further speculation about the 

possibility that some individuals 

occurring very close to airguns might 

incur PTS. Single or occasional 

occurrences of mild TTS are not 

indicative of permanent auditory 

damage in terrestrial mammals. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, but are assumed to be 

similar to those in humans and other 

terrestrial mammals. That is, PTS might 

occur at a received sound level 

magnitudes higher than the level of 

onset TTS, or by repeated exposure to 

the levels that cause TTS. Therefore, by 

means of preventing the onset of TTS, 

it is highly unlikely that marine 

mammals could receive sounds strong 

enough (and over a sufficient duration) 

to cause permanent hearing impairment 

during the proposed marine seismic 

survey in the Chukchi Sea. 

(5) Non-auditory Physical Effects 

Non-auditory physical effects might 

occur in marine mammals exposed to 

strong underwater pulsed 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. However, there is no 

definitive evidence that any of these 

effects occur even for marine mammals 

in close proximity to large arrays of 

airguns, and beaked whales do not 

occur in the proposed project area. In 

addition, marine mammals that show 

behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, 

including most baleen whales, some 

odontocetes (including 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32383 

energetic and their peak amplitudes 

have slower rise times. Up-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. 

However, in numerous past IHA 

notices for seismic surveys, commenters 

have referenced two stranding events 

allegedly associated with seismic 

activities, one off Baja California and a 

second off Brazil. NMFS has addressed 

this concern several times, and, without 

new information, does not believe that 

this issue warrants further discussion. 

For information relevant to strandings of 

marine mammals, readers are 

encouraged to review NMFS’ response 

to comments on this matter found in 69 

FR 74905 (December 14, 2004), 71 FR 

43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 

(August 24, 2006), and 71 FR 49418 

(August 23, 2006). In addition, a MayJune 2008, stranding of 100–200 melonheaded whales (Peponocephala electra) 

off Madagascar that appears to be 

associated with seismic surveys is 

currently under investigation (IWC 

2009). 

It should be noted that strandings 

related to sound exposure have not been 

recorded for marine mammal species in 

the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. NMFS 

notes that in the Beaufort Sea, aerial 

surveys have been conducted by MMS 

and industry during periods of 

industrial activity (and by MMS during 

times with no activity). No strandings or 

marine mammals in distress have been 

observed during these surveys and none 

have been reported by North Slope 

Borough inhabitants. As a result, NMFS 

does not expect any marine mammals 

will incur serious injury or mortality in 

the Arctic Ocean or strand as a result of 

proposed seismic survey. 

Potential Effects from Pinger System on 

Marine Mammals 

A pinger system (DigiRANGE II) will 

be used during seismic operations to 

position the airgun array and 

hydrophone streamer relative to the 

vessel. The specifications of the 

DigiRANGE II pinger system (source 

levels and frequency ranges) are 

provided above. The pinger produces 

sounds that are above the range of 

frequencies produced or heard by 

mysticetes. However, the beluga whales 

and other odontocetes have good 

hearing sensitivity across the pingers 

major frequency range, which is at 50 - 

100 kHz (Au et al. 1978; Johnson et al. 

1989). Some seals also can hear sounds 

at frequencies up to somewhat above 55 

kHz. In general, the potential effects of 

the pulse pinger on marine mammals 

are similar to those from the airgun, but 

the magnitude of the impacts is 

expected to be much less due to much 

lower intensity and higher frequencies. 

Estimated source levels and zones of 

influence from the pinger system are 

discussed above. 

Vessel Sounds 

In addition to the noise generated 

from seismic airguns, various types of 

vessels will be used in the operations, 

including source vessels and support 

vessels. Sounds from boats and vessels 

have been reported extensively (Greene 

and Moore 1995; Blackwell and Greene 

2002; 2005; 2006). Numerous 

measurements of underwater vessel 

sound have been performed in support 

of recent industry activity in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Results of 

these measurements were reported in 

various 90–day and comprehensive 

reports since 2007 (e.g., Aerts et al. 

2008; Hauser et al. 2008; Brueggeman 

2009; Ireland et al. 2009). For example, 

Garner and Hannay (2009) estimated 

sound pressure levels of 100 dB at 

distances ranging from approximately 

1.5 to 2.3 mi (2.4 to 3.7 km) from 

various types of barges. MacDonald et 

al. (2008) estimated higher underwater 

SPLs from the seismic vessel Gilavar of 

120 dB at approximately 13 mi (21 km) 

from the source, although the sound 

level was only 150 dB at 85 ft (26 m) 

from the vessel. Compared to airgun 

pulses, underwater sound from vessels 

is generally at relatively low 

frequencies. 

The primary sources of sounds from 

all vessel classes are propeller 

cavitation, propeller singing, and 

propulsion or other machinery. 

Propeller cavitation is usually the 

dominant noise source for vessels (Ross 

1976). Propeller cavitation and singing 

are produced outside the hull, whereas 

propulsion or other machinery noise 

originates inside the hull. There are 

additional sounds produced by vessel 

activity, such as pumps, generators, 

flow noise from water passing over the 

hull, and bubbles breaking in the wake. 

Icebreakers contribute greater sound 

levels during ice-breaking activities than 

ships of similar size during normal 

operation in open water (Richardson et 

al. 1995). This higher sound production 

results from the greater amount of 

power and propeller cavitation required 

when operating in thick ice. Source 

levels from various vessels would be 

empirically measured before the start of 

marine surveys. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

The primary potential impacts to 

marine mammals 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. 

Potential Impacts on Prey Species 

With regard to fish as a prey source 

for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 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. 

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), and a quicker alarm 

response is elicited when the 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. 

1995). 

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, and 

others feed intermittently during their 

westward migration in September and 

October (Richardson and Thomson 

[eds.] 2002; Lowry et al. 2004). 

However, by the time most bowhead 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32384 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

whales reach the Chukchi Sea (October), 

they will likely no longer be feeding, or 

if it occurs it will be very limited. A 

reaction by zooplankton to a seismic 

impulse 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 source. Impacts 

on zooplankton behavior are predicted 

to be negligible, and that would 

translate into negligible impacts on 

feeding mysticetes. Thus, 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 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 adverse 

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. 

For the proposed Statoil open water 

marine seismic survey in the Chukchi 

Sea, Statoil worked with NMFS and 

proposed the following mitigation 

measures to minimize the potential 

impacts to marine mammals in the 

project vicinity as a result of the marine 

seismic survey activities. 

As part of the application, Statoil 

submitted to NMFS a Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Mitigation Program 

(4MP) for its open water seismic survey 

in the Chukchi Sea during the 2010 

open-water season. The objectives of the 

4MP are: 

• to ensure that disturbance to marine 

mammals and subsistence hunts is 

minimized and all permit stipulations 

are followed, 

• to document the effects of the 

proposed survey activities on marine 

mammals, and 

• to collect baseline data on the 

occurrence and distribution of marine 

mammals in the study area. 

The 4MP 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). 

Mitigation Measures Proposed in 

Statoil’s IHA Application 

For the proposed mitigation measures, 

Statoil listed the following protocols to 

be implemented during its marine 

seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea. 

(1) Sound Source Measurements 

As described above, previous 

measurements of similar airgun arrays 

in the Chukchi Sea were used to model 

the distances at which received levels 

are likely to fall below 120, 160, 180, 

and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) from the 

planned airgun sources. These modeled 

distances will be used as temporary 

safety radii until measurements of the 

airgun sound source are conducted. The 

measurements will be made at the 

beginning of the field season and the 

measured radii used for the remainder 

of the survey period. 

The objectives of the sound source 

verification measurements planned for 

2010 in the Chukchi Sea will be to 

measure the distances in the broadside 

and endfire directions at which 

broadband received levels reach 190, 

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

for the energy source array 

combinations that may be used during 

the survey activities. The configurations 

will include at least the full array and 

the operation of a single mitigation 

source that will be used during power 

downs. The measurements of energy 

source array sounds will be made by an 

acoustics contractor at the beginning of 

the survey and the distances to the 

various radii will be reported as soon as 

possible after recovery of the 

equipment. The primary radii of 

concern will be the 190 and 180 dB 

safety radii for pinnipeds and cetaceans, 

respectively, and the 160 dB radii for 

zone of influence (ZOI). In addition to 

reporting the radii of specific regulatory 

concern, nominal distances to other 

sound isopleths down to 120 dB (rms) 

will be reported in increments of 10 dB. 

Data will be previewed in the field 

immediately after download from the 

ocean bottom hydrophone (OBH) 

instruments. An initial sound source 

analysis will be supplied to NMFS and 

the airgun operators within 120 hours of 

completion of the measurements, if 

possible. The report will indicate the 

distances to sound levels between 190 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) and 120 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) based on fits of empirical 

transmission loss formulae to data in the 

endfire and broadside directions. The 

120–hour report findings will be based 

on analysis of measurements from at 

least three of the OBH systems. A more 

detailed report including analysis of 

data from all OBH systems will be 

issued to NMFS as part of the 90–day 

report following completion of the 

acoustic program. 

(2) Safety and Disturbance Zones 

Under current NMFS guidelines, 

‘‘safety radii’’ for marine mammal 

exposure to impulse sources are 

customarily defined as the distances 

within which received sound levels are 

μ180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and 

μ190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 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 that 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 safety radii (Richardson et al. 

1995). 

Initial safety and disturbance radii for 

the sound levels produced by the survey 

activities have been estimated from 

measurements of similar seismic arrays 

used in the Chukchi Sea in previous 

years. These radii will be used for 

mitigation purposes until results of 

direct measurements are available early 

during the exploration activities. 

The basis for the estimation of 

distances to the four received sound 

levels from the proposed 3000 in3

airgun array operating at a depth of 20 

ft (6 m) are the 2006, 2007 and 2008 

sound source verification (SSV) 

measurements in the Chukchi Sea of a 

similar array, towed at a similar depth. 

The measured airgun array had a total 

discharge volume of 3,147 in3 and was 

composed of three identically-tuned 

Bolt airgun sub-arrays, totaling 24 

airguns (6 clusters of 2 airguns and 12 

single airguns). The proposed 3,000 in3

array is also composed of three strings 

with a total of 26 active airguns in 13 

clusters. The difference in discharge 

volume would lead to an expected loss 

of less than 0.2 dB and is neglected in 

this assessment. The estimated source 

level for the full 3,000 in3 array is 245 

dB re 1 μPA (rms). Without 

measurement data for the specific site to 

be surveyed, it is reasonable to adopt 

the maximum distances obtained from a 

similar array during previous 

measurements in the Chukchi Sea. 

Table 1 summarizes the distances to 

received levels of 190, 180 160, and 120 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) that are adopted for 

the analysis for the proposed survey. 

Distances for received levels of 120 dB 

are highly variable, in part because the 

bottom geoacoustic properties will have 

a major effect on received levels at such 

distances. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32385 

To estimate the distances to various 

received levels from the 60 in3

mitigation gun the data from previous 

measurements of a 30 in3 gun were 

used. In general the pressure increase 

relative to a 30 in3 gun can be derived 

by calculating the square root of (60/30), 

which is 1.41. This means that the dB 

levels for the sound pressure levels of a 

60 in3 will increase by approximately 3 

dB (20Log[1.41]) compared to the 30 in3

gun. The distances as summarized in 

Table 1 were derived by adding 3 dB to 

the constant term of the equation RL = 

226.6 - 21.2log(R) - 0.00022R. The 

estimated source level of this single 60 

in3 airgun is 230 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

TABLE 1. ESTIMATED DISTANCES TO RECEIVED SOUND LEVELS μ190, 180, 170, 160, AND 120 DB RE 1 μPA (RMS) FROM

THE 3,000 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY AND THE 60 IN3 MITIGATION GUN OF THE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY. THESE DISTANCES ARE BASED ON MEASUREMENTS IN THE CHUKCHI SEA FROM A SIMILAR AIRGUN ARRAY. 

Received Levels (dB re 1 μPa 

rms) 

Distance (m) 

3,000 in3 (full airgun array) 60 in3 (mitigation airgun) 

190 700 70 

180 2,500 220 

160 13,000 1,800 

120 70,000 - 120,000 50,000 

An acoustics contractor will perform 

the direct measurements of the received 

levels of underwater sound versus 

distance and direction from the energy 

source arrays using calibrated 

hydrophones. The acoustic data will be 

analyzed as quickly as reasonably 

practicable in the field and used to 

verify (and if necessary adjust) the 

safety distances. The field report will be 

made available to NMFS and the MMOs 

within 120 hrs of completing the 

measurements. The mitigation measures 

to be implemented at the 190 and 180 

dB sound levels will include power 

downs and shut downs as described 

below. 

(3) Power Downs and Shut Downs 

A power-down is the immediate 

reduction in the number of operating 

energy sources from all firing to some 

smaller number. A shutdown is the 

immediate cessation of firing of all 

energy sources. The arrays will be 

immediately powered down whenever a 

marine mammal is sighted approaching 

close to or within the applicable safety 

zone of the full arrays but is outside or 

about to enter the applicable safety zone 

of the single mitigation source. If a 

marine mammal is sighted within the 

applicable safety zone of the single 

mitigation airgun, the entire array will 

be shut down (i.e., no sources firing). 

Following a power-down or 

shutdown, operation of the airgun array 

will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the applicable 

safety zone. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the safety 

zone if it: 

• Is visually observed to have left the 

safety zone; 

• Has not been seen within the zone 

for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds; or 

• Has not been seen within the zone 

for 30 min in the case of mysticetes. 

(4) Ramp Ups 

A ramp up of an airgun array provides 

a gradual increase in sound levels, and 

involves a stepwise 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 proposed seismic survey, 

the seismic operator will ramp up the 

airgun arrays slowly. Full ramp ups (i.e., 

from a cold start after a shut down, 

when no airguns have been firing) will 

begin by firing a single airgun in the 

array. The minimum duration of a shutdown period, i.e., without air guns 

firing, which must be followed by a 

ramp up, is typically the amount of time 

it would take the source vessel to cover 

the 180–dB safety radius. The actual 

time period depends on ship speed and 

the size of the 180–dB safety radius. 

That period is estimated to be about 15 

- 20 minutes based on the modeling 

results described above and a survey 

speed of 4 knots. 

A full ramp up, after a shut down, 

will not begin until there has been a 

minimum of 30 min of observation of 

the safety zone by MMOs to assure that 

no marine mammals are present. The 

entire safety zone must be visible during 

the 30–minute lead-in to a full ramp up. 

If the entire safety zone is not visible, 

then ramp up from a cold start cannot 

begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted 

within the safety 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 

safety zone or the animal(s) is not 

sighted for at least 15 - 30 minutes: 15 

minutes for small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds, or 30 minutes for baleen 

whales and large odontocetes. 

During turns and transit between 

seismic transects, at least one airgun 

will remain operational. The ramp-up 

procedure still will be followed when 

increasing the source levels from one 

airgun to the full arrays. However, 

keeping one airgun firing will avoid the 

prohibition of a cold start during 

darkness or other periods of poor 

visibility. Through use of this approach, 

seismic operations can resume upon 

entry to a new transect without a full 

ramp up and the associated 30–minute 

lead-in observations. MMOs will be on 

duty whenever the airguns are firing 

during daylight, and during the 30–min 

periods prior to ramp-ups as well as 

during ramp-ups. Daylight will occur for 

24 h/day until mid-August, so until that 

date MMOs will automatically be 

observing during the 30–minute period 

preceding a ramp up. Later in the 

season, MMOs will be called out at 

night to observe prior to and during any 

ramp up. The seismic operator and 

MMOs will maintain records of the 

times when ramp-ups start, and when 

the airgun arrays reach full power. 

Additional Mitigation Measures 

Proposed by NMFS 

Besides Statoil’s proposed mitigation 

measures discussed above, NMFS 

proposes the following additional 

protective measures to address some 

uncertainties regarding the impacts of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32386 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

bowhead cow-calf pairs and 

aggregations of whales from seismic 

surveys. Specifically, NMFS proposes 

that 

• A 160–dB vessel monitoring zone 

for large whales will be established and 

monitored in the Chukchi Sea during all 

seismic surveys. Whenever an 

aggregation of bowhead whales or gray 

whales (12 or more whales of any age/ 

sex class that appear to be engaged in a 

nonmigratory, significant biological 

behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing)) are 

observed during an aerial or vessel 

monitoring program within the 160–dB 

safety zone around the seismic activity, 

the seismic operation will not 

commence or will shut down, until two 

consecutive surveys (aerial or vessel) 

indicate they are no longer present 

within the 160–dB safety zone of 

seismic-surveying operations. 

• Survey information, especially 

information about bowhead whale cow/ 

calf pairs or feeding bowhead or gray 

whales, shall be provided to NMFS as 

required in MMPA authorizations, and 

will form the basis for NMFS 

determining whether additional 

mitigation measures, if any, will be 

required over a given time period. 

Furthermore, NMFS proposes the 

following measures be included in the 

IHA, if issued, in order to ensure the 

least practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks: 

(1) All vessels should reduce speed 

when within 300 yards (274 m) of 

whales, and those vessels capable of 

steering around such groups should do 

so. Vessels may not be operated in such 

a way as to separate members of a group 

of whales from other members of the 

group; 

(2) Avoid multiple changes in 

direction and speed when within 300 

yards (274 m) of whales; and 

(3) When weather conditions require, 

such as when visibility drops, support 

vessels must adjust speed accordingly to 

avoid the likelihood of injury to whales. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures and considered a range of 

other measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: 

• the manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

• the proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

• the practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation. 

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 mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

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. 

Monitoring Measures Proposed in 

Statoil’s IHA Application 

The monitoring plan proposed by 

Statoil can be found in the 4MP. 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). A summary of the primary 

components of the plan follows. 

(1) Vessel-Based MMOs 

Vessel-based monitoring for marine 

mammals will be done by trained 

MMOs throughout the period of marine 

survey activities. MMOs will monitor 

the occurrence and behavior of marine 

mammals near the survey vessel during 

all daylight periods during operation 

and during most daylight periods when 

airgun operations are not occurring. 

MMO duties will include watching for 

and identifying marine mammals, 

recording their numbers, distances, and 

reactions to the survey operations, and 

documenting ‘‘take by harassment’’ as 

defined by NMFS. 

A sufficient number of MMOs will be 

required onboard the survey vessel to 

meet the following criteria: (1) 100% 

monitoring coverage during all periods 

of survey operations in daylight; (2) 

maximum of 4 consecutive hours on 

watch per MMO; and (3) maximum of 

12 hours of watch time per day per 

MMO. 

MMO teams will consist of Inupiat 

observers and experienced field 

biologists. An experienced field crew 

leader will supervise the MMO team 

onboard the survey vessel. The total 

number of MMOs may decrease later in 

the season as the duration of daylight 

decreases. 

Statoil anticipates one crew change to 

occur approximately half-way through 

the season. During crew rotations 

detailed hand-over notes will be 

provided to the incoming crew leader by 

the outgoing leader. Other 

communications such as email, fax, 

and/or phone communication between 

the current and oncoming crew leaders 

during each rotation will also occur 

when possible. In the event of an 

unexpected crew change Statoil will 

facilitate such communications to 

insure monitoring consistency among 

shifts. 

Crew leaders and most other 

biologists serving as observers in 2010 

will be individuals with experience as 

observers during one or more of the 

1996–2009 seismic or shallow hazards 

monitoring projects in Alaska, the 

Canadian Beaufort, or other offshore 

areas in recent years. 

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, familiar with 

the marine mammals of the area, and 

complete a NMFS approved observer 

training course designed to familiarize 

individuals with monitoring and data 

collection procedures. A marine 

mammal observers’ handbook, adapted 

for the specifics of the planned survey 

program, will be prepared and 

distributed beforehand to all MMOs. 

Most observers, including Inupiat 

observers, will also complete a two or 

three-day training and refresher session 

on marine mammal monitoring, to be 

conducted shortly before the anticipated 

start of the 2010 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. 

Primary objectives of the training 

include: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32387 

• review of the marine mammal 

monitoring plan for this project, 

including any amendments specified by 

NMFS in the IHA (if issued), by USFWS 

and by MMS, or by other agreements in 

which Statoil may elect to participate; 

• review of marine mammal sighting, 

identification, and distance estimation 

methods; 

• review of operation of specialized 

equipment (reticle binoculars, night 

vision devices, and GPS system); 

• review of, and classroom practice 

with, data recording and data entry 

systems, including procedures for 

recording data on marine mammal 

sightings, monitoring operations, 

environmental conditions, and entry 

error control. These procedures will be 

implemented through use of a 

customized computer database and 

laptop computers; 

• review of the specific tasks of the 

Inupiat Communicator. 

The MMOs will watch for marine 

mammals from the best available 

vantage point on the survey vessels, 

typically the bridge. The MMOs will 

scan systematically with the unaided 

eye and 7 50 reticle binoculars, 

supplemented during good visibility 

conditions with Fujinon 25x150 ‘‘Bigeye’’ binoculars mounted on a bride 

wing or flying bridge (seismic vessel 

only), and night-vision equipment when 

needed (see below). Personnel on the 

bridge will assist the marine mammal 

observer(s) in watching for marine 

mammals. Data from the infrared radar 

will be monitored in order to investigate 

if this could improve the detection and 

record keeping of mammals, especially 

during periods of low visibility. 

Information to be recorded by marine 

mammal observers will include the 

same types of information that were 

recorded during recent monitoring 

programs associated with industry 

activity in the Arctic (e.g., Ireland et al. 

2009). When a mammal sighting is 

made, the following information about 

the sighting will be recorded: 

(A) Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from the MMO, apparent 

reaction to activities (e.g., none, 

avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), 

closest point of approach, and 

behavioral pace; 

(B) Time, location, speed, activity of 

the vessel, sea state, ice cover, visibility, 

and sun glare; and 

(C) The positions of other vessel(s) in 

the vicinity of the MMO location. 

The ship’s position, speed of support 

vessels, and water temperature, water 

depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and 

sun glare will also be recorded at the 

start and end of each observation watch, 

every 30 minutes during a watch, and 

whenever there is a change in any of 

those variables. 

Distances to nearby marine mammals 

will be estimated with binoculars 

(Fujinon 7 x 50 binoculars) containing 

a reticle to measure the vertical angle of 

the line of sight to the animal relative 

to the horizon. MMOs may use a laser 

rangefinder to test and improve their 

abilities for visually estimating 

distances to objects in the water. 

However, previous experience showed 

that a Class 1 eye-safe device was not 

able to measure distances to seals more 

than about 230 ft (70 m) away. The 

device was very useful in improving the 

distance estimation abilities of the 

observers at distances up to about 1,968 

ft (600 m)-the maximum range at which 

the device could measure distances to 

highly reflective objects such as other 

vessels. Humans observing objects of 

more-or-less known size via a standard 

observation protocol, in this case from 

a standard height above water, quickly 

become able to estimate distances 

within about =20% when given 

immediate feedback about actual 

distances during training. 

Monitoring At Night and In Poor 

Visibility 

Night-vision equipment (Generation 3 

binocular image intensifiers, or 

equivalent units) will be available for 

use when/if 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). 

A prototype infrared radar will be 

mounted on the source vessel in order 

to try to improve the visual observations 

during times of poor visibility. The 

infrared radar detects thermal contrasts 

and its ability to sense these differences 

is not dependent on daylight. It may 

therefore improve the ability to detect 

marine mammals during nighttime. The 

ability of the IR radar to detect marine 

mammals is not yet proven and the 

intent is to collect data that can help 

determine if it can be used as an 

effective monitoring tool in the future. 

However, if during the course of testing, 

a reliable detection of a marine mammal 

within a safety zone requiring a 

mitigation action is made using the 

radar system, the necessary actions will 

be taken by the MMOs. That is, even if 

the system is not entirely proven, 

reliable results made during testing that 

may provide protection to marine 

mammals will not be ignored. 

(2) Acoustic Monitoring 

Sound Source Measurements 

As described above, previous 

measurements of airguns in the Chukchi 

Sea were used to estimate the distances 

at which received levels are likely to fall 

below 120, 160, 180, and 190 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) from the planned airgun 

sources. These modeled distances will 

be used as temporary safety radii until 

measurements of the airgun sound 

source are conducted. The 

measurements will be made at the 

beginning of the field season and the 

measured radii used for the remainder 

of the survey period. An acoustics 

contractor with experience in the Arctic 

conducting similar measurements in 

recent years will use their equipment to 

record and analyze the underwater 

sounds and write the summary reports 

as described below. 

The objectives of the sound source 

verification measurements planned for 

2010 in the Chukchi Sea will be (1) to 

measure the distances in the broadside 

and endfire directions at which 

broadband received levels reach 190, 

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

for the energy source array 

combinations that may be used during 

the survey activities. The configurations 

will include at least the full array and 

the operation of a single mitigation 

source that will be used during power 

downs. The measurements of energy 

source array sounds will be made by an 

acoustics contractor at the beginning of 

the survey and the distances to the 

various radii will be reported as soon as 

possible after recovery of the 

equipment. The primary radii of 

concern will be the 190 and 180 dB 

safety radii for pinnipeds and cetaceans, 

respectively, and the 160 dB 

disturbance radii. In addition to 

reporting the radii of specific regulatory 

concern, nominal distances to other 

sound isopleths down to 120 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) will be reported in increments 

of 10 dB. 

Data will be previewed in the field 

immediately after download from the 

hydrophone instruments. An initial 

sound source analysis will be supplied 

to NMFS and the airgun operators 

within 120 hours of completion of the 

measurements, if possible. The report 

will indicate the distances to sound 

levels based on fits of empirical 

transmission loss formulae to data in the 

endfire and broadside directions. A 

more detailed report will be issued to 

NMFS as part of the 90–day report 

following completion of the acoustic 

program. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32388 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

2010 Shared Science Program 

Statoil, Shell, and ConocoPhillips 

(CPAI) are jointly funding an extensive 

science program in the Chukchi Sea. 

This program will be carried out by 

Olgoonik-Fairweather LLC (OFJV) with 

the vessels Norseman II and Westward 

Wind during the 2010 open water 

season. The science program is not part 

of the Statoil seismic program, but 

worth mentioning in this context due to 

the acoustic monitoring array deployed 

within the seismic survey area as shown 

in Figures 1 and 2 of Statoil’s IHA 

application. The science program 

components include: 

• Acoustics Monitoring 

• Fisheries Ecology 

• Benthic Ecology 

• Plankton Ecology 

• Mammals 

• Seabirds 

• Physical Oceanography 

The 2010 program continues the 

acoustic monitoring programs of 2006– 

2009 with a total of 44 acoustic 

recorders distributed both broadly 

across the Chukchi lease area and 

nearshore environment and intensively 

on the Statoil, Burger (Shell), and 

Klondike (CPAI) lease holdings. The 

recorders will be deployed in late July 

or early August and will be retrieved in 

early to mid-October, depending on ice 

conditions. The recorders will be the 

Advanced Multi-Channel Acoustic 

Recorder (AMAR) and the Autonomous 

Underwater Recorder for Acoustic 

Listening (AURAL) model acoustic 

buoys set to record at 16 kHz sample 

rate. These are the same recorder 

models and same sample rates that have 

been used for this program from 2006 - 

2009. The broad area arrays are 

designed to capture both general 

background soundscape data, seismic 

survey sounds and marine mammal call 

data across the lease area. From these 

recordings we have been able to gain 

insight into large-scale distributions of 

marine mammals, identification of 

marine mammal species present, 

movement and migration patterns, and 

general abundance data. 

The site specific focused arrays are 

designed to also support localization of 

marine mammal calls on and around the 

leaseholdings. In the case of the Statoil 

prospect, where Statoil intends to 

conduct seismic data acquisition in 

2010, localized calls will enable 

investigators to understand responses of 

marine mammals to survey operations 

both in terms of distribution around the 

operation and behavior (i.e. calling 

behavior). The site specific array will 

consist of 7 AMAR recorders deployed 

in a hexagonal configuration as shown 

in Figure 2 of Statoil’s 4MP, with interrecorder spacing of 8 km (12.9 mi). 

These recorders are the same types that 

were used successfully in the 2009 sitespecific acoustic monitoring program on 

Shell and CPAI prospects. The recorded 

sample resolution is 24–bits and sample 

frequency is 16 kHz, which is sufficient 

to capture part or all of the sounds 

produced by the marine mammal 

species known to be present, with the 

exception of harbor porpoise. The 

recorders will be synchronized to 

support localization of calling bowhead 

whales. Other species’ calls are typically 

detected from distances less than the 8 

km recorder separation. Consequently 

the multi-sensor triangulation method, 

that is used for bowheads calls, will not 

be used to determine calling locations of 

other species; however, detection of 

other species’ calls indicates the animal 

position within a circular region of 

radius equal to the maximum detection 

distances of a few kilometers. 

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 convened an independent peer 

review panel to review Statoil’s 

mitigation and monitoring plan in its 

IHA application for taking marine 

mammals incidental to the proposed 

marine seismic survey in the Chukchi 

Sea, during 2010. The panel met and 

reviewed the plan in late March 2010, 

and provided comments to NMFS in 

late April 2010. 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) SSV Report 

A report on the preliminary results of 

the acoustic verification measurements, 

including as a minimum the measured 

190-, 180-, 160-, and 120–dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) radii of the source vessel(s) and 

the support vessels, will be submitted 

within 120 hr after collection and 

analysis of those measurements at the 

start of the field season. This report will 

specify the distances of the safety zones 

that were adopted for the marine survey 

activities. 

(2) Field Reports 

Statoil states that throughout the 

survey program, the observers will 

prepare a report each day or at such 

other interval as the IHA (if issued), or 

Statoil may require summarizing the 

recent results of the monitoring 

program. The field reports will 

summarize the species and numbers of 

marine mammals sighted. These reports 

will be provided to NMFS and to the 

survey operators. 

(3) Technical Reports 

The results of Statoil’s 2010 open 

water marine survey monitoring 

program (i.e., vessel-based, aerial, and 

acoustic), including estimates of ‘‘take’’ 

by harassment, will be presented in the 

‘‘90–day’’ and Final Technical reports. 

Statoil proposes that the Technical 

Reports 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) analyses of the effects of survey 

operations; 

• sighting rates of marine mammals 

during periods with and without airgun 

activities (and other variables that could 

affect detectability), such as: 

• initial sighting distances versus 

airgun activity state; 

• closest point of approach versus 

airgun activity state; 

• observed behaviors and types of 

movements versus airgun activity state; 

• numbers of sightings/individuals 

seen versus airgun activity state; 

• distribution around the survey 

vessel versus airgun activity state; and 

• estimates of take by harassment. 

This information will be reported for 

both the vessel-based and aerial 

monitoring. 

(4) Comprehensive Report 

Following the 2010 open-water season 

a comprehensive report describing the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32389 

vessel-based, aerial, and acoustic 

monitoring programs will be prepared. 

The comprehensive report will describe 

the methods, results, conclusions and 

limitations of each of the individual 

data sets in detail. The report will also 

integrate (to the extent possible) the 

studies into a broad based assessment of 

industry activities, and other activities 

that occur in the Beaufort and/or 

Chukchi seas, and their impacts on 

marine mammals during 2010. The 

report will help to establish long-term 

data sets that can assist with the 

evaluation of changes in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort sea ecosystems. The report 

will attempt to provide a regional 

synthesis of available data on industry 

activity in offshore areas of northern 

Alaska that may influence marine 

mammal density, distribution and 

behavior. 

(5) Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

In addition to the reporting measures 

proposed by Statoil, NMFS will require 

that Statoil notify NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources and NMFS’ 

Stranding Network within 48 hours of 

sighting an injured or dead marine 

mammal in the vicinity of marine 

survey operations. Statoil shall provide 

NMFS with the species or description of 

the animal(s), the condition of the 

animal(s) (including carcass condition if 

the animal is dead), location, time of 

first discovery, observed behaviors (if 

alive), and photo or video (if available). 

In the event that an injured or dead 

marine mammal is found by Statoil that 

is not in the vicinity of the proposed 

open water marine survey program, 

Statoil will report the same information 

as listed above as soon as operationally 

feasible to NMFS. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. Only take by Level B 

behavioral harassment is anticipated as 

a result of the proposed open water 

marine survey program. Anticipated 

impacts to marine mammals are 

associated with noise propagation from 

the seismic airgun(s) used in the seismic 

survey. 

The full suite of potential impacts to 

marine mammals was described in 

detail in the ‘‘Potential Effects of the 

Specified Activity on Marine Mammals’’ 

section found earlier in this document. 

The potential effects of sound from the 

proposed open water marine survey 

programs might include one or more of 

the following: tolerance; masking of 

natural sounds; behavioral disturbance; 

non-auditory physical effects; and, at 

least in theory, temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment (Richardson et al. 

1995). As discussed earlier in this 

document, the most common impact 

will likely be from behavioral 

disturbance, including avoidance of the 

ensonified area or changes in speed, 

direction, and/or diving profile of the 

animal. For reasons discussed 

previously in this document, hearing 

impairment (TTS and PTS) are highly 

unlikely to occur based on the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

that would preclude marine mammals 

being exposed to noise levels high 

enough to cause hearing impairment. 

For impulse sounds, such as those 

produced by airgun(s) used in the 

seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth to indicate the 

onset of Level B harassment. Statoil 

provided calculations for the 160–dB 

isopleths produced by these active 

acoustic sources and then used those 

isopleths to estimate takes by 

harassment. NMFS used the 

calculations to make the necessary 

MMPA preliminary findings. Statoil 

provided a full description of the 

methodology used to estimate takes by 

harassment in its IHA application (see 

ADDRESSES), which is also provided in 

the following sections. 

Statoil has requested an authorization 

to take 13 marine mammal species by 

Level B harassment. These 13 marine 

mammal species are: beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), narwhal 

(Monodon monoceros), killer whale 

(Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena), bowhead whale 

(Balaena mysticetus), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback 

whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke 

whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), fin 

whale (B. physalus), bearded seal 

(Erignathus barbatus), ringed seal 

(Phoca hispida), spotted seal (P. largha), 

and ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata). 

However, NMFS consider that narwhals 

are not likely to occur in the proposed 

survey area during the time of the 

proposed marine seismic survey. 

Therefore, NMFS considers that only 

the other 12 marine mammal species 

could be affected by Level B behavioral 

harassment as a result of the proposed 

marine surveys. 

Basis for Estimating ‘‘Take by 

Harassment’’ 

As stated previously, it is current 

NMFS policy to estimate take by Level 

B harassment for impulse sounds at a 

received level of 160 dB re 1μPa (rms). 

However, not all animals react to 

sounds at this low level, and many will 

not show strong reactions (and in some 

cases any reaction) until sounds are 

much stronger. Southall et al. (2007) 

provide a severity scale for ranking 

observed behavioral responses of both 

free-ranging marine mammals and 

laboratory subjects to various types of 

anthropogenic sound (see Table 4 in 

Southall et al. (2007)). Tables 7, 9, and 

11 in Southall et al. (2007) outline the 

numbers of low-frequency cetaceans, 

mid-frequency cetaceans, and pinnipeds 

in water, respectively, reported as 

having behavioral responses to multipulses in 10–dB received level 

increments. These tables illustrate that 

the more severe reactions did not occur 

until sounds were much higher than 160 

dB re 1μPa (rms). 

As described earlier in the document, 

the proposed open water marine seismic 

survey would use two airgun arrays 

with a total discharge volume of 3,000 

in3. The modeled 160 dB zone of 

influence reaches to 13 km from the 

airgun source. The estimated number of 

animals potentially harassed was 

calculated by multiplying the expected 

densities (in number/km2) by the 

anticipated area ensonified by levels of 

μ160 dB re 1μPa. Estimates of the 

number of animals potentially impacted 

were conducted separately for the 3D 

survey area and the 2D survey lines. For 

the 3D survey area, the anticipated area 

ensonified by sound levels of μ160 dB 

was calculated as an area encompassing 

a 8.1 mi (13 km) radius extending from 

each point of the survey area perimeter 

(hereafter called the 160 dB exposed 

survey area). This approach was taken 

because closely spaced survey lines and 

large cross-track distances of the μ160 

dB radii result in repeated exposure of 

the same area of water. Excessive 

amounts of repeated exposure leads to 

an overestimation of the number of 

animals potentially exposed. For the 2D 

survey lines the area ensonified by 

sound levels of μ160 dB was calculated 

as the total line kilometers multiplied 

by 2 times the 8.1 mi (13 km) μ160 dB 

safety radius. The following subsections 

describe in more detail the data and 

methods used in deriving the estimated 

number of animals potentially ‘‘taken by 

harassment’’ during the proposed 

survey. It provides information on the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32390 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

expected marine mammal densities, 

estimated distances to received levels of 

190, 180, 160, and 120 dB re 1μPa and 

the calculation of anticipated areas 

ensonified by levels of μ160 dB. 

It is important to understand that not 

all published results from visual 

observations have applied correction 

factors that account for detectability and 

availability bias. Detectability bias, 

quantified in part by f(0), is associated 

with diminishing sightability with 

increasing lateral distance from the 

survey trackline. Availability bias [g(0)] 

refers to the fact that not all animals are 

at the surface and that there is therefore 

<100% probability of sighting an animal 

that is present along the survey 

trackline. Some sources below included 

correction factors in the reported 

densities (e.g., ringed seals in Bengtson 

et al. 2005) and the best available 

correction factors were applied to 

reported results when they had not 

already been included (e.g., Moore et al. 

2000b). 

(1) Cetaceans 

Eight species of cetaceans are known 

to occur in the Chukchi Sea area of the 

proposed Statoil project. Only four of 

these (bowhead, beluga, and gray 

whales, and harbor porpoise) are likely 

to be encountered during the proposed 

survey activities. Three of the eight 

species (bowhead, fin, and humpback 

whales) are listed as endangered under 

the ESA. Of these, only the bowhead is 

likely to be found within the survey 

area. 

Beluga Whales - Summer densities of 

beluga in offshore waters are expected 

to be low. Aerial surveys have recorded 

few belugas in the offshore Chukchi Sea 

during the summer months (Moore et al. 

2000b). Aerial surveys of the Chukchi 

Sea in 2008–2009 flown by the NMML 

as part of the Chukchi Offshore 

Monitoring in Drilling Area project 

(COMIDA) have only reported 5 beluga 

sightings during >8,700 mi (>14,000 km) 

of on-transect effort, only 2 of which 

were offshore (COMIDA 2009). 

Additionally, only one beluga sighting 

was recorded during >37,904 mi 

(>61,000 km) of visual effort during 

good visibility conditions from industry 

vessels operating in the Chukchi Sea in 

JulyμAugust of 2006μ2008 (Haley et al. 

2009b). If belugas are present during the 

summer, they are more likely to occur 

in or near the ice edge or close to shore 

during their northward migration. 

Expected densities were calculated from 

data in Moore et al. (2000b). Data from 

Moore et al. (2000b: Figure 6 and Table 

6) used as the average open-water 

density estimate included two ontransect beluga sightings during 6,639 

mi (10,684 km) of on-transect effort in 

the Chukchi Sea during summer. A 

mean group size of 7.1 (CV=1.7) was 

calculated from 10 Chukchi Sea summer 

sightings present in the BWASP 

database. A f(0) value of 2.841 and g(0) 

value of 0.58 from Harwood et al. (1996) 

were also used in the calculation. The 

CV associated with group size was used 

to select an inflation factor of 2 to 

estimate the maximum density that may 

occur in both open-water and icemargin habitats. Specific data on the 

relative abundance of beluga in openwater versus ice-margin habitat during 

the summer in the Chukchi Sea is not 

available. However, Moore et al. (2000b) 

reported higher than expected beluga 

sighting rates in open-water during fall 

surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

Seas. This would suggest that densities 

near ice may actually be lower than 

open water, but belugas are commonly 

associated with ice, so an inflation 

factor of only 2 (instead of 4) was used 

to estimate the average ice-margin 

density from the open-water density. 

Based on the very low densities 

observed from vessels operating in the 

Chukchi Sea during non-seismic periods 

and locations in JulyμAugust of 2006– 

2008 (0.0001/km2; Haley et al. 2009b), 

the densities shown in Table 1 are likely 

biased high. 

In the fall, beluga whale densities in 

the Chukchi Sea are expected to be 

somewhat higher than in the summer 

because individuals of the eastern 

Chukchi Sea stock and the Beaufort Sea 

stock will be migrating south to their 

wintering grounds in the Bering Sea 

(Angliss and Allen 2009). Consistent 

with this, the number of on-effort beluga 

sightings reported during COMIDA 

flights in September-October of 2008– 

2009 was over 3 times more than during 

July-August with a very similar amount 

of on-transect effort (COMIDA 2009). 

However, there were no beluga sightings 

reported during >11,185 mi (>18,000 

km) of vessel based effort in good 

visibility conditions during 2006–2008 

industry operations in the Chukchi Sea. 

Densities derived from survey results in 

the northern Chukchi Sea in Moore et 

al. (2000b) were used as the average 

density for open-water and ice-margin 

fall season estimates (see Table 2). Data 

from Moore et al. (2000b: Table 8) used 

in the average open-water density 

estimate included 123 beluga sightings 

and 27,559 mi (44,352 km) of ontransect effort in water depths 118–164 

ft (36–50 m). A mean group size of 2.39 

(CV=0.92) came from the average group 

size of 82 Chukchi Sea fall sightings in 

waters 115–164 ft (35–50 m) deep 

present in the BWASP database. A f(0) 

value of 2.841 and g(0) value of 0.58 

from Harwood et al. (1996) were used in 

the calculation. The CV associated with 

group size was used to select an 

inflation factor of 2 to estimate the 

maximum density that may occur in 

both open-water and ice-margin 

habitats. Moore et al. (2000b) reported 

higher than expected beluga sighting 

rates in open-water during fall surveys 

in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, so an 

inflation value of only 2 was used to 

estimate the average ice-margin density 

from the open-water density. There 

were no beluga sightings from vessels 

operating in the Chukchi Sea during 

non-seismic periods in SeptemberOctober of 2006–2008 (Haley et al. 

2009b). 

TABLE 1. EXPECTED DENSITIES OF CETACEANS AND SEALS IN AREAS OF THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA, DURING THE PLANNED

SUMMER (JULY - AUGUST) PERIOD OF THE SEISMIC SURVEY PROGRAM. 

Species Nearshore 

Average Density (#/km2) 

Ice Margin 

Average Density (#/ km2) 

Beluga whale 0.0033 0.0162 

Killer whale 0.0001 0.0001 

Harbor porpoise 0.0011 0.0011 

Bowhead whale 0.0018 0.0018 

Fin whale 0.0001 0.0001 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32391 

TABLE 1. EXPECTED DENSITIES OF CETACEANS AND SEALS IN AREAS OF THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA, DURING THE PLANNED

SUMMER (JULY - AUGUST) PERIOD OF THE SEISMIC SURVEY PROGRAM.—Continued 

Species Nearshore 

Average Density (#/km2) 

Ice Margin 

Average Density (#/ km2) 

Gray whale 0.0081 0.0081 

Humpback whale 0.0001 0.0001 

Minke whale 0.0001 0.0001 

Bearded seal 0.0107 0.0142 

Ribbon seal 0.0003 0.0003 

Ringed seal 0.3668 0.4891 

Spotted seal 0.0073 0.0098 

TABLE 2. EXPECTED DENSITIES OF CETACEANS AND SEALS IN AREAS OF THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA, DURING THE PLANNED

FALL (SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER) PERIOD OF THE SEISMIC SURVEY PROGRAM. 

Species Nearshore 

Average Density (#/km2) 

Ice Margin 

Average Density (#/ km2) 

Beluga whale 0.0162 0.0324 

Killer whale 0.0001 0.0001 

Harbor porpoise 0.0010 0.0010 

Bowhead whale 0.0174 0.0348 

Fin whale 0.0001 0.0001 

Gray whale 0.0062 0.0062 

Humpback whale 0.0001 0.0001 

Minke whale 0.0001 0.0001 

Bearded seal 0.0107 0.0142 

Ribbon seal 0.0003 0.0003 

Ringed seal 0.2458 0.3277 

Spotted seal 0.0049 0.0065 

Bowhead Whales - By July, most 

bowhead whales are northeast of the 

Chukchi Sea, within or migrating 

toward their summer feeding grounds in 

the eastern Beaufort Sea. No bowheads 

were reported during 6,639 mi (10,684 

km) of on-transect effort in the Chukchi 

Sea by Moore et al. (2000b). Aerial 

surveys in 2008–2009 by the NMML as 

part of the COMIDA project reported 

four sightings during >8,699 mi 

(>14,000 km) of on-transect effort. Two 

of the four sightings were offshore, both 

of which occurred near the end of 

August. Bowhead whales were also 

rarely reported in July-August of 2006– 

2008 during aerial surveys of the 

Chukchi Sea coast (Thomas et al. 2009). 

This is consistent with movements of 

tagged whales (see ADFG 2009; 

Quakenbush 2009), all of which moved 

through the Chukchi Sea by early May 

2009, and tended to travel relatively 

close to shore, especially in the northern 

Chukchi Sea. 

The estimate of bowhead whale 

density in the Chukchi Sea was 

calculated by assuming that there was 

one bowhead sighting during the 6,639 

mi (10,684 km) survey effort in the 

Chukchi Sea during the summer, 

although no bowheads were actually 

observed (Moore et al. 2000b). The more 

recent COMIDA data were not used 

because the NMML has not released a 

final report summarizing the data. Only 

two sightings are present in the BWASP 

database during July and August in the 

Chukchi Sea, both of which were of 

individual whales. The mean group size 

from combined July-August sightings in 

the BWASP, COMIDA, and 2006–2008 

industry database is 1.33 (CV=0.58). 

This value, along with a f(0) value of 2 

and a g(0) value of 0.07, both from 

Thomas et al. (2002) were used to 

estimate a summer density of bowhead 

whales. The CV of group size and 

standard errors reported in Thomas et 

al. (2002) for f(0) and g(0) correction 

factors suggest that an inflation factor of 

2 is appropriate for deriving a maximum 

density from the average density. 

Bowheads are not expected to be 

encountered in higher densities near ice 

in the summer (Moore et al. 2000b), so 

the same density estimates are used for 

open-water and ice-margin habitats. 

Densities from vessel based surveys in 

the Chukchi Sea during non-seismic 

periods and locations in July-August of 

2006–2008 (Haley et al. 2009b) ranged 

from 0.0001/km2 to 0.0005/km2 with a 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32392 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

maximum 95 percent confidence 

interval (CI) of 0.0019 km2. This 

suggests that the densities used in the 

calculations and shown in Table 1 

might be somewhat higher than 

expected to be observed from vessels 

near the area of planned operations. 

During the fall, bowhead whales 

migrate west and south from their 

summer feeding grounds in the Beaufort 

Sea and Amundsen Gulf to their 

wintering grounds in the Bering Sea. 

During this fall migration bowheads are 

more likely to be encountered in the 

Chukchi Sea. Moore et al. (2000b: Table 

8) reported 34 bowhead sightings during 

27,560 mi (44,354 km) of on-transect 

survey effort in the Chukchi Sea during 

September-October. Thomas et al. 

(2009) also reported increased sightings 

on coastal surveys of the Chukchi Sea 

during September and October of 2006– 

2008. Aerial surveys in 2008–2009 

(COMIDA 2009) reported 20 bowhead 

sightings during 8,803 mi (14,167 km) of 

on-transect effort, eight of which were 

offshore. GPS tagging of bowheads show 

that migration routes through the 

Chukchi Sea are more variable than 

through the Beaufort Sea (ADFG 2009; 

Quakenbush 2009). Some of the routes 

taken by bowheads remain well north or 

south of the planned survey activities 

while others have passed near to or 

through the area. Kernel densities 

estimated from GPS locations of whales 

suggest that bowheads do not spend 

much time (e.g., feeding or resting) in 

the north-central Chukchi Sea near the 

area of planned activities (ADFG 2009). 

The mean group size from SeptemberOctober Chukchi Sea bowhead sightings 

in the BWASP database is 1.59 

(CV=1.08). This is slightly below the 

mean group size of 1.85 from all the 

preliminary COMIDA sightings during 

the same months, but above the value of 

1.13 from only on-effort COMIDA 

sightings (COMIDA 2009). The same f(0) 

and g(0) values that were used for the 

summer estimates above were used for 

the fall estimates. As with the summer 

estimates, an inflation factor of 2 was 

used to estimate the maximum density 

from the average density in both habitat 

types. Moore et al. (2000b) found that 

bowheads were detected more often 

than expected in association with ice in 

the Chukchi Sea in September-October, 

so a density of twice the average openwater density was used as the average 

ice-margin density. Densities from 

vessel based surveys in the Chukchi Sea 

during non-seismic periods and 

locations in SeptemberμOctober of 

2006–2008 (Haley et al. 2009b) ranged 

from 0.0001/km2 to 0.0050/km2 with a 

maximum 95 percent CI of 0.0480 km2. 

This suggests the densities used in the 

calculations and shown in Table 2 are 

somewhat higher than are likely to be 

observed from vessels near the area of 

planned operations. 

Gray Whales - The average open-water 

summer density was calculated from 

effort and sightings in Moore et al. 

(2000b: Table 6) for water depths 118– 

164 ft (36–50 m) including 4 sightings 

during 3,901 mi (6,278 km) of ontransect effort. An average group size of 

3.11 (CV=0.97) was calculated from all 

July-August Chukchi Sea gray whale 

sightings in the BWASP database and 

used in the summer density estimate. 

This value was higher than the average 

group size in the preliminary COMIDA 

data (1.71; COMIDA 2009) and from 

coastal aerial surveys in 2006–2008 

(1.27; Thomas et al. 2009). Correction 

factors f(0) = 2.49 (Forney and Barlow 

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

Barlow 1998; Mallonee 1991) were also 

used in the density calculation. Since 

the group size used in the average 

density estimate was relatively high 

compared to other data sources and the 

CV was near to one, an inflation factor 

of 2 was used to estimate the maximum 

densities from average densities in both 

habitat types. Gray whales are not 

commonly associated with sea ice, but 

may occur close to sea ice, so the 

densities for open-water habitat were 

also used for ice-margin habitat. 

Densities from vessel based surveys in 

the Chukchi Sea during non-seismic 

periods and locations in July-August of 

2006–2008 (Haley et al. 2009b) ranged 

from 0.0009/km2 to 0.0034/km2 with a 

maximum 95 percent CI of 0.0146 km2. 

This suggests that the densities used in 

the calculations and shown in Table 1 

are somewhat higher than are expected 

to be observed from vessels near the 

area of planned operations. 

Gray whale densities are expected to 

be much higher in the summer months 

than during the fall when most whales 

start their southbound migration. Moore 

et al. (2000b) found that the distribution 

of gray whales was more widely 

dispersed through the northern Chukchi 

Sea and limited to nearshore areas 

where most whales were observed in 

water less than 115 ft (35 m) deep. With 

similar amounts of on-transect effort 

between summer and fall aerial surveys 

in 2008–2009, gray whale sightings were 

three times higher in July-August than 

in September-October, and five times 

higher taking into account all effort and 

sightings (COMIDA 2009). Thomas et al. 

(2009) also reported decreased sighting 

rates of gray whales in the fall. 

The on-transect effort and associated 

gray whale sightings (27 sightings 

during 44,352 km of on-transect effort) 

in water depth of 118–164 ft (36–50 m) 

during autumn (Moore et al. 2000b; 12) 

was used as the average density estimate 

for the Chukchi Sea during the fall 

period. A group size value of 2.49 

(CV=1.37) calculated from the BWASP 

database was used in the density 

calculation, along with the same f(0) 

and g(0) values described above. The 

group size value of 2.49 was again 

higher than the average group size 

calculated from preliminary COMIDA 

data (1.24; COMIDA 2009) and as 

reported from coastal aerial surveys in 

2006–2008 (1.12; Thomas et al. 2009). 

Densities from vessel based surveys in 

the Chukchi Sea during non-seismic 

periods and locations in SeptemberOctober of 2006–2008 (Haley et al. 

2009b) ranged from 0.0011/km2 to 

0.0024/km2 with a maximum 95 percent 

CI of 0.0183 km2. This suggests the 

densities used in the calculations and 

shown in Table 2 are somewhat higher 

than are likely to be observed from 

vessels near the area of planned 

operations. 

Harbor Porpoise - Harbor Porpoise 

densities were estimated from industry 

data collected during 2006–2008 

activities in the Chukchi Sea. Prior to 

2006, no reliable estimates were 

available for the Chukchi Sea and 

harbor porpoise presence was expected 

to be very low and limited to nearshore 

regions. For this reason, the data 

collected from industry vessels was 

considered to be the best available data. 

Observers on industry vessels in 2006– 

2008, however, recorded sightings 

throughout the Chukchi Sea during the 

summer and early fall months. Density 

estimates from 2006–2008 observations 

during non-seismic periods and 

locations in July-August ranged from 

0.0009/km2 to 0.0016/km2 with a 

maximum 95 percent CI of 0.0016/km2

(Haley et al. 2009b). The median value 

from the summer season of those three 

years (0.0011/km2) was used as the 

average open-water density estimate 

while the high value (0.0016/km2) was 

used as the maximum estimate (Table 

1). Harbor porpoise are not expected to 

be present in higher numbers near ice, 

so the open-water densities were used 

for ice-margin habitat in both seasons. 

Harbor porpoise densities recorded 

during industry operations in the fall 

months of 2006–2008 were slightly 

lower and ranged from 0.0002/km2 to 

0.0013/km2 with a maximum 95 percent 

CI of 0.0044/km2. The median value 

(0.0010/km2) was again used as the 

average density estimate and the high 

value (0.0013/km2) was used as the 

maximum estimate (Table 2). 

Other Cetaceans - The remaining four 

cetacean species that could be 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32393 

encountered in the Chukchi Sea during 

Statoil’s planned seismic survey include 

the humpback whale, killer whale, 

minke whale, and fin whale. Although 

there is evidence of the occasional 

occurrence of these animals in the 

Chukchi Sea, it is unlikely that more 

than a few individuals will be 

encountered during the proposed 

activities. George and Suydam (1998) 

reported killer whales, Brueggeman et 

al. (1990) and Haley et al. (2009b) 

reported minke whale, and COMIDA 

(2009) and Haley et al. (2009b) reported 

fin whales off of Ledyard Bay in the 

Chukchi Sea. 

(2) Pinnipeds 

Four species of pinnipeds may be 

encountered in the Chukchi Sea: ringed 

seal, bearded seal, spotted seal, and 

ribbon seal. Each of these species, 

except the spotted seal, is associated 

with both the ice margin and the 

nearshore area. The ice margin is 

considered preferred habitat (as 

compared to the nearshore areas) during 

most seasons. 

Ringed and Bearded Seals - Ringed 

seal and bearded seal average summer 

ice-margin densities (Table 1) were 

available in Bengtson et al. (2005) from 

spring surveys in the offshore pack ice 

zone (zone 12P) of the northern Chukchi 

Sea. However, corrections for bearded 

seal availability, g(0), based on haulout 

and diving patterns were not available. 

Densities of ringed and bearded seals in 

open water are expected to be somewhat 

lower in the summer when preferred 

pack ice habitat may still be present in 

the Chukchi Sea. Average and 

maximum open-water densities have 

been estimated as 3/4 of the ice margin 

densities during the summer for both 

species. The fall density of ringed seals 

in the offshore Chukchi Sea has been 

estimated as 2/3 the summer densities 

because ringed seals begin to reoccupy 

nearshore fast ice areas as it forms in the 

fall. Bearded seals may begin to leave 

the Chukchi Sea in the fall, but less is 

known about their movement patterns 

so fall densities were left unchanged 

from summer densities. For comparison, 

the ringed seal density estimates 

calculated from data collected during 

summer 2006μ2008 industry operations 

ranged from 0.0082/km2 to 0.0221/km2

with a maximum 95 percent CI of 

0.0577/km2 (Haley et al. 2009b). These 

estimates are lower than those made by 

Bengtson et al. (2005) which is not 

surprising given the different survey 

methods and timing. 

Spotted Seal - Little information on 

spotted seal densities in offshore areas 

of the Chukchi Sea is available. Spotted 

seals are often considered to be 

predominantly a coastal species except 

in the spring when they may be found 

in the southern margin of the retreating 

sea ice, before they move to shore. 

However, satellite tagging has shown 

that they sometimes undertake long 

excursions into offshore waters during 

summer (Lowry et al. 1994, 1998). 

Spotted seal densities in the summer 

were estimated by multiplying the 

ringed seal densities by 0.02. This was 

based on the ratio of the estimated 

Chukchi populations of the two species. 

Chukchi Sea spotted seal abundance 

was estimated by assuming that 8% of 

the Alaskan population of spotted seals 

is present in the Chukchi Sea during the 

summer and fall (Rugh et al. 1997), the 

Alaskan population of spotted seals is 

59,214 (Angliss and Allen 2009), and 

that the population of ringed seals in the 

Alaskan Chukchi Sea is ≤208,000 

animals (Bengtson et al. 2005). In the 

fall, spotted seals show increased use of 

coastal haulouts so densities were 

estimated to be 2/3 of the summer 

densities. 

Ribbon Seal - Ribbon seals have been 

reported in very small numbers within 

the Chukchi Sea by observers on 

industry vessels (two sightings; Haley et 

al. 2009b). The resulting density 

estimate of 0.0003/km2 was used as the 

average density and a multiplier of 4 

was used as the estimated maximum 

density for both seasons and habitat 

zones. 

Potential Number of Takes by 

Harassment 

This subsection provides estimates of 

the number of individuals potentially 

exposed to sound levels μ160 dB re 1 

μPa (rms). The estimates are based on a 

consideration of the number of marine 

mammals that might be disturbed 

appreciably by operations in the 

Chukchi Sea and the anticipated area 

exposed to rms sound levels of 160 dB. 

As described above, marine mammal 

density estimates for the Chukchi Sea 

have been derived for two time periods, 

the summer period (July-August), and 

the fall period (September-October). 

Animal densities encountered in the 

Chukchi Sea during both of these time 

periods will further depend on the 

habitat zone within which the source 

vessel is operating, i.e., open water or 

ice margin. The seismic source vessel is 

not an icebreaker and cannot tow survey 

equipment through pack ice. Under this 

assumption, densities of marine 

mammals expected to be observed near 

ice margin areas have been applied to 

10% of the proposed 3D survey area and 

2D tracklines in both seasons. Densities 

of marine mammals expected to occur 

in open water areas have been applied 

to the remaining 90% of the 3D survey 

and 2D tracklines area in both seasons. 

The number of individuals of each 

species potentially exposed to received 

levels μ160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) within 

each season and habitat zone was 

estimated by multiplying 

• the anticipated area to be ensonified 

to the specified level in each season and 

habitat zone to which that density 

applies, by 

• the expected species density. 

The numbers of individuals 

potentially exposed were then summed 

for each species across the two seasons 

and habitat zones. Some of the animals 

estimated to be exposed, particularly 

migrating bowhead whales, might show 

avoidance reactions before being 

exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

Thus, these calculations actually 

estimate the number of individuals 

potentially exposed to μ160 dB that 

would occur if there were no avoidance 

of the area ensonified to that level. 

(1) 3D Seismic Survey Area 

The size of the proposed 3D seismic 

survey area is 915 mi2 (2,370 km2) and 

located ≤100 mi (160 km) offshore. 

Approximately 1/4 of the area (∼234 

mi2, or ∼606 km2) is expected to be 

surveyed in August (weather 

depending). This area, with a 160 dB 

radius of 8 mi (13 km) along each point 

of its perimeter equals a total area of 

∼1,081 mi2 (∼2,799 km2). Summer 

marine mammal densities from Table 1 

have been applied to this area. The 

other 3/4 of the survey area (∼687 mi2, 

or ∼1,779 km2) is expected to be covered 

in September-October. This area, also 

with a 160 dB radius of 8 mi (13 km) 

along each point of its perimeter results 

in a total area of ∼1,813 mi2 (∼4,695 

km2). Fall marine mammal densities 

from Table 2 have been applied to this 

area. Based on these assumptions and 

those described above, the estimates of 

marine mammals potentially exposed to 

sounds μ160 dB in the Chukchi Sea 

from seismic data acquisition in the 3D 

survey area were calculated in Table 3. 

For the common species, the 

requested numbers were calculated as 

described above and based on the 

average and maximum densities 

reported. For less common species, for 

which minimum density estimates were 

assumed, the numbers were set to a 

minimum to allow for chance 

encounters. The mitigation gun (60 in3) 

will be active during turns extending 

about 1.6 mi (2.5 km) outside the 3D 

survey area. The estimated 160 dB 

radius for the 60 in3 mitigation gun is 

5,906 ft (1,800 m) and therefore falls 

well within the area expected to be 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32394 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

exposed to received sound levels of 

≥160 dB of the 3D survey area. 

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES OF MARINE MAMMALS TO RECEIVED SOUND LEVELS IN

THE WATER OF >160 DB DURING STATOIL’S PLANNED MARINE SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA, 2010. 

Species 

Number of Exposure to Sound 

Levels >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

by 3D Seismic Survey 

Number of Exposure to Sound 

Levels >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

by 2D Seismic Survey 

Total Number of Exposure to 

Sound Levels >160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) 

Beluga whale 97 87 184 

Killer whale 1 1 2 

Harbor porpoise 8 13 21 

Bowhead whale 95 63 158 

Gray whale 52 92 144 

Humpback whale 1 1 2 

Fin whale 1 1 2 

Minke whale 1 1 2 

Bearded seal 82 132 214 

Ribbon seal 2 4 6 

Ringed seal 2,253 4,234 6,487 

Spotted seal 45 85 130 

(2) 2D Seismic Survey Lines 

Seismic data along the ∼420 mi (675 

km) of four 2D survey tracklines might 

be acquired with the full airgun array if 

access to the 3D survey area is restricted 

(e.g., ice conditions), or 3D acquisition 

progress is better than anticipated. 

Under the assumption that these 

restrictive weather conditions will 

mainly be an issue in the early summer 

season, 80 % of the 2D tracklines are 

assumed to be acquired during August 

and 20% during the fall. The total area 

potentially exposed to μ160 dB from 

these tracklines was calculated with the 

trackline sections outside the 3D survey 

area. Excluding these sections results in 

a total trackline length of ∼285 mi (460 

km). With a 160 dB radius of ∼8 mi (13 

km) this results in a total exposed area 

of ∼7,432 mi2 (11,960 km2). Such 

summer densities were used for 80% of 

the total area (5,945 mi2, or 9,568 km2) 

and fall densities for the remaining 20% 

(1,486 mi2, or 2,392 km2). Following a 

similar approach as for the 3D survey 

area, numbers of more common marine 

mammal species were calculated based 

on the average and maximum densities 

and for less common species the 

numbers were set to a minimum to 

allow for chance encounters. The results 

of estimates of marine mammals 

potentially exposed to sounds μ160 dB 

in the Chukchi Sea from seismic data 

acquisition along the 2D tracklines are 

presented in Table 3. 

Estimated Take Conclusions 

Cetaceans - Effects on cetaceans are 

generally expected to be restricted to 

avoidance of an area around the seismic 

survey and short-term changes in 

behavior, falling within the MMPA 

definition of ‘‘Level B harassment’’. 

Using the 160 dB criterion, the 

average estimates of the numbers of 

individual cetaceans exposed to sounds 

≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) represent varying 

proportions of the populations of each 

species in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent 

waters. For species listed as 

‘‘Endangered’’ under the ESA, the 

estimates include approximately 158 

bowheads. This number is 

approximately 1.11% of the BeringChukchi-Beaufort population of >14,247 

assuming 3.4% annual population 

growth from the 2001 estimate of 

>10,545 animals (Zeh and Punt 2005). 

For other cetaceans that might occur in 

the vicinity of the marine seismic 

survey in the Chukchi Sea, they also 

represent a very small proportion of 

their respective populations. The 

average estimates of the number of 

belugas, killer whales, harbor porpoises, 

gray whales, fin whales, humpback 

whales, and minke whales that might be 

exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are 

183, 2, 21, 144, 2, 2, and 2. These 

numbers represent 4.95%, 0.62%, 

0.04%, 0.81%, 0.03%, 0.21%, and 

0.19% of these species of their 

respective populations in the proposed 

action area. 

Seals - A few seal species are likely 

to be encountered in the study area, but 

ringed seal is by far the most abundant 

in this area. The average estimates of the 

numbers of individuals exposed to 

sounds at received levels ≥160 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) during the proposed seismic 

survey are as follows: ringed seals 

(6,487), bearded seals (215), spotted 

seals (129), and ribbon seals (6). These 

numbers represent 2.81%, 0.09%, 

0.22%, and 0.01% of Alaska stocks of 

ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon 

seals. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Preliminary 

Determination 

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.’’ 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, NMFS considers a 

variety of factors, including but not 

limited to: (1) the number of anticipated 

mortalities; (2) the number and nature of 

anticipated injuries; (3) the number, 

nature, intensity, and duration of Level 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32395 

B harassment; and (4) the context in 

which the takes occur. 

No injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of 

Statoil’s proposed 2010 open water 

marine seismic surveys in the Chukchi 

Seas, and none are proposed to be 

authorized. Additionally, animals in the 

area are not expected to incur hearing 

impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or nonauditory physiological effects. Takes 

will be limited to Level B behavioral 

harassment. Although it is possible that 

some individuals of marine mammals 

may be exposed to sounds from marine 

survey activities more than once, the 

expanse of these multi-exposures are 

expected to be less extensive since both 

the animals and the survey vessels will 

be moving constantly in and out of the 

survey areas. 

Most of the bowhead whales 

encountered during the summer will 

likely show overt disturbance 

(avoidance) only if they receive airgun 

sounds with levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms). Odontocete reactions to seismic 

energy pulses are usually assumed to be 

limited to shorter distances from the 

airgun(s) than are those of mysticetes, 

probably 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 Chukchi Sea during the 

survey period and few will likely be 

affected by the survey activity. In 

addition, due to the constant moving of 

the seismic survey vessel, the duration 

of the noise exposure by cetaceans to 

seismic impulse would be brief. For the 

same reason, it is unlikely that any 

individual animal would be exposed to 

high received levels multiple times. 

Taking into account the mitigation 

measures that are planned, effects on 

cetaceans are generally expected to be 

restricted to avoidance of a limited area 

around the survey operation and shortterm changes in behavior, falling within 

the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B 

harassment’’. 

Furthermore, the estimated numbers 

of animals potentially exposed to sound 

levels sufficient to cause appreciable 

disturbance are very low percentages of 

the population sizes in the BeringChukchi-Beaufort seas, as described 

above. 

The many reported cases of apparent 

tolerance by cetaceans of seismic 

exploration, vessel traffic, and some 

other human activities show that coexistence is possible. Mitigation 

measures such as controlled vessel 

speed, dedicated marine mammal 

observers, non-pursuit, 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. 

Some individual pinnipeds may be 

exposed to sound from the proposed 

marine surveys more than once during 

the time frame of the project. However, 

as discussed previously, due to the 

constant moving of the survey vessel, 

the probability of an individual 

pinniped being exposed to multiple 

times is much lower than if the source 

is stationary. Therefore, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

exposure of pinnipeds to sounds 

produced by the proposed marine 

seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea is not 

expected to result in more than Level B 

harassment and is anticipated to have 

no more than a negligible impact on the 

animals. 

Of the twelve marine mammal species 

likely to occur in the proposed marine 

survey area, only the bowhead, fin, and 

humpback whales are listed as 

endangered under the ESA. These 

species are also designated as ‘‘depleted’’ 

under the MMPA. Despite these 

designations, the Bering-ChukchiBeaufort stock of bowheads has been 

increasing at a rate of 3.4 percent 

annually for nearly a decade (Allen and 

Angliss, 2010). 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, 2010). 

The occurrence of fin and humpback 

whales in the proposed marine survey 

areas is considered very rare. There is 

no critical habitat designated in the U.S. 

Arctic for the bowhead, fin, and 

humpback whale. The bearded and 

ringed seals are ‘‘candidate species’’ 

under the ESA, meaning they are 

currently being considered for listing 

but are not designated as depleted under 

the MMPA. None of the other three 

species that may occur in the project 

area are listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA or 

designated as depleted under the 

MMPA. 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in 

this document (see the ‘‘Anticipated 

Effects on Habitat’’ section). Although 

some disturbance is possible to food 

sources of marine mammals, the 

impacts are anticipated to be minor 

enough as to not affect rates of 

recruitment or survival of marine 

mammals in the area. Based on the vast 

size of the Arctic Ocean where feeding 

by marine mammals occurs versus the 

localized area of the marine survey 

activities, any missed feeding 

opportunities in the direct project area 

would be minor based on the fact that 

other feeding areas exist elsewhere. 

The estimated takes proposed to be 

authorized represent 4.95% of the 

Eastern Chukchi Sea population of 

approximately 3,700 beluga whales 

(Angliss and Allen 2009), 0.62% of 

Aleutian Island and Bering Sea stock of 

approximately 340 killer whales, 0.04% 

of Bering Sea stock of approximately 

48,215 harbor porpoises, 0.81% of the 

Eastern North Pacific stock of 

approximately 17,752 gray whales, 

1.11% of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort 

population of 14,247 individuals 

assuming 3.4 percent annual population 

growth from the 2001 estimate of 10,545 

animals (Zeh and Punt, 2005), 0.21% of 

the Western North Pacific stock of 

approximately 938 humpback whales, 

0.03% of the North Pacific stock of 

approximately 5,700 fin whales, and 

0.19% of the Alaska stock of 

approximately 1,003 minke whales. The 

take estimates presented for bearded, 

ringed, spotted, and ribbon seals 

represent 0.09, 2.81, 0.22, and 0.01 

percent of U.S. Arctic stocks of each 

species, respectively. These 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. 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 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 Statoil’s 

proposed 2010 open water marine 

seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea may 

result in the incidental take of small 

numbers of marine mammals, by Level 

B harassment only, and that the total 

taking from the marine surveys will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32396 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

Relevant Subsistence Uses 

The disturbance and potential 

displacement of marine mammals by 

sounds from the proposed marine 

surveys are the principal concerns 

related to subsistence use of the area. 

Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska 

Native culture and community. Marine 

mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan 

waters by coastal Alaska Natives. In 

rural Alaska, subsistence activities are 

often central to many aspects of human 

existence, including patterns of family 

life, artistic expression, and community 

religious and celebratory activities. 

Additionally, the animals taken for 

subsistence provide a significant portion 

of the food that will last the community 

throughout the year. The main species 

that are hunted include bowhead and 

beluga whales, ringed, spotted, and 

bearded seals, walruses, and polar bears. 

(Both the walrus and the polar bear are 

under the USFWS’ jurisdiction.) The 

importance of each of these species 

varies among the communities and is 

largely based on availability. 

Subsistence hunting and fishing 

continue to be prominent in the 

household economies and social welfare 

of some Alaskan residents, particularly 

among those living in small, rural 

villages (Wolfe and Walker 1987). 

Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska 

Native culture and community. In rural 

Alaska, subsistence activities are often 

central to many aspects of human 

existence, including patterns of family 

life, artistic expression, and community 

religious and celebratory activities. 

Marine mammals are legally hunted 

in Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska 

Natives; species hunted include 

bowhead and beluga whales; ringed, 

spotted, and bearded seals; walruses, 

and polar bears. The importance of each 

of the various species varies among the 

communities based largely on 

availability. Bowhead whales, belugas, 

and walruses are the marine mammal 

species primarily harvested during the 

time of the proposed seismic survey. 

There is little or no bowhead hunting by 

the community of Point Lay, so beluga 

and walrus hunting are of more 

importance there. Members of the 

Wainwright community hunt bowhead 

whales in the spring, although bowhead 

whale hunting conditions there are 

often more difficult than elsewhere, and 

they do not hunt bowheads during 

seasons when Statoil’s seismic 

operation would occur. Depending on 

the level of success during the spring 

bowhead hunt, Wainwright residents 

may be very dependent on the presence 

of belugas in a nearby lagoon system 

during July and August. Barrow 

residents focus hunting efforts on 

bowhead whales during the spring and 

generally do not hunt beluga then. 

However, Barrow residents also hunt in 

the fall, when Statoil expects to be 

conducting seismic surveys (though not 

near Barrow). 

(1) Bowhead Whales 

Bowhead whale hunting is a key 

activity in the subsistence economies of 

northwest Arctic communities. The 

whale harvests have a great influence on 

social relations by strengthening the 

sense of Inupiat culture and heritage in 

addition to reinforcing family and 

community ties. 

An overall quota system for the 

hunting of bowhead whales was 

established by the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) in 1977. The quota is 

now regulated through an agreement 

between NMFS and the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission (AEWC). The 

AEWC allots the number of bowhead 

whales that each whaling community 

may harvest annually (USDI/BLM 2005). 

The annual take of bowhead whales has 

varied due to (a) changes in the 

allowable quota level and (b) year-toyear variability in ice and weather 

conditions, which strongly influence the 

success of the hunt. 

Bowhead whales migrate around 

northern Alaska twice each year, during 

the spring and autumn, and are hunted 

in both seasons. Bowhead whales are 

hunted from Barrow during the spring 

and the fall migration and animals are 

not successfully harvested every year. 

The spring hunt along Chukchi villages 

and at Barrow occurs after leads open 

due to the deterioration of pack ice; the 

spring hunt typically occurs from early 

April until the first week of June. The 

fall migration of bowhead whales that 

summer in the eastern Beaufort Sea 

typically begins in late August or 

September. Fall migration into Alaskan 

waters is primarily during September 

and October. 

In the fall, subsistence hunters use 

aluminum or fiberglass boats with 

outboards. Hunters prefer to take 

bowheads close to shore to avoid a long 

tow during which the meat can spoil, 

but Braund and Moorehead (1995) 

report that crews may (rarely) pursue 

whales as far as 50 mi (80 km). The 

autumn bowhead hunt usually begins in 

Barrow in mid-September, and mainly 

occurs in the waters east and northeast 

of Point Barrow. 

The scheduling of this seismic survey 

has been discussed with representatives 

of those concerned with the subsistence 

bowhead hunt, most notably the AEWC, 

the Barrow Whaling Captains’ 

Association, and the North Slope 

Borough (NSB) Department of Wildlife 

Management. 

The planned mobilization and start 

date for seismic surveys in the Chukchi 

Sea (∼20 July and ∼1 August) is well 

after the end of the spring bowhead 

migration and hunt at Wainwright and 

Barrow. Seismic operations will be 

conducted far offshore from Barrow and 

are not expected to conflict with 

subsistence hunting activities. Specific 

concerns of the Barrow whaling 

captains are addressed as part of the 

Plan of Cooperation with the AEWC (see 

below). 

(2) Beluga Whales 

Beluga whales are available to 

subsistence hunters along the coast of 

Alaska in the spring when pack-ice 

conditions deteriorate and leads open 

up. Belugas may remain in coastal areas 

or lagoons through June and sometimes 

into July and August. The community of 

Point Lay is heavily dependent on the 

hunting of belugas in Kasegaluk Lagoon 

for subsistence meat. From 1983–1992 

the average annual harvest was ∼40 

whales (Fuller and George 1997). In 

Wainwright and Barrow, hunters 

usually wait until after the spring 

bowhead whale hunt is finished before 

turning their attention to hunting 

belugas. The average annual harvest of 

beluga whales taken by Barrow for 

1962–1982 was five (MMS 1996). The 

Alaska Beluga Whale Committee 

recorded that 23 beluga whales had 

been harvested by Barrow hunters from 

1987 to 2002, ranging from 0 in 1987, 

1988 and 1995 to the high of 8 in 1997 

(Fuller and George 1997; Alaska Beluga 

Whale Committee 2002 in USDI/BLM 

2005). The seismic survey activities take 

place well offshore, far away from areas 

that are used for beluga hunting by the 

Chukchi Sea communities. It is possible, 

but unlikely, that accessibility to 

belugas during the subsistence hunt 

could be impaired during the survey. 

(3) Ringed Seals 

Ringed seals are hunted mainly from 

October through June. Hunting for these 

smaller mammals is concentrated 

during winter because bowhead whales, 

bearded seals and caribou are available 

through other seasons. In winter, leads 

and cracks in the ice off points of land 

and along the barrier islands are used 

for hunting ringed seals. The average 

annual ringed seal harvest was 49 seals 

in Point Lay, 86 in Wainwright, and 394 

in Barrow (Braund et al. 1993; USDI/ 

BLM 2003, 2005). Although ringed seals 

are available year-round, the seismic 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32397 

survey will not occur during the 

primary period when these seals are 

typically harvested. Also, the seismic 

survey will be largely in offshore waters 

where the activities will not influence 

ringed seals in the nearshore areas 

where they are hunted. 

(4) Spotted Seals 

The spotted seal subsistence hunt 

peaks in July and August along the 

shore where the seals haul out, but 

usually involves relatively few animals. 

Spotted seals typically migrate south by 

October to overwinter in the Bering Sea. 

During the fall migration spotted seals 

are hunted by the Wainright and Point 

Lay communities as the seals move 

south along the coast (USDI/BLM 2003). 

Spotted seals are also occasionally 

hunted in the area off Point Barrow and 

along the barrier islands of Elson 

Lagoon to the east (USDI/BLM 2005). 

The seismic survey will remain offshore 

of the coastal harvest area of these seals 

and should not conflict with harvest 

activities. 

(5) Bearded Seals 

Bearded seals, although generally not 

favored for their meat, are important to 

subsistence activities in Barrow and 

Wainright, because of their skins. Six to 

nine bearded seal hides are used by 

whalers to cover each of the skincovered boats traditionally used for 

spring whaling. Because of their 

valuable hides and large size, bearded 

seals are specifically sought. Bearded 

seals are harvested during the spring 

and summer months in the Chukchi Sea 

(USDI/BLM 2003, 2005). The animals 

inhabit the environment around the ice 

floes in the drifting nearshore ice pack, 

so hunting usually occurs from boats in 

the drift ice. Most bearded seals are 

harvested in coastal areas inshore of the 

proposed survey so no conflicts with the 

harvest of bearded seals are expected. 

In the event that both marine 

mammals and hunters are near the 3D 

survey area when seismic surveys are in 

progress, the proposed project 

potentially could impact the availability 

of marine mammals for harvest in a 

small area immediately around the 

vessel, in the case of pinnipeds, and 

possibly in a large area in the case of 

migrating bowheads. However, the 

majority of marine mammals are taken 

by hunters within ∼21 mi (∼33 km) from 

shore (Figure 2 in Statoil’s IHA 

application), and the seismic source 

vessel M/V Geo Celtic will remain far 

offshore, well outside the hunting areas. 

Considering the timing and location of 

the proposed seismic survey activities, 

as described earlier in the document, 

the proposed project is not expected to 

have any significant impacts to the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence harvest. Specific concerns 

of the respective communities are 

addressed as part of the Plan of 

Cooperation between Statoil and the 

AEWC. 

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 

Statoil’s proposed open water marine 

seismic survey have the potential to 

impact marine mammals hunted by 

Native Alaskans. In the case of 

cetaceans, the most common reaction to 

anthropogenic sounds (as noted 

previously in this document) 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. 

In the case of subsistence hunts for 

bowhead whales in the Chukchi Sea, 

there could be an adverse impact on the 

hunt if the whales were deflected 

seaward (further from shore) in 

traditional hunting areas. The impact 

would be that whaling crews would 

have to travel greater distances to 

intercept westward migrating whales, 

thereby creating a safety hazard for 

whaling crews and/or limiting chances 

of successfully striking and landing 

bowheads. 

Plan of Cooperation (POC or Plan) 

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) 

require IHA applicants for activities that 

take place in Arctic waters to provide a 

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. 

Statoil states that it intends to 

maintain an open and transparent 

process with all stakeholders 

throughout the life-cycle of activities in 

the Chukchi Sea. Statoil began the 

stakeholder engagement process in 2009 

with meeting Chukchi Sea community 

leaders at the tribal, city, and corporate 

level. Statoil will continue to engage 

with leaders, community members, and 

subsistence groups, as well as local, 

state, and federal regulatory agencies 

throughout the exploration and 

development process. 

As part of stakeholder engagement, 

Statoil is developing a Plan of 

Cooperation (POC) for the proposed 

2010 seismic acquisition. The POC 

summarizes the actions Statoil will take 

to identify important subsistence 

activities, inform subsistence users of 

the proposed survey activities, and 

obtain feedback from subsistence users 

regarding how to promote cooperation 

between subsistence activities and the 

Statoil program. 

Statoil has had the opportunity to 

engage with North Slope subsistence 

communities on several occasions: 

• October 27, 2009, presentation to 

the NSB Planning Commission in 

Barrow; 

• October 27 through November 5, 

2009, Leadership Meetings in Barrow, 

Wainwright, Point Lay, and Kotzebue. 

Meetings with Native Village of Point 

Hope Executive Director; 

• December 14, 2009, meeting the 

NSB Wildlife Department and members 

of the AEWC to discuss proposed 

activities, potential impacts, and 

measures for mitigating impacts; 

• January 2010, POC meetings in 

Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, and 

Point Hope; 

• March 22, 2010, Marine Mammal 

Co-Management Group Meeting; and 

• April 13 - 16, 2010, Seminars 

presenting research work on oil spill 

contingencies in Arctic environmental 

conditions. Statoil took part and 

together with other operators brought 

Norwegian and international researchers 

to Anchorage, Barrow, and Kotzebue to 

present results from this research 

project (also called the SINTEF JIP 

study). 

Statoil states that consultation, both 

formal and informal, will continue 

before, during and after the 2010 

seismic survey activities. A final POC 

that documents all consultations with 

community leaders, subsistence users 

groups, individual subsistence users, 

and community members will be 

submitted to NMFS, USFWS, and MMS 

upon completion of consultation. The 

final POC will include feedback from 

the Leadership Meetings and POC 

meetings. Statoil will continue to 

document all consultation with the 

communities and subsistence 

stakeholders. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Subsistence Mitigation Measures 

Statoil plans to introduce the 

following mitigation measures, plans 

and programs to potentially affected 

subsistence groups and communities. 

These measures, plans, and programs 

have been effective in past seasons of 

work in the Arctic and were developed 

in past consultations with these 

communities. These measures, plans, 

and programs will be implemented by 

Statoil during its 2010 open water 

marine seismic survey in the Chukchi 

Sea to monitor and mitigate potential 

impacts to subsistence users and 

resources. The mitigation measures 

Statoil has adopted and will implement 

during 2010 are listed and discussed 

below. 

Statoil will not be entering the 

Chukchi Sea until early August, so there 

will be no potential conflict with spring 

bowhead whale or beluga subsistence 

whaling in the polynya zone. Statoil’s 

seismic survey area is ∼100 mi (∼ 161 

km) northwest of Wainwright which 

reduces the potential impact to 

subsistence hunting activities occurring 

along the Chukchi Sea coast. 

The communication center in 

Wainwright will be jointly funded by 

Statoil and other operators, and Statoil 

will routinely call the communication 

center according to the established 

protocol while in the Chukchi Sea. 

Statoil plans to have one major crew 

change which will take place in Nome, 

AK, and will not involve the use of 

helicopters. Statoil does have a 

contingency plan for a potential transfer 

of a small number of crew via ship-toshore vessel at Wainwright. If this 

should become necessary, the 

Wainwright communications center will 

be contacted to determine the 

appropriate vessel route and timing to 

avoid potential conflict with subsistence 

users. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Preliminary Determination 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that Statoil’s proposed 2010 open water 

marine seismic survey in the Chukchi 

Sea will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence uses. This preliminary 

determination is supported by 

information contained in this document 

and Statoil’s draft POC. Statoil has 

adopted a spatial and temporal strategy 

for its Chukchi Sea operations that 

should minimize impacts to subsistence 

hunters. Statoil will enter the Chukchi 

Sea far offshore, so as to not interfere 

with July hunts in the Chukchi Sea 

villages. After the close of the July 

beluga whale hunts in the Chukchi Sea 

villages, very little whaling occurs in 

Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay. 

Although the fall bowhead whale hunt 

in Barrow will occur while Statoil is 

still operating (mid- to late September to 

October), Barrow is approximately 150 

mi (241 km) east of the eastern 

boundary of the proposed marine 

seismic survey site. Based on these 

factors, Statoil’s Chukchi Sea seismic 

survey is not expected to interfere with 

the fall bowhead harvest in Barrow. In 

recent years, bowhead whales have 

occasionally been taken in the fall by 

coastal villages along the Chukchi coast, 

but the total number of these animals 

has been small. 

Adverse impacts are not anticipated 

on sealing activities since the majority 

of hunts for seals occur in the winter 

and spring, when Statoil will not be 

operating. Additionally, most sealing 

activities occur much closer to shore 

than Statoil’s proposed marine seismic 

survey area. 

Based on the measures described in 

Statoil’s Draft POC, the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

(described earlier in this document), 

and the project design itself, NMFS has 

determined preliminarily that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from Statoil’s open 

water marine seismic survey in the 

Chukchi Sea. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are three marine mammal 

species listed as endangered under the 

ESA with confirmed or possible 

occurrence in the proposed project area: 

the bowhead, humpback, and fin 

whales. NMFS’ Permits, Conservation 

and Education Division has initiated 

consultation with NMFS’ Protected 

Resources Division under section 7 of 

the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to 

Statoil 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 currently preparing an 

Environmental Assessment, pursuant to 

NEPA, to determine whether or not this 

proposed activity may have a significant 

effect on the human environment. This 

analysis will be completed prior to the 

issuance or denial of the IHA. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to 

authorize the take of marine mammals 

incidental to Statoil’s 2010 open water 

seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea, 

Alaska, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: June 2, 2010. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13753 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XT25 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Specified Activities; U.S. Marine 

Corps Training Exercises at Air Station 

Cherry Point 

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 the U.S. Marine Corps 

(USMC) requesting authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to various 

training exercises at Marine Corps Air 

Station (MCAS) Cherry Point Range 

Complex, North Carolina. The USMC’s 

activities are considered military 

readiness activities pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year 2004. Pursuant to the 

MMPA, NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

USMC to take bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus), by Level B 

harassment only, from specified 

activities. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

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

20910–3225. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

PR1.0648–XT25@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e-mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e-mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10-megabyte file size. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES