Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45969 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XJ62 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will host 

a public workshop on proposed gear 

modifications to trawl sweeps used in 

the BSAI flatfish fisheries, at Dantrawl, 

in Seattle. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

September 8, 2008, 1 p.m.–5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Dantrawl, 1121 NW 52nd, 

Seattle, WA 98107. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana Evans, Council staff, Phone: 907–

271–2809. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

agenda will be as follows: 

(1) Introductions; (2) Latest research 

results; (3) Gear designs (bobbins, 

placement, rope types, with net reels 

and without net reels, practical 

applications); (4) Council June motion; 

(5) Draft regulations; (6) Monitoring and 

enforcement issues (identify problems 

and suggest solutions). 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 

907–271–2809 at least 7 working days 

prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: August 4, 2008. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–18161 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XJ56 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; 

Seismic Survey in the Beaufort Sea, 

Alaska, Summer and Early Fall 2008 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an 

incidental take authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulations, notification is 

hereby given that NMFS has issued an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to PGS Onshore, Inc. (PGS) to 

take, by harassment, small numbers of 

six species of marine mammals 

incidental to an exploratory threedimensional (3D) marine seismic survey 

in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, utilizing an 

ocean bottom cable/transition zone 

(OBC/TZ) technique in summer and 

early fall 2008. 

DATES: Effective July 30, 2008, through 

July 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application containing 

a list of references used in this 

document, an addendum to the 

application, and the IHA are available 

by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225 or by telephoning the 

contact listed below (FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at: 

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

incidental.htm#applications. 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at the aforementioned 

address. 

A copy of the 2006 Minerals 

Management Service’s (MMS) Final 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (PEA) and/or the NMFS/ 

MMS Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(DPEIS) are available on the internet at: 

http://www.mms.gov/alaska/. NMFS’

2008 Supplemental Environmental 

Assessment (SEA) is available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Candace Nachman, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289 or 

Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska Region, 

(907) 271–3023. 

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 United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. Except 

with respect to certain activities not 

pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

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

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

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

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 

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

day time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a 30–day public 

notice and comment period on any 

proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the comment period, NMFS must 

either issue or deny the authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On May 9, 2008, NMFS received an 

application from PGS for the taking, by 

Level B harassment only, of small 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45970 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

numbers of several species of marine 

mammals incidental to conducting an 

exploratory 3D marine seismic survey in 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, utilizing an 

OBC/TZ technique. PGS has been 

contracted by ENI Petroleum (ENI) to 

conduct the seismic survey. The 

proposed survey is scheduled to occur 

for a period of approximately 75 days 

from mid-July to late-September, 2008, 

barring weather delays. The proposed 

survey location is in the Nikaitchuq 

Lease Block (see Figure 1 of PGS’

application), north of Oliktok Point and 

covering Thetis, Spy, and Leavitt 

Islands, and would extend to the 5–km 

(3–mi) state/Federal water boundary 

line and would not go into Federal 

waters. The water depth in this area 

ranges from 0–15 m (0–49 ft), and a 

third of the project waters are shallower 

than 3 m (10 ft). The total area covered 

by source or receiver lines is 304.6 km2

(117.6 mi2); since the islands comprise 

approximately 1.7 km2 (0.7 mi2) of this, 

the total marine area is 303 km2 (117 

mi2). 

The work would be divided into two 

parts. Data acquisition (use of airguns) 

outside the barrier islands (Thetis, Spy, 

and Leavitt Islands) would be performed 

first and would be completed by August 

25. This portion of the work would 

begin in the east and move toward the 

west. Data acquisition inside the barrier 

islands would then be conducted and 

would be completed by late-September. 

This portion of the work would also 

move from east to west. If additional 

data acquisition is required outside of 

the barrier islands after August 25, it 

would not recommence until the close 

of the fall bowhead hunt by the Nuiqsut 

community. 

Description of Activity 

The OBC/TZ survey involves 

deploying cables from small boats, 

called DIB boats, to the ocean bottom, 

forming a pattern consisting of three 

parallel receiver line cables, each a 

maximum of 17.3 km (10.7 mi) long and 

spaced approximately 200 m (656 ft) 

apart. Hydrophones and geophones 

attached to the cables are used to detect 

seismic energy reflected back from rock 

strata below the ocean bottom. The 

energy is generated from a submerged 

acoustic source, called a seismic airgun 

array, that releases compressed air into 

the water, creating an acoustic energy 

pulse directed downward toward the 

seabed. A detailed overview of the 

activities of this survey were provided 

in the Notice of Proposed IHA (73 FR 

34254, June 17, 2008). No changes have 

been made to these proposed activities. 

Additional information is contained in 

PGS’ application and application 

addendum, which are available for 

review (see ADDRESSES). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of PGS’ MMPA 

application and NMFS’ proposal to 

issue an IHA to PGS was published in 

the Federal Register on June 17, 2008 

(73 FR 34254). That notice described, in 

detail, PGS’ proposed activity, the 

marine mammal species that may be 

affected by the activity, and the 

anticipated effects on marine mammals. 

During the 30–day public comment 

period on PGS’ application, comments 

were received from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), the Center 

for Biological Diversity (CBD) and 

Pacific Environment (collectively 

‘‘CBD’’), the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC), the North Slope 

Borough (NSB) Office of the Mayor and 

the NSB Department of Wildlife 

Management (DWM), and Resisting 

Environmental Destruction on 

Indigenous Lands (REDOIL) and the 

Native Village of Point Hope (NVPH; 

collectively ‘‘REDOIL’’). CBD attached 

the comments submitted by the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on 

the 2006 MMS PEA as an appendix to 

its comments on the IHA. With the 

exception of some comments relevant to 

this specific action which are addressed 

here, comments on the Draft PEA have 

been addressed in Appendix D of the 

Final PEA and are not repeated here. 

Copies of those comment letters and the 

responses to comments can be found at: 

http://www.mms.gov/alaska/. CBD also 

attached the comments submitted by 

EarthJustice on the 2007 DPEIS. Those 

comments are not substantially different 

from the comments submitted on the 

PEA and do not contain comments 

specific to the PGS project. Therefore, 

they are not addressed separately in this 

document. REDOIL attached the 

declaration of Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, 

a Native Alaskan resident in Nuiqsut, 

submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs in 

Native Village of Point Hope et al. v. 

Minerals Management Service et al.. 

Several of her statements are referenced 

in their comment letter and addressed 

in this section of the document. The 

majority of her statement relates to 

issues raised by other commenters 

regarding subsistence concerns. 

General Concerns 

Comment 1: CBD urges NMFS not to 

issue a take authorization to PGS for the 

proposed activities unless and until the 

agency can ensure that mitigation 

measures are in place that truly avoid 

adverse impacts to all species and their 

habitats and only after full and adequate 

public participation has occurred and 

environmental review of the cumulative 

impacts of such activities on these 

species and their habitats has been 

undertaken. CBD, AEWC, and NSB feel 

that the proposed IHA does not meet 

these standards and therefore violates 

the MMPA, the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), and other governing 

statutes and regulations. 

Response: In its proposed IHA 

Federal Register notice (73 FR 34254, 

June 17, 2008), NMFS outlined in detail 

the proposed mitigation and monitoring 

requirements. The implementation of 

these measures will reduce the impacts 

of the proposed survey on marine 

mammals and their surrounding 

environment to the lowest level 

practicable. The public was given 30 

days to review and comment on these 

measures, in accordance with section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. NMFS has 

prepared a SEA to the 2006 MMS PEA. 

The PEA was available for comment in 

2006. NMFS has fulfilled its obligations 

under NEPA by completing a SEA, 

which is not required to be available for 

public comment prior to its finalization. 

These documents fully analyze the 

cumulative impacts of seismic activity 

in the Arctic region. Additionally, 

NMFS completed a Biological Opinion 

in July, 2008, as required by section 7 

of the ESA, which concluded that this 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

2008 seismic survey off Oliktok Point in 

the Beaufort Sea has been analyzed 

pursuant to the ESA. 

Comment 2: CBD assumes that PGS is 

seeking authorization from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the 

take of polar bears and Pacific walrus 

that will occur from their proposed 

activities. While these species are 

outside of NMFS’ jurisdiction for 

purposes of take authorization, they are 

clearly part of the ‘‘affected 

environment’’ adversely impacted by 

NMFS’ action and therefore cannot 

lawfully be simply discounted, as 

NMFS has done in the proposed IHA. 

Response: Since the IHA issued by 

NMFS can only regulate take of species 

under NMFS’ jurisdiction, the Notice of 

Proposed IHA does not go into detail 

regarding species under the jurisdiction 

of other Federal agencies. However, 

NMFS does analyze the impacts to these 

species in its NEPA analysis as part of 

the ‘‘affected environment.’’ The 

USFWS has issued a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) to PGS to take 

species under its jurisdiction (i.e., polar 

bears and walruses). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45971 

Comment 3: The NSB and AEWC 

point out that several sections of PGS’

application were poorly researched and 

drafted, especially the sections on 

impacts to bowhead and beluga whales. 

REDOIL states that the modeling used 

by PGS was inadequate. 

Response: NMFS reviewed the 

application and considered it complete 

after PGS submitted an addendum on 

May 29, 2008. While information is 

lacking, NMFS conducted relevant 

research and made its own calculations 

so that accurate and complete 

information could be provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (73 FR 34254, June 17, 2008). In 

addition, detailed and updated 

information on bowhead whales and 

other Arctic Ocean marine mammal 

species is provided in the MMS 2006 

PEA, the MMS/NMFS 2007 DPEIS, the 

NMFS 2008 SEA, and the Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs), as 

referenced in the proposed IHA notice. 

The addendum to PGS’ application 

provided NMFS with additional 

information regarding the airgun array 

and the modeling used. NMFS used this 

information to calculate the various 

isopleths, which will be verified 

through sound source verification tests 

prior to beginning the survey. NMFS 

then used these recalculated radii to 

estimate take. 

Comment 4: The NSB states that PGS’

application indicates it will take 90 days 

to complete the survey while the 

proposed IHA notice states it will take 

75 days. Thus, the amount of activity 

that will occur is unclear. In addition, 

since the IHA will not be issued before 

mid-July at the earliest, the surveys are 

not likely to be completed by midSeptember. Therefore, additional 

monitoring would be required, and PGS 

would need to consult with AEWC and 

sign a Conflict Avoidance Agreement 

(CAA). Without additional monitoring 

plans for September and October, the 

NSB opposes an IHA that permits 

seismic activity during that time period. 

Response: PGS will begin work upon 

receipt of the IHA and will work until 

approximately September 15. PGS, 

through ENI, has an agreement to 

complete operations by September 15 to 

allow another seismic program to begin. 

Although the project may extend 

beyond September 15 if the start date of 

other projects are pushed back, it is not 

anticipated to continue much beyond 

that date. 

PGS has agreed to conduct additional 

monitoring after August 25. Acoustic 

monitoring and aerial surveys will begin 

in late August (see ‘‘Monitoring and 

Reporting Plan’’ section later in this 

document). This additional monitoring 

would continue until the PGS seismic 

survey is completed. Moreover, PGS 

signed a CAA with the AEWC on June 

23, 2008. 

Comment 5: The AEWC indicates that 

PGS signed the CAA on June 23, 2008 

and that language about conducting 

activities near Nuiqsut was added 

specifically to address the village’s 

concerns regarding both the bowhead 

whale migration and the potential 

effects of PGS’ operations in nearshore 

areas used by Arctic Cisco, a fish 

commonly harvested by the community. 

The AEWC is satisfied with the 

negotiations and appreciates PGS’ and 

ENI’s willingness to work with them 

and their whaling captains. 

Response: NMFS has reviewed the 

CAA and agrees that the time 

limitations placed on activities inside 

and outside the barrier islands mitigates 

the potential impacts to subsistence 

activities in the area. This language has 

been added to the IHA as well. 

Comment 6: The AEWC and REDOIL 

are concerned about the lack of 

traditional knowledge in the application 

and NMFS’ apparent failure to include 

this knowledge in reaching its 

conclusions. 

Response: While traditional 

knowledge is not often included in 

applications for IHAs in the Arctic, and 

while NMFS encourages applicants to 

include this information, NMFS uses a 

wide variety of information when 

making the determinations required 

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

and does not rely solely on the 

application. Traditional knowledge, for 

example, is discussed in several 

documents issued by MMS under 

NEPA, which were used by NMFS in 

making its MMPA determinations. In 

the case of the 2008 PGS IHA 

application, the MMS 2006 PEA and 

MMS’ Final EIS for the Alaska Outer 

Continental Shelf Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area Oil and Gas Lease Sales 186, 195, 

and 202 (MMS 2003–001) and 

subsequent supporting NEPA 

documents, and NMFS’ 2008 Arctic 

Regional Biological Opinion (ARBO) 

provide NMFS with information on 

traditional knowledge that can be used, 

as here, when making determinations 

under NEPA and the MMPA. 

Comment 7: REDOIL incorporated 

CBD’s comments by reference in their 

entirety, and the AEWC incorporated 

the NSB’s comments by reference. 

Response: Comments submitted by 

CBD and the NSB are addressed in this 

section of the document. 

MMPA Concerns 

Comment 8: CBD and the NSB state 

that because the proposed seismic 

activity carries the real potential to 

cause injury or death to marine 

mammals, neither an IHA nor a LOA 

(because NMFS has not promulgated 

regulations for mortality by seismic 

activities) can be issued for PGS’

proposed activities. 

Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA authorizes Level A (injury) 

harassment and Level B (behavioral) 

harassment takes. While NMFS’

regulations indicate that a LOA must be 

issued if there is a potential for serious 

injury or mortality, NMFS does not 

believe that PGS’ seismic surveys 

require issuance of a LOA. As explained 

throughout this Federal Register Notice, 

it is highly unlikely that marine 

mammals would be exposed to sound 

pressure levels (SPLs) that could result 

in serious injury or mortality. The best 

scientific information indicates that an 

auditory injury is unlikely to occur as 

apparently sounds need to be 

significantly greater than 180 dB for 

injury to occur (Southall et al., 2007). 

NMFS has determined that exposure to 

several seismic pulses at received levels 

near 200–205 dB (rms) might result in 

slight temporary threshold shift (TTS) in 

hearing in a small odontocete, assuming 

the TTS threshold is a function of the 

total received pulse energy. Seismic 

pulses with received levels of 200–205 

dB or more are usually restricted to a 

radius of no more than 200 m (656 ft) 

around a seismic vessel operating a 

large array of airguns. PGS’ airgun array 

is considered to be of moderate size. For 

baleen whales, while there are no data, 

direct or indirect, on levels or properties 

of sound that are required to induce 

TTS, there is a strong likelihood that 

baleen whales (bowhead and gray 

whales) would avoid the approaching 

airguns (or vessel) before being exposed 

to levels high enough for there to be any 

possibility of onset of TTS. For 

pinnipeds, information indicates that 

for single seismic impulses, sounds 

would need to be higher than 190 dB 

rms for TTS to occur while exposure to 

several seismic pulses indicates that 

some pinnipeds may incur TTS at 

somewhat lower received levels than do 

small odontocetes exposed for similar 

durations. Consequently, NMFS has 

determined that it would be lawful to 

issue an IHA to PGS for the 2008 

seismic survey program. 

Comment 9: CBD and the NSB state 

that while PGS’ application does 

generally describe the location and 

duration of the seismic activities 

themselves, there is minimal 

description and no analysis of the 

impacts on marine mammals of the 

transport and deployment of the 13 

vessels that will be involved in the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45972 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

survey. By failing to adequately specify 

the activities and impacts of these 

vessels, PGS has failed to comply with 

16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(i) and 50 CFR 

216.104(a)(2). 

Response: The specified activity that 

has been proposed and for which an 

IHA has been requested is the use of 

seismic airguns to conduct oil and gas 

exploration. While the support vessels 

play a role in facilitating seismic 

operations, NMFS does not expect these 

operations to result in the incidental 

take of marine mammals. The majority 

of the vessels to be used in the seismic 

survey will be transported to the North 

Slope via trucks. Moreover, any vessels 

to be used in the seismic survey are 

typically slow-moving, and therefore, 

any risk of vessel collisions with marine 

mammals is expected to be minimal. 

Additionally, since marine mammal 

observers (MMOs) will be scanning the 

area for marine mammals during 

seismic operations, this further reduces 

the risk of a collision with cetaceans or 

pinnipeds. PGS has also agreed to hire 

Inupiat speakers to work on the seismic 

vessels. As part of their duties, the 

Inupiat speakers will be required to 

watch for marine mammals. Finally, 

normal shipping and transit operations 

do not rise to a level requiring an 

authorization under the MMPA. To 

require IHAs and LOAs for standard 

shipping would reduce the ability of 

NMFS to review activities that have a 

potential to cause harm to marine 

mammal populations. 

Comment 10: The NSB and CBD are 

concerned that NMFS has not made 

separate findings for both small 

numbers and negligible impact (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(i)(I); 50 CFR 

206.107). CBD states that the closest 

thing to a separate ‘‘small numbers’’

finding is a single sentence in the 

Preliminary Conclusions section of the 

proposed IHA. In recent proposed IHAs, 

NMFS has directly cited its invalid 

‘‘small numbers’’ definition. In the 

current IHA, NMFS does not directly 

cite to the regulatory definition of 

‘‘small numbers’’, but nevertheless 

conducts its analysis according to this 

invalid standard. Yet neither the 

Federal Register document nor PGS’

application provide any support 

whatsoever for this ‘‘conclusion.’’ The 

CBD continues that for PGS’ proposed 

seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea, the 

number of marine mammals likely to be 

exposed to sounds of 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) or greater, and therefore 

‘‘harassed’’ according to NMFS’

operative thresholds, is almost 1,600. In 

absolute terms this number cannot be 

considered ‘‘small.’’ The proposed 

seismic surveys simply are not designed 

to avoid impacting more than small 

numbers of marine mammals, and, 

therefore, the IHA must be denied. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

small numbers requirement has been 

satisfied. The species most likely to be 

harassed during seismic surveys off 

Oliktok Point in the Beaufort Sea is the 

ringed seal, with an ‘‘average estimate’’

of 3,551 exposures to SPLs of 160 dB or 

greater. (The estimate contained in the 

proposed IHA notice (73 FR 34254, June 

17, 2008) was 1,467 ringed seals. 

However, this estimate was based on 

exposures to SPLs of 170 dB or greater.) 

This does not mean that this is the 

number of ringed seals that will actually 

exhibit a disruption of behavioral 

patterns in response to the sound 

source; rather, it is simply the best 

estimate of the number of animals that 

potentially could have a behavioral 

modification due to the noise. For 

example, Moulton and Lawson (2002) 

indicate that most pinnipeds exposed to 

seismic sounds lower than 170 dB do 

not visibly react to that sound, and, 

therefore, pinnipeds are not likely to 

react to seismic sounds unless they are 

greater than 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms). In 

addition, these estimates are calculated 

based upon line miles of survey effort, 

animal density, and the calculated zone 

of influence (ZOI). While this 

methodology is valid for seismic 

surveys that transect long distances, for 

those surveys that ‘‘mow the lawn’’ (that 

is, remain within a relatively small area, 

transiting back and forth while shooting 

seismic), the take estimate numbers tend 

to be highly inflated because animals 

that might have been affected (taken) are 

likely to have moved out of the area to 

avoid additional annoyance from the 

seismic sounds (assuming they were 

taken in the first place). 

The Level B harassment take estimate 

of 3,551 ringed seals is a small number, 

at least in relative terms, in that it 

represents only 1.4 percent of the 

regional stock size of that species 

(249,000), if each ‘‘exposure’’ at 160 dB 

represents an individual ringed seal. 

The percentage would be even lower if 

a higher SPL is required for a behavioral 

reaction (as is expected) or, if as 

expected, animals move out of the 

seismic area. As a result, NMFS believes 

that these ‘‘exposure’’ estimates are 

conservative, and seismic surveys will 

actually affect less than 1.4 percent of 

the Beaufort Sea ringed seal population. 

The ‘‘average estimates’’ of exposures 

for the remaining species that could 

potentially occur in the project area (i.e., 

beluga, bowhead, and gray whales and 

bearded and spotted seals) are only 

between 25 and 178 animals, which 

constitute at most 0.3 percent of any of 

these five species populations in the 

Arctic. Additionally, the presence of 

beluga, bowhead, and gray whales in the 

shallow water environment within the 

barrier islands is possible but expected 

to be very limited. 

Further, NMFS believes that it is 

incorrect to add the number of 

exposures together to support an 

argument that the numbers are not 

‘‘small.’’ The MMPA is quite clear 

’’...taking by harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammals of a 

species or population stock...’’ does not 

refer to an additive calculation (small 

numbers, not small number). 

Separate detailed analyses on the 

levels of take by noise exposure and 

cumulative impacts to these marine 

mammal species and stocks from a wide 

spectrum in the past, current, and 

foreseeable future were also conducted 

and described in the Federal Register 

notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 

34254, June 17, 2008), the MMS 2006 

PEA, and the NMFS 2008 SEA. These 

analyses led NMFS to conclude that 

while behavioral modifications, 

including temporarily vacating the area 

during the project period may be made 

by these species to avoid the resultant 

acoustic disturbance, NMFS nonetheless 

found that this action would result in no 

more than a negligible impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and/or 

stocks. 

In sum, NMFS concludes that PGS’

3D OBC/TZ seismic survey will only 

result in the taking, by incidental 

harassment, of small numbers of marine 

mammals of a species or stock and 

would result in a negligible impact on 

such species or stock(s). 

Comment 11: CBD states that in 2006, 

NMFS required surveys of a 120–dB 

safety zone for bowhead cow/calf pairs 

and ‘‘large groups’’ (greater than 12 

individuals). If 12 bowheads constitute 

a ‘‘large group,’’ we do not see how the 

numerous bowheads that will be 

harassed by PGS are a ‘‘small number.’’

This displacement and the disruption of 

pod integrity clearly constitute 

harassment under the MMPA. PGS’

activities can be expected to have 

similar effects. NMFS’ determination 

that PGS’ activities will have a 

‘‘negligible impact’’ does not withstand 

scrutiny. First, as explained above and 

in our NEPA comments, the calculation 

of numbers of marine mammals 

harassed by PGS is likely an 

underestimate as it relies on a received 

sound threshold (160/170 dB) that is too 

high. Any negligible impacts 

determination based on such flawed 

data is itself unsupportable. Moreover, 

NMFS has previously recognized a 

harassment threshold of 120 dB for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45973 

continuous sounds. Given that PGS is 

using 13 vessels, the engine and 

operating noise from these vessels 

should be treated as ‘‘continuous’’ for 

purposes of estimating harassment 

thresholds. The MMPA is 

precautionary. In making its 

determinations, NMFS must give the 

benefit of the doubt to the species. As 

the D.C Circuit has repeatedly stated, ‘‘it 

is clear that ‘‘the Act was to be 

administered for the benefit of the 

protected species rather than for the 

benefit of commercial exploitation’’

(Kokechik Fishermen’s Association v. 

Secretary of Commerce, 839 F.2d 795, 

800 (D.C. Cir. 1988) citing Committee 

for Humane Legislation, Inc. v. 

Richardson, 540 F.2d 1141, 1148 (D.C. 

Cir. 1976)). NMFS seems to be ignoring 

this mandate in analyzing the impacts of 

PGS’ activities. 

Response: On CBD’s first point, there 

is no relationship between the term 

‘‘large group’’ and ‘‘small numbers.’’

The first term refers to a number of 12 

or more in order to implement 

additional mitigation measures, the 

second to a concept found in the 

MMPA, which has been addressed 

previously in this notice. NMFS agrees 

that while the ‘‘displacement and the 

disruption of pod integrity constitute 

harassment under the MMPA,’’ NMFS is 

unaware of any information that seismic 

survey operations will result in 

bowhead whale pod integrity 

disruption. On the contrary, traditional 

knowledge indicates that when 

migrating bowhead whales encounter 

anthropogenic noises, as a group they 

all divert away from the noise and 

continue to do so even if the noise 

ceases. 

Secondly, NMFS does not agree that 

the sources used in PGS’ activity should 

be considered ‘‘continuous.’’ The airgun 

arrays are the primary noise source that 

could potentially impact marine 

mammals. As stated previously in this 

document, NMFS does not issue IHAs 

for simple vessel traffic. 

The decision in Kokechik Fishermen’s 

Association v. Secretary of Commerce, 

839 F.2d 795 (D.C. Circ. 1988), does not 

apply to this case because it is factually 

and legally distinguishable. The 

incidental take permit challenged in 

Kokechik was for commercial fishing 

operations, governed by section 

101(a)(2) of the MMPA, whereas the 

incidental authorization that is the 

subject of this IHA is for an activity 

other than commercial fishing and is 

appropriately authorized pursuant to 

section 101(a)(5)(D). Consequently, as 

discussed throughout this document, it 

is not unlawful for NMFS to apply 

section 101(a)(5)(D) when issuing an 

IHA to PGS for the take of marine 

mammals incidental to seismic surveys. 

Comment 12: Additionally, CBD and 

NSB state that NMFS has no idea of the 

actual population status of several of the 

species subject to the proposed IHA. For 

example, in the most recent SARs 

prepared pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS 

acknowledges it has no accurate 

information on the status of ribbon, 

spotted, bearded, and ringed seals. CBD 

and NSB both indicate that without this 

data, NMFS cannot make a rational 

‘‘negligible impact’’ finding. This is 

particularly so given there is real reason 

to be concerned about the status of these 

populations. Such concerns were raised 

in a recent letter to NMFS from the 

Commission following the 

Commission’s 2005 annual meeting in 

Anchorage, Alaska (Commission, 

January 25, 2006 Letter). With regard to 

these species, the MMC cautioned 

against assuming a stable population. 

On December 20, 2007, CBD 

petitioned NMFS to list the ribbon seal 

under the ESA due to the loss of its seaice habitat from global warming and the 

adverse impacts of oil industry activities 

on the species. On May 27, 2008, CBD 

submitted a similar petition seeking 

listing of the spotted, bearded, and 

ringed seals. We request that NMFS 

consider the information contained in 

these petitions, as well as other 

information in its files on the status of 

these species, when analyzing the 

impacts of the proposed IHA on these 

increasingly imperiled species. Because 

the status of the ribbon, spotted, ringed, 

and bearded seals and other stocks is 

unknown, NMFS cannot conclude that 

surveys which will harass untold 

numbers of individuals of each species 

will have no more than a ‘‘negligible 

effect’’ on the stocks. 

Response: As required by the MMPA 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

216.102(a), NMFS has used the best 

scientific information available in 

making its determinations required 

under the MMPA. The Alaska SAR 

provides population estimates based on 

past survey work conducted in the 

region. PGS’ survey is not expected to 

have adverse impacts on ice seals. The 

activity will last for approximately 75 

days in the open-water environment of 

the Beaufort Sea. On March 28, 2008, 

NMFS published a notice of a 90–day 

petition finding, request for information, 

and initiation of status reviews of 

ribbon, bearded, ringed, and spotted 

seals (73 FR 16617). The comment 

period for this action closed on May 27, 

2008. NMFS is currently reviewing all 

relevant information and within 1 year 

of receipt of the petition, NMFS shall 

conclude the review with a finding as to 

whether or not the petitioned action is 

warranted. The ribbon seal petition 

submitted in December, 2007, is not 

relevant for this survey, as ribbon seals 

are not found in the project area. 

Information contained in the May, 2008, 

petition does not provide sufficient 

evidence that NMFS’ preliminary 

determination that only small numbers 

of ringed, bearded, and spotted seals 

would be affected as a result of PGS’

seismic activity is invalid. 

Comment 13: CBD states that the 

analyses in the proposed IHA are largely 

confined to looking at the immediate 

effects of PGS’ airgun surveys in the 

Beaufort Sea on several marine mammal 

species. However, there is no analysis of 

the impacts of the 13 vessels and any 

related aircraft participating in the 

surveys on marine mammals. The 

impacts of these activities must be 

analyzed and mitigated before any 

‘‘negligible impact’’ finding can be 

made. CBD and NSB believe that NMFS 

must consider these effects together 

with other oil and gas activities that 

affect these species, stocks and local 

populations, other anthropogenic risk 

factors such as climate change, and the 

cumulative effect of these activities over 

time. The effects should be analyzed 

with respect to their potential 

population consequences at the species 

level, stock level, and at the local 

population level. 

Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the MMPA, NMFS is required to 

determine whether the taking by the 

applicant’s specified activity will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or population stocks. 

Cumulative impact assessments are 

NMFS’ responsibility under NEPA, not 

the MMPA. In that regard, the MMS 

Final PEA and NMFS 2008 SEA address 

cumulative impacts. The Final PEA’s 

cumulative activities scenario and 

cumulative impact analysis focused on 

oil and gas-related and non-oil and gasrelated noise-generating events/ 

activities in both Federal and State of 

Alaska waters that were likely and 

foreseeable. Other appropriate factors, 

such as Arctic warming, military 

activities, and noise contributions from 

community and commercial activities 

were also considered. Appendix D of 

the Final PEA addresses similar 

comments on cumulative impacts, 

including global warming. That 

information was incorporated into and 

updated in the NMFS 2008 SEA and 

into this document by citation. NMFS 

adopted the MMS Final PEA, and it is 

part of NMFS’ Administrative Record. 

NMFS does not require authorizations 

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

normal shipping or transit. A further 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45974 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

explanation was addressed in the 

response to Comment 9. 

Comment 14: NSB and CBD are both 

concerned about cumulative impacts 

from multiple operations. PGS’ proposal 

is only one of numerous oil industry 

activities recently occurring, planned, or 

ongoing in the U.S. portions of the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. No analysis 

of seismic surveys in the Russian or 

Canadian portions of the Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas is mentioned either. 

Similarly, significant increases in 

onshore oil and gas development with 

attendant direct impacts and indirect 

impacts on marine mammals such as 

through increased ship traffic are also 

occurring and projected to occur at 

greater rates than in the past (e.g., 

NMFS’ IHA for barge traffic to NPR-A; 

IHA for barge operations in the Beaufort 

Sea; and a notice regarding new oil and 

gas development in the NPR-A). CBD 

states that further cumulative effects 

impacting the marine mammals of the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are outlined 

in their NEPA comments on the MMS 

PEA and the DPEIS. 

The NSB points out that in addition 

to the proposed offshore industrial 

operations listed above, there will be 

supply and fuel barging to villages, 

barging for support of onshore 

development and exploration, scientific 

cruises, climate change studies, USCG 

operations, tourist vessel traffic, and 

other activities as well. The cumulative 

impacts of all these activities must be 

factored into any negligible impact 

determination. Further, without an 

analysis of the effects of all of the 

planned operations, it is impossible to 

determine whether the monitoring plans 

are sufficient. 

Response: See the response to the 

previous comment. The issue of 

cumulative impacts has been addressed 

in the 2006 MMS Final PEA and the 

2008 NMFS SEA. 

Comment 15: According to CBD, 

another factor causing NMFS’

‘‘negligible impact’’ findings to be 

suspect is the fact that the Beaufort Sea 

area is undergoing rapid change as a 

result of global warming. For species 

under NMFS’ jurisdiction, and therefore 

subject to the proposed IHA, seals are 

likely to face the most severe 

consequences. The Arctic Climate 

Impact Assessment (ACIA) concluded 

that ringed, spotted, and bearded seals 

would all be severely negatively 

impacted by global warming this 

century. The ACIA stated that ringed 

seals are particularly vulnerable (ACIA, 

2004). In 2003, the NRC noted that oil 

and gas activities combined with global 

warming presented a serious cumulative 

impact to the species. NMFS’ failure to 

address global warming as a cumulative 

effect renders its negligible impact 

findings invalid. 

Response: Under section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the MMPA, ‘‘the Secretary shall 

authorize... taking by harassment of 

small numbers of marine mammals of a 

species or population stock by such 

citizens while engaging in that activity 

within that region if the Secretary finds 

that such harassment during each 

period concerned (I) will have a 

negligible impact on such species or 

stock, and (II) will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses.’’ Section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA does not 

require NMFS to base its negligible 

impact determination on the possibility 

of cumulative effects of other actions. 

As stated in previous responses, 

cumulative impact assessments are 

NMFS’ responsibility under NEPA, not 

the MMPA. In that regard, the MMS 

2006 Final PEA and NMFS’ 2008 SEA 

address cumulative impacts. The PEA’s 

cumulative activities scenario and 

cumulative impact analysis focused on 

oil and gas-related and non-oil and gasrelated noise-generating events/ 

activities in both Federal and State of 

Alaska waters that were likely and 

foreseeable. Other appropriate factors, 

such as Arctic warming, military 

activities, and noise contributions from 

community and commercial activities 

were also considered. Appendix D of 

the PEA addresses similar comments on 

cumulative impacts, including global 

warming. That information was 

incorporated into and updated in the 

NMFS 2008 SEA and into this 

document by citation. NMFS adopted 

the MMS Final PEA, and it is part of 

NMFS’ Administrative Record. 

Marine Mammal Impact Concerns 

Comment 16: CBD states that they 

referenced the scientific literature 

linking seismic surveys with marine 

mammal stranding events in its 

comments to MMS on the 2006 Draft 

PEA and in comments to NMFS and 

MMS on the 2007 DPEIS. NMFS’ failure 

to address these studies and the threat 

of serious injury or mortality to marine 

mammals from seismic surveys renders 

NMFS’ conclusory determination that 

serious injury or morality will not occur 

from PGS’ activities arbitrary and 

capricious. 

Response: MMS briefly addressed the 

humpback whale stranding in Brazil on 

page PEA–127 in the Final PEA. Marine 

mammal strandings are also discussed 

in the NMFS/MMS DPEIS. A more 

detailed response to the cited strandings 

has been provided in several previous 

IHA issuance notices for seismic 

surveys (e.g., 71 FR 50027, August 24, 

2006; 73 FR 40512, July 15, 2008). 

Additional information has not been 

provided by CBD or others regarding 

these strandings. As NMFS has stated, 

the evidence linking marine mammal 

strandings and seismic surveys remains 

tenuous at best. Two papers, Taylor et 

al. (2004) and Engel et al. (2004), 

reference seismic signals as a possible 

cause for a marine mammal stranding. 

Taylor et al. (2004) noted two beaked 

whale stranding incidents related to 

seismic surveys. The statement in 

Taylor et al. (2004) was that the seismic 

vessel was firing its airguns at 1300 hrs 

on September 24, 2004, and that 

between 1400 and 1600 hrs, local 

fishermen found live-stranded beaked 

whales some 22 km (12 nm) from the 

ship’s location. A review of the vessel’s 

trackline indicated that the closest 

approach of the seismic vessel and the 

beaked whales’ stranding location was 

33 km (18 nm) at 1430 hrs. At 1300 hrs, 

the seismic vessel was located 46 km 

(25 nm) from the stranding location. 

What is unknown is the location of the 

beaked whales prior to the stranding in 

relation to the seismic vessel, but the 

close timing of events indicates that the 

distance was not less than 33 km (18 

nm). No physical evidence for a link 

between the seismic survey and the 

stranding was obtained. In addition, 

Taylor et al. (2004) indicate that the 

same seismic vessel was operating 500 

km (270 nm) from the site of the 

Galapagos Island stranding in 2000. 

Whether the 2004 seismic survey caused 

two beaked whales to strand is a matter 

of considerable debate (see Cox et al., 

2004). NMFS believes that scientifically, 

these events do not constitute evidence 

that seismic surveys have an effect 

similar to that of mid-frequency tactical 

sonar. However, these incidents do 

point to the need to look for such effects 

during future seismic surveys. To date, 

follow-up observations on several 

scientific seismic survey cruises have 

not indicated any beaked whale 

stranding incidents. 

Engel et al. (2004), in a paper 

presented to the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) in 2004 (SC/56/E28), 

mentioned a possible link between oil 

and gas seismic activities and the 

stranding of eight humpback whales 

(seven off the Bahia or Espirito Santo 

States and one off Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil). Concerns about the relationship 

between this stranding event and 

seismic activity were raised by the 

International Association of 

Geophysical Contractors (IAGC). The 

IAGC (2004) argues that not enough 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45975 

evidence is presented in Engel et al. 

(2004) to assess whether or not the 

relatively high proportion of adult 

strandings in 2002 is anomalous. The 

IAGC contends that the data do not 

establish a clear record of what might be 

a ‘‘natural’’ adult stranding rate, nor is 

any attempt made to characterize other 

natural factors that may influence 

strandings. As stated previously, NMFS 

remains concerned that the Engel et al. 

(2004) article appears to compare 

stranding rates made by opportunistic 

sightings in the past with organized 

aerial surveys beginning in 2001. If so, 

then the data are suspect. 

Second, strandings have not been 

recorded for those marine mammal 

species expected to be harassed by 

seismic in the Arctic Ocean. Beaked 

whales and humpback whales, the two 

species linked in the literature with 

stranding events with a seismic 

component are not located in the area of 

the Beaufort Sea where seismic 

activities would occur (although 

humpback whales have been spotted in 

the Chukchi Sea and much farther west 

in the Beaufort Sea). Moreover, 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; nor 

reported by NSB inhabitants. Finally, if 

bowhead and gray whales react to 

sounds at very low levels by making 

minor course corrections to avoid 

seismic noise and mitigation measures 

require PGS to ramp-up the seismic 

array to avoid a startle effect, strandings 

are highly unlikely to occur in the 

Arctic Ocean. Ramping-up of the array 

will allow marine mammals the 

opportunity to vacate the area of 

ensonification and thus avoid any 

potential injury or impairment of their 

hearing capabilities. In conclusion, 

NMFS does not expect any marine 

mammals will incur serious injury or 

mortality as a result of seismic surveys 

in the Beaufort Sea in 2008. 

Comment 17: CBD states that seismic 

surveys pose the risk of permanent 

hearing loss by marine mammals, which 

itself is a ‘‘serious injury’’ likely to lead 

to the death of these animals. Seismic 

pulses of sufficient volume, such as 

those proposed to be used by PGS, have 

the potential to cause temporary and 

permanent hearing loss in marine 

mammals. 

Response: NMFS does not expect that 

animals will be injured, or for that 

matter seriously injured or killed, if they 

are within the 180 dB (cetaceans) and 

190 dB (pinnipeds) isopleths. These 

criteria were set to approximate where 

Level A harassment (defined as ‘‘any act 

of pursuit, torment or annoyance which 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild’’) from acoustic sources begins. 

NMFS has determined that a TTS, 

which is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposures to a strong sound may occur 

at these levels. For sound exposures at 

or somewhat above TTS, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the noise ends. Few data on 

sound levels and durations necessary to 

elicit mild TTS have been obtained for 

marine mammals, and none of the 

published data concern TTS elicited by 

exposure to multiple pulses of sound. 

TTS is not an injury, as there is no 

injury to individual cells. 

As NMFS has published several times 

in Federal Register notices regarding 

issuance of IHAs for seismic survey 

work or in supporting documentation 

for such authorizations, for whales 

exposed to single short pulses, the TTS 

threshold appears to be a function of the 

energy content of the pulse. Given the 

data available at the time of the IHA 

issuance, the received level of a single 

seismic pulse might need to be 

approximately 210 dB re 1 Pa rms in 

order to produce brief, mild TTS. 

Exposure to several seismic pulses at 

received levels near 200–205 dB (rms) 

might result in slight TTS in a small 

odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold 

is a function of the total received pulse 

energy. Seismic pulses with received 

levels of 200–205 dB or more are 

usually restricted to a radius of no more 

than 200 m (656 ft) around a seismic 

vessel operating a large array of airguns. 

Since PGS is operating a moderate-sized 

array, this radius would be even 

smaller. For baleen whales, there are no 

data, direct or indirect, on levels or 

properties of sound that are required to 

induce TTS. However, there is a strong 

likelihood that baleen whales (bowhead 

and gray whales) would avoid the 

approaching airguns (or vessel) before 

being exposed to levels high enough for 

there to be any possibility of onset of 

TTS. 

A marine mammal within a radius of 

100 m (328 ft) or less around a typical 

large array of operating airguns may be 

exposed to a few seismic pulses with 

levels greater than or equal to 205 dB 

and possibly more pulses if the marine 

mammal moves with the seismic vessel. 

When permanent threshold shift (PTS) 

occurs, there is physical damage to the 

sound receptors in the ear. In some 

cases, there can be total or partial 

deafness, whereas in other cases, the 

animal has an impaired ability to hear 

sounds in specific frequency ranges. 

However, there is no specific evidence 

that exposure to pulses of airgun sound 

can cause PTS in any marine mammal, 

even with airgun arrays larger than that 

proposed to be used in PGS’ survey. 

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. 

The information provided here 

regarding PTS is for large airgun arrays. 

PGS is proposing to use an 880 in3 

array, which is considered mid-size. 

Therefore, animals would have to be 

very close to the vessel to incur serious 

injuries. Because of the monitoring and 

mitigation measures required in the IHA 

(i.e., MMOs, ramp-up, power-down, 

shutdown, etc.), it is expected that 

appropriate corrective measures can be 

taken to avoid any injury, including 

serious injury. 

Comment 18: The NSB DWM states 

that humpback and fin whales were 

seen in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

in 2007. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

expect that both of these species could 

occur in the vicinity of Harrison Bay in 

2008. Given that both species are 

endangered, NMFS should include an 

evaluation of potential impacts to 

humpback and fin whales from PGS’

proposed seismic activities and other oil 

and gas activities planned for 2008. 

Narwhals have also been seen in the 

vicinity of PGS’ operations. Several 

years ago, hunters observed several 

narwhals in the vicinity of Thetis Island 

(E. Nukapigak, pers. comm.), which is in 

the area proposed for seismic surveys. 

Potential impacts to narwhals should 

also be evaluated. 

Response: As an initial matter, NMFS 

prepared a Biological Opinion in July, 

2008, to assess the effects of oil and gas 

exploration in the Arctic Ocean, 

particularly in light of new sightings 

data for fin and humpback whales. Until 

2007, historic and recent information 

did not indicate humpback whales 

inhabit northern portions of the 

Chukchi Sea or enter the Beaufort Sea. 

No sightings of humpback whales were 

reported during aerial surveys of 

endangered whales in summer (July) 

and autumn (August-October) of 1979–

1987 in the Northern Bering Sea (from 

north of St. Lawrence Island), the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45976 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

Chukchi Sea north of lat. 66° N. and east 

of the International Date Line, and the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea from long. 157° 

01’ W. east to long. 140° W. and offshore 

to lat. 72° N. (Ljungblad et al., 1988). 

Humpbacks have not been observed 

during annual aerial surveys of the 

Beaufort Sea conducted in September 

and October from 1982–2007 (e.g., 

Monnett and Treacy, 2005; Moore et al., 

2000; Treacy, 2002; Monnett, 2008, pers. 

comm.). During a 2003 research cruise 

in which all marine mammals observed 

were recorded from July 5 to August 18 

in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, no 

humpback whales were observed 

(Bengtson and Cameron, 2003). One 

observation of a single humpback whale 

was recorded in 2006 by MMOs aboard 

a vessel in the southern Chukchi Sea 

outside of the Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area (Patterson et al., 2007; MMS, 2006, 

unpublished data). During summer 2007 

between August 1 and October 16, 

humpback whales were observed during 

seven observation sequence events in 

the western Alaska Beaufort Sea (1 

animal) and eastern and southeastern 

Chukchi Sea (6 animals; MMS, 2007, 

unpublished data) and one other 

observation in the southern Chukchi Sea 

in 2007 (Sekiguchi, In prep.). The one 

humpback sighting in the Beaufort Sea 

in 2007 was in Smith Bay, which is 

more than 150 km (100 mi) west of the 

PGS project area. Therefore, humpback 

whales are not expected to occur in the 

location of PGS’ survey. 

Additionally, there is no indication 

that fin whales typically occur within 

the project area. There have been only 

rare observations of fin whales into the 

eastern half of the Chukchi Sea. Fin 

whales have not been observed during 

annual aerial surveys of the Beaufort 

Sea conducted in September and 

October from 1982–2007 (e.g., Monnett 

and Treacy, 2005; Moore et al., 2000; 

Treacy, 2002; Monnett, 2008, pers. 

comm.). During a research cruise in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas (from July 5–

August 18, 2003), in which all marine 

mammals observed were recorded, no 

fin whales were observed (Bengtson and 

Cameron, 2003). Therefore, fin whales 

are not expected to occur in the location 

of PGS’ survey. 

Discussions at this year’s Open-water 

Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in April, 

in which the NSB participated, 

indicated that narwhals are extremely 

unlikely to occur in the U.S. Beaufort 

Sea and mainly inhabit the Canadian 

Beaufort Sea. At present, NMFS does 

not have a SAR available for narwhal, 

making it difficult to assess distribution 

and abundance of the narwhal in the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Therefore, it is 

highly unlikely that narwhals would be 

affected by the survey. 

Comment 19: The NSB DWM states 

that contrary to the information 

contained in PGS’ application, some 

bowhead whales spend the summer in 

the Beaufort Sea. Thus, evaluation of the 

potential for impact from seismic 

surveys on summering whales is 

needed. 

Response: NMFS conducted this 

analysis in its NEPA documents. 

Although it is possible that bowhead 

whales could occur inside the barrier 

islands, the extremely shallow water in 

which PGS will operate (less than 15 m, 

49 ft) is not suitable bowhead habitat. 

Mitigation and monitoring measures 

required in the IHA will also help to 

reduce impacts to bowheads throughout 

the entire time period of the survey. 

Comment 20: CBD and the NSB state 

that NMFS’ estimate of the number of 

marine mammals that may be harassed 

under the proposed authorization is 

based on the assumption that sounds 

below 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) do not 

constitute harassment. This assumption 

is incorrect, and therefore PGS’ and 

NMFS’ estimated take numbers 

represent an underestimate of the 

possible true impact. In our NEPA 

comments on the 2006 PEA, we pointed 

out the numerous studies showing 

significant behavioral impacts from 

received sounds well below 160 dB. 

Even the 2006 PEA itself acknowledges 

that impacts to bowheads occur at levels 

of 120 dB and below. This clearly meets 

the statutory definition of harassment 

and demonstrates that the numbers of 

bowhead estimated in the proposed IHA 

to be taken by PGS’ activities likely 

constitute a significant underestimate. 

NMFS’ ‘‘small numbers’’ conclusion is 

therefore arbitrary and capricious for 

this reason as well. 

The NSB DWM questions why PGS 

does not acknowledge that bowheads 

avoided an area around active seismic to 

much lower sound levels, down to 120 

dB or lower (Richardson et al., 1999). 

Bowheads’ sensitivity to very low level 

of industrial sounds must be considered 

in assessing impacts from one industrial 

operation, as well as impacts from 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

operations. 

Response: On the first point, NMFS 

uses the best science available when 

making its determinations under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. On the 

second point, CBD misunderstands the 

purpose of ‘‘potential to harass’’ in the 

MMPA. This was not meant to mean 

that highly speculative numbers of 

marine mammals could ‘‘potentially be 

harassed’’ but that Congress intended 

for U.S. citizens to apply for an MMPA 

authorization prior to its activity taking 

marine mammals, not waiting until after 

the taking occurred and someone 

needed to ‘‘prove’’ that the taking 

happened. 

As stated previously, the ‘‘take’’

numbers provided in the proposed IHA 

notice (73 FR 34254, June 17, 2008) and 

subsequently amended herein are 

considered the numbers of animals that 

could potentially be ‘‘exposed’’ to the 

sounds based on species density, the 

area potentially affected, and the length 

of time the noise would be expected to 

last. This does not necessarily indicate 

that all animals will have a significant 

behavioral reaction to that sound at the 

level of 160 dB. In addition, CBD took 

the maximum number of marine 

mammals (based on animal density), 

instead of the expected density (as 

explained in PGS’ application). Using 

maximum density estimates is 

problematic as it tends to inflate 

harassment take estimates to an 

unreasonably high number and is not 

based on empirical science. As a result, 

NMFS believes that far fewer marine 

mammals would receive SPLs sufficient 

to cause a significant biological reaction 

by the species. In regard to bowhead 

whales, while this species reacts to 

sounds at levels lower than 160 dB, 

during its fall westward migration (but 

not while in a non-migratory behavior), 

those reactions are not detectable by 

MMOs and that information is obtained 

only later during computer analysis of 

collected data. 

Richardson et al. (1999) monitored 

the reactions of migrating bowhead 

whales and found that most avoided the 

area of seismic activity within 20 km 

(12.4 mi) of the source at levels as low 

as 120–130 dB (rms). Also, the Northstar 

recordings are conducted during the fall 

migration westward across the Beaufort. 

Since some of the work to be conducted 

by PGS will overlap with the bowhead 

migration period, beginning on August 

25, PGS will be required to monitor out 

to the 120–dB isopleth. This will be 

done via vessel and aerial surveys. PGS 

will be required to shutdown operations 

if 4 or more cow/calf pairs are seen 

within this radius. PGS will conduct 

sound source verification tests at the 

beginning of the survey to determine the 

exact distances to the 190-, 180-, 160-, 

and 120–dB isopleths both inside and 

outside the barrier islands. 

Lastly, the requirement to assess 

cumulative impacts is required under 

NEPA, not the MMPA. Cumulative 

impacts were assessed and analyzed in 

both the 2006 PEA and the 2008 SEA. 

Comment 21: The NSB DWM, CBD, 

and REDOIL state that a 160–dB 

threshold for belugas is similarly 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45977 

flawed. As NMFS is aware, belugas are 

among the most sensitive of marine 

mammals to anthropogenic sound. In 

previous IHA notices, NMFS has 

acknowledged the impacts of sounds on 

belugas even at significant distances 

from a sound source. For example, in a 

recent proposed take authorization 

related to seismic surveys by NSF, 

NMFS noted that belugas can be 

displaced at distances of up to 20 km 

(12.4 mi) from a sound source. Aerial 

surveys during seismic operations in the 

southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded 

much lower sighting rates of beluga 

whales within 10–20 km (6.2–12.4 mi) 

of an active seismic vessel. These results 

were consistent with the low number of 

beluga sightings reported by observers 

aboard the seismic vessel. Such 

displacement clearly meets the statutory 

definition of harassment and 

demonstrates that the number of belugas 

estimated to be taken by PGS’ activities 

constitutes a significant underestimate. 

Belugas are also extremely sensitive to 

ships. A study of Canadian belugas 

showed flight responses from icebreakers at received sound levels as low 

as 94 dB. Presumed alarm vocalizations 

of belugas indicated that they were 

aware of an approaching ship over 80 

km (50 mi) away and they showed 

strong avoidance reactions to ships 

approaching at distances of 35–50 km 

(22–31 mi) when received noise levels 

ranged from 94 to 105 dB re 1 Pa in the 

20–1000 Hz band. The ‘‘flee’’ response 

of the beluga involved large herds 

undertaking long dives close to or 

beneath the ice edge; pod integrity broke 

down and diving appeared 

asynchronous. Belugas were displaced 

along ice edges by as much as 80 km (50 

mi; Finley et al., 1990). The NSB DWM 

states that the 120–dB zone should be 

used for estimating numbers of beluga 

whales that may be taken during seismic 

operations in the Beaufort Sea. 

The NSB DWM notes that while most 

beluga whales are found near the shelf 

break, they are also regularly seen in 

shallower nearshore waters of the 

Beaufort Sea. 

Response: Much of the Beaufort Sea 

seasonal population of belugas enters 

the Mackenzie River estuary (in Canada) 

for a short period from July through 

August to molt their epidermis, but they 

spend most of the summer in offshore 

waters of the eastern Beaufort Sea, 

Amundsen Gulf, and more northerly 

areas (Davis and Evans, 1982; Harwood 

et al., 1996; Richard et al., 2001). 

Belugas are rarely seen in the central 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea during the early 

summer. During late summer and 

autumn, most belugas migrate westward 

far offshore near the pack ice (Frost et 

al., 1988; Hazard, 1988; Clarke et al., 

1993; Miller et al., 1999), with the main 

fall migration corridor approximately 

160 km (100 mi) or more north of the 

coast. Therefore, most belugas migrate 

well offshore away from the proposed 

project area, although there is a small 

possibility that they could occur near 

the project area in small numbers. 

MMOs will be monitoring the exclusion 

zones for all marine mammals. 

Therefore, in the event that belugas are 

sighted in the project area, the 

appropriate mitigation measures 

(described later in this document) will 

be implemented. Additionally, as PGS 

does not intend to use ice-breakers 

during its seismic survey, statements 

regarding beluga reactions to ice-breaker 

noise are not relevant to this activity. 

Comment 22: The NSB DWM points 

out that while ringed seals may be the 

most common marine mammal species 

in the area, since the seismic shoot is 

near a spotted seal haulout in the 

Colville River Delta, PGS should expect 

to encounter and expose spotted seals to 

seismic sounds. Additional information 

is needed about impacts from seismic 

activities on spotted seals, including 

impacts to seals at haulouts. 

Response: Both the application and 

proposed IHA notice analyze the 

distribution, density, and potential 

impacts to spotted seals. NMFS 

estimates that 178 spotted seals may be 

exposed to sound levels of 160 dB (rms) 

or greater and thereby possibly taken as 

a result of PGS’ seismic survey. Impacts 

to spotted seals are not expected to be 

all that different than those to the other 

ice seals in the area. While there may be 

some behavioral disturbance, for 

reasons stated earlier in this document, 

TTS and PTS are not expected for 

spotted seals or any other marine 

mammal species. Additionally, if the 

animals are hauled out during seismic 

shooting, then they would not be 

exposed to underwater noise. 

Comment 23: The NSB is concerned 

about the potential impacts of PGS’

seismic survey to the food sources of 

marine mammals. Part of the survey 

occurs in productive nearshore waters. 

Additional information is needed about 

impacts from seismic surveys to marine 

mammal prey and the resulting impacts 

to the marine mammals themselves. 

Response: PGS has modified the 

project timeline to address concerns 

from local subsistence users regarding 

impacts to fish. PGS has agreed not to 

begin work inside the barrier islands 

prior to August 5. Additionally, NMFS 

does not expect the proposed action to 

have a substantial impact on 

biodiversity or ecosystem function 

within the affected area. The potential 

for the PGS activity to affect ecosystem 

features and biodiversity components, 

including fish and invertebrates, is fully 

analyzed in the 2006 PEA and 

incorporated by reference into the 2008 

SEA. NMFS’ evaluation indicates that 

any direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects of the action would not result in 

a substantial impact on biodiversity or 

ecosystem function. In particular, the 

potential for effects to these resources 

are considered here with regard to the 

potential effects on diversity or 

functions that may serve as essential 

components of marine mammal habitat. 

Most effects are considered to be shortterm and unlikely to affect normal 

ecosystem function or predator/prey 

relationships; therefore, NMFS believes 

that there will not be a substantial 

impact on marine life biodiversity or on 

the normal function of the nearshore or 

offshore Beaufort Sea ecosystems. 

During the seismic survey, only a 

small fraction of the available habitat 

would be ensonified at any given time. 

Disturbance to fish species would be 

short-term, and fish would return to 

their pre-disturbance behavior once the 

seismic activity in a specific area ceases. 

Thus, the proposed survey would have 

little, if any, impact on the ability of 

marine mammals to feed in the area 

where seismic work is conducted. 

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). 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, if any 

would occur at all. Impacts on 

zooplankton behavior are predicted to 

be negligible, and that would translate 

into negligible impacts on availability of 

mysticete prey. More importantly, 

bowhead whales, while possible, are not 

expected to feed in the shallow area 

covered by this seismic survey; 

therefore, no impacts to mysticete 

feeding are anticipated. 

Little or no mortality to fish and/or 

invertebrates is anticipated. The 

proposed Beaufort Sea seismic survey is 

predicted to have negligible to low 

physical effects on the various life 

stages of fish and invertebrates. Though 

these effects do not require 

authorization under an IHA, the effects 

on these features were considered by 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45978 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

NMFS with respect to consideration of 

effects to marine mammals and their 

habitats, and NMFS finds that these 

effects from the survey itself on fish and 

invertebrates are not anticipated to have 

a substantial effect on biodiversity and/ 

or ecosystem function within the survey 

area. 

Comment 24: REDOIL states that 

NMFS appears to lay great stock in the 

mitigating effect of PGS conducting its 

post August 5 seismic surveying inside 

the barrier islands so as not to disturb 

the fall bowhead migration. NMFS does 

not sufficiently analyze this conclusion, 

nor does it address the fact that whales 

are sometimes sighted within the barrier 

islands. 

Response: Although whales are 

sometimes sighted inside the barrier 

islands, the shallow depths are not 

considered primary habitat for the 

animals, so NMFS does not believe that 

whales will occur in any significant 

numbers inside the barrier islands. 

Sound propagation in shallow waters is 

less than in deeper waters. Additionally, 

the islands will serve as a barrier and 

should absorb the majority of the sound 

produced by the airguns, thereby 

minimizing the distance that the sound 

will travel and reducing the impacts to 

animals outside the islands. Sound 

source verification tests will determine 

the distance to the exclusion and 

monitoring zones and may reveal that 

the distances provided in this document 

are overestimates. The increased 

monitoring that will be required during 

the fall bowhead migration and the 

required mitigation measures should 

help to reduce impacts to migrating 

whales. 

Estimated Take Calculation Concerns 

The Federal Register Notice for the 

proposed PGS IHA (73 FR 34254, June 

17, 2008) estimated Level B harassment 

takes for pinnipeds using the 170–dB 

(rms) radius. To be consistent with 

NMFS’ Level B (behavioral) harassment 

criteria for pinnipeds, NMFS will 

continue to use 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

as the threshold of onset for Level B 

(behavioral) harassment, as noted later 

in this document. The estimated 

numbers of pinnipeds that could be 

exposed within the 160 dB re 1 μPa 

ensonified zone are provided 

throughout this document, particularly 

in the responses to public comments 

and in the ‘‘Estimated Take of Marine 

Mammals by Incidental Harassment’’

section. Nevertheless, it is important to 

note that even with the 160–dB criteria, 

NMFS expects that only small numbers 

of pinnipeds would be exposed to 

seismic noises that could cause Level B 

(behavioral) harassment. In addition, 

research by Moulton and Lawson (2002) 

indicated that most pinnipeds exposed 

to seismic sounds lower than 170 dB do 

not visibly react to that sound, and, 

therefore, pinnipeds are not likely to 

react to seismic sounds unless they are 

greater than 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

While the number of potential 

exposures of pinnipeds at 170 dB rms is 

smaller than that at 160 dB rms, the 

overall environmental effect of received 

sound levels at 170 dB rms versus 160 

dB rms is expected to be similar based 

on the best available science. 

Comment 25: The NSB DWM states 

that both the summer and fall density 

estimates should be used for estimating 

takes given the timeframe of PGS’

survey. Bowhead and beluga whales 

will be migrating past the area where 

PGS’ activities will occur. Thus, 

estimates of take must be based on 

different animals being exposed to PGS’

seismic sounds each day. 

Response: The density estimates 

provided in Table 6.2–1 of PGS’

application are similar to autumn 

density estimates provided in other 

applications to NMFS. As described 

previously in this document, the take 

estimates are calculated based upon line 

miles of survey effort, animal density, 

and the calculated ZOI. This 

methodology most likely provides an 

overestimation of the take numbers 

because animals that might have been 

affected (taken) are likely to have moved 

out of the area to avoid additional 

annoyance from the seismic sounds 

(assuming they were taken in the first 

place). 

Comment 26: The NSB DWM believes 

that take estimates for bowhead whales 

may be too low. Increasing the sound 

isopleth to encompass an area that is 

exposed to sounds down to 120 dB will 

increase the estimate of how many 

bowheads are deflected from the seismic 

surveys. Accurately estimating how 

many whales will be disturbed is 

essential when evaluating the potential 

takes of each industrial activity and all 

activities combined. 

Response: Under the MMPA, NMFS 

makes its determinations for small 

numbers and negligible impact for the 

individual IHA, not in combination 

with other offshore activities. The 

cumulative impact analysis is made 

under NEPA which can be found in 

MMS’ 2006 Final PEA as updated by 

NMFS’ 2008 SEA. This analysis 

however, is required to be made in the 

industry’s Comprehensive Report for 

2008 offshore activities. 

In regard to using a 120–dB (rms) 

isopleth to calculate estimated Level B 

harassment takes, it is not appropriate 

in this case because previous bowhead 

whale observations indicate that a 120–

dB isopleth is appropriate only for 

migrating bowhead whales, not for 

bowhead whales residing over the 

summer in the central Beaufort Sea, nor 

for bowhead whales ceasing migration 

and feeding along the migratory route. 

In the case of PGS’ survey, all seismic 

data acquisition work will move inside 

the barrier islands beginning on August 

25 where few bowhead whales are 

expected to be found. As with all 

seismic surveys, a sound source 

verification test will be performed for 

PGS’ seismic airgun array to determine 

the 190-, 180-, 160-, and 120–dB 

isopleths and that information used 

later to assess potential impacts on 

bowhead whales while seismic data 

acquisition is being conducted inside 

(and outside) the barrier islands. 

Comment 27: The NSB DWM points 

out that the study referenced for the 

number of spotted seals hauled out in 

the Colville River Delta is 10 years old 

and that it was likely not timed for 

spotted seals. Even though the tides in 

the central Beaufort Sea are not large, 

spotted seals likely time their haul outs 

with low tides. The reference states that 

fewer than 20 seals were seen at any one 

time. The sighting of 20 seals probably 

represents many more animals. Lowry et 

al. (1994) showed that satellite-tagged 

spotted seals only used haulouts for 

approximately 10 percent of the time. If 

a similar pattern occurs in the Beaufort 

Sea, a count of 20 seals would likely 

represent about 200. It is likely that PGS 

will expose every spotted seal that uses 

the haulout to seismic sounds as the 

seals swim to and from the haulout. 

There is a very good chance that more 

than 73 spotted seals will be disturbed 

by PGS’ seismic surveys. NMFS should 

require PGS to survey the Colville River 

Delta as a means to better understand 

whether seismic surveys are keeping 

spotted seals from reaching and using 

the haulout. 

Response: NMFS uses the best 

information available in making its 

determinations under the MMPA. While 

recent information (either scientific or 

traditional) is lacking on the Colville 

River Delta spotted seal haulouts, PGS 

also used survey information by Green 

et al. (2005, 2006, 2007) to develop its 

estimated take levels. Green et al. (2005, 

2006, 2007) monitored marine mammals 

from FEX barging activity between 

Prudhoe Bay and Cape Simpson. The 

number of spotted seals annually 

recorded along the shallow trackline 

segments coincident with the PGS 

seismic survey area ranged from 1 to 10 

animals. Overall, Green et al. (2005, 

2006, 2007) annually recorded between 

23 and 54 spotted seals. In addition, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45979 

Richardson (2000) notes that in total, 

there probably are only a few dozen 

spotted seals along the coast of the 

central Beaufort Sea during summer and 

early fall. As stated above, NMFS has 

revised the estimate of spotted seals that 

may be taken to 178 and believes this 

estimate is accurate. NMFS would 

welcome information from subsistence 

hunters regarding spotted seal 

distribution and abundance in areas 

near offshore seismic activity and 

whether these species have been 

affected in previous years (for example, 

during the seismic surveys prior to 

construction of the Northstar facility in 

the late 1990s). 

Subsistence Use Concerns 

Comment 28: CBD and REDOIL state 

that the MMPA requires that any 

incidental take authorized will not have 

‘‘an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses’’ by Alaska 

Natives. REDOIL further states that in 

making this determination, NMFS must 

factor in ongoing authorized activities 

that may also affect the availability of 

subsistence resources and measure the 

effects of PGS’ activities against the 

baseline of the effects of other activities 

on subsistence activities. CBD notes 

they are aware that the NVPH, a 

federally recognized tribal government, 

has opposed seismic surveys due to 

impacts on subsistence, and along with 

many community members has 

commented on myriad other related 

agency documents that have direct 

bearing on these take authorization such 

as the Chukchi Sea Sale 193, MMS FiveYear Plan, and the DPEIS. Similarly, the 

NSB, the AEWC, and REDOIL have all 

filed challenges in federal court 

challenging offshore activities due to 

impacts on the subsistence hunt of 

bowheads and other species. In light of 

the positions of these communities and 

organizations, we do not see how NMFS 

can lawfully make the findings required 

under the MMPA for approving PGS’

proposed IHA. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

concerns expressed by subsistence 

hunters and their representatives have 

been addressed by NMFS through the 

comments that they submitted on this 

action, which are responded to in this 

section of the document. Additionally, 

while cumulative impact assessments 

are not required under section 

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

considered all of the seismic surveys 

planned for the Arctic in 2008, as well 

as other activities in the Arctic Ocean, 

when it prepared its NEPA documents. 

Comment 29: The Commission states 

that issuance of the IHA be contingent 

on a requirement that the applicant 

implement all practicable monitoring 

and mitigation measures that will 

ensure the proposed activities do not 

adversely affect the availability of 

bowhead whales and other marine 

mammals to subsistence hunters. Such 

measures should reflect the provisions 

of any CAA between Alaska Native 

hunters and the applicant and be 

sufficient to meet the requirements of 

the MMPA. 

Response: NMFS believes that it has 

implemented mitigation measures for 

conducting seismic surveys to avoid, to 

the greatest extent practicable, impacts 

on coastal marine mammals and 

thereby, the needs of the subsistence 

communities that depend upon these 

mammals for sustenance and cultural 

cohesiveness. For the 2008 season, these 

mitigation measures are similar to those 

contained in the CAA signed by PGS on 

June 23, 2008, and include black-out 

areas during the subsistence hunt for 

bowhead whales and coastal community 

communication stations and emergency 

assistance. 

Comment 30: REDOIL and the NSB 

state that the MMPA requires NMFS to 

find that the specified activities covered 

by an IHA ‘‘will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of [marine mammal 

populations] for taking for subsistence 

uses’’ (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(i)(II)). 

NMFS fails to provide the substantive 

analysis required to support any 

meaningful finding regarding the 

possible effect of PGS’ activities on the 

availability of bearded, spotted, and 

ringed seals and bowhead whales for 

subsistence uses by the coastal 

communities of Nuiqsut, Barrow, and 

other communities that depend upon 

these migratory species, or the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures to 

eliminate such impacts. For example, 

NMFS does not explain in sufficient 

detail how the mitigation measure of 

moving from east to west will reduce 

impacts to the bearded seal hunt from 

Thetis Island in July and August. Also, 

because the survey will occur during the 

fall bowhead hunt in Nuiqsut, 

information out to the 120–dB isopleth 

is needed. The proposed mitigation 

measures are inadequate because they 

fail to extend to the 120–dB zone. The 

IHA also provides inadequate 

information to determine whether or 

where whales would return to their 

original migration routes once deflected. 

Response: During the fall bowhead 

migration, PGS will not conduct data 

acquisition in the migration corridors. 

The 120–dB isopleth is expected to 

extend 10–15 km (6.2–9 mi) from the 

source; however, much of this sound is 

expected to be absorbed by the islands, 

which are closer than this distance. 

Therefore, little sound (if any) is 

expected in the migration corridor, thus 

avoiding deflection of whales farther 

offshore. The work outside of the barrier 

islands will occur prior to the beginning 

of the bowhead migration and hunt. 

Beginning on August 25, PGS will be 

required to monitor out to the 120–dB 

isopleth and will fly aerial surveys three 

times a week, weather permitting. PGS 

will also be required to shutdown if an 

aggregation of 12 or more whales are 

sighted within the 160–dB isopleth. 

To avoid impacts to the bearded seal 

subsistence hunt at Thetis Island, PGS 

has agreed to begin work on the east 

side of the project area (outside the 

barrier islands) in July and slowly move 

to the west away from Thetis Island. 

This action was recommended and 

approved by the Kuukpikmiut 

Subsistence Oversight Panel (KSOP), the 

Nuiqsut subsistence users’ group. 

Additionally, PGS will use the 

following mechanisms to identify and 

address concerns of subsistence users 

during the project, including concerns 

about impacts to the Thetis Island seal 

hunt: 

(1) PGS will maintain open 

communication with subsistence users 

by providing weekly reports to KSOP 

that discuss project activities as per an 

agreement with KSOP. 

(2) PGS has hired a local resident as 

a Subsistence Advisor who will 

maintain communication with the 

communities of Nuiqsut and Barrow so 

that concerns about potential impacts 

on subsistence can be brought to PGS’

attention. 

(3) PGS has hired local residents 

(from Nuiqsut and Barrow) as members 

of the seismic crew who will have the 

additional duty of observing for marine 

mammals. They will be able to provide 

the PGS project manager with 

information about the timing and status 

of ongoing subsistence activities (such 

as the Thetis Island seal hunt). 

(4) Nuiqsut whalers (who also harvest 

other subsistence species such as seals) 

will likely be using PGS facilities at 

Oliktok Point (a temporary dock and 

boat launch) to launch boats for whaling 

at Cross Island. Although this will likely 

take place after the Thetis Island seal 

hunt, this interaction will allow 

subsistence users from Nuiqsut to bring 

up any concerns they have with the 

Subsistence Advisor and the Project 

Manager. 

Comment 31: REDOIL believes that 

NMFS has not made any effort to 

discern whether seismic surveying 

activities in the Beaufort Sea in 2006 or 

2007 had an adverse impact on the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45980 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

availability of seal and whale species for 

subsistence uses. Before authorizing 

another year of surveys, NMFS must at 

least evaluate the effect of recent 

surveys, assess the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures used during those 

surveys, and make the results of such 

assessment available to the affected 

public, including the NVPH and 

REDOIL. 

Response: In preparing the 2008 SEA, 

NMFS reviewed the comprehensive 

monitoring reports from 2006 and 2007. 

Those reports do not note any instances 

of serious injury or mortality. In 

November, 2007, Shell (in coordination 

and cooperation with other Arctic 

seismic IHA holders) released a final, 

peer-reviewed edition of the 2006 Joint 

Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas, July-November 2006 

(LGL, 2007). This report is available for 

download on the NMFS website (see 

ADDRESSES). A draft comprehensive 

report for 2007 was provided to NMFS 

and those attending the NMFS/MMS 

Open-water Meeting in Anchorage, AK, 

on April 14–16, 2008. Based on 

reviewer comments made at that 

meeting, Shell and others are currently 

revising this report and plans to make 

it available to the public shortly. 

Additionally, the annual summary 

monitoring reports submitted by BP to 

NMFS for its operations at the Northstar 

facility indicate that in 2006, Nuiqust 

whalers landed the full quota of four 

bowhead whales. In 2007, the hunters 

landed three whales, and one whale was 

struck and lost at sea. These reports are 

also available on the NMFS website. 

Comment 32: REDOIL states that there 

is no guarantee that the development of 

a Plan of Cooperation (POC) will result 

in enforceable limits that ensure PGS’

activities have no unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of seals and 

whales for subsistence purposes. By 

relying on these processes without 

ensuring that they produce a meaningful 

outcome, NMFS has effectively deferred 

its determination whether PGS’

activities will have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

seals and whales for subsistence uses by 

communities along the Beaufort Sea 

until after such a POC has been 

developed. Consequently, NMFS has 

failed its basic duty under the MMPA 

and its own regulations to make a 

proposed determination available to the 

public to scrutinize and comment on. 

Absent specification of the restrictions 

and mitigation measures that will result 

from these processes, NMFS cannot 

reasonably conclude that they will 

prove effective, which it must in order 

to determine that they will eliminate 

potential for substantial impacts to our 

subsistence activities. Without any 

indication of what the agency may 

impose if these processes should prove 

ineffective, it has failed to make a 

meaningful finding available for the 

public to comment upon. Additionally, 

the NSB DWM points out that impacts 

to the bowhead hunt off Cross Island are 

possible unless conflicts are avoided 

through a CAA and that there could be 

impacts to hunting of ringed and 

spotted seals for the communities of 

Barrow and Nuiqsut. 

Response: PGS distributed a Draft 

POC to NMFS, USFWS, and the affected 

communities and subsistence user 

groups in March, 2008. Based on input 

from these various groups and 

additional meetings, PGS updated the 

POC and finalized it in early July. The 

Final POC contains mitigation measures 

that resulted from discussions with the 

KSOP and the AEWC to avoid conflicts 

with the seal and whale hunts. 

Additionally, PGS signed a CAA with 

AEWC and the affected village whaling 

captains on June 23, 2008. Conditions 

that will help avoid or reduce impacts 

on subsistence activities have been 

included in the IHA as well. NMFS 

believes that the measures contained in 

the POC, CAA, and IHA will ensure that 

there is no unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of marine mammal 

species for subsistence uses. 

Mitigation Concerns 

Comment 33: CBD states that the 

MMPA authorizes NMFS to issue a 

small take authorization only if it can 

first find that it has required adequate 

monitoring of such taking and all 

methods and means of ensuring the 

least practicable impact have been 

adopted (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(I)). 

The proposed IHA largely ignores this 

statutory requirement. In fact, while the 

proposed IHA lists various monitoring 

measures, it contains virtually nothing 

by way of mitigation measures. The 

specific deficiencies of the ‘‘standard’’

MMS mitigation measures as outlined in 

the 2006 PEA are described in detail in 

our NEPA comments, incorporated by 

reference, and are not repeated here. 

Because the MMPA explicitly requires 

that ‘‘means effecting the least 

practicable impact’’ on a species, stock, 

or habitat be included, an IHA must 

explain why measures that would 

reduce the impact on a species were not 

chosen (i.e., why they were not 

‘‘practicable’’). Neither the proposed 

IHA, PGS’ application, the 2006 PEA, or 

the 2007 DPEIS attempts to do this. 

Response: The proposed IHA outlined 

several mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements to be 

implemented during the Beaufort Sea 

survey. By way of mitigation, the Notice 

of Proposed IHA (73 FR 34254, June 17, 

2008) described the following actions to 

be undertaken by PGS including: speed 

and course alterations; power-downs 

and shutdowns when marine mammals 

are sighted just outside or in the 

specified safety zones; and ramp-up 

procedures. Speed or course alteration 

helps to keep marine mammals out of 

the 180 or 190 dB safety zones. 

Additionally, power-down and 

shutdown procedures are used to 

prevent marine mammals from exposure 

to received levels that could potentially 

cause injury. Ramping-up provides a 

‘‘warning’’ to marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the airguns, providing them 

time to leave the area and thus avoid 

any potential injury or impairment of 

hearing capabilities. After August 25, 

PGS will be required to shutdown if an 

aggregation of 12 or more bowhead or 

gray whales are sighted within the 160–

dB isopleth. Additionally, after this 

date, PGS will be required to monitor 

out to the 120–dB isopleth via both 

vessel and aerial surveys. If a group of 

four or more bowhead whale cow/calf 

pairs are sighted within this zone, 

operations must be shutdown until two 

consecutive surveys indicate that there 

are not more than three pairs in the area 

of operations. Because these mitigation 

measures will be included in the IHA to 

PGS, no marine mammal injury or 

mortality is anticipated. Numbers of 

individuals of all species taken are 

expected to be small (relative to stock or 

population size), and the take is 

anticipated to have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stock. 

Additionally, the survey design itself 

has been created to mitigate the effects 

to the lowest level practicable. Two 

seismic source vessels will be used 

simultaneously (alternating their shots) 

to minimize the total survey period. 

Also, by agreeing to begin activities in 

the east and move towards the west, 

impacts to migrating fish and seal hunts 

at Thetis Island will be avoided. 

Similarly, by working outside of the 

barrier islands prior to August 5 and 

inside the islands from August 25 until 

the end of the bowhead hunt in Nuiqsut, 

impacts to hunters and the whales will 

be greatly reduced. Beluga whales are 

not hunted in the area during the time 

of the PGS survey. Additionally, 

although ringed seals are available to be 

taken by subsistence hunters yearround, the seismic survey will not occur 

during the primary period when this 

species is typically harvested (October 

through June). For these reasons, NMFS 

believes that it has required all methods 

and means necessary to ensure the least 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45981 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks. CBD’s comments on 

the 2006 PEA and the responses to those 

comments were addressed in Appendix 

D of the PEA and are not repeated here. 

Comment 34: CBD and REDOIL state 

that while NMFS has not performed any 

analysis of why additional mitigation 

measures are not ‘‘practicable,’’ the 

proposed IHA contains information to 

suggest that many such measures are in 

fact practicable. For example, in 2006, 

NMFS required monitoring of a 120–dB 

safety zone for bowhead cow/calf pairs 

and monitoring of a 160–dB safety zone 

for large groups of bowhead and gray 

whales (greater than 12 individuals). 

The PGS IHA is silent as to the 

applicability of these safety zones. 

Moreover, the fact that a 120–dB safety 

zone is possible for aggregations of 

bowheads means that such a zone is 

also possible for other marine mammals 

such as belugas which are also subject 

to disturbance at similar sound levels. 

The failure to require such, or at least 

analyze it, violates the MMPA. REDOIL 

also adds that NMFS does not even 

discuss the option of requiring PGS to 

power down its airguns or cease its 

surveying during the annual bearded 

seal hunt near Thetis Island. 

Response: Several of the previous 

responses in this document address the 

issues raised here. PGS has agreed to 

several mechanisms to avoid conflicts 

during the Thetis Island seal hunt and 

signed a CAA to avoid conflicts with 

whalers from Nuiqsut. After August 25, 

PGS will be required to monitor and 

take mitigative measures inside both the 

160–dB and 120–dB isopleths. Also, 

because the seismic survey will take 

place shoreward of the barrier islands 

during the main migration period in 

very shallow waters up to 15 m deep (49 

ft; where high seismic propagation loss 

is expected), few bowhead whales are 

likely to occur in the data acquisition 

area. The distance of received levels that 

might elicit avoidance will likely not (or 

barely) reach the main migration 

corridor and then only through the 

inter-island passages. Additionally, over 

the past 25–30 years, gray whales have 

not commonly or consistently been seen 

in the area of the Beaufort Sea where 

PGS will conduct its activities. 

Comment 35: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS issue the IHA 

provided that NMFS require: (a) the 

applicant to implement all described 

monitoring and mitigation measures to 

protect bowhead whales and other 

marine mammals from disturbance; and 

(b) operations to be suspended 

immediately if a dead or seriously 

injured marine mammal is found in the 

vicinity of the operations and if that 

death or injury could be attributable to 

the applicant’s activities. Any 

suspension should remain in place until 

NMFS: (1) has reviewed the situation 

and determined that further deaths or 

serious injuries are unlikely to occur; or 

(2) has issued regulations authorizing 

such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Commission’s recommendation and will 

require the immediate suspension of 

seismic activities if a dead or injured 

marine mammal has been sighted 

within an area where the holder of the 

IHA deployed and utilized seismic 

airguns within the past 24 hours. 

Comment 36: REDOIL suggests that 

another practicable mitigation measure 

that NMFS fails to discuss, let alone 

impose, is a mandatory limit on the 

number of concurrent seismic and/or 

shallow hazard surveys in the Beaufort 

Sea. At all times, but especially during 

the fall bowhead migration, NMFS 

should prohibit the simultaneous 

operations of multiple vessels within 

the Beaufort Sea. Moreover, it should 

require that no two vessels operate 

within 100 km (62 mi) of one another. 

Given the large size of the 120–dB zone, 

closer simultaneous operation would 

pose a real risk of disrupting the 

bowhead whale migration and the 

behaviors of beluga and gray whales. 

Response: PGS’ survey will overlap 

with BP’s Liberty seismic survey for 

approximately one month. However, 

BP’s activity will occur nearly 100 km 

(62 mi) to the east of PGS’ project. 

Shell’s Beaufort Sea activities should 

only have minimal temporal overlap 

with PGS’ survey. Additionally, the IHA 

will contain the following measure: The 

taking of any marine mammals by 

seismic sounds when the seismic vessel 

is within 15 mi (24.1 km) of another 

operating seismic vessel, which is being 

used for a separate operation, is 

prohibited. 

Monitoring Concerns 

Comment 37: CBD states that MMOs 

cannot effectively detect 100 percent of 

the marine mammals that may enter the 

safety zones. NMFS allows seismic 

vessels to operate airguns during 

periods of darkness, but does not 

require MMOs to monitor the exclusion 

zones during nighttime operations 

except when starting airguns at night or 

if the airgun was powered down due to 

marine mammal presence the preceding 

day. Even during the day, visually 

detecting marine mammals from the 

deck of a seismic vessel presents 

challenges and may be of limited 

effectiveness due to glare, fog, rough 

seas, the small size of animals such as 

seals, and the large proportion of time 

that animals spend submerged. CBD 

feels that there is no documentation to 

prove that PGS’ operations will more 

effectively monitor exclusion zones than 

in 2006 and 2007. Therefore, marine 

mammals will likely be exposed to 

sound levels that could result in 

permanent hearing loss and therefore 

serious injury. As such, because PGS’

proposed activities ‘‘have the potential 

to result in serious injury or mortality’’

to marine mammals, NMFS cannot 

lawfully issue the requested IHA. 

Moreover, NMFS cannot authorize some 

take (i.e., harassment) if other 

unauthorized take (i.e., serious injury or 

mortality) may also occur. However, 

even if an IHA were the appropriate 

vehicle to authorize take for PGS’

planned activities, because the proposed 

IHA is inconsistent with the statutory 

requirements for issuance, it cannot 

lawfully be granted by NMFS. 

Response: The seismic vessels will be 

traveling at speeds of about 1–5 knots 

(1.9–9.3 km/hr). With a 180–dB safety 

range of 492 m (0.31 mi), a vessel will 

have moved out of the safety zone 

within a few minutes. As a result, 

during underway seismic operations, 

MMOs are instructed to concentrate on 

the area ahead of the vessel, not behind 

the vessel where marine mammals 

would need to be voluntarily swimming 

towards the vessel to enter the 180–dB 

zone. In fact, in some of NMFS’ IHAs 

issued for scientific seismic operations, 

shutdown is not required for marine 

mammals that approach the vessel from 

the side or stern in order to ride the bow 

wave or rub on the seismic streamers 

deployed from the stern (and near the 

airgun array) as some scientists consider 

this a voluntary action on the part of an 

animal that is not being harassed or 

injured by seismic noise. While NMFS 

concurs that shutdowns are not likely 

warranted for these voluntary 

approaches, in the Arctic Ocean, all 

seismic surveys are shutdown or 

powered down for all marine mammal 

close approaches. Also, in all seismic 

IHAs, including PGS’ IHA, NMFS 

requires that the safety zone be 

monitored for 30 min prior to beginning 

ramp-up to ensure that no marine 

mammals are present within the safety 

zones. Implementation of ramp-up is 

required because it is presumed it 

would allow marine mammals to 

become aware of the approaching vessel 

and move away from the noise, if they 

find the noise annoying. 

Periods of total darkness will not set 

in during PGS’ survey until early 

September. For the final few weeks of 

data acquisition, nighttime conditions 

will occur for approximately 1.5–5 hrs. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45982 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

However, during times of reduced light, 

MMOs will be equipped with night 

vision devices. During poor visibility 

conditions, if the entire safety zone is 

not visible for the entire 30 min preramp-up period, operations cannot 

begin. 

NMFS believes that an IHA is the 

proper authorization required to cover 

PGS’ survey. As described in other 

responses to comments in this 

document, NMFS does not believe that 

there is a potential for serious injury or 

mortality from these activities. The 

monitoring reports from 2006 and 2007 

do not note any instances of serious 

injury or mortality. Additionally, NMFS 

feels it has met all of the requirements 

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

described throughout this document) 

and therefore can issue an IHA to PGS 

for seismic operations in 2008. 

Comment 38: The NSB and CBD states 

that with regard to nighttime and poor 

visibility conditions, BPXA proposes 

essentially no limitations on operations, 

even though the likelihood of observers 

seeing marine mammals in such 

conditions is very low. The obvious 

solution, not analyzed by PGS or NMFS, 

is to simply prohibit seismic surveying 

when conditions prevent observers from 

detecting all marine mammals in the 

safety zone. CBD also states that in its 

treatment of passive acoustic monitoring 

(PAM), NMFS and PGS are also 

deficient. While past IHAs have 

required PAM, this IHA completely 

ignores even discussing the possibility 

of using such monitoring. Additional 

mitigation measures that are clearly 

‘‘practicable’’ are included in our NEPA 

comments on the PEA and DPEIS and 

incorporated by reference here. The 

NSB DWM acknowledges that the 

proposed IHA notice contained an 

explanation of the acoustic monitoring 

planned for this project. However, they 

feel it has some weaknesses. The five 

hydrophone offshore array is not 

adequate as it will not cover the entire 

ensonified area. A sixth hydrophone is 

needed to more appropriately cover the 

proposed seismic survey area. The NSB 

DWM feels that NMFS should require 

PGS to carefully monitor impacts from 

the seismic operations on all marine 

mammals and subsistence hunters of 

those marine mammals. 

Response: Total darkness will not 

occur until early September in the 

project area. Beginning around July 29, 

nautical twilight will begin to occur for 

short periods of time each day, with the 

amount of time that twilight occurs 

increasing by about 15–30 minutes each 

day. Nautical twilight is defined as the 

sun being approximately 12° below the 

horizon. At the beginning or end of 

nautical twilight, under good 

atmospheric conditions and in the 

absence of other illumination, general 

outlines of ground objects may be 

distinguishable, but detailed outdoor 

operations are not possible, and the 

horizon is indistinct. Beginning on 

September 5, there will be periods of 

darkness, which will occur between the 

end of nautical twilight and the 

beginning of morning nautical twilight. 

Nighttime or darkness periods will not 

last more than 5 hrs and then only 

around the last week of operations. 

During periods of impaired light or fog, 

operations will not be allowed to 

resume after a full shutdown if the 

entire 180–dB safety radius cannot be 

monitored for a full 30–min period. 

Additionally, night vision devices will 

be onboard each source vessel. 

Contrary to CBD’s assertion, acoustic 

monitoring is being required for this 

project. A full description can be found 

in the ‘‘Monitoring and Reporting Plan’’

section of this document. Since the 

offshore recorders to be deployed by 

PGS will not be the only acoustic 

monitoring devices located in the 

Beaufort Sea at this time, NMFS feels 

that the five recorders will provide 

sufficient coverage. Every fall, BPXA 

deploys Directional Autonomous 

Seafloor Acoustic Recorders (DASARs) 

near its Northstar facility in the Beaufort 

Sea, which is slightly westward of this 

survey to record bowhead whale calls 

during the fall migration. Results of 

those recordings are available in the 

Northstar reports and can be found on 

the NMFS PR website (see ADDRESSES

for availability). Additionally, Shell 

proposes to deploy DASARs east and 

northwest of the PGS DASAR site. 

Reports and data that must be 

contained in those reports can be found 

in the ‘‘Monitoring and Reporting Plan’’

section of this document. If marine 

mammals are sighted during seismic 

operations, PGS is required to record 

information such as species and 

reaction (if any). Additionally, PGS has 

agreed to communicate with subsistence 

hunters throughout the season to 

determine if their activities are having 

an impact on the hunts. 

Comment 39: REDOIL notes that 

NMFS regulations require that an IHA 

set forth ‘‘requirements for the 

independent peer-review of proposed 

monitoring plans where the proposed 

activity may affect the availability of a 

species or stock for taking for 

subsistence uses’’ (50 CFR 

216.107(a)(3)). The proposed IHA fails 

to provide for peer review of PGS’

proposed monitoring plans. NMFS 

should reject any suggestion that the 

2008 Open-water meeting satisfied the 

peer review requirement. Peer review by 

independent, objective reviewers 

remains necessary. 

Response: In order for the 

independent peer-review of Arctic area 

activity monitoring plans, it must be 

conducted in an open and timely 

process. Review by an independent 

organization, such as the National 

Academy of Sciences, would be costly 

(at least $500,000), take at least a year 

to complete, would limit NMFS, 

USFWS, MMS, and stakeholder input, 

would likely provide for an inflexible, 

multi-year monitoring plan (e.g., any 

modifications may require reconvening 

the Committee), and may not address 

issues of mutual concern (degree of 

bowhead westward migration, etc.). As 

a result, NMFS believes that 

independent peer-review of monitoring 

plans can be conducted via two means. 

First, the monitoring plans are made 

public and available for review by 

scientists and members of the public in 

addition to scientists from the NSB, 

NMFS, and the USFWS. In accordance 

with the MMPA, the Commission’s 

Committee of Scientific Advisors 

reviews all IHA applications, including 

the monitoring plans. Second, 

monitoring plans and the results of 

previous monitoring are reviewed once 

or twice annually at public meetings 

held with the industry, the AEWC, the 

NSB, Federal agencies, and the public. 

PGS’ mitigation and monitoring plan 

was reviewed by scientists and 

stakeholders at a meeting in Anchorage 

between April 14, 2008, and April 16, 

2008, and by the public between June 

17, 2008 (73 FR 34254) and July 17, 

2008. 

Cumulative Impact Concerns 

Comment 40: REDOIL feels that 

NMFS has not adequately analyzed the 

impacts of PGS’ surveying activity 

against the background of the many 

other seismic surveys planned for the 

Beaufort in the summer of 2008, let 

alone provided adequate mitigation of 

the effects of this activity on subsistence 

activities. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 2008 

SEA provides an analysis of all seismic 

surveys planned for the Arctic Ocean for 

summer 2008. Additionally, NMFS 

believes that it has required in the IHA 

all practicable monitoring and 

mitigation measures required to ensure 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected species or stocks and that 

there is no unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stocks for subsistence uses. 

Comment 41: The MMC recommends 

that NMFS, together with the applicant 

and other appropriate agencies and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45983 

organizations, develop and implement a 

broad-based population monitoring and 

impact assessment program to collect 

baseline population information 

sufficient to detect changes and identify 

their possible causes and to verify that 

ongoing and planned oil and gas-related 

activities, in combination with other 

risk factors, are not individually or 

cumulatively having any significant 

adverse population-level effects on 

marine mammals or having an 

unmitigable adverse effect on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. 

Response: A description of the 

monitoring program submitted by PGS 

was provided in PGS’ application, 

outlined in the Federal Register notice 

of the proposed IHA (73 FR 34254, June 

17, 2008), and posted on the NMFS PR 

IHA webpage. As a result of a dialogue 

on monitoring by scientists and 

stakeholders attending NMFS’ public 

meetings in Anchorage in April, 2006, 

October, 2006, and April, 2007, the 

industry has expanded its monitoring 

program in order to fulfill its 

responsibilities under the MMPA. For 

the third year, industry participants 

have included a marine mammal 

research component designed to provide 

baseline data on marine mammals for 

future operations planning. A 

description of this research is provided 

later in this document (see ‘‘Joint 

Industry Program’’ section). Scientists 

are continuing discussions to ensure 

that the research effort obtains the best 

scientific information possible. Finally, 

it should be noted that this far-field 

monitoring program follows the 

guidance of the MMC’s recommended 

approach for monitoring seismic 

activities in the Arctic (Hofman and 

Swartz, 1991), that additional research 

might be warranted when impacts to 

marine mammals would not be 

detectable as a result of vessel 

observation programs. 

ESA Concerns 

Comment 42: CBD states that the 

proposed IHA will affect, at a minimum, 

three endangered species, the bowhead 

and humpback whales and the polar 

bear. As a consequence, NMFS must 

engage in consultation under Section 7 

of the ESA prior to issuing the IHA. 

Previous recent biological opinions for 

industrial activities in the Arctic (e.g., 

the 2006 ARBO) have suffered from 

inadequate descriptions of the proposed 

action, inadequate descriptions of the 

status of the species, inadequate 

descriptions of the environmental 

baseline, inadequate descriptions of the 

effects of the action, inadequate analysis 

of cumulative effects, and inadequate 

descriptions and analysis of proposed 

mitigation. We hope NMFS performs the 

full analysis required by law and avoids 

these problems in its consultation for 

the proposed IHA. 

Response: Under section 7 of the ESA, 

NMFS has completed consultation with 

the MMS on the issuance of seismic 

permits for offshore oil and gas 

activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

seas. In a Biological Opinion issued on 

July 17, 2008, NMFS concluded that the 

issuance of seismic survey permits by 

MMS and the issuance of the associated 

IHAs for seismic surveys are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened or endangered species 

(specifically the bowhead whale) under 

the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or 

adversely modify any designated critical 

habitat. The 2008 ARBO takes into 

consideration all oil and gas related 

activities that are reasonably likely to 

occur, including exploratory (but not 

production) oil drilling activities. In 

addition, NMFS issued an Incidental 

Take Statement under this Biological 

Opinion, which contains reasonable and 

prudent measures with implementing 

terms and conditions to minimize the 

effects of take of bowhead whales. 

Regarding the polar bear, MMS has 

contacted the USFWS about conducting 

a section 7 consultation. 

Comment 43: CBD states NMFS may 

authorize incidental take of the listed 

marine mammals under the ESA 

pursuant to Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA, 

but only where such take occurs while 

‘‘carrying out an otherwise lawful 

activity.’’ To be ‘‘lawful,’’ such activities 

must ‘‘meet all State and Federal legal 

requirements except for the prohibition 

against taking in section 9 of the ESA’’. 

As discussed above, PGS’ proposed 

activities violate the MMPA and NEPA 

and therefore are ‘‘not otherwise 

lawful.’’ Any take authorization for 

listed marine mammals would, 

therefore, violate the ESA, as well as 

these other statutes. 

Response: As noted in this document, 

NMFS has made the necessary 

determinations under the MMPA, the 

ESA, and NEPA regarding the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals by PGS 

while it is conducting activities 

permitted legally under MMS’

jurisdiction. 

NEPA Concerns 

Comment 44: The NSB, REDOIL, and 

CBD state that NEPA requires Federal 

agencies to prepare an EIS for all ‘‘major 

Federal actions significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment.’’

In the notice of proposed IHA, NMFS 

cites the 2006 PEA and the 2007 DPEIS. 

As explained in our comment letters on 

these two documents (incorporated by 

reference), neither of these documents 

satisfy NMFS’ NEPA obligation. The 

2006 PEA explicitly limited its scope to 

the 2006 seismic season. Additional 

seismic work cannot be authorized 

without further NEPA analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of increasing 

activity offshore in the Arctic Ocean. 

The monitoring reports from 2006 and 

2007 seismic testing must be considered 

in any NEPA analysis for further seismic 

testing. Moreover, these reports indicate 

that the 120 dB and 160 dB zones from 

seismic surveys were much larger than 

anticipated or analyzed in the PEA. As 

such, the analysis of the PEA is simply 

inaccurate and underestimates the 

actual impacts from seismic activities. 

Also, in 2007, significant bowhead 

feeding activity occurred in Camden 

Bay, rendering the PEA’s analyses of 

important bowhead feeding areas 

inadequate and inaccurate. 

Additionally, sea ice in 2007 retreated 

far beyond that predicted or analyzed in 

the PEA, rendering any discussion of 

cumulative impacts of seismic activities 

in the context of climate change horribly 

out of date. 

Moreover, even if the EA was not of 

limited scope and out of date, the 

proposed surveys threaten potentially 

significant impacts to the environment, 

and must be considered in a full EIS. 

(See 42 U.S.C. 5 4332(2)(c); Idaho 

Sporting Cong v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 

1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998)). As 

explained in our comment letter of May 

10, 2006, on the PEA (incorporated by 

reference), seismic surveys trigger 

several of the significance criteria 

enumerated in NEPA regulations. 

Additionally, the ‘‘significance 

thresholds’’ in the PEA are, as explained 

in our comment letters, arbitrary and 

unlawful. Moreover, the 120 dB and 160 

dB safety zones that NMFS relied upon 

to avoid a finding of significance in the 

2006 PEA are not part of the current 

proposal and cannot in anyway support 

a finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI). Finally, where, as here, a 

proposed action may have cumulatively 

significant impacts, an EIS must be 

prepared, and cannot be avoided by 

breaking a program down into multiple 

actions. See Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 

F.3d 1208, 1215 (9th Cir. 1998); Kern v. 

Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 

1078 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Response: NMFS prepared a Final 

SEA to analyze further the effects of 

PGS’ (and other companies’) proposed 

open-water seismic survey activities for 

the 2008 season. NMFS has 

incorporated by reference the analyses 

contained in the MMS 2006 Final PEA 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45984 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

and has also relied in part on analyses 

contained in the DPEIS submitted for 

public comment on March 30, 2007. 

The 2006 PEA analyzed a broad scope 

of proposed seismic activities in the 

Arctic Ocean. In fact, the PEA assessed 

the effects of multiple, ongoing seismic 

surveys (up to 8 surveys) in the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas for the 2006 season. 

Although PGS’ proposed activity for this 

season was not explicitly identified in 

the 2006 PEA, the PEA did contemplate 

that future seismic activity, such as 

PGS’, could occur. NMFS believes the 

range of alternatives and environmental 

effects considered in the 2006 PEA, 

combined with NMFS’ SEA for the 2008 

season are sufficient to meet the 

agency’s NEPA responsibilities. In 

addition, the 2008 SEA includes new 

information obtained since the 2006 

Final PEA was issued, including 

updated information on cumulative 

impacts. NMFS also includes a new 

section in the 2008 SEA, which 

provides a review of the 2006 and 2007 

monitoring reports. As a result of this 

review and analysis, NMFS has 

determined that it was not necessary to 

prepare an EIS for the issuance of an 

IHA to PGS in 2008 for seismic activity 

in the Beaufort Sea but that preparation 

of an SEA and issuance of a FONSI were 

sufficient under NEPA. 

As stated in previous responses in 

this document and explained in the 

‘‘Mitigation Measures’’ section later in 

this document, NMFS will require PGS 

to monitor the 120–dB and 160–dB 

zones. 

Comment 45: The NSB and CBD state 

that NMFS also appears to rely on the 

NEPA analysis in the DPEIS in clear 

violation of NEPA law. Here, the very 

purpose of the PEIS process is to 

consider seismic surveys in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas for the years 2007 and 

beyond. NMFS cannot authorize such 

activities before the NEPA process is 

complete. See Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 

1135, 1143–44 (9th Cir. 2000). In sum, 

NMFS seems to either be relying on a 

NEPA document that is not just 

inadequate, but which by its very terms 

only covers activities from two years ago 

(the 2006 PEA), or one which is 

nowhere near complete (the 2007 

DPEIS). Neither of these is sufficient to 

meet NMFS’ NEPA obligations under 

the law. The NSB believes that NMFS 

may not avoid the requirements of 

NEPA by only completing a SEA this 

season because the seismic activity has 

the potential to significantly impact 

marine resources and subsistence 

hunting. 

Response: See previous responses on 

this concern. Contrary to the NSB’s and 

CBD’s statement, NMFS relied on 

information contained in the MMS 2006 

Final PEA, as updated by NMFS’ 2008 

SEA for making its determinations 

under NEPA and that the DPEIS was not 

the underlying document to support 

NMFS’ issuance of PGS’ IHA. NMFS 

merely relied upon specific pieces of 

information and analyses contained in 

the DPEIS to assist in preparing the 

SEA. It is NMFS’ intention that the PEIS 

currently being developed will be used 

to support, in whole, or in part, future 

MMPA actions relating to oil and gas 

exploration in the Arctic Ocean. 

Additionally, NMFS believes that a SEA 

is the appropriate NEPA analysis for 

this season as the amount of activity for 

2008 is less than what was analyzed in 

the 2006 PEA. 

Comment 46: REDOIL believes that 

the analysis in the PEA understates the 

risk of significant impacts to bowhead 

whales and all marine mammals. It 

assumes the source vessels-both 3D 

seismic and shallow hazard vessels-will 

ensonify much smaller zones than those 

which have been subsequently 

measured in the field. In practice, 

seismic airgun noise has propagated far 

greater distances than NMFS anticipated 

in the PEA and thus authorized activity 

presumably has displaced marine 

mammals from far more habitat, 

including important feeding and resting 

habitats, than NMFS’ analysis in the 

PEA anticipated. See, e.g., PEA Figures 

III.F–10 and III.F–11 (assuming 20 km 

avoidance of surveys by bowhead 

whales). Based on the propagation 

actually measured in 2006 and 2007, the 

impacts of a single 3D seismic survey 

are two to three times as large as NMFS 

anticipated or more. The impacts of a 

single shallow hazard survey are 

comparable to the impacts NMFS 

anticipated from a single 2D or 3D 

seismic survey. Before authorizing 

further seismic surveying activity or 

shallow hazard surveys in the Arctic 

Ocean, NMFS must complete the PEIS 

that it began in 2006 to evaluate the 

potentially significant impacts of such 

activities. 

Response: The subject PEA was 

written by MMS, not NMFS. However, 

NMFS was a cooperating agency under 

NEPA in its preparation. As noted in 

your cited part in the PEA, 20 km (12.4 

mi) was used for illustrative purposes in 

an exercise to estimate the impact of 

four seismic vessels operating within 24 

km (15 mi) of each other. To do so, 

MMS created a box (that was moveable 

along the Beaufort Sea coast) to make 

these estimates. NMFS believes that the 

use of 20 km (12.4 mi) remains the best 

information available at this time and 

was the radius agreed to by participants 

at the 2001 Arctic Open-water Noise 

Peer Review Workshop in Seattle, 

Washington. This estimate is based on 

the results from the 1998 aerial survey 

(as supplemented by data from earlier 

years) as reported in Miller et al. (1999). 

In 1998, bowhead whales below the 

water surface at a distance of 20 km 

(12.4 mi) from an airgun array received 

pulses of about 117–135 dB re 1 μPa 

rms, depending upon propagation. 

Corresponding levels at 30 km (18.6 mi) 

were about 107–126 dB re 1 μPa rms. 

Miller et al. (1999) surmise that 

deflection may have begun about 35 km 

(21.7 mi) to the east of the seismic 

operations, but did not provide SPL 

measurements to that distance, and 

noted that sound propagation has not 

been studied as extensively eastward in 

the alongshore direction, as it has 

northward, in the offshore direction. 

Therefore, while this single year of data 

analysis indicates that bowhead whales 

may make minor deflections in 

swimming direction at a distance of 30–

35 km (18.6–21.7 mi), there is no 

indication that the SPL where deflection 

first begins is at 120 dB, it could be at 

another SPL lower or higher than 120 

dB. Miller et al. (1999) also note that the 

received levels at 20–30 km (12.4–18.6 

mi) were considerably lower in 1998 

than have previously been shown to 

elicit avoidance in bowheads exposed to 

seismic pulses. However, the seismic 

airgun array used in 1998 was larger 

than the ones used in 1996 and 1997. 

Therefore, NMFS believes that it cannot 

scientifically support adopting any 

single SPL value below 160 dB and 

apply it across the board for all species 

and in all circumstances. For this 

reason, until more data collection and 

analyses are conducted on impacts of 

anthropogenic noise (principally from 

seismic) on marine mammals in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, NMFS will 

continue to use 20 km (12.4 mi) as the 

radius for estimating impacts on 

bowhead whales during the fall 

migration period. 

In regards to REDOIL’s statement, 

‘‘The impacts of a single shallow hazard 

survey are comparable to the impacts 

NMFS anticipated from a single 2D or 

3D seismic survey,’’ NMFS notes that 

PGS’ seismic program is not a shallow 

hazards survey but a 3D seismic survey 

conducted in shallow water, partly 

inside the barrier islands. This OBC/TZ 

survey is similar to those conducted for 

BP by Western Geophysical in the late 

1990s at the nearby Northstar Prospect 

(see Richardson, W.J. (ed) 1997, 1998, 

1999, 2000a, and 2000b for acoustic 

measurements and marine mammal 

impact assessments from OBC surveys 

during 1996 through 2000, respectively). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45985 

As a result of these previous acoustic 

propagation measurements, NMFS 

believes that the sound propagation 

characteristics for the 880 in 3 airgun 

array proposed by NMFS in the 

proposed IHA notice (73 FR 34254, June 

17, 2008) for PGS’ 2008 OBC/TZ survey 

has been accurately calculated for the 

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

zones. In addition, in compliance with 

the terms and conditions of its IHA, PGS 

will conduct a sound source verification 

test prior to conducting its survey to 

ensure that the correct distances are 

applied to the safety and monitoring 

zones (see ‘‘Mitigation Measures’’

section later in this document). 

Comment 47: REDOIL states that the 

PEA fails to provide site-specific 

analysis. Thus, in order to reduce the 

likelihood of significant impacts, NMFS 

has imposed 160–dB and 120–dB safety 

zones when authorizing surveys 

pursuant to the PEA. At a minimum, it 

must do the same for PGS’ seismic 

surveys. 

Response: The SEA prepared for the 

2008 open-water season activities 

provides site specific information for 

the various projects, in particular PGS’

project. NMFS will require that PGS 

monitor exclusion zones of 160–dB for 

aggregations of 12 or more whales and 

120–dB for four or more cow/calf pairs. 

These conditions are contained in the 

IHA. 

Comment 48: REDOIL states that the 

scope of the PEA is explicitly limited to 

activities that occur during 2006. Those 

seismic survey activities have already 

occurred, as well as an additional 

season worth of activities in 2007. The 

PEA does not evaluate activities that 

will occur over a period of several years, 

though NMFS has continued to rely on 

it as if its scope were for a multi-year 

program of seismic surveys. In addition, 

the PEA uses arbitrary significance 

criteria for non-endangered marine 

mammals that would allow long-lasting 

impacts to populations, or in fact the 

entire Arctic ecosystem, that would 

nonetheless be deemed insignificant. 

These significance criteria are 

inappropriate for an evaluation of 

impacts from seismic surveys, as 

indicated by MMS’ use of more 

defensible significance criteria based on 

potential biological removal form 

marine mammal populations affected by 

seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Response: NMFS prepared and 

released to the public, a SEA for seismic 

surveys that are expected to occur in 

2008 (see ADDRESSES for availability). 

This SEA incorporates by reference the 

relevant information contained in the 

2006 PEA and updates that information 

where necessary to assess impacts on 

the marine environment from the 2008 

seismic survey activities. NMFS 

believes that it is fully compliant with 

the requirements of NEPA in its 

preparation of its NEPA documents. 

Marine Mammals Affected by the 

Activity 

The Beaufort Sea supports a diverse 

assemblage of marine mammals, 

including bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, 

minke, fin, humpback, and North 

Pacific right whales, harbor porpoises, 

ringed, spotted, bearded, and ribbon 

seals, polar bears, and walruses. These 

latter two species are under the 

jurisdiction of the USFWS and are not 

discussed further in this document. 

Within the project activity areas, only 

the polar bear is known to occur in 

significant numbers, and a separate LOA 

was issued to PGS by the USFWS for 

this species. 

A total of three cetacean species and 

three pinniped species are known to 

occur or may occur in the Beaufort Sea 

in or near the proposed project area (see 

Table 3.0–1 in PGS’ application for 

information on habitat and estimated 

abundance). Of these species, only the 

bowhead whale is listed as endangered 

under the ESA. The killer whale, harbor 

porpoise, minke whale, fin whale, North 

Pacific right whale, humpback whale, 

and ribbon seal could occur in the 

Beaufort Sea, but each of these species 

is rare or extralimital and unlikely to be 

encountered in the survey area. 

The marine mammal species expected 

to be encountered most frequently 

throughout the seismic survey in the 

project area is the ringed seal. The 

bearded and spotted seal can also be 

observed but to a far lesser extent than 

the ringed seal. Presence of beluga, 

bowhead, and gray whales in the 

shallow water environment within the 

barrier islands is possible but expected 

to be very limited as this is not their 

typical habitat. Descriptions of the 

biology, distribution, and population 

status of the marine mammal species 

under NMFS’ jurisdiction can be found 

in PGS’ application, the 2007 NMFS/ 

MMS DPEIS on Arctic Seismic Surveys, 

and the NMFS SARs. The Alaska SAR 

is available at: http:// 

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

ak2007.pdf. Please refer to those 

documents for information on these 

species. 

Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on 

Marine Mammals 

The effects of sounds from airguns 

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) The noise may be too weak to be 

heard at the location of the animal (i.e., 

lower than the prevailing ambient noise 

level, the hearing threshold of the 

animal at relevant frequencies, or both); 

(2) The noise may be audible but not 

strong enough to elicit any overt 

behavioral response; 

(3) The noise may elicit reactions of 

variable conspicuousness and variable 

relevance to the well being of the 

marine mammal; these can range from 

temporary alert responses to active 

avoidance reactions such as vacating an 

area at least until the noise event ceases; 

(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine 

mammal may exhibit diminishing 

responsiveness (habituation), or 

disturbance effects may persist; the 

latter is most likely with sounds that are 

highly variable in characteristics, 

infrequent, and unpredictable in 

occurrence, and associated with 

situations that a marine mammal 

perceives as a threat; 

(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is 

strong enough to be heard has the 

potential to reduce (mask) the ability of 

a marine mammal to hear natural 

sounds at similar frequencies, including 

calls from conspecifics, and underwater 

environmental sounds such as surf 

noise; 

(6) If mammals remain in an area 

because it is important for feeding, 

breeding, or some other biologically 

important purpose even though there is 

chronic exposure to noise, it is possible 

that there could be noise-induced 

physiological stress; this might in turn 

have negative effects on the well-being 

or reproduction of the animals involved; 

and 

(7) Very strong sounds have the 

potential to cause temporary or 

permanent reduction in hearing 

sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and 

presumably marine mammals, received 

sound levels must far exceed the 

animal’s hearing threshold for there to 

be any temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

in its hearing ability. For transient 

sounds, the sound level necessary to 

cause TTS is inversely related to the 

duration of the sound. Received sound 

levels must be even higher for there to 

be risk of permanent hearing 

impairment. In addition, intense 

acoustic or explosive events may cause 

trauma to tissues associated with organs 

vital for hearing, sound production, 

respiration and other functions. This 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45986 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

trauma may include minor to severe 

hemorrhage. 

The notice of the proposed IHA (73 

FR 34254, June 17, 2008) included a 

discussion of the effects of sounds from 

airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and 

pinnipeds, including tolerance, 

masking, behavioral disturbance, and 

hearing impairment. The notice also 

included a discussion on the effects of 

bathymetric equipment on marine 

mammals. Based on available 

information, the bathymetric equipment 

to be used within the project area will 

not overlap with the hearing range of 

marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS 

believes it is unlikely that marine 

mammals will be exposed to signals 

from the bathymetric equipment at 

levels at or above those likely to cause 

harassment. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals by 

Incidental Harassment 

The anticipated harassments from the 

activities described above may involve 

temporary changes in behavior and 

short-term displacement within 

ensonified areas. There is no evidence 

that the planned activities could result 

in injury, serious injury, or mortality, 

for example due to collisions with 

vessels or from sound levels high 

enough to result in PTS. Disturbance 

reactions, such as avoidance, are very 

likely to occur amongst marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the source 

vessel. The mitigation and monitoring 

measures proposed to be implemented 

(described later in this document) 

during this survey are based on Level B 

harassment criteria and will minimize 

any potential risk of injury or mortality. 

The notice of the proposed IHA (73 

FR 34254, June 17, 2008) included an 

in-depth discussion of the methodology 

used by PGS to estimate incidental take 

by harassment by seismic and the 

numbers of marine mammals that might 

be affected in the seismic acquisition 

activity area in the Beaufort Sea. 

Additional information was provided in 

PGS’ application. A summary is 

provided here. 

The bowhead whale, beluga whale, 

and bearded seal density estimates are 

based on the estimates developed by 

LGL (2005) for the University of Alaska 

IHA and used here for consistency. The 

ringed seal density estimates are from 

Frost et al. (2002). Spotted seal density 

estimates were derived from Green et al. 

(2005; 2006; 2007) observations that 

spotted seals in the Beaufort Sea in the 

vicinity represent about 5 percent of all 

phocid seal sightings and then 

multiplying Frost et al.’s (2002) density 

estimates times 5 percent. 

Exposure Calculations for Marine 

Mammals 

PGS’ application provides both 

average and maximum density data for 

the marine mammals that are likely to 

be adversely affected. These density 

numbers were based on survey and 

monitoring data of marine mammals in 

recent years in the vicinity of the action 

area (LGL, 2005; Frost et al., 2002; Green 

et al., 2005; 2006; 2007). Additionally, 

PGS provided maximum density 

estimates for those marine mammal 

populations. The average and maximum 

population densities of marine 

mammals are provided in Table 6.2–1 of 

PGS’ application. However, PGS did not 

provide a rationale regarding the 

maximum estimate or a description as to 

how these maximum density estimates 

were calculated. NMFS decided to use 

the average density data of marine 

mammal populations to calculate 

estimated take numbers because these 

numbers are based on surveys and 

monitoring of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the project area. 

In its review of PGS’ application, 

NMFS determined that the safety radii 

calculated by PGS were too small based 

on the size and source level of the 

airgun array to be used. Therefore, 

NMFS requested that PGS submit an 

addendum to the IHA application, 

which outlined in greater detail the 

modeling techniques used. Based on 

this additional information, NMFS 

recalculated the distances to the 160-, 

180-, and 190–dB isopleths, using 250 

dB as the source output. Based on this 

new information, the respective radii for 

the 160-, 180-, and 190–dB isopleths 

are: 2,894 m (1.8 mi); 492 m (0.31 mi); 

and 203 m (0.13 mi). 

The area of ensonification was 

assumed to be the length of trackline in 

marine waters multiplied by the 160–dB 

isopleth times 2. The total length of 

trackline in marine waters is estimated 

at 1,280 km (795 mi), including 770 km 

(478 mi) outside the barrier islands and 

510 km (317 mi) inside the barrier 

islands. The total area of ensonification 

using the 160–dB criteria is 7,398.4 km2

(2,856.5 mi2; including 4,450.6 km2, or 

1,718.4 mi2 outside the barrier islands; 

and 2,947.8 km2, or 1,138.1 mi2 inside 

the barrier islands). However, given that 

none of the area occurs in waters greater 

than 15 m (49 ft) deep (and half the area 

is in waters less than 4 m, 13 ft, deep), 

which is not suitable habitat for 

migrating bowhead whales, which has 

been defined as waters 15–200 m (49–

660 ft) deep (Richardson and Thomson, 

2002), this calculation provides a very 

conservative estimate of potential take. 

Therefore, only the area outside the 

barrier islands was used in the 

calculations for bowhead whales. 

The ‘‘take’’ estimates were determined 

by multiplying the various density 

estimates in Table 6.2–1 by the 

ensonification area using the 160–dB 

criteria for cetaceans and the 170–dB 

criteria for pinnipeds. However, NMFS 

has noted in the past that it is current 

practice to estimate Level B harassment 

takes based on the 160–dB criterion for 

all species and has revised pinniped 

take estimates based on the 160–dB 

criterion. 

Based on the calculation of using the 

average density estimates presented in 

Table 6.2–1 in PGS’ application and the 

area of ensonification outlined above, it 

is estimated that up to approximately 28 

bowhead whales, 25 beluga whales, 

3,551 ringed seals, 178 spotted seals, 

and 94 bearded seals would be affected 

by Level B behavioral harassment as a 

result of PGS’ 3D OBC/TZ seismic 

survey in the Beaufort Sea. These take 

numbers represent 0.27 percent of the 

western Arctic stock of bowhead 

whales, 0.06 percent of the Beaufort Sea 

stock of beluga whales, and 1.4 percent, 

0.3 percent, and 0.04 percent of the 

Alaska stocks of ringed, spotted, and 

bearded seals, respectively. 

Although gray whales are considered 

to be an extralimital species in the 

project area, there have been a few rare 

sightings in the Beaufort Sea east of 

Point Barrow in late summer and as far 

east as Smith Bay (Green et al., 2007). 

Currently, there are no reliable density 

or population estimates for gray whales 

in the project area. It is estimated that 

up to two gray whales may be taken by 

this survey. This number is considered 

minimal based on the population size of 

the eastern North Pacific stock of gray 

whales. 

PGS plans to continue seismic 

surveying after August 25, the 

commencement of the annual bowhead 

whale hunt, and the beginning of the 

fall bowhead migration. NMFS requires 

take estimates be evaluated out to the 

120–dB isopleth for any operation 

occurring after August 25, unless the 

operator can show that their sound 

source would attenuate to less than 120 

dB before reaching the normal bowhead 

whale migration lanes. Because of the 

downward sound directionality of the 

proposed array configuration, the radius 

to the 120–dB isopleth would extend 

out to about 10–15 km (6.2–9 mi). 

Further, PGS will move their operations 

inside the barrier islands by August 25 

and remain there throughout the 

subsistence hunt and whale migration. 

Consequently, the closest 120 dB level 

sounds could reach migrating whales is 

a point approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45987 

north of a line between Spy and Thetis 

islands. At this point the water depth is 

approximately 6 m (20 ft), less than 

suitable habitat for migrating bowhead 

whales. Further, much of the sound 

emanating from inside the barrier 

islands would be blocked by Spy, 

Thetis, and Leavitt Islands, leaving only 

a fraction of the survey area inside the 

barrier islands from which the 120–dB 

radius could even reach a point 10 km 

(6 mi) north of the barrier islands. 

During most of the survey inside the 

barrier islands, it is expected that the 

120–dB radii would not extend at all 

outside the barrier islands since the 

islands will absorb the sound. However, 

the 120–dB radius estimate is based on 

modeling. Actual field measurements of 

acoustical signatures for the proposed 

array are planned at the onset of the 

surveys.Impacts of seismic sounds on 

cetaceans are generally expected to be 

restricted to avoidance of a limited area 

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

the MMPA definition of Level B 

harassment. No Level A takes (including 

injury, serious injury, or mortality) are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

activities. The estimated numbers of 

cetaceans and pinnipeds potentially 

exposed to sound levels sufficient to 

cause behavioral disturbance are small 

relative to their stock or population 

sizes in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort 

seas. 

Mitigation measures such as look 

outs, non-pursuit, shutdowns or powerdowns when marine mammals are seen 

within defined ranges, and avoiding 

migration pathways when animals are 

likely most sensitive to noise 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. 

Subsistence issues are addressed later in 

this document. 

Potential Impact on Habitat 

A detailed discussion of the potential 

effects of this action on marine mammal 

habitat, including behavioral and 

physiological effects on marine fish and 

invertebrates, was included in the 

notice of proposed IHA (73 FR 34254, 

June 17, 2008). Based on the discussion 

in the proposed IHA and the nature of 

the activities (moderate-size airgun 

array, short duration of the survey, and 

the location inside the barrier islands in 

very shallow water), the authorized 

operations are not expected to have any 

habitat-related effects that could cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations or stocks. 

Effects of Seismic Noise and Other 

Related Activities on Subsistence 

Subsistence hunting and fishing is 

historically, and continues to be, an 

essential aspect of Alaska Native life, 

especially in rural coastal villages. The 

Inupiat people participate in 

subsistence hunting and fishing 

activities in and around the Beaufort 

Sea. The animals taken for subsistence 

provide a significant portion of the food 

that will feed the people throughout the 

year. Along with providing the 

nourishment necessary for survival, 

subsistence activities strengthen bonds 

within the culture, provide a means for 

educating the young, provide supplies 

for artistic expression, and allow for 

important celebratory events. 

Only minor, temporary effects from 

the seismic survey project are 

anticipated on Native subsistence 

hunting. PGS does not expect any 

permanent impacts on marine mammals 

that will adversely affect subsistence 

hunting. Mitigation efforts will be 

implemented to minimize or completely 

avoid any adverse effects on marine 

mammals. Additionally, areas being 

used for subsistence hunting grounds 

will be avoided. It is anticipated that 

only minor, temporary displacement of 

marine mammals will occur. 

Alaska Natives, including the Inupiat, 

legally hunt several species of marine 

mammals. Marine animals used for 

subsistence within the Beaufort Sea 

region include bowhead and beluga 

whales and ringed, spotted, and bearded 

seals. Each village along the Beaufort 

Sea hunts key subsistence species. 

Hunts for these animals occur during 

different seasons throughout the year. 

Depending upon the success of a 

village’s hunt for a certain species, 

another species may become a priority 

in order to provide enough nourishment 

to sustain the village. Communities that 

participate in subsistence activities 

potentially affected by seismic surveys 

within the proposed development area 

are Nuiqsut and Barrow. 

Nuiqsut is the village nearest to the 

proposed seismic activity area. 

Bowhead and beluga whales and ringed, 

spotted, and bearded seals are harvested 

by residents of Nuiqsut. Because the 

village is 56 km (35 mi) inland (Alaska 

community Online Database, 2008), 

whaling crews travel in aluminum skiffs 

equipped with outboard motors to 

offshore areas such as Cross Island 

(Funk and Galginaitis, 2005). Of the 

marine mammals harvested, bowhead 

whales are most commonly harvested. 

In 1992, an estimated 34,884 kg (76,906 

lbs) were harvested (ADF&G, 2008). 

Seals are also regularly hunted and may 

account for up to 3,770 kg (8,310 lbs) of 

harvest, while beluga whale harvests 

account for little or none (ADF&G, 

2008). 

Barrow’s main subsistence focus is 

concentrated on biannual bowhead 

whale hunts that take place in the 

spring and fall. Other animals, such as 

seals, are hunted outside of the whaling 

season, but they are not the primary 

source of the subsistence harvest (URS 

Corp., 2005). 

The notice of proposed IHA (73 FR 

34254, June 17, 2008) contained a 

complete description of the species that 

could potentially be affected by the 

seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea area 

and the subsistence hunting conducted 

by the Native Alaskans of these species. 

A summary of whether or not PGS’

activity will affect the subsistence 

hunting of these various species is 

provided below. 

Bowhead Whales 

The bowhead whales that could 

potentially be affected by seismic 

activity in the Beaufort Sea come from 

the Western Arctic stock. Ten primary 

coastal Alaskan villages deploy whaling 

crews during whale migrations. Of these 

ten, Nuiqsut has the potential to be 

affected by the project, as it is the 

village situated closest to the project 

area. Barrow is located farther from the 

proposed seismic activity but also has 

the potential to be affected, albeit to a 

lesser degree than Nuiqsut. These two 

communities are part of the AEWC. The 

AEWC was formed as a response to the 

IWC’s past closure of bowhead whale 

hunting for subsistence purposes. IWC 

sets a quota for the whale hunt, and 

AEWC allocates the quota between 

villages. Each of the villages within the 

AEWC is represented by a Whaling 

Captains’ Association. Bowhead whales 

migrate within the hunting range of 

whaling crews in the spring (north 

migration) and the fall (south 

migration). In the spring, the whales 

must travel through leads in the ice that 

tend to occur close to shore. In the fall, 

the water is much more open, allowing 

the whales to swim farther from the 

coast.Whaling crews in Barrow hunt in 

both the spring and the fall (Funk and 

Galginaitis, 2005). In the spring, the 

whales are hunted along leads that 

occur when the pack ice starts 

deteriorating. This tends to occur in 

Barrow between the first week of April 

and the first week of June, well before 

the geophysical surveys will be 

conducted. The seismic survey is 

anticipated to start after all the ice 

melts, in approximately mid-July, and 

will not affect spring whaling. Fall 

whaling activities are anticipated to take 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45988 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

place east of Point Barrow (BLM, 2005). 

The project area is located 260 km (160 

mi) east of Point Barrow. It is 

anticipated that the project will not 

impact the Barrow fall hunt. The 

Nuiqsut fall whale hunt takes place in 

the vicinity of Cross Island, ranging 

from there to approximately 50 km (30 

mi) north of the island. The project area 

is located approximately 60 km (37 mi) 

west of Cross Island and is too shallow 

(less than 15 m, 50 ft deep) to support 

bowhead whales. It is unlikely that the 

Nuiqsut fall hunt would extend to the 

project area since the village’s efforts are 

usually centered father east, closer to 

Cross Island. Adverse impacts on the 

subsistence harvest of bowhead whales 

as a result of the proposed survey are 

not anticipated. 

Beluga Whales 

Beluga whales summer in the waters 

of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and 

winter in the Bering Sea. Beluga whales 

can be hunted from the first week in 

April to July or August. It is common for 

the Inupiat to refrain from hunting 

beluga during the spring or fall bowhead 

whale hunt to prevent scaring the larger 

whales away from hunting locations. 

Belugas do not account for a majority of 

the total subsistence harvest in Barrow 

or Nuiqsut (ADF&G, 2008). 

Ringed Seals 

Ringed seals are distributed 

throughout the Arctic Ocean. They 

inhabit both seasonal and permanent 

ice. Ringed seals are available to 

subsistence users year-round, but they 

are primarily hunted in the winter due 

to the rich availability of other 

mammals in the summer. In 2000, the 

annual estimated subsistence ‘‘take’’

from Alaska of ringed seals was 9,567. 

Because the bulk of the ringed seal 

hunting will occur outside the 

timeframe of the project, adverse 

impacts on ringed seals as a result of 

PGS’ survey are not anticipated. 

Spotted Seals 

Spotted seals in Alaska are distributed 

along the continental shelf of the 

Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Seas. 

These seals migrate south from the 

Chukchi Sea, through the Bering Strait, 

into the Bering Sea beginning in 

October. They spend the winter in the 

Bering Sea traveling east and west along 

the ice edge (Lowry et al., 1998). 

Because of the numbers of whales and 

bearded seals and the opportunities for 

subsistence harvesting of them, spotted 

and ringed seals are primarily hunted 

during winter months in the Beaufort 

Sea. Since this time frame is outside the 

scope of the proposed project, 

subsistence activities involving spotted 

and ringed seals are unlikely to occur 

during the survey (BLM, 2005). PGS 

does not anticipate adverse effects to 

spotted seals as a result of project 

activities. 

Bearded Seals 

Bearded seals tend to inhabit 

relatively shallow water (less than 200 

m, 656 ft, deep) that does not have 

much ice. Bearded seals are an 

important source of meat and hide for 

Chukchi Sea villages. They tend to be 

targeted by subsistence users over 

ringed and spotted seals because they 

are very large. This provides a large 

amount of meat and skins for 

constructing boats (BLM, 2005). 

Bearded seals are primarily hunted 

during July in the Beaufort Sea; 

however, in 2007, bearded seals were 

harvested in the months of August and 

September at the mouth of the Colville 

River Delta (Smith, pers. comm., 2008). 

The project location is not a primary 

subsistence hunting ground; however, it 

is occasionally used by residents of 

Nuiqsut for subsistence hunting of 

bearded seals. An annual bearded seal 

harvest occurs in the vicinity of Thetis 

Island in July through August (J. 

Nukapigak, Nuiqsut hunter, pers. 

comm., 2008). Approximately 20 

bearded seals are harvested annually 

through this hunt. PGS anticipates that 

there is not a significant potential for 

the proposed project to affect the 

bearded seal subsistence hunt. 

Mitigation measures will be in place to 

minimize potential impacts. 

Plan of Cooperation 

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. PGS developed a 

Draft POC, which included a timeline of 

meetings set to occur in the 

communities identified as potentially 

being affected by the proposed project. 

These communities are Nuiqsut and 

Barrow. The Draft POC document was 

distributed to the communities, 

subsistence users groups, NMFS, and 

USFWS on March 20, 2008. Based upon 

discussions with communities and 

subsistence users, PGS has incorporated 

changes to the project to reduce 

potential subsistence conflicts. These 

changes are discussed in Addendum 1 

of the Draft POC, which was submitted 

to the potentially affected communities 

and subsistence user groups, NMFS, and 

USFWS on May 7, 2008. Copies were 

also available during POC meetings in 

Barrow on May 8, 2008, and in Nuiqsut 

on May 9, 2008. A Final POC document 

including all input from potentially 

affected communities and subsistence 

users groups was submitted to NMFS on 

July 10, 2008. This document was also 

distributed to other Federal agencies 

and affected communities and 

subsistence user groups. PGS conducted 

the following meetings: 

• February 7, 2008: AEWC 2008 CAA 

meeting with Nuiqsut whalers in 

Deadhorse to present the proposed 

project and to gather feedback in 

support of a 2008 CAA; 

• February 11, 2008: AEWC 2008 

CAA meeting with Barrow whalers in 

Barrow to present the proposed project 

and to gather feedback in support of a 

2008 CAA; 

• February 28, 2008: AEWC 2008 

CAA meeting in Barrow to discuss the 

2008 CAA with the AEWC; 

• April 1, 2008: Kuukpikmiut 

Subsistence Oversight Panel, Inc. 

(KSOP) Meeting and the Nuiqsut POC 

Meeting/Open House in Nuiqsut to 

present the proposed project and to 

gather feedback; 

• April 2, 2008: NSB Planning 

Commission in Barrow to present the 

proposed project in support of a NSB 

Development Permit application; 

• April 14–16, 2008: Open Water 

Meeting in Anchorage to present the 

proposed project to NMFS and other 

attendees in support of the IHA 

application. The Open Water Meeting 

includes a forum for discussion of 

potential conflicts between industry 

activities and subsistence use activities. 

• May 8, 2008: Barrow POC Meeting/ 

Open House in Barrow to present the 

proposed project and to gather feedback 

from the community; and 

• May 9, 2008: Nuiqsut POC Meeting/ 

Open House in Nuiqsut and the KSOP 

meeting to present the project revisions 

and gather feedback from the 

community. 

It should be noted that NMFS must 

make a determination under the MMPA 

that an activity would not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of marine mammal species 

or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. 

While this includes usage of both 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, the primary 

impact by seismic activities is expected 

to be impacts from noise on bowhead 

whales during its westward fall feeding 

and migration period in the Beaufort 

Sea. NMFS has defined unmitigable 

adverse impact 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) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45989 

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 (50 CFR 216.103). 

Based on the signed CAA, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

included in the IHA (see next sections), 

and the project design itself, NMFS has 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from PGS’ activities. 

Mitigation Measures 

This section describes the measures 

that have been included in the survey 

design and those that are required to be 

implemented during the survey. 

Mitigation measures to reduce any 

potential impact on marine mammals 

that have been considered and included 

in the planning and design phase are as 

follows: 

• The seismic vessel will remain 

within 5 km (3 mi) of the coastline and 

is not expected to pass the state/Federal 

boundary line, avoiding bowhead whale 

migration routes; 

• In response to discussions with the 

AEWC, PGS has negotiated the 

following operational windows to 

further avoid potential impacts to 

migrating whales. The timing of the 

proposed survey would be divided into 

two parts. Data acquisition outside the 

barrier islands (Thetis, Spy, and Leavitt 

Islands), the deepest water in the survey 

area, would be performed first and 

would be completed by August 25 (just 

before the bowheads begin their 

westward migration across the Beaufort 

Sea). Data acquisition inside the barrier 

islands, with maximum water depth of 

approximately 4.6 m (15 ft), would then 

be conducted from approximately 

August 25–mid- to late-September. No 

data acquisition would be conducted 

outside the barrier islands after August 

5. If necessary, data acquisition may be 

performed outside the barrier islands 

after the close of the Nuiqsut fall 

bowhead hunt. No data acquisition 

would be conducted or permitted to 

occur outside the barrier islands from 

August 25 until the close of the Nuiqsut 

fall bowhead hunt. 

• Although seismic operations will be 

conducted during the fall whale hunt 

(after August 25), they would not occur 

within the areas normally used by 

hunters from Barrow (Point Barrow) or 

Nuiqsut (Cross Island). The survey area 

is 60 km (37 mi) west of Cross Island 

(and downstream of the bowhead fall 

migration) and 260 km (160 mi) east of 

Point Barrow. 

• Although seismic operations will be 

conducted during the fall whale 

migration, activities would occur in 

shallow waters within the barrier 

islands that are not considered whale 

habitat. The barrier islands are also 

expected to act as an obstacle to sounds 

generated by seismic activities, 

effectively keeping sound propagation 

from entering the migration corridor. 

• MMOs will be stationed on source 

vessels to ensure that the airguns are not 

operated in close proximity to marine 

mammals and will be actively involved 

in vessel operations during all survey 

operations. 

• PGS has offered to hire Inupiat 

speakers to perform seismic work on 

each of the PGS vessels. As part of their 

duties, the Inupiat speakers will also 

keep watch for marine mammals and 

will communicate with the MMOs 

located on the source vessels. 

• PGS will participate in the Com 

Centers proposed to be operated in 

Barrow and Deadhorse. Com Centers 

enable vessel operators to be aware of 

and avoid marine mammal and 

subsistence activity in the area. 

Communications of vessel operations 

and transit will occur via telephones, 

the Internet, and very high frequency 

radios. 

• PGS will designate an individual to 

act as the conduit for information to and 

from potentially affected communities, 

subsistence users, and stakeholder 

groups. 

• PGS proposes to avoid potential 

conflicts with subsistence users by not 

conducting operations during 

subsistence activities, to the extent 

practicable, or in marine mammal 

migration routes and known subsistence 

use areas. 

• The airgun energy source is of 

moderate size, reducing the ensonified 

zone and the impacts to marine 

mammals. 

• The airgun source will be 

acoustically measured from all 

directions and in varying water depths 

at the start of operations to determine 

avoidance radii within which any 

marine mammal sighting will cause 

immediate airgun shutdown. 

• Ramp-up and soft start methods 

will be conducted while seismic 

operations are initiated. This is 

intended to alert marine mammals in 

the area so that they may swim away 

from the source before the full energy 

source is employed. 

• Shutdown safety radii of 203 m 

(0.13 mi) and 492 m (0.31 mi) for 

pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively, 

will be monitored during operations to 

ensure that injurious ‘‘takes’’ are 

avoided. These radii will be adjusted 

accordingly based on the results of the 

acoustic measurements mentioned 

above. After August 25, shutdown safety 

radii of 2,894 m (1.8 mi) will be 

required for sightings of groups of 12 or 

more bowhead or gray whales and of 10 

km (6.2 mi) when 4 or more cow/calf 

pairs are sighted. 

• PGS will participate in an offshore 

monitoring program that will take place 

from mid-August until mid- to late 

September in cooperation with Pioneer 

Natural Resources, Inc., (Pioneer) and 

ENI and in coordination with Shell 

Offshore, Inc. which includes: (1) 

Monitor in-water sound near and distant 

from Pioneer’s Oooguruk drill site, ENI’s 

Spy Island drill pad, and vessel 

operations using four autonomous 

seafloor acoustic recorders (ASARs); (2) 

Monitor and characterize sounds 

produced from shallow-depth seismic 

survey planned by PGS using ASARs 

and directional autonomous seafloor 

recorders (DASARs); (3) Detect and 

localize marine mammal vocalizations 

using an array of DASAR’s positioned 

north and northwest of the Pioneer and 

ENI projects; and (4) Visually survey the 

coastal Beaufort Sea from an aircraft to 

search for bowhead whales and 

characterize behavior of those animals 

observed. 

Establishment and Monitoring of Safety 

Zones 

In-water sounds from support vessels 

and associated with the Pioneer and ENI 

projects will be measured and source 

levels determined. Primary vessels may 

include crew boats, tugs, and barges. A 

total of 12 vessels will be associated 

with the PGS seismic survey, many of 

these relatively small, outboard 

powered skiffs. Between all three 

operations, it is expected that sounds 

will be measured from 18–20 vessels. 

Most measurements will be made 

using JASCO Research’s Ocean Bottom 

Hydrophones (OBH) prior to the 

beginning of the survey with methods 

used previously (Zykov et al., 2008b; 

Laurinolli et al., 2008). Measurements 

will be made with a single OBH system 

positioned in 4.6–9 m (15–30 ft) of 

water with the vessel sailing along a line 

from 10–25 km (6–15.5 mi) away to 

directly over the OBH. The sail past is 

conducted at normal operating speed of 

the vessel. Some vessel measurement 

may be performed using the ASARs 

stationed near ODS and SID (instead of 

the OBHs). 

Sound source measurements will be 

made of the two PGS airgun arrays at 

two locations (inside and outside the 

barrier islands prior to seismic data 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45990 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

acquisition). Both airgun array 

configurations will be measured at each 

location, leading to four separate 

measurements. The measurements will 

be made using four OBH systems (see 

PGS’ application, Figure 2 in Appendix 

B). These recorders sample at 48 kHz, 

using a high-resolution 24–bit 

digitization systems. They can record 

autonomously for up to 3 days per 

deployment. The distances to the 

important sound level thresholds will 

vary strongly with operating water 

depth. In the shallowest depths of near 

1.2 m (4 ft), sounds will be rapidly 

attenuated and the distances will be 

relatively small. The survey area outside 

the barrier islands reaches depths that 

support much better sound propagation, 

and ENI expects the 120–dB distance 

could be as great as 10–20 km (6.2–12.4 

mi). The OBH placement should be 

made to correspond with the best prefield estimates of the 190, 180, 160, and 

120 dB re 1 Pa (rms) thresholds. JASCO 

will consider previous sound source 

verification (SSV) measurements near 

BP’s Liberty prospect in similar water 

depths, combined with modeling to 

estimate the appropriate distances prior 

to the SSV measurements. 

The OBH deployment configuration 

distances will be determined as 

discussed previously. The optimal 

deployment configurations will be 

determined for both the inside barrier 

island and outside barrier island 

locations. The OBHs will be deployed 

and seismic vessels asked to shoot along 

pre-defined test tracks. The test tracks 

will be oriented in at least two 

directions to capture the directivity 

characteristics of the airgun arrays; 

airgun arrays typically produce greater 

sound energy perpendicular to the tow 

direction than in line with the tow 

direction. 

PGS will apply appropriate 

adjustments to the estimated safety 

zones of 203 m (0.13 mi) for the 190–

dB isopleth, 492 m (0.31 mi) for the 

180–dB isopleth, and 2,894 m (1.8 mi) 

for the 160–dB isopleth. Results will be 

used for the implementation of 

mitigation measures to power down or 

shutdown the sound source and reduce 

the size of the safety zones when 

required. 

Speed and Course Alterations 

If a marine mammal (in water) is 

detected outside the safety radius and, 

based on its position and the relative 

motion, is likely to enter the safety 

radius, the vessel’s speed and/or direct 

course would be changed in a manner 

that does not compromise safety 

requirements. The animal’s activities 

and movements relative to the seismic 

vessel will be closely monitored to 

ensure that the individual does not 

approach within the safety radius. If the 

mammal appears likely to enter the 

safety radius, further mitigative actions 

will be taken, i.e., either further course 

alterations or power-down or shutdown 

of the airgun(s). 

Power-down Procedure 

A power-down involves decreasing 

the number of airguns in use such that 

the radii of the 190–dB and 180–dB 

zones are decreased to the extent that 

observed marine mammals are not in 

the applicable safety zone. Situations 

that would require a power-down are 

listed below. 

(1) When the vessel is changing from 

one source line to another, one airgun 

or a reduced number of airguns is 

operated. The continued operation of 

one airgun or a reduced airgun array is 

intended to: (a) alert marine mammals 

to the presence of the seismic vessel in 

the area and (b) retain the option of 

initiating a ramp-up to full operations 

under poor visibility conditions. 

(2) If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the safety radius but is likely to 

enter the safety radius, and if the 

vessel’s speed and/or course cannot be 

changed to avoid the animal from 

entering the safety zone. As an 

alternative to a complete shutdown, the 

airguns may be powered- down before 

the animal is within the safety zone. 

(3) If a marine mammal is already 

within the safety zone when first 

detected, the airguns would be 

powered-down immediately if this is a 

reasonable alternative to a complete 

shutdown, to have the marine mammal 

outside the newly established safety 

zone that would be smaller due to the 

reduced number of operating airguns. 

This decision will be made by the MMO 

and can be based on the results obtained 

from the acoustic measurements for the 

establishments of safety zones. 

Following a power-down, operation of 

the full airgun array will not resume 

until the marine mammal has cleared 

the safety zone. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the safety 

zone if it: 

(1) Is visually observed to have left 

the safety zone; 

(2) Has not been seen within the zone 

for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds; or 

(3) Has not been seen within the zone 

for 30 min in the case of mysticetes 

(large odontocetes do not occur within 

the study area). 

Shutdown Procedure 

A shutdown procedure involves the 

complete turn off of all airguns. Rampup procedures will be followed during 

resumption of full seismic operations. 

The operating airgun(s) will be shut 

down completely during the following 

situations: 

(1) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the applicable safety zone, and a 

power- down is not practical or 

adequate to reduce exposure to less than 

190 dB (rms; pinnipeds) or 180 dB (rms; 

cetaceans). 

(2) If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the estimated safety radius 

around the reduced source that will be 

used during a power-down. 

(3) If a marine mammal is detected 

within the safety radius and a power 

down would not keep the animal 

outside the reduced new safety radius, 

the airguns will be shut-down. 

(4) If, after August 25, a group of 12 

or more bowhead or gray whales enters 

the 160–dB (rms) radius or a group of 

four or more cow/calf pairs enters the 

120–dB (rms) radius. 

Airgun activity will not resume until 

the marine mammal has cleared the 

safety radius. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the safety 

radius as described above for powerdown procedures. 

Ramp-up Procedure 

A ramp-up procedure will be 

followed when the airgun array begins 

operating after a specified duration with 

no or reduced airgun operations. The 

specified duration depends on the speed 

of the source vessel, the size of the 

airgun array that is being used, and the 

size of the safety zone, but is often about 

10 min. 

NMFS requires that, once ramp-up 

commences, the rate of ramp-up be no 

more than 6 dB per 5 min period. Rampup will likely begin with the smallest 

airgun, in this case, 80 in3. PGS intends 

to follow the ramp-up guideline of no 

more than 6 dB per 5 min period. 

During the ramp-up, the safety zone for 

the full 8–gun array will be maintained. 

A ramp-up procedure can be applied 

only in the following situations: 

(1) If, after a complete shutdown, the 

entire 180 dB safety zone has been 

visible for at least 30 min prior to the 

planned start of the ramp-up in either 

daylight or nighttime. If the entire safety 

zone is visible with vessel lights and/or 

night vision devices, then ramp-up of 

the airguns from a complete shutdown 

may occur at night. 

(2) If one airgun has operated during 

a power-down period, ramp-up to full 

power will be permissible at night or in 

poor visibility, on the assumption that 

marine mammals will either be alerted 

by the sounds from the single airgun 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45991 

and could move away or may be 

detected by visual observations. 

(3) If no marine mammals have been 

sighted within or near the applicable 

safety zone during the previous 15 min 

in either daylight or nighttime, provided 

that the entire safety zone was visible 

for at least 30 min. 

Monitoring and Reporting Plan 

PGS will sponsor marine mammal 

monitoring during the seismic survey in 

order to implement the required 

mitigation measures that require realtime monitoring, to satisfy the required 

monitoring requirements of the IHA, 

and to meet any monitoring 

requirements agreed to as part of the 

POC/CAA. PGS will meet the 

requirements by using two techniques: 

use of MMOs and participating in an 

acoustics monitoring plan through ENI. 

The monitoring plan is described here. 

Vessel-based Visual Monitoring by 

MMOs 

PGS’ approach to monitoring is to 

station two or more NMFS-approved 

MMOs aboard each seismic vessel to 

document the occurrence of marine 

mammals near the vessel, to help 

implement mitigation requirements, and 

to record the reactions of marine 

mammals to the survey. At least one 

MMO, if not all, will be an Inupiat 

trained in collecting marine mammal 

data. Each MMO will, while on duty, 

scan the area of operation (using 8 to 10 

power binoculars) for marine mammals, 

recording the species, location, distance 

from survey vessel, and behavior (and 

associated weather data) of all that are 

seen. Observer watches will last no 

more than 4 consecutive hours, and no 

observer will watch more than 12 total 

hours in a 24–hr day. Observation will 

occur while survey operations are 

conducted. Night vision devices will be 

available on each source vessel for low 

light conditions or times when there is 

insufficient ambient light to see the 

entire monitoring area. Most 

importantly, however, each MMO will 

determine that the safety radius is clear 

of marine mammals prior to operating 

the high-energy sound equipment, and 

each will have the authority to suspend 

active side-scan sonar or sleeve gun 

operations should a marine mammal be 

observed approaching the safety radius. 

NMFS will be provided with weekly 

reports of the marine mammal 

observations as long as the onboard 

communication systems allow. 

In addition to the marine mammal 

monitoring to be performed by the 

MMOs located on the source vessels, 

PGS has offered to hire Inupiat speakers 

to perform seismic work on each of the 

PGS vessels. As part of their duties, the 

Inupiat speakers will also keep watch 

for marine mammals and will 

communicate with the MMOs located 

on the source vessels. 

Acoustic Monitoring of Drillsite 

Activities and Marine Mammal 

Vocalizations 

Acoustic measurements of drillsite 

activities and marine mammal 

vocalizations in 2008 will be performed 

using Greeneridge’s autonomous 

seafloor recorders. For monitoring the 

near-drillsite sounds, four 

omnidirectional ASARs (Greene et al., 

1997) will be used, which sample at a 

rate of 5 kHz and have an acoustic 

bandwidth of 10–2,200 Hz. The ASARs 

can record ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds and vocalizations from bowhead 

whales, beluga whales, seals, and 

walrus. 

For the whale-call acoustic array, five 

directional DASARs (Greene et al., 

2004; see Figure 3 in Appendix B of 

PGS’ application) will be used, which 

have an acoustic bandwidth of 10–450 

Hz. In addition to bowhead whale calls, 

the DASARs will also detect and record 

industrial sounds, including those 

produced by vessels and seismic 

airguns. Regarding the ability to detect 

ultra-low frequency sounds that might 

be produced from drilling, the DASAR 

and the ASAR can record sounds as low 

as 1 or 2 Hz but at reduced sensitivity 

relative to frequencies above 10 Hz. The 

DASARs will be modified versions of 

units (DASAR ‘‘b’’) that were used for 

Shell’s 2007 Beaufort Sea Monitoring 

Program and will be identical to those 

proposed for monitoring BP’s Northstar 

Island and Shell’s five DASAR arrays in 

2008. The modification involves a new 

version of the sensor (a three-channel 

device). In total, nine recorders will be 

used for Pioneer/ENI in 2008; four 

ASARs will be deployed in the vicinity 

of the ODS and SID and five DASARs 

will be located approximately 13–20 km 

(8–12.4 mi) north of the drillsites in 9–

15.2 m (30–50 ft) of water (see Figure 4 

in Appendix B of PGS’ application). 

The acoustic recorders will be 

deployed/retrieved using a workboat 

supplied by Pioneer/ENI. Recorders will 

be retrieved from a tag line and the 

grapple method. The recorders will be 

deployed in mid-August and then 

allowed to record as long as possible 

into September, taking weather factors 

(e.g., sea state and ice formation) into 

consideration. The NSB DWM will be 

informed prior to removing the 

recorders. 

The four ASARs will be placed near 

the two drillsites to monitor sounds 

produced from drilling (ODS only), 

vessel (ODS and SID), and construction 

activities (primarily SID). Figure 5 in 

Appendix B of PGS’ application 

provides a finer scale resolution of the 

acoustic recorders in the vicinity of ODS 

and SID than in Figure 4. One ASAR 

will be placed approximately 0.4 km 

(0.25) mi from each ODS and SID. One 

ASAR will be placed 6.4 km (4 mi) 

north of ODS and one 0.6 km (1 mi) 

north of SID. Similar to the nearby Shell 

DASAR Site 1 and Site 2 arrays, the 

DASARs will be spaced 7 km (4.3 mi) 

from each other and will detect marine 

mammal vocalizations to the north and 

south of the array out to 10 to 15 km (6.2 

to 9 mi) from any one recorder. 

The acoustic data collected during the 

summer 2008 near ODS and SID will be 

suitable to compute sound levels 

received from: (1) heavy equipment and 

machinery operating on the drillsites; 

(2) small vessels and crew change 

vessels operating around the ODS and 

SID and between Oliktok Point and the 

ODS; (3) loaded and empty barges 

traversing to and from Oliktok Point and 

ODS and SID; and (4) the process of 

holding the barges in place at the 

drillsites while offloading equipment 

and supplies. 

An important aspect to characterizing 

sounds and correlating them to specific 

activities will be to maintain an accurate 

record of all sound-producing activities 

in the project areas. Time-referenced 

information of vessel movements and 

construction activities at and around the 

drillsites will be required in order to 

interpret acoustic sound level data. This 

is especially important in order to 

determine whether measured sound 

levels are generated by activities at or 

near the drillsites. To acquire detailed 

position information from key sources 

of in-water sounds, Pioneer/ENI 

proposes to place GPS units capable of 

logging position data on selected project 

vessels during the open-water period. 

The vessel logs and GPS position data 

will be used to verify (or exclude) 

various sources of anthropogenic 

sounds that are detected on the acoustic 

recorders and to associate any visual 

observations of marine mammal 

behavior from aerial surveys with 

project activities. Pioneer/ENI will also 

maintain logs of equipment inventory 

and associated daily activities at ODS 

and SID and the drilling activity at ODS. 

Additional information on how the 

ASARs and DASARs will be utilized is 

found in Appendix B of the PGS 

application. 

Acoustic Monitoring of Seismic Survey 

and Ambient Sounds 

PGS will use an automated process 

developed by A. Thode of Scripps to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45992 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

detect airgun pulses in the DASAR data 

and compute the instantaneous peak 

pressure, the SPL (rms), the sound 

exposure level, and the pulse duration. 

Background sound levels (between the 

pulses) are also characterized using this 

automated procedure. These 

measurements provide time series for 

the entire study period, expected to be 

from 4–6 weeks beginning in midAugust. Vessel sounds will be noted and 

their levels included in the background 

time series (Blackwell et al., 2008). 

Aerial Surveys 

Working with NSB scientists in 2006, 

Pioneer developed an aerial survey 

program to assess the distribution of 

bowhead whales within 24–32 km (15–

20 mi) of the Pioneer operation during 

fall whale migration. These surveys 

were done in 2006 and 2007 and were 

conducted with two dedicated observers 

from a Bell 412 helicopter (Reiser et al., 

2008; Williams et al., 2008). 

For 2008, PGS will collaborate with 

Shell to expand the temporal coverage 

of their aerial survey program, which is 

otherwise planned to start around 

September 7. These surveys are to be 

performed in support of Shell’s shallow 

hazard surveys being planned from midSeptember through October, 2008. PGS 

will expand the duration of these 

surveys to start August 25 and be 

conducted along the survey tracklines. 

Weather conditions permitting, 

surveys will be conducted 3 or more 

days per week beginning August 25 and 

continuing through as far into October 

as Shell continues its operation. Surveys 

will extend to approximately 80 km (50 

mi) offshore. The surveys will be 

conducted from a de Havilland Twin 

Otter following similar protocols used 

by Shell in the Beaufort Sea in 2006 and 

2007. Survey tracklines will be spaced 

8 km (5 mi) apart and will run 

approximately 64.4 km (40 mi) in a 

north-south direction. Surveys will be 

conducted in good survey conditions 

(i.e., favorable weather and sea state). 

Four trained and experienced surveyors 

seated in the rear of the aircraft will 

make observations from the right and 

left sides of the airplane. The airplane 

will be operated by two pilots in the 

front seats who will also survey the area 

ahead of the aircraft. 

Standard aerial survey procedures 

used by LGL and others in many 

previous marine mammal projects will 

be followed, including those surveys 

completed for Shell in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea in 2006 (Thomas et al., 

2007) and 2007 (Lyons et al., 2008). 

Following these procedures will 

facilitate comparisons and (as 

appropriate) pooling of results with 

other datasets (e.g., sighting rates, whale 

group size and composition). The 

aircraft will be flown at 100 knots 

ground speed and at an altitude of 457 

m (1500 ft). Aerial surveys at an altitude 

of 457 m (1500 ft) do not provide much 

information about seals but are suitable 

for both bowhead and beluga whales. 

The need for a 457 m (1500 ft) cloud 

ceiling will limit the dates and times 

when surveys can be flown. The surveys 

will follow GPS-referenced tracklines. 

When a large whale is sighted, the 

pilot will break transect and circle the 

sighting at least twice to confirm 

species, group size, and composition. If 

additional sightings are made in the 

vicinity, these will also be circled to 

confirm species, group size, 

composition, and activity if it can be 

determined (such as feeding or 

migrating). An aggregation of 12 whales 

is defined as 12 whales seen, either on 

transect or while circling, within a 

circular area with a diameter of 15 km 

(9.3 mi). Therefore, after a sighting is 

made, it should be circled sufficiently to 

check a 7.5 km (4.7 mi) radius around 

the area, and any subsequent sightings 

should be circled to see if they are 

within 15 km (9.3 mi) of the original 

sighting. 

For each marine mammal sighting, the 

observer will note the species, number, 

size/age/sex class when determinable, 

activity, heading, swimming speed 

category (if traveling), sighting cue, ice 

conditions (type and percentage), and 

inclinometer reading. An inclinometer 

reading (angle from horizontal) will be 

taken when the animal’s location is at 

a right angle to the side of the aircraft 

track, allowing calculation of lateral 

distance from the aircraft trackline. 

Transect information, sighting data, and 

environmental data will be entered into 

a GPS-linked data logger. 

Reporting 

A report on the preliminary results of 

the acoustic verification measurements, 

including as a minimum the measured 

190- and 180–dB (rms) radii of the 

airgun sources, will be submitted within 

72–hrs after collection 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 survey. 

A report on PGS’ activities and on the 

relevant monitoring and mitigation 

results will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

seismic survey. The report will describe 

the operations that were conducted, the 

measured sound levels, and the 

cetaceans and seals that were detected 

near the operations. The report will be 

submitted to NMFS, providing full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all acoustic 

and vessel-based marine mammal 

monitoring. The 90–day report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all whale and 

seal sightings (dates, times, locations, 

activities, associated seismic survey 

activities). Marine mammal sightings 

will be reported at species level, 

however, especially during unfavorable 

environmental conditions (e.g., low 

visibility, high sea states) this will not 

always be possible. The number and 

circumstances of ramp-up, power-down, 

shutdown, and other mitigation actions 

will be reported. The report will also 

include estimates of the amount and 

nature of potential impact to marine 

mammals encountered during the 

survey. 

Some of PGS’ monitoring (e.g., aerial 

surveys and acoustic arrays) will 

provide additional information for the 

Joint Industries Program. This program 

includes coastal aerial surveys in the 

Chukchi Sea, acoustic ‘‘net’’ arrays in 

the Chukchi Sea, and acoustic arrays in 

the Beaufort Sea. These studies aid in 

the gathering of data on abundance and 

distribution of marine mammals in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

Comprehensive Monitoring Report 

In November, 2007, Shell (in 

coordination and cooperation with other 

Arctic seismic IHA holders) released a 

final, peer-reviewed edition of the 2006 

Joint Monitoring Program in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, JulyNovember 2006 (LGL, 2007). This report 

is available for downloading on the 

NMFS website (see ADDRESSES). A 

draft comprehensive report for 2007 was 

provided to NMFS and those attending 

the NMFS/MMS Arctic Ocean open 

water meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, on 

April 14–16, 2008. Based on reviewer 

comments made at that meeting, Shell 

and others are currently revising this 

report and plans to make it available to 

the public shortly. 

Following the 2008 open water 

season, a comprehensive report 

describing the proposed acoustic, 

vessel-based, and aerial monitoring 

programs will be prepared. The 2008 

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 their impacts on 

marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea 

during 2008. The 2008 report will form 

the basis for future monitoring efforts 

and will establish long term data sets to 

help evaluate changes in the Beaufort/ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45993 

Chukchi Sea ecosystems. The report 

will also incorporate studies being 

conducted in the Chukchi Sea and 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. 

This comprehensive report will 

consider data from many different 

sources including two relatively 

different types of aerial surveys; several 

types of acoustic systems for data 

collection (net array, PAM, vertical 

array, and other acoustical monitoring 

systems that might be deployed), and 

vessel based observations. Collection of 

comparable data across the wide array 

of programs will help with the synthesis 

of information. However, interpretation 

of broad patterns in data from a single 

year is inherently limited. Much of the 

2008 data will be used to assess the 

efficacy of the various data collection 

methods and to establish protocols that 

will provide a basis for integration of 

the data sets over a period of years. 

ESA 

Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS 

has completed consultation with the 

MMS on the issuance of seismic permits 

for offshore oil and gas activities in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi seas. In a 

Biological Opinion issued on July 17, 

2008, NMFS concluded that the 

issuance of seismic survey permits by 

MMS and the issuance of the associated 

IHAs for seismic surveys are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened or endangered species 

(specifically the bowhead, humpback, 

and fin whales) under the jurisdiction of 

NMFS or destroy or adversely modify 

any designated critical habitat. The 2008 

Biological Opinion takes into 

consideration all oil and gas related 

activities that are reasonably likely to 

occur, including exploratory (but not 

production) oil drilling activities. In 

addition, NMFS has issued an 

Incidental Take Statement under this 

Biological Opinion which contains 

reasonable and prudent measures with 

implementing terms and conditions to 

minimize the effects of take of listed 

species. 

NEPA 

In 2006, the MMS prepared Draft and 

Final PEAs for seismic surveys in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. NMFS was 

a cooperating agency in the preparation 

of the MMS PEA. On November 17, 

2006 (71 FR 66912), NMFS and MMS 

announced that they were preparing a 

DPEIS in order to assess the impacts of 

MMS’ annual authorizations under the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 

the U.S. oil and gas industry to conduct 

offshore geophysical seismic surveys in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off 

Alaska and NMFS’ authorizations under 

the MMPA to incidentally harass marine 

mammals while conducting those 

surveys. 

On March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15135), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

noted the availability for comment of 

the NMFS/MMS DPEIS. Based upon 

several verbal and written requests to 

NMFS for additional time to review the 

DPEIS, EPA has twice announced an 

extension of the comment period until 

July 30, 2007 (72 FR 28044, May 18, 

2007; 72 FR 38576, July 13, 2007). 

Because NMFS has been unable to 

complete the PEIS, it was determined 

that the 2006 PEA would need to be 

updated in order to meet NMFS’ NEPA 

requirements. This approach was 

warranted as it was reviewing five 

proposed Arctic seismic survey IHAs for 

2008, well within the scope of the PEA’s 

eight consecutive seismic surveys. To 

update the 2006 Final PEA, NMFS 

prepared a SEA which incorporates by 

reference the 2006 Final PEA and other 

related documents. 

Determinations 

Based on the information provided in 

PGS’ application and addendum, public 

comments received on PGS’ application, 

the proposed IHA notice (73 FR 34254, 

June 17, 2008), this document, the 2006 

and 2007 Comprehensive Monitoring 

Reports by Shell and others, public 

review of PGS’ mitigation and 

monitoring program in Anchorage, 

Alaska, in April, 2008, and the analysis 

contained in the MMS Final PEA and 

NMFS’ 2008 Final SEA, NMFS has 

determined that the impact of PGS 

conducting seismic surveys in the 

Beaufort Sea in 2008 will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock of marine mammals and that 

there will not be an unmitigable adverse 

impact on their availability for taking 

for subsistence uses provided the 

mitigation measures required under the 

authorization are implemented. 

Moreover, as explained below, NMFS 

has determined that only small numbers 

of marine mammals of a species or 

population stock would be taken by 

PGS’ seismic activities. The impact of 

conducting a seismic survey in this area 

will result, at worst, in a temporary 

modification in behavior of small 

numbers of the affected marine mammal 

species. 

NMFS has determined that the shortterm impact of conducting seismic 

surveys in the U.S. Beaufort Sea may 

result, at worst, in a temporary 

modification in behavior by certain 

species of marine mammals. While 

behavioral and avoidance reactions may 

be made by these species in response to 

the resultant noise, this behavioral 

change is expected to have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks. 

In addition, no take by death and/or 

serious injury is anticipated or 

authorized, and the potential for 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment will be avoided through the 

incorporation of the mitigation and 

monitoring measures described above. 

For reasons explained in this 

document, NMFS does not expect that 

any marine mammals will be seriously 

injured or killed during PGS’ seismic 

survey activities, even if some animals 

are not detected prior to entering the 

180–dB (cetacean) and 190–dB 

(pinniped) safety zones. These criteria 

were set originally by the HESS 

Workshop (1997, 1999) to approximate 

where Level A harassment (i.e., defined 

as ‘‘any act of pursuit, torment or 

annoyance which has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild’’) from 

acoustic sources begins. Scientists have 

determined that these criteria are 

conservative as they were set for 

preventing TTS, not PTS. NMFS has 

determined that a TTS which is the 

mildest form of hearing impairment that 

can occur during exposure to a strong 

sound may occur at these levels. When 

a marine mammal experiences TTS, the 

hearing threshold rises and a sound 

must be stronger in order to be heard. 

TTS can last from minutes or hours to 

(in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound 

exposures at or somewhat above the 

TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

noise ends. Few data on sound levels 

and durations necessary to elicit mild 

TTS have been obtained for marine 

mammals, and none of the published 

data concern TTS elicited by exposure 

to multiple pulses of sound. It should be 

understood that TTS is not an injury, as 

there is no injury to individual cells. 

For whales exposed to single short 

pulses (such as seismic), the TTS 

threshold appears to be a function of the 

energy content of the pulse. As noted in 

this document, the received level of a 

single seismic pulse might need to be 

greater than 210 dB re 1 μPa rms 

(approximately 221–226 dB pk-pk) in 

order to produce brief, mild TTS. 

Exposure to several seismic pulses at 

received levels near 200–205 dB (rms) 

might result in slight TTS in a small 

odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold 

is a function of the total received pulse 

energy. Seismic pulses with received 

levels of 200–205 dB or more are 

usually restricted to a radius of no more 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45994 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

than 200 m (656 ft) around a seismic 

vessel operating a large array of airguns. 

As a result, NMFS believes that injury 

or mortality is highly unlikely due to 

the injury zone being close to the airgun 

array (astern of the vessel), the 

establishment of conservative safety 

zones and shutdown requirements (see 

‘‘Mitigation Measures’’) and the fact that 

there is a strong likelihood that baleen 

whales (bowhead and gray whales) 

would avoid the approaching airguns 

(or vessel) before being exposed to 

levels high enough for there to be any 

possibility of onset of TTS. 

For pinnipeds, information indicates 

that for single seismic impulses, sounds 

would need to be higher than 190 dB 

rms for TTS to occur while exposure to 

several seismic pulses indicates that 

some pinnipeds may incur TTS at 

somewhat lower received levels than do 

small odontocetes exposed for similar 

durations. This indicates to NMFS that 

the 190–dB safety zone provides a 

sufficient buffer to prevent PTS in 

pinnipeds. 

In conclusion, NMFS believes that a 

marine mammal within a radius of <100 

m (<328 ft) around a typical large array 

of operating airguns (larger than that to 

be used by PGS) may be exposed to a 

few seismic pulses with levels of >205 

dB, and possibly more pulses if the 

marine mammal moved with the 

seismic vessel. However, there is no 

specific evidence that exposure to 

pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in 

any marine mammal, even with large 

arrays of airguns. The array to be used 

by PGS is of moderate size. Given the 

possibility that marine 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. 

While the number of potential 

incidental harassment takes will depend 

on the distribution and abundance of 

marine mammals (which vary annually 

due to variable ice conditions and other 

factors) in the area of seismic 

operations, the number of potential 

harassment takings is estimated to be 

small (less than 1.5 percent of any of the 

estimated population sizes) and has 

been mitigated to the lowest level 

practicable through incorporation of the 

measures mentioned previously in this 

document. 

In addition, NMFS has determined 

that the location for seismic activity in 

the Beaufort Sea meets the statutory 

requirement for the activity to identify 

the ‘‘specific geographical region’’

within which it will operate. With 

regard to dates for the activity, PGS 

intends to work beginning upon receipt 

of the IHA (late-July) and ceasing 

activity by late-September. 

Finally, NMFS has determined that 

the seismic activity by PGS in the 

Beaufort Sea in 2008 will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses. This determination is 

supported by the information in this 

Federal Register Notice, including: (1) 

the fall bowhead whale hunt in the 

Beaufort Sea will either be governed by 

the CAA between PGS and the AEWC 

and village whaling captains or by 

mitigation measures contained in the 

IHA; (2) the CAA and IHA conditions 

will significantly reduce impacts on 

subsistence hunters to ensure that there 

will not be an unmitigable adverse 

impact on subsistence uses of marine 

mammals; (3) because ringed seals are 

hunted mainly from October through 

June, although they are available yearround; however, the seismic survey will 

not occur during the primary period 

when these seals are typically 

harvested; (4) because spotted seals are 

hunted mainly during times outside of 

the project timeframe; and (5) because 

the project will begin in the east and 

move towards the west to avoid 

conflicts with the bearded seal hunt at 

Thetis Island, which usually ends in 

August. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to PGS for 

conducting a seismic survey in the 

Beaufort Sea in 2008, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–18104 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XJ30 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/ 

Training and Amphibious Vehicle 

Training and Weapons Testing 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

conducting surf zone testing/training 

and amphibious vehicle training and 

weapons testing off the coast of Santa 

Rosa Island (SRI), has been issued to the 

Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB) for a 

period of 1 year. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from July 25, 2008, until July 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, 

IHA, and a list of references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

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

20910–3225. A copy of the Santa Rosa 

Island Mission Utilization Plan 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (SRI Mission PEA) (U.S. Air 

Force, 2005) is available by writing to 

the Department of the Air Force, AAC/ 

EMSN, Natural Resources Branch, 501 

DeLeon St., Suite 101, Eglin AFB, FL 

32542–5133. 

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 101(a)(5)(D) 

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

direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional taking of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and regulations are issued or, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES