60174 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW05 

Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals 

During Specified Activities; Marine 

Seismic Survey in the Arctic Ocean, 

August to September, 2010 

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 issued an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) for the take of small numbers of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment, incidental to conducting a 

marine seismic survey in the Arctic 

Ocean during August to September, 

2010. 

DATES: Effective August 11, 2010, 

through October 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and 

application are available 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 

or by telephoning the contact listed 

here. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the internet at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may be viewed, by appointment, 

during regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–713–2289. 

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 (Secretary) 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals by United 

States (U.S.) citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental taking 

of small numbers of marine mammals 

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, 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 not to exceed 

one year 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’’]. 

16 U.S.C. 1362(18) 

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 for 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 March 9, 2010, NMFS received an 

IHA application and a draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) from 

USGS for the taking, by Level B 

harassment only, of small numbers of 

several species of marine mammals 

incidental to conducting a marine 

seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean 

during August to September, 2010. 

NMFS received a revised IHA 

application on June 1, 2010, and a final 

EA on August 6, 2010. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

USGS is conducting a marine 

geophysical (seismic reflection/ 

refraction) and bathymetric survey in 

the Arctic Ocean in August and 

September, 2010 (see Tables 1 and 2, 

and Figure 3 of the IHA application). 

The survey is being conducted from the 

Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) vessel 

CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent (St. Laurent) 

which will be accompanied by the U.S. 

Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy, both 

of which are polar-class icebreakers. 

Descriptions of the vessels and their 

specifications are presented in 

Appendix A of the IHA application. The 

two vessels operate in tandem in the 

presence of ice but may diverge and 

operate independently in open water. 

Some minor deviation of the dates is 

possible, depending on logistics and 

weather (i.e., the cruise may depart 

earlier or be extended due to poor 

weather; there could be extra days of 

seismic operations if collected data are 

of sub-standard quality). 

One CCG helicopter is available for 

deployment from the St. Laurent for ice 

reconnaissance and crew transfers 

between the vessels during survey 

operations. Helicopter transfer of crew 

from the Healy is also planned for 

approximately one day during a ship-toshore crew change at Barrow, Alaska at 

the end of the survey. The helicopter 

operations in Barrow will be conducted 

under Department of Interior (DOI) 

contract. Daily helicopter operations are 

anticipated pending weather conditions. 

Spot bathymetry will also be conducted 

from the helicopter outside U.S. waters. 

Acoustic sources onboard the St. 

Laurent include an airgun array 

comprised of three Sercel G-airguns and 

a Knudsen 320BR ‘‘Chirp’’ pulse 

echosounder operating at 12 kHz. The 

St. Laurent also tows a 3 to 5 kHz subbottom profiler while in open water and 

when not working with the Healy. The 

airgun array consists of two 500 in3 and 

one 150 in3 airguns for an overall 

discharge of 1,150 in3. Table 2 of the 

IHA application presents different 

sound pressure level (SPL) radii of the 

airgun array. Acoustic sources being 

operated on the St. Laurent are 

described in detail in Section VII and 

Appendix B in the IHA application. The 

seismic array and a hydrophone 

streamer towed from the St. Laurent 

operate under the provisions of a 

Canadian authorization based on 

Canada’s environmental assessment of 

the proposed survey while in Canadian 

or international waters, and under the 

provisions of an IHA issued to the USGS 

by NMFS in U.S. waters. NMFS cannot 

issue an IHA directly to a non-U.S. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60175 

citizen, however, the Geological Survey 

of Canada (GSC) has written a 

Categorical Declaration stating that 

‘‘while in U.S. waters (i.e., the U.S. 200 

mile Exclusive Economic Zone), the 

GSC will comply with any and all 

environmental mitigation measures 

required by the U.S. NMFS and/or the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.’’ The St. 

Laurent follows the lead of the Healy. 

The Healy breaks and clears ice 

approximately 1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to 2 

miles [mi]) in advance of the St. 

Laurent. In situations where the array 

(and hydrophone streamer) cannot be 

towed safely due to ice cover, the St. 

Laurent may escort the Healy. The 

Healy uses a multi-beam echosounder 

(Kongsberg EM122), a sub-bottom 

profiler (Knudsen 3.5 kHz Chirp), and a 

‘‘piloting’’ echosounder (ODEC 1500) 

continuously when underway and 

during the seismic profiling. Acoustic 

Doppler current profilers (75 kHz and 

150 kHz) may also be used on the Healy. 

The Healy’s acoustic systems are 

described in further detail in Section VII 

and Appendix B of the IHA application. 

In addition to the hydrophone 

streamer, marine sonobuoys are 

deployed to acquire wide angle 

reflection and refraction data for 

velocity determination to convert 

seismic reflection travel time to depth. 

Sonobuoys are deployed off the stern of 

the St. Laurent approximately every 

eight hours during seismic operations 

with as many as three deployments per 

day. The sonobuoy’s hydrophone 

activates at a water depth of 

approximately 60 m (196.9 ft) and 

seismic signals are communicated via 

radio to the St. Laurent. The sonobuoys 

are pre-set to scuttle (i.e., deliberately 

sink) eight hours after activation. 

The program within U.S. waters 

consists of approximately 806 km (500.8 

mi) of survey transect line, not 

including transits when the airguns are 

not operating (see Figure 1 and Table 1 

of the IHA application). U.S. priorities 

include another 997 km (619.5 mi) of 

survey lines north of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ), for a total of 

1,804 km (1,121 mi) of tracklines of 

interest to the U.S. Table 1 of the IHA 

application lists all U.S. priority 

tracklines; Figure 1 of the IHA 

application includes all U.S. priority 

tracks and the area of interest to Canada 

near the proposed U.S. tracklines. Water 

depths within the U.S. study area range 

from approximately 1,900 to 4,000 m 

(6,233.5 to 13,123.4 ft) (see Figure 1 of 

the IHA application). There may be 

additional seismic operations associated 

with airgun testing, start-up, and repeat 

coverage of any areas where initial data 

quality is sub-standard. The tracklines 

being surveyed in U.S. waters include 

the southern 263.8 km (164 mi) of the 

line that runs North-South in the 

western EEZ, the southern 264.5 km 

(164.4 mi) of the line that runs North— 

South in the central EEZ, and 277.7 km 

(172.6 mi) of trackline that connects the 

two (see Table 1 here and in Figure 1 

of the IHA application). The IHA 

application requested the authorization 

of incidental takes of marine mammals 

for activities within U.S. waters. The 

survey line nearest to shore in U.S. 

waters is approximately 116 km (63 

nmi) offshore at its closest point. 

TABLE 1—U.S. PRIORITY TRACKLINES FOR USGS AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA (GSC) 2010 EXTENDED

CONTINENTAL SHELF SURVEY IN THE NORTHERN BEAUFORT SEA AND ARCTIC OCEAN

Location End point 1 End point 2 Kilometer 

(km) 

Nautical mile 

(nmi) 

Time 

(Hour [hr]) 

@ 4 nmi/hr 

NS in central EEZ (south) ..... 71.22° North; 145.17° West 72.27° North; 145.41° West 118 64 16 

NS in central EEZ (north) ...... 72.27° North; 145.41° West 73.92° North; 145.30° West 183 100 25 

Central-western EEZ connector.73.92° North; 145.30° West 71.84° North; 151.82° West 317 171 43 

NS in western EEZ ................ 71.84° North; 151.82° West 74.32° North; 150.30° West 281 152 39 

South Northwind Ridge ......... 74.32° North; 150.30° West 74.96° North; 158.01° West 239 129 32 

Northwind Ridge connector ... 74.96° North; 158.01° West 76.30° North; 155.88° West 161 87 22 

Mid-Northwind Ridge ............. 76.30° North; 155.88° West 75.41° North; 146.50° West 274 148 37 

Northwind Ridge connector ... 75.41° North; 146.50° West 76.57° North; 146.82° West 129 70 17 

Mid-Northwind Ridge ............. 76.57° North; 146.82° West 76.49° North; 150.73° West 102 55 14 

Totals .............................. ............................................... ............................................... 1,804 976 245 

The two vessels operate cooperatively 

during the seismic survey. The St. 

Laurent conducts seismic operations 

using an airgun array and also operates 

a 12 kHz Chirp echosounder. The St. 

Laurent also operates a 3 to 5 kHz subbottom profiler in open water when not 

working with the Healy. The Healy 

normally escorts the St. Laurent in ice 

cover, and continuously operates a 

bathymetric multi-beam echosounder, a 

3.5 kHz Chirp sub-bottom profiler, a 

piloting echosounder, and two acoustic 

Doppler current profilers. 

The St. Laurent accessed the survey 

area from Canada and rendezvoused 

with the Healy on approximately 

August 10, 2010; the Healy approached 

the survey area from the Bering Straits. 

The St. Laurent deploys a relatively 

small airgun array comprised of three 

G-airguns and a single hydrophone 

streamer approximately 300 m (984 ft) 

in length. The airgun array consists of 

two 500 in 3 and one 150 in 3 airguns for 

an overall discharge of 1,150 in 3. The 

St. Laurent follows the lead of the Healy 

which operates approximately 1.9 to 3.8 

km (1 to 2 nmi) ahead of the St. Laurent. 

In ice conditions where seismic gear 

cannot be safely towed, the St. Laurent 

escorts the Healy to optimize multibeam bathymetry data collection. If 

extended open-water conditions are 

encountered, Healy and St. Laurent may 

operate independently. After 

completion of the survey the St. Laurent 

will return to port in Canada, and the 

Healy will change crew at Barrow via 

helicopter or surface conveyance before 

continuing on another project. 

Vessel Specifications 

The CCGS St. Laurent was built in 

1969 by Canadian Vickers Ltd. in 

Montreal, Quebec, and underwent an 

extensive modernization in Halifax, 

Nova Scotia between 1988 to 1993. The 

St. Laurent is based at CCG Base 

Dartmouth in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. 

Current vessel activities involve 

summer voyages to the Canadian Arctic 

for sealifts to various coastal 

communities and scientific expeditions. 

A description of the St. Laurent with 

vessel specifications is presented in 

Appendix A of the IHA application and 

is available online at: http://www.ccgVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:30 Sep 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29SEN2.SGM 29SEN2

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60176 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

gcc.gc.ca/eng/Fleet/Vessels?id=1111

&info=5&subinfo. 

The Healy is designed to conduct a 

wide range of research activities, 

providing more than 390.2 m 2 (4,200 

ft 2) of scientific laboratory space, 

numerous electronic sensor systems, 

oceanographic winches, and 

accommodations for up to 50 scientists. 

The Healy is designed to break 1.4 m 

(4.5 ft) of ice continuously at 5.6 km/ 

hour (three knots) and can operate in 

temperatures as low as ¥45.6 C (¥50 

degrees F). The Healy is a USCG 

icebreaker, capable of traveling at 5.6 

km/hour (three knots) through 1.4 m 

(4.5 ft) of ice. A ‘‘Central Power Plant,’’ 

four Sultzer 12Z AU40S diesel 

generators, provides electric power for 

propulsion and ship’s services through 

a 60 Hz, three-phase common bus 

distribution system. Propulsion power 

is provided by two electric AC 

Synchronous, 11.2 MW drive motors, 

fed from the common bus through a 

Cycloconverter system, that turn two 

fixed-pitch, four-bladed propellers. 

The science community provided 

invaluable input on lab lay-outs and 

science capabilities during design and 

construction of the ship. The Healy is 

also a capable platform for supporting 

other potential missions in the polar 

regions, including logistics, search and 

rescue, ship escort, environmental 

protection, and enforcement of laws and 

treaties, and will also serve as the 

platform from which vessel-based 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will 

watch for marine mammals before and 

during airgun operations. Other details 

of the Healy can be found in Appendix 

A of the IHA application. 

NMFS believes that the realistic 

possibility of a ship-strike of a marine 

mammal by the vessel during research 

operations and in-transit during the 

proposed survey is discountable. The 

probability of a ship strike resulting in 

an injury or mortality of an animal has 

been associated with ship speed; 

however, it is highly unlikely that the 

proposed seismic survey would increase 

the rate of injury, serious injury, or 

mortality given the St. Laurent and 

Healy’s slow survey speed. 

Acoustic Source Specifications— 

Seismic Airguns and Radii 

The seismic source for the seismic 

survey is comprised of three Sercel Gairguns with a total volume of 1,150 in 3. 

The three-airgun array is comprised of 

two 500 in 3 and one 150 in 3 G-airguns 

in a triangular configuration (see Figure 

B–1 in the IHA application). The single 

150 in 3 G-airgun is used if a powerdown is necessary for mitigation. The Gairgun array is towed behind the St. 

Laurent at a depth of approximately 11 

m (36.1 ft) (see Figure B–2 in the IHA 

application) along predetermined lines 

in water depths ranging from 1,900 to 

4,000 m (6,233.6 to 13,123.4 ft). One 

streamer approximately 232 m (761.2 ft) 

in length with a single hydrophone is 

towed behind the airgun array at a 

depth of approximately 9 to 30 m (29.5 

to 98.4 ft). 

A square wave trigger signal is 

supplied to the firing system hardware 

by a FEI–Zyfer GPStarplus Clock model 

565, based on GPS time (typically at 

approximately 14 to 20 sec intervals). 

Vessel speed is approximately 10.2 km/ 

hour (5.5 knots) resulting in a shot 

interval ranging from approximately 39 

to 56 m (128 to 183.7 ft). G-airgun firing 

and synchronization are controlled by a 

RealTime Systems LongShot fire 

controller, which sends a voltage to the 

airgun solenoid to trigger firing with 

approximately 54.8 ms delay between 

trigger and fire point. 

Pressurized air for the pneumatic Gairguns is supplied by two Hurricane 

compressors, model 6T–276–44SB/ 

2500. These are air cooled, 

containerized compressor systems. Each 

compressor is powered by a C13 

Caterpillar engine which turns a rotary 

screw first stage compressor and a three 

stage piston compressor capable of 

developing a total air volume of 600 

SCFM @ 2,500 pounds per square inch 

(PSI). The seismic system is operated at 

1,950 PSI and one compressor could 

easily supply sufficient volume of air 

under appropriate pressure. 

Seismic acquisition requires a 

watchkeeper in the seismic lab and 

another in the compressor container. 

The seismic lab watchkeeper is 

responsible for data acquisition/ 

recording, watching over-the-side 

equipment, airgun firing and log 

keeping. A remote screen permits 

monitoring of compressor pressures and 

alerts, as well as communication with 

the compressor watchkeeper. The 

compressor watchkeeper is required to 

monitor the compressor for any 

emergency shut-down and provide 

general maintenance that might be 

required during operations. 

Sound level radii for the proposed 

three airgun array were measured in 

2009 during a seismic calibration 

(Mosher et al., 2009; Roth and Schmidt, 

2010). A transmission loss model was 

then constructed assuming spherical 

(20LogR) spreading and using the source 

level estimate 235 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 0– 

peak; 225 dB re 1 μPa (rms) from the 

measurements. The use of 20LogR 

spreading fit the data well out to 

approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) where 

variability in measured vales increased 

(see Appendix B in the IHA application 

for more details and a figure of the 

transmission loss model compared to 

the measurement data). Additionally, 

the Gundalf modeling package was used 

to model the airgun array and estimated 

a source level output of 236.7 dB 0–peak 

(226.7 dB [rms]). Using this slightly 

stronger source level estimate and a 

20LogR spreading the 180 and 190 dB 

(rms) radii are estimated to be 216 m 

(708.7 ft) and 68 m (223.1 ft), 

respectively. As a conservative measure 

for the proposed safety radii, the sound 

level radii indicated by the empirical 

data and source models have been 

increased to 500 m (1,640.4 ft) for the 

180 dB isopleths and to 100 m (328 ft) 

of the 190 dB isopleths. 

The rms received levels that are used 

as impact criteria for marine mammals 

are not directly comparable to the peak 

or peak-to-peak values normally used to 

characterize source levels of airguns. 

The measurement units used above to 

describe the airgun source, peak or 

peak-to-peak dB, are always higher than 

the rms dB referred to in much of the 

biological literature. A measured 

received level of 160 dB (rms) in the far 

field would typically correspond to a 

peak measurement of about 170 to 172 

dB, at the same location (Greene, 1997; 

McCauley et al., 1998, 2000). The 

precise difference between rms and 

peak or peak-to-peak values for a given 

pulse depends on the frequency content 

and duration of the pulse, among other 

factors. However, the rms level is 

always lower than the peak or peak-topeak level for an airgun-type source. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60177 

TABLE 2—DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 190, 180, AND 160 DB RE 1 μPA (RMS) 

COULD BE RECEIVED IN DEEP (GREATER THAN 1,000 M) WATER DURING THE SURVEY IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN,

AUGUST 7, TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 

Source and volume 

Tow depth 

(m) 

ice/open 

water 

Water depth 

Predicted received RMS distances (m) 

190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 

Single Mitigation Airgun (150 in3) ................................... 11/6–7 Deep (>1,000 m) ................ 30 75 750 

Three G-airguns (1,150 in3) ............................................ 11/6–7 Deep (>1,000 m) ................ 100 500 2,500 

Acoustic Source Specifications— 

Multibeam Echosounders (MBES), SubBottom Profilers (SBP) and Acoustic 

Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP) 

Along with the airgun operations, 

additional acoustic systems that are 

operated during the cruise include a 12 

kHz Chirp echosounder and a 3–5 kHz 

SBP from the St. Laurent. The Healy 

operates a 12 kHz Kongsberg MBES, a 

Knudsen 320BR profiler, a piloting 

echosounder, and two ADCPs. These 

sources are operated throughout most of 

the cruise to map bathymetry, as 

necessary, to meet the geophysical 

science objectives. During seismic 

operations, these sources are deployed 

from the St. Laurent and the Healy and 

generally operate simultaneously with 

the airgun array deployed from the St. 

Laurent. 

The Knudsen 320BR echosounder 

provides information on depth and 

bottom profile. The Knudsen 320BR is 

a dual-frequency system with operating 

frequencies of 3.5 and 12 kHz, however, 

the unit functions at the higher 

frequency, 12 kHz, because the 3.5 kHz 

transducer is not installed. 

While the Knudsen 320BR operates at 

12 kHz, its calculated maximum source 

level (downward) is 215 dB re μPa at 1 

m. The pulse duration is typically 1.5 to 

5 ms with a bandwidth of 3 kHz (FM 

sweep from 3 kHz to 6 kHz). The 

repetition rate is range dependent, but 

the maximum is a one percent duty 

cycle. Typical repetition rate is between 

1⁄2 s (in shallow water) to 8 s in deep 

water. A single 12 kHz transducer (subbottom) array, consisting of 16 elements 

in a 4x4 array will be used for the 

Knudsen 320BR. The 12 kHz transducer 

(TC–12/34) emits a conical beam with a 

width of 30°. 

The 3–5 kHz chirp SBP is towed by 

and operated from the St. Laurent in 

open water when the St. Laurent is not 

working in tandem with the Healy. The 

SBP provides information about 

sedimentary features and bottom 

topography. The chirp system has a 

maximum 7.2 kW transmit capacity into 

the towed array. The energy from the 

towed unit is directed downward by an 

array of eight transducers in a conical 

beamwidth of 80 degrees. The interval 

between pulses is no less than one pulse 

per second. SBPs of that frequency can 

produce sound levels 200 to 230 dB re 

1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995). 

The Kongsberg EM 122 MBES 

operates at 10.5 to 13 (usually 12) kHz 

and is hull-mounted on the Healy. The 

transmitting beamwidth is 1° or 2° foreaft and 150° athwartship. The maximum 

source level is 242 dB re 1 μPam (rms). 

Each ‘‘ping’’ consists of eight (in water 

greater than 1,000 m deep) or four (less 

than 1,000 m) successive fan-shaped 

transmissions, each ensonifying a sector 

that extends 1° fore-aft. Continuouswave (CW) pulses increase from two to 

15 ms long in water depths up to 2,600 

m (8,530 ft), and FM chirp pulses up to 

100 ms long are used in water greater 

than 2,600 m (8,530 ft). The successive 

transmissions span an overall crosstrack angular extent of about 150°, with 

2 ms gaps between pulses for successive 

sectors. 

The Knudsen 320BR hydrographic 

SBP provides information on 

sedimentary layering, down to between 

20 and 70 m (65.6 to 229.7 ft), 

depending on bottom type and slope. 

The Knudsen 320 BR is a dualfrequency system with operating 

frequencies of 3.5 and 12 kHz; only the 

low frequency is being used during this 

survey. At 3.5 kHz, the maximum 

output power into the transducer array, 

as wired on the Healy (where the array 

impedance is approximately 125 ohms), 

is approximately 6,000 watts (electrical), 

which results in a maximum source 

level of 221 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m 

downward. Pulse lengths range from 1.5 

to 24 ms with a bandwidth of 3 kHz (FM 

sweep from 3 kHz to 6 kHz). The 

repetition rate is range dependent, but 

the maximum is a one percent duty 

cycle. Typical repetition rate is between 

1⁄2 s (in shallow water) to 8 s in deep 

water. The 3.5 kHz transducer array on 

the Healy, consisting of 16 (TR109) 

elements in a 4x4 array, is being used 

for the Knudsen 320BR. At 3.5 kHz the 

SBP emits a downward conical beam 

with a width of approximately 26°. 

The piloting echosounder on the 

Healy is an Ocean Data Equipment 

Corporation (ODEC) Bathy–1500 that 

provides information on water depth 

below the vessel. The ODEC system has 

a maximum 2 kW transmit capacity into 

the transducer and has two operating 

modes, single or interleaved dual 

frequency, with available frequencies of 

12, 24, 33, 40, 100, and 200 kHz. 

The 150 kHz ADCP has a minimum 

ping rate of 0.65 ms. There are four 

beam sectors and each beamwidth is 3°. 

The pointing angle for each beam is 30° 

off from vertical with one each to port, 

starboard, forward, and aft. The four 

beams do not overlap. The 150 kHz 

ADCP’s maximum depth range is 300 m 

(984.3 ft). 

The Ocean Surveyor 75 is an ADCP 

operating at a frequency of 75 kHz, 

producing a ping every 1.4 s. The 

system is a four-beam phased array with 

a beam angle of 30°. Each beam has a 

width of 4° and there is no overlap. 

Maximum output power is 1 kW with a 

maximum depth range of 700 m (2,296.6 

ft). 

Acoustic Source Specifications— 

Icebreaking 

Icebreaking is considered by NMFS to 

be a continuous sound and NMFS 

estimates that harassment occurs when 

marine mammals are exposed to 

continuous sounds at a received sound 

level of 120 dB SPL or above. Potential 

takes of marine mammals may ensue 

from icebreaking activity in which the 

Healy is expected to engage outside of 

U.S. waters, i.e., north of approximately 

74.1° North. While breaking ice, the 

noise from the ship, including impact 

with ice, engine noise, and propeller 

cavitation, will exceed 120 dB (rms) 

continuously. If icebreaking does occur 

in U.S. waters, USGS expects it will 

occur during seismic operations. The 

exclusion zone (EZ) for the marine 

mammal Level B harassment threshold 

during the proposed seismic activities is 

greater than the calculated radius during 

icebreaking. Therefore, if the Healy 

breaks ice during seismic operations 

within the U.S. waters, the greater 

radius, i.e., that for seismic operations, 

supersedes that for icebreaking, so no 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60178 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

additional takes have been estimated 

within U.S. waters. 

Dates, Duration, and Specific 

Geographic Area 

The seismic survey is being 

conducted for approximately 36 days 

from approximately August 2 to 

September 6, 2010. The approximately 

806 km (501 mi) of tracklines within 

U.S. waters will be surveyed first. These 

survey lines are expected to be 

completed by approximately August 19, 

2010. The seismic vessel St. Laurent 

departed from Kugluktuk, Nunavut, 

Canada on August 6, 2010 and returned 

to the same port on approximately 

September 15, 2010. The Healy departed 

from Dutch Harbor, Alaska on August 2, 

2010, to meet the St. Laurent on August 

10, 2010. After completion of this 

survey, the Healy is changing crew 

through Barrow via helicopter or surface 

vessel on September 6, 2010 (see Table 

3 of the IHA application). The entire 

survey area will be bounded 

approximately by 145° to 158° West 

longitude and 71° to 84° North latitude 

in water depths ranging from 

approximately 1,900 to 4,000 m (6,234 

to 13,123 ft) (see Figure 1 and Table 1 

of the IHA application). Ice conditions 

are expected to range from open water 

to 10/10 ice cover. See Table 3 of the 

IHA application for a synopsis of the 

2010 St. Laurent and Healy Extended 

Continental Shelf expeditions in the 

Arctic Ocean, August 2 to September 15, 

2010. 

Icebreaking outside U.S. waters will 

occur between the latitudes of 

approximately 74° to 84° North. Vessel 

operations and ice conditions from 

similar survey activities and timing in 

2008 and 2009 were used to estimate the 

amount of icebreaking (in trackline km) 

that is likely to occur in 2010. USGS 

expects that the St. Laurent and the 

Healy will be working in tandem 

through the ice for a maximum of 23 to 

25 days while outside of U.S. waters. 

The average distance travelled in 2008 

and 2009 when the Healy broke ice for 

the St. Laurent was 135 km/day (83.9 

mi/day). Based on the 23 to 25 day 

period of icebreaking, USGS calculated 

that, at most approximately 3,102 to 

3,372 km (1,927.5 to 2,095.3 mi) of 

vessel trackline may involve 

icebreaking. This calculation is likely an 

overestimation because icebreakers 

often follow leads when they are 

available and thus do not break ice at all 

times. 

TABLE 3—PROJECTED 2010 ICEBREAKING EFFORT FOR USGS/GSC 2010 EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF SURVEY IN

THE NORTHERN BEAUFORT SEA AND ARCTIC OCEAN

Two-Ship 

operations 

(days) 

Two-Ship 

operations 

(km) 

km/day 

2008 ............................................................................................................................................. 19 2,469 130 

2009 ............................................................................................................................................. 27 37,744 140 

Average 2008 to 2009 ................................................................................................................. 23 3,122 135 

Projected 2010 ............................................................................................................................. 23–25 3,102–3,372 

Comments and Responses 

A Notice of Receipt of the USGS 

application and proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336). During the 

comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), the North 

Slope Borough (NSB) Office of the 

Mayor, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC). The public 

comments can be found online at: 

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

incidental.htm. The following are their 

comments, and NMFS’s responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS approve the 

requested IHA, provided NMFS 

ascertain who will be responsible for 

operating the Canadian vessel and the 

airguns and other instruments deployed 

from the St. Laurent and issue an IHA 

for these activities only if a U.S. agency 

or U.S. citizen(s) will be conducting 

those operations. 

Response: USGS’s EA has clarified the 

roles and responsibilities of the 

Canadian vessel St. Laurent while 

operating within and outside U.S. 

waters: 

‘‘The activity that the USGS is funding 

and undertaking in both the U.S. waters 

(maritime zones) and the high seas is to 

collect multi-beam, associated chirp 

sub-bottom data, and possibly sediment 

and rock samples both within and 

outside the 370.4 km (200 nmi) limit, as 

well as to break ice for the St. Laurent 

during operations in ice-covered area. 

The St. Laurent is a vessel entitled to 

sovereign immunity under international 

law, operated by the CCG with a seismic 

system owned and operated by Natural 

Resources Canada, and therefore not 

under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws or 

regulations outside the U.S. maritime 

zones where the U.S. has exclusive 

rights and jurisdiction. The USGS is 

acting as the responsible agency for 

MMPA, ESA, and NEPA for the St. 

Laurent while the St. Laurent is 

collecting seismic data within the U.S. 

EEZ. The operators of the seismic 

equipment on the St. Laurent have 

written a Categorical Declaration that, 

for operations in U.S. waters (i.e., within 

the U.S. EEZ), they will comply with 

any and all environmental mitigation 

measures required by NMFS and/or the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

(see Appendix C of the EA). There are 

no U.S. Federal funds that are 

supporting the costs of operating St. 

Laurent, or its seismic gear’’ (see p. 2 to 

3 of the EA). 

The GSC is collecting seismic data in 

U.S. waters at the request of the U.S. 

and would not otherwise be operating in 

U.S. waters. Dr. Jonathan Childs, USGS 

liaison aboard the St. Laurent, will be 

responsible for establishing the start and 

end points of the lines within U.S. 

waters and for compliance with 

conditions of the IHA. The Categorical 

Declaration from Natural Resources 

Canada, United Nations Convention on 

the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Program 

(see p. 116 in Appendix C of the EA) 

further states: 

‘‘While in U.S. waters (i.e., the U.S. 

EEZ), the GSC operators will comply 

with any and all environmental 

mitigation measures required by the 

NMFS and/or USFWS. A NMFS 

approved PSO and a U.S. liaison aboard 

the St. Laurent will be responsible for 

ensuring that all mitigation measures 

required by NMFS and/or USFWS are 

implemented while the St. Laurent 

operates in U.S. waters.’’ 

‘‘While operating in U.S. waters, the 

GSC operators of the seismic profiling 

system categorically consent to comply 

with all applicable U.S. laws, including 

the MMPA and the ESA, as well as any 

terms and conditions that may be 

required under an IHA issued by NMFS 

and any measures that may arise from 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60179 

ESA consultations with NMFS and/or 

USFWS. Operation of the seismic 

profiling system includes conditions 

under which the system will be turned 

on and operation continued or ceased in 

the presence of marine mammals 

(including polar bears), and the 

diversion of scientific tracklines for 

avoidance of observed wildlife. This 

declaration should in no way be 

constructed to influence or alter the safe 

operation of the vessel which is at the 

sole discretion of the CCG and its 

Commanding Officer.’’ 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS approve the 

requested IHA, provided NMFS work 

with the applicant to re-estimate 

exposures for ice-breaking activities 

based upon the total area that may be 

exposed to sound levels greater than or 

equal to 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

Response: The Commission’s 

concerns are that the USGS application 

states that an area of water 4,109 km2

(1,586.5 mi2) will be exposed to sound 

levels ≥120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) but that 

the marine mammal ‘‘takes’’ are 

estimated using a larger number of 5,137 

km2 (1,983.4 mi2) to allow for turns, 

repetition of certain tracklines because 

of poor data quality or minor changes in 

survey design (this larger number 

represents an uncertainty estimate of 

approximately 20 percent). A critical 

clarification is that the 4,109 km2 and 

5,137 km2 numbers are for estimating 

the area of takes within U.S. waters 

based on seismic operations, using a 

radius of approximately 2,500 m (8,202 

ft) (see page 69 of the EA) for the ≥160 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleths, and not on 

the area ensonified by continuous noise 

of icebreaking at ≥120 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

This approach was taken because the 

area of take for the seismic source ≥160 

dB re 1 μPa (rms), estimated at 

approximately a 2,500 m (8,202 ft) 

radius was greater than that estimated 

for ≥120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) of continuous 

sound from icebreaking, estimated at 

1,750 m (5,741.5 ft) radius (see page 213 

of the EA). The estimated area 

ensonified for icebreaking outside of 

U.S. waters is 11,802 km2 (4,556.8 mi2) 

(see p. 213 of the EA). 

A point of confusion in this 

clarification is that the original request 

from NMFS was to estimate takes from 

icebreaking, rather than the total area 

exposed to sound levels ≥120 dB re 1 

μPa (rms). The addendum on 

icebreaking (see Appendix J of the EA) 

only estimated takes for the Healy 

breaking ice outside of U.S. waters 

because there would be no additional 

takes for the sound of icebreaking 

within U.S. waters beyond those 

estimated for the seismic source. 

One can calculate the area of potential 

icebreaking within U.S. waters by using 

the estimated track length 

(approximately 806 km [500.8 mi], page 

69 of the EA) and the ≥120 dB μPa (rms) 

radius, estimated at 1,750 m (5,741.5 ft) 

(see page 213 of the EA), to get an 

ensonified area of 2,821 km2 (1,089.2 

mi2), which, with an additional 

uncertainty estimate of 20 percent totals 

3,385 km2 (1,307 mi2). This number is 

still smaller than either the 4,109 km2 or 

5,137 km2 numbers cited in the 

comments from the Commission. 

It is important to also clarify that (a) 

the USGS estimated icebreaking 

assuming that maximum noise of 

icebreaking would occur along the total 

length of tracklines. The preferred 

strategy operating in the ice is to follow 

leads whenever possible, which reduces 

the total icebreaking effort. Canadian 

and U.S. ice observers and analysts are 

aboard both vessels to select paths 

through the ice to minimize icebreaking; 

(b) for some part of the cruise, 

depending on ice conditions, the St. 

Laurent will be leading Healy so that 

high-quality multi-beam data can be 

collected, further reducing the amount 

of icebreaking the Healy will be doing 

(and therefore reducing the area of 

ensonfication for ≥120 dB re 1 μPa 

[rms]). The estimates of the area of 

ensonification in the EA and IHA do not 

include a correction for this type of data 

acquisition. Hence the area of 

ensonification is likely to be 

overestimated; (c) the tracklines are laid 

out to enable flexibility in where the 

ship may navigate through the ice, 

maximizing the opportunities to follow 

leads and reduce the requirement for 

icebreaking and therefore minimize the 

noise of icebreaking. Under 

international law as reflected in Article 

76 of UNCLOS, the ECS outer limit 

points are to be no more than 111.1 km 

(60 nmi) apart. The cruise tracks are 

planned 92.6 km (50 nmi) apart or less 

so that the vessels can deviate 

approximately 18.5 km (10 nmi) either 

side of the track to follow leads; and (d) 

based on the latest ice imagery for 

August 3, 2010, there will probably be 

no need to break ice within U.S. waters. 

As of August 3, 2010, http;// 

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ 

NEWIMAGES/ 

arctic.seaice.color.000.png shows the 

ice extent in the area north of the Alaska 

coast to be mostly open water. The PSOs 

aboard the Healy will be monitoring 

actual takes from icebreaking during the 

cruise, which can be compared with 

takes estimated and authorized in the 

IHA. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS approve the 

requested IHA, provided NMFS advise 

the applicant to consult with the 

USFWS regarding the need for a 

separate incidental taking authorization 

for walruses and polar bears. 

Response: On May 7, 2010, USGS 

requested that the USFWS review the 

operations for the summer 2010 Arctic 

Ocean geophysical experiment for 

potential impacts on Pacific walruses 

and polar bears. Given the USFWS’s 

understanding of polar bear and walrus 

distribution, the planned travel routes 

and locations of the activity, the USFWS 

believe that it is unlikely the proposed 

studies will result in any major 

disturbances or impacts to individual 

polar bears or walruses. Considering the 

relatively low likelihood of 

encountering polar bears or walruses, 

along with the limited impact and 

anticipated responses of affected 

animals that would likely ensue from an 

encounter with either or both vessels, 

the USFWS has determined that an 

incidental take authorization is not 

necessary for this project. See the 

USFWS’s informal ESA Section 7 

consultation letter regarding walruses 

and polar bears in Appendix E of the EA 

(p. 128 to 132). 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS approve the 

requested IHA, provided NMFS provide 

additional justification for its 

preliminary determination that the 

planned monitoring program will be 

sufficient to detect, with a high level of 

confidence, all marine mammals within 

or entering the identified exclusion 

zones (EZs). At a minimum, such 

justification should (1) identify those 

species that it believes can be detected 

with a high degree of confidence using 

visual monitoring only, (2) describe 

detection probability as a function of 

distance from the vessel, (3) describe 

changes in detection probability under 

various sea state and weather conditions 

and at night, and (4) explain how close 

to the vessel marine mammals must be 

for observer to achieve the anticipated 

high nighttime detection rate. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

planned monitoring program will be 

sufficient to visually detect, with 

reasonable certainty, most marine 

mammals within or entering identified 

EZs. This monitoring, along with the 

required mitigation measures, will help 

ensure the authorized taking effects the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. 

Until proven technological advances 

are made, nighttime mitigation 

measures during operations include 

combinations of the use of PSOs and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

night vision devices (NVDs). Should the 

airgun array be powered-down, it is 

believed that the operation of a single 

airgun continues to serve as a sound 

source deterrent to marine mammals. In 

the event of a complete shut-down of 

the airgun array, for mitigation or 

repairs, airgun operations are suspended 

until nautical twilight-dawn (when 

PSOs are able to clear the EZ). Airgun 

operations do not begin until the entire 

EZ radius is visible for at least 30 

minutes. In all likelihood there will be 

no nighttime start-ups for the time that 

the seismic data are collected in U.S. 

waters (mid-August), when 24 hour 

daylight is still occurring. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS approve the 

requested IHA, provided NMFS clarify 

the meaning of the qualifiers ‘‘when 

practical,’’ ‘‘if practical,’’ and ‘‘when 

feasible’’ to indicate how often and 

under what specific conditions the 

applicant expects to use (1) two 

Protected Species Observer (PSOs) to 

monitor the EZ for marine mammals 

during daytime operations and 

nighttime start-ups of the airguns, (2) 

crew members to assist PSOs in 

detecting marine mammals and 

implementing mitigation requirements, 

and (3) PSOs during daytime periods to 

compare sighting rates and animal 

behavior during times when seismic 

airguns are and are not operating. 

Response: The St. Laurent and Healy 

will carry trained, NMFS-qualified and 

experienced PSOs for the seismic study 

involving the use of airguns and 

icebreaking for the upcoming proposed 

project. PSOs are appointed by USGS 

with NMFS concurrence. USGS will 

utilize vessel-based PSOs to watch for 

and monitor marine mammals near the 

icebreaking and seismic source vessels 

during all daytime airgun operations 

and before and during start-ups of the 

airguns day or night. PSOs will have 

access to reticle binoculars and NVDs to 

scan the area around each vessel. PSOs 

will alternate between binoculars and 

the naked eye to avoid eye fatigue. 

During all monitoring periods, PSOs 

will be on duty from observation 

locations that allow for optimal 

monitoring capabilities. During meal 

times and restroom breaks it is 

sometime difficult to have the full 

complement of PSOs on effort, but at 

least one PSO will be on watch during 

those brief times. The complement of 

PSOs rotates shifts, with duty shift 

lasting generally one to four hours. 

Regarding the Commission’s subcomment (1), the intention and 

requirement is for two PSOs to stand 

watch during all seismic operations in 

U.S. waters, including cold start and 

ramp-ups. Only one PSO is on watch 

during daylight non-seismic operations. 

Two U.S. PSOs will join the St. Laurent 

before seismic operations begin in U.S. 

waters so that there will be five PSOs 

aboard the St. Laurent for all seismic 

data collected in U.S. waters. The 

restriction on the U.S. PSOs not 

standing watch for more than four hours 

at a time and the as yet unknown 

schedules of the Canadian watches 

makes actual schedules at this time 

unknown, hence the qualifiers ‘‘when 

practical,’’ etc., are used to account for 

this uncertainty. There may also be 

short periods of time, for example 

during mandatory fire and boat safety 

drills, when the PSOs on watch must 

leave their observing stations. It is the 

responsibility of the U.S. liaison aboard 

the St. Laurent working with the 

Canadian counterparts to develop a 

watch schedule consistent with the 

requirements of the IHA, especially for 

the ramp-ups, whether during the day or 

night. In all likelihood there will be no 

nighttime start-ups for the time that the 

seismic data are collected in U.S. waters 

(mid-August), when 24 hour daylight is 

still occurring. 

Canada will follow its own permitting 

requirements for watches and start-ups 

when operating outside of U.S. waters. 

The two U.S. PSOs aboard the St. 

Laurent during the time the St. Laurent 

is in U.S. waters will return to the Healy 

after the U.S. waters portion of the 

survey is completed and stand watch on 

the Healy to aid in sighting marine 

mammals and alert the PSOs aboard the 

St. Laurent of their sightings during the 

two ships’ operations. 

Regarding the Commission’s subcomment (2), the qualifiers to this 

condition refer to the situations in 

which (a) other members of the ship’s or 

scientific crew on either vessel notice a 

marine mammal near the vessel and 

report it to the bridge or the PSOs; (b) 

the bridge watch can assist in marine 

mammal observations during the night 

when the PSO is not required to be on 

the bridge; or (c) the bridge watch 

aboard the Healy (in the steering station 

above the bridge, which is the highest 

and best vantage point for making 

observations) sees marine mammals. It 

is impossible to predict the frequency 

that these situations will occur, only 

that many more eyes are available to 

spot marine mammals than those of the 

PSOs, and that these additional eyes 

should be used whenever possible, 

practical, or feasible. It is not the 

intention in any of these situations for 

the crew or the bridge to implement 

mitigation requirements because that 

authority is with the PSOs. However, 

the bridge often acts as a central point 

of communication among science crew, 

ship’s crew, and PSOs, and therefore 

plays a vital role in ensuring that the 

PSOs can implement appropriate 

mitigation procedures at the appropriate 

times. 

Regarding the Commission’s subcomment (3), the U.S. PSOs aboard the 

Healy (or when aboard the St. Laurent) 

will be on watch collecting marine 

mammal observation data whether the 

airguns are operating or not. When the 

Healy is operating independently of the 

St. Laurent (e.g., steaming north from 

Dutch Harbor or for operations at the 

beginning of the survey when in open 

water—and therefore independently 

surveying), the data collected by the 

PSOs is baseline data. For the seismic 

survey within U.S. waters, the St. 

Laurent will be steaming to the start of 

the tracks from the east and will have 

the U.S. PSOs aboard to record baseline 

observations during the steaming time. 

Both U.S. and Canadian observers will 

be recording baseline information for at 

least 30 min on site prior to initial startup and ramp-ups of the airgun 

operations during the survey. If the St. 

Laurent is operating independently in 

either international or Canadian waters, 

it is the responsibility of the Canadian 

Chief Scientist, using the conditions set 

forth in the Canadian permits to 

determine whether the Canadian 

observers will stand watch to collect 

baseline information. When the ships 

are operating together in international or 

Canadian waters, the PSOs aboard the 

Healy will be making observations 

either in front of the St. Laurent (during 

seismic operations) or behind the St. 

Laurent (during multi-beam operations). 

It is neither practical nor economical to 

pre-survey all tracks for the presence of 

marine mammals (and baseline 

behavior) prior to conducting seismic 

operations because of the huge area 

covered by the joint expedition, so the 

most likely baseline information to be 

collected will be at breaks in lines for 

repair or maintenance of the seismic 

gear and at the start of the survey. Using 

the experience of 2008 and 2009, halts 

in seismic acquisition for equipment 

maintenance generally occurred every 

48 to 72 hours and lasted from 6 to 48 

hours. Marine mammal observations 

made aboard the Healy cruise will allow 

the PSOs to collect baseline information 

whenever the seismic equipment is not 

operating. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS approve the 

requested IHA, provided NMFS propose 

to USGS that it revise its study design 

to collect meaningful baseline data on 

sighting rates for marine mammals. 

Such information is essential for a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60181 

realistic assessment of impacts from the 

proposed activities and recovery from 

those impacts. 

Response: NMFS is unclear about the 

Commission’s recommendation 

regarding the revision of USGS’s ‘‘study 

design.’’ Please clarify if you are 

referring to USGS overall study design 

or more specifically to the monitoring 

plan required under the MMPA. The 

purpose of the USGS’s project is for 

marine geophysical research, not to 

conduct a dedicated marine mammal 

research survey. Extending the survey is 

not practicable from an operational 

standpoint for the applicant. Due to the 

remote location of the survey and the 

length of time needed to conduct the 

requested science experiment, there 

may be little time left for the vessel to 

operate without the need for refueling 

and servicing. 

During the cruise, there will be 

significant amounts of transit time preand post-survey during which PSOs will 

be on watch (e.g., prior to and after the 

seismic portions of the survey). The 

collection of this observational data by 

PSOs may provide meaningful baseline 

data for marine mammals, but it is 

unlikely that the information would 

result in any statistically robust 

conclusions for this particular seismic 

survey. See NMFS responses to 

comments above. 

To augment detection and baseline 

observations, the U.S. liaison aboard the 

St. Laurent will request that prior to the 

start of seismic activities in U.S. waters, 

the GSC operators deploy a sonobuoy 

that can be monitored through an audio 

channel for the presence of whales for 

at least the 30 min time period that the 

vessel is on site before commencing 

seismic operations. Detected 

vocalizations can be used to augment 

visual observations. The sonobuoy 

audio information is only intended to be 

used to identify the presence or absence 

of animals because the relative direction 

and distance to vocalizing animals 

cannot be determined from these 

sounds. The sonobuoy information is 

not intended to be used for mitigation 

purposes. As stated in the IHA, seismic 

operations will not begin if any 

bowhead whales are seen or heard. Use 

of sonobuoys is contingent upon 

concurrence by GSC operators, who are 

generally supportive of collecting 

additional data in support of marine 

mammal observations. 

In addition, USGS proposes that the 

sonobuoy data from the refraction part 

of the experiment will be made 

available to an appropriate biologist or 

acoustician for analysis for the presence 

of marine mammals. The data is 

recorded continuously for 

approximately eight hours, and the 

sonobuoy records sounds not only from 

the airguns, but ambient noise and any 

other sounds long after the vessel has 

left the area. Although no noise trains 

that might be interpreted as marine 

mammal sounds have been definitively 

identified on the sonobuoys examined 

during 2008 and 2009 joint expeditions 

(Chian, pers. comm.), the sonobuoys are 

a source of information available for 

closer scrutiny. 

Comment 7: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS approve the 

requested IHA, provided NMFS require 

the applicant to collect information to 

evaluate the assumption that 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms) is the appropriate threshold 

at which harassment occurs for all 

marine mammals in the survey area. 

This assumption can and should be 

tested using in-situ measurements of 

sound propagation concurrent with 

observations of the responses of marine 

mammals exposed to such sounds. Such 

tests should be conducted using speciesspecific data, and test results should be 

used to inform decision makers 

regarding the applicability of the 160 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms) threshold for specific 

species and to improve future mitigation 

measures. 

Response: Behavioral responses to 

sound are context specific and can vary 

by species and other factors. However, 

there are not currently enough speciesspecific data showing how marine 

mammals respond to sound to support 

the development of separate harassment 

thresholds for every species. Therefore, 

NMFS uses the best available applicable 

data, which includes studies of several 

different species, to predict at what 

levels marine mammals are likely to be 

harassed and NMFS believes that the 

160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) threshold remains 

appropriate for the species in this 

project area. 

Regarding testing these behavioral 

harassment assumption, NMFS 

primarily relies on scientific research 

advances, and applicable monitoring 

results (where appropriate) to inform 

them. Behavioral response field studies 

that are able to definitively track what 

an animal is doing for some period of 

time (a baseline), expose it to a known 

received sound level, and record its 

behavior afterwards until it goes back to 

baseline are expensive and challenging 

to execute and while a few are currently 

underway, relatively few have been 

completed. Separately, in required 

monitoring measures, PSOs are required 

to make behavioral observations during 

seismic activities, however, while they 

can very effectively detect a marine 

mammal, identify it, and record its 

behavior at the surface for the moments 

that it is within view of the moving 

vessel—this information is typically not 

enough to support the development of a 

harassment threshold. Alternatively, 

there has been one longer-term (i.e., 

associated with a five year rulemaking) 

monitoring study that has generated 

numerous data of a robust and 

measureable nature through the 

deployment of an extensive hydrophone 

array. 

Regarding bowhead whales 

specifically, some published articles 

indicate that they may avoid seismic 

vessels at levels below 160 dB (rms), 

NMFS does not believe that these 

responses rise to the level of a take. 

Miller et al. (1999) indicated that some 

bowhead whales may have started to be 

deflected from their migratory path at 35 

km (21.7 mi) from the seismic vessel, 

during migration, however, as described 

in MMS’ 2006 Final Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment (PEA), this 

response has not been seen at other 

times of the year and during other 

activities. To show the contextual 

nature of this minor behavioral 

modification, recent monitoring studies 

of Canadian seismic operations 

indicated that feeding, non-migratory 

bowhead whales do not move away 

from a noise source at an SPL of 160 dB. 

NMFS therefore continues to estimate 

‘‘takings’’ under the MMPA from 

impulse noises, such as seismic, as 

occurring at 160 dB (re 1 μPa [rms]). 

Comment 8: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS approve the 

requested IHA, provided NMFS require 

the applicant to make observations 

during all ramp-up procedures to gather 

the data needed to analyze and report 

on their effectiveness as mitigation. As 

it has noted in past correspondence, the 

Commission would be pleased to 

discuss with NMFS the collection and 

analysis of such data and the design of 

such experiments to promote a better 

understanding of the utility and 

shortcomings of ramp-up as a mitigation 

measure. 

Response: The IHA requires that PSOs 

on the St. Laurent and Healy make 

observations for 30 min prior to rampup, during all ramp-ups, and during all 

daytime seismic operations and record 

the following information when a 

marine mammal is sighted: 

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

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 

approach, paralleling, etc., and 

including responses to ramp-up), and 

behavioral pace; and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

(ii) Time, location, heading, speed 

activity of the vessel (including number 

of airguns operating and whether in 

state of ramp-up or power-down), 

Beaufort wind force and sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

One of the primary purposes of 

monitoring is to result in ‘‘increased 

knowledge of the species’’ and the 

effectiveness of monitoring and 

mitigation measures; marine mammal 

reactions to ramp-up would be useful 

information in this regard. NMFS has 

asked USGS to gather all data that could 

potentially provide information 

regarding the effectiveness of ramp-ups 

as a mitigation measure. However, 

considering the low numbers of marine 

mammal sightings and low number of 

ramp-ups, it is unlikely that the 

information will result in any 

statistically robust conclusions for this 

particular seismic survey. Over the long 

term, these requirements may provide 

information regarding the effectiveness 

of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, 

provided animals are detected during 

ramp-up. 

A study investigating the efficacy of 

ramp-up has been jointly funded by the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) 

and the Joint Industry Programme (JIP). 

Post-cruise monitoring reports for 

numerous seismic surveys are currently 

available on the NMFS MMPA 

Incidental Take Program Web site 

should there be interest in further 

analysis of this data by the public. 

Comment 9: The NSB and its 

residents as well as the AEWC are 

concerned about potential health 

impacts to the environment associated 

with offshore development (i.e., 

industrial and commercial activities) on 

the North Slope. Activities allowed by 

the proposed authorization pose direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts on 

species (especially marine mammals) 

that are critical to the subsistence 

harvesting villages the AEWC represents 

and the NSB people’s subsistence 

harvest. 

Response: NMFS is unclear about the 

specific meaning of the term ‘‘health 

impacts’’ as used in the public 

comments. The USGS and NMFS are 

making every effort to minimize the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

through the federal NEPA, MMPA, and 

ESA process, as well as consulting with 

the Native communities. Cumulative 

impact assessments are USGS and 

NMFS responsibility under NEPA. The 

revised EA has addressed concerns 

about potential impacts using the best 

available science. In evaluating the 

severity of the impacts, it is important 

to realize that the proposed seismic 

activity within the U.S. EEZ is more 

than 100 km (54 nmi) offshore in a 

region well away from the main 

migration routes of the bowhead whale 

and will occur at a time prior to the 

bowhead whales beginning their fall 

migration from the Canadian Beaufort. 

Although a single individual bowhead 

whale has been identified in this region 

from tagging, there is little evidence to 

suggest that the location or timing of the 

survey overlaps with or interferes with 

bowhead whaling activities. As noted in 

the EA, ‘‘available information * * * 

does not indicate that marine and 

seismic surveys for oil and gas 

exploration activities has had detectable 

long-term adverse population-level 

effects on the overall health, current 

status, or recovery of marine mammal 

species and populations in the Arctic 

region. For example, data indicated that 

the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) 

bowhead whale population has 

continued to increase over the 

timeframe that oil and gas activities 

have occurred. There is no long-term 

displacement from habitat (although 

studies have not specifically focused on 

addressing this issue) * * * monitoring 

studies indicate that most fall migrating 

whales avoid an area with a radius of 

about 20 to 30 km (12.4 to 18.6 mi) 

around a seismic vessel operating in 

nearshore waters (Miller et al., 2002). 

USGS is not aware of data, however that 

indicate that such avoidance is longlasting after cessation of the activity’’ 

(EA, p. 81 to 82). Seismic survey 

activities in the Canadian and Russian 

Arctic occur in different geographical 

areas, therefore, they are not analyzed. 

NMFS does not allow activities in the 

Arctic, NMFS only authorizes the take 

of marine mammals incidental to an 

otherwise legal specified activity in a 

specified geographic area. 

Comment 10: The NSB is concerned 

that NSB communities are being 

overwhelmed by multiple planning 

processes both because of the 

constraints on time and expertise of 

communities and individuals and 

because of the seeming inability to 

meaningfully influence the decisions 

being made. 

Response: It is unfortunate that the 

NSB communities feel overwhelmed by 

the multiple planning processes, time 

constraints, and other issues. Because of 

the statutory timelines associated with 

the MMPA IHA process (which include 

the 30-day public review period), NMFS 

is also forced to work within 

challenging time constraints. However, 

NMFS has encouraged Arctic applicants 

to apply earlier than required by the 

regulations, which allows NMFS, NSB, 

BOEMRE, and the affected communities 

time to review the applications prior to 

meeting in Spring at the Open Water 

Meeting to discuss the applications. If 

the NSB has process recommendations 

that could make things easier for the 

communities while still allowing NMFS 

to meet our regulatory requirements, 

NMFS would be glad to discuss them. 

Separately, NMFS makes every effort to 

incorporate input from the NSB 

communities, where appropriate given 

our regulatory requirements. 

USGS included a statement about 

environmental justice in the EA, ‘‘the 

proposed action complies with EO 

12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-income Populations and EO 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. USGS solicited public comment 

on their Draft EA and published a 

Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register on June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33326). 

NMFS published a Notice of Receipt of 

the USGS application and proposed IHA 

in the Federal Register on July 8, 2010 

(75 FR 39336). The public comments 

were considered by USGS in developing 

the EA and by NMFS in developing the 

IHA. ‘‘As part of its Plan of Cooperation, 

USGS is hiring an Alaska native to be 

a member of the science crew, serve as 

an observer, and provide 

communication with the subsistence 

communities.’’ 

Comment 11: The NSB and AEWC 

recognize the efforts made by the USGS 

to meet with representatives of their 

communities and to provide 

information on the proposed seismic 

survey work planned for this summer. 

The AEWC appreciate the opportunity 

to receive information directly from the 

Federal agency planning the activities, 

and those efforts have helped to provide 

the AEWC with a better understanding 

of the proposed seismic surveys. The 

AEWC looks forward to further dialogue 

in the future should the Federal 

government continue with similar work 

in the Arctic, AEWC wishes to 

emphasize that, given the willingness of 

the USGS to work with the AEWC. The 

NSB and AEWC do no object to the 

issuance of an IHA for these operations, 

despite the serious process concerns 

raised in their public comments. 

Response: NMFS has issued an IHA to 

USGS for conducting a marine seismic 

survey in the Arctic Ocean from August 

to September, 2010, which includes the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements described below. 

Comment 12: The NSB and AEWC 

objects to the ongoing flawed public 

process employed by the NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources (OPR), in which 

it purports to accept and consider 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60183 

public comment (from local 

communities in regulating activities in 

the Arctic) on requests for Incidental 

Harassment Authorizations and in 

regulating activities in the Arctic. The 

AEWC strenuously objects to a public 

comment process that fails to provide an 

opportunity for meaningful input before 

the activities are scheduled to occur. 

Congress intended that the local 

impacted communities have an 

opportunity to provide substantive 

feedback to the Federal government 

before decisions are made and before 

any harassment takes place. The AEWC 

states that the people on the North 

Slope feel like they have no opportunity 

to influence government 

decisionmaking and therefore do not 

feel like NMFS’ decisions reflect the 

interests or input of the local whaling 

captains, who have invaluable 

observations and direct experience, 

developed over hundreds of 

generations, to offer. 

This particular case provides a stark 

example of how and why OPR’s process 

is flawed to the point of being irrelevant 

for the local impacted communities on 

the North Slope and must be wholly 

reformulated. The AEWC states that 

these issues have plagued OPR’s 

program for years, and despite many 

lessons learned in the offshore context 

over the past several years, nothing at 

OPR has changed for the better. The 

AEWC welcomes the opportunity to 

work with OPR leadership to improve 

upon this important regulatory program 

if NMFS and OPR are willing to make 

substantive changes to ensure adequate 

public participation and adequate 

protection of their local communities 

and the marine mammals upon which 

they depend. 

Response: In order to issue an 

authorization pursuant to Section 

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

determine that the taking by harassment 

of small numbers of marine mammals 

species or stocks will have a negligible 

impact on affected species or stocks, 

and will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

affected species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence uses. If NMFS is able to 

make these findings, the Secretary is 

required to issue an IHA. As required by 

the MMPA and its implementing 

regulations, NMFS published a Notice 

of Receipt of the USGS application and 

proposed IHA in the Federal Register 

on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336). All 

substantive public comments were 

considered by NMFS in developing the 

IHA and responses to those public 

comments can be found here in this 

notice. NMFS determined that it was 

able to make the required MMPA 

findings. 

For many years, NMFS has conducted 

the Arctic Open Water Meeting, which 

brings together the Federal agencies, the 

oil and gas industry, and affected Alaska 

Native organizations to discuss the 

proposed activities and monitoring 

plans. Local and traditional knowledge 

is considered at these times, and it is 

not too late for that knowledge to serve 

a useful purpose. These communities 

are also afforded an opportunity to 

submit comments on the IHA 

application and proposed IHA notice, 

which are then considered by NMFS 

before making a final determination on 

whether or not to issue an IHA. 

Comment 13: The AEWC states that in 

implementing the MMPA, NMFS has 

done everything in its power to gut 

Congress’ expressed intent to provide 

meaningful public participation. The 

way in which NMFS sequences the IHA 

applications and the public notices 

renders the public comment process 

ineffective and irrelevant for NMFS’s 

decision-making process. 

The NSB and AEWC state that in this 

action the proposed seismic activities 

were scheduled to begin at least two 

days before the public comment period 

closed. NMFS requested that comments 

be received by August 9, 2010, and the 

agency then supposedly has 45 days 

within which to analyze the comments 

and issue a final IHA. In the Federal 

Register notice, however, NMFS 

clarifies that USGS’s two ships intend to 

rendezvous in the survey area on 

August 7, 2010. The obvious problem is 

that the ships have been deployed, the 

crews have been informed of their 

operational restrictions, and seismic 

activities have likely commenced before 

NMFS receives public comment or 

issues the final IHA. As a result, the 

AEWC cannot possibly provide 

meaningful input into the operations or 

how they should be regulated. While the 

AEWC are being forced to write detailed 

comments on a lengthy IHA application 

and Federal Register notice, the ships 

are already out in the water adding 

noise to the marine environment and 

transiting the Chukchi Sea. The AEWC 

states that it is absolutely insulting for 

the activities to commence before the 

public comment deadline has even been 

closed. 

The AEWC states that it is readily 

apparent from this sequencing that 

NMFS is actually allowing the USGS to 

operate without an IHA (or simply 

looking the other way) during a 

significant portion of the planned 

activities. Based on past experiences, it 

has taken NMFS several weeks to 

review public comments and issue a 

final IHA. Here, USGS plans to operate 

during August and September, and yet 

the public comment period did not 

close until August 9. It’s very likely in 

this situation that USGS will therefore 

complete a majority of its planned 

operations before even receiving from 

NMFS the actual IHA, which spells out 

specific mitigation requirements such as 

monitoring of EZs and shut-down and 

ramp-up procedures. In its responses to 

comments, the AEWC requests explicit 

clarification from NMFS on whether 

and to what extent NMFS knew of or 

allowed USGS to conduct seismic 

activities before the IHA was issued. 

The AEWC also requests explicit 

clarification on whether USGS or NMFS 

was in violation of any provisions of the 

MMPA as a result. 

Response: NMFS received a revised 

IHA application from USGS that was 

deemed adequate and complete on June 

1, 2010. NMFS published a Notice of 

Receipt of the USGS application and 

proposed IHA in the Federal Register 

on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336), but due 

to the close of the 30 day public 

comment period falling on a weekend, 

the closing date was calculated as 

August 9, 2010 in the Federal Register. 

USGS was notified of the delayed 

closing date by NMFS. While it usually 

takes several weeks to address public 

comments, NMFS worked especially 

diligently to review and consider the 

comments in a timely manner such that 

NMFS could make a final decision in a 

time frame that would allow USGS and 

GSC to conduct the proposed seismic 

operations if NMFS did issue an IHA. 

NMFS does not authorize USGS to 

conduct seismic activities, NMFS 

authorizes the take of marine mammals 

incidental to an otherwise legal specific 

activity in a specified geographic area. 

While beginning seismic work in the 

U.S. EEZ on approximately August 7, 

2010, was the optimum plan for the 

two-icebreaker experiment, experiments 

this large always have contingency 

plans for unexpected conditions (such 

as weather, ice conditions, equipment 

maintenance, ship maintenance, other 

emergencies, etc.). In the case of this 

experiment, the St. Laurent had 

approximately 10 days of work planned 

inside the Canadian EEZ after the twoicebreaker experiment ended. This 

Canadian survey work was started to 

account for the delay in obtaining the 

IHA. Likewise, the Healy had 

contingency multi-beam survey work 

planned on the Beaufort margin that 

could be conducted independently of 

the St. Laurent in case open water 

would allow the vessels to operate 

independently. The Healy began this 

work and continued doing this survey 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60184 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

work until the St. Laurent entered the 

ice on her way north. The Healy and St. 

Laurent did not begin any activities that 

NMFS believes would result in the 

potential take of marine mammals until 

after they received the IHA on August 

11, 2010. 

Below is the sequence of dates and 

events of interactions between NMFS, 

USGS, and the GSC regarding the IHA 

and seismic survey: 

• August 2, 2010—Healy departed 

Dutch Harbor, Alaska. 

• August 6, 2010—St. Laurent 

underway from Kugluktuk, Nunavut, 

Canada. 

• August 8, 2010—Healy commenced 

hydrographic survey of U.S./Canada 

disputed zone. 

• August 9, 2010—Healy finished 

hydrographic survey of U.S./Canada 

disputed zone. 

• August 10, 2010—Healy and St. 

Laurent rendezvous, transfer personnel, 

and proceed in convoy toward U.S. EEZ. 

• August 11, 2010—Healy proceeds 

alone within U.S. EEZ for sampling 

program. IHA received via email and 

MSR received to conduct science 

operations in U.S. EEZ. 

• August 12, 2010—St. Laurent 

begins seismic operations (line 6) in the 

U.S. EEZ. 

• August 13, 2010—Healy joins the 

St. Laurent for seismic operations (line 

7). 

While USGS has yet to submit its 

draft 90 day monitoring report, NMFS is 

not aware of any incidences of noncompliance or violations of the MMPA. 

Comment 14: The AEWC states that 

the authorization itself must prescribe 

certain requirements such as 

‘‘permissible methods for taking by 

harassment,’’ ‘‘means of effecting the 

least practicable impact on such 

species,’’ measures to ‘‘ensure no 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock for 

taking for subsistence use,’’ 

requirements pertaining to ‘‘monitoring 

and reporting,’’ and for ‘‘independent 

peer review’’ of such monitoring and 

reporting if the taking may affect 

subsistence use. Indeed, NMFS’ 

regulations further provide that ‘‘any 

preliminary finding of ‘negligible 

impact’ and ‘no unmitigable adverse 

impact’ shall be proposed for public 

comment along with the proposed IHA.’’ 

Without understanding exactly how the 

IHA incorporates these requirements 

through specific language, the public is 

foreclosed from providing input on how 

the activities will be regulated. 

Response: The July 8, 2010, proposed 

IHA notice (75 FR 39336) contained all 

the relevant information needed by the 

public to provide comments on the 

proposed authorization itself. The 

notice contained the permissible 

methods of taking by harassment, means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on such species or stocks (i.e., 

mitigation), information that ensures no 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock for 

taking for subsistence use, and 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The notice provided detail on all of 

these points and, in NMFS view, 

allowed the public to comment on the 

proposed authorization and inform 

NMFS’ final decision. Additionally, the 

notice contained NMFS’ preliminary 

findings of small numbers, negligible 

impact, and no unmitigable adverse 

impact. 

NMFS’ implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.108(d) state that an 

independent peer review of a 

monitoring plan is required if the 

activity may affect the availability of a 

species or stock of marine mammals for 

taking for subsistence purposes. The 

independent peer review of monitoring 

plans for ITA applications is not 

required for activities that occur outside 

of Arctic waters or in Arctic waters if it 

is determined that the activity will not 

affect the availability of a species or 

stock of marine mammals for taking for 

subsistence purposes. The USGS 

provided NMFS with a draft IHA 

application in early March, 2010, which 

included information on the timing and 

location of its proposed seismic lines. 

The USGS application stated that the 

proposed survey will begin inside the 

U.S. EEZ and then move further and 

further offshore and eventually outside 

the U.S. EEZ for the majority of the 

survey. The lines inside U.S. waters 

were approximately 96.6 km (60 mi) 

from Barrow and will be surveyed for 

five days, planned for mid-August. If 

equipment or weather malfunctions 

cause some delays, the USGS had 

indicated to NMFS that they will be 

outside of the U.S. EEZ by August 25, 

which has been the typical shut-down 

date in the Beaufort Sea so that villages 

could begin to prepare for the fall 

bowhead hunt. This whaling shut-down 

date especially applies to activities 

occurring near Kaktovik and Cross 

Island. This survey will be occurring 

west of those two communities’ hunts. 

Based on this information, NMFS 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed USGS seismic survey would 

not affect the availability of bowhead 

whales for taking for subsistence 

purposes. Belugas are not hunted at this 

time of the year in this particular part 

of the Arctic. Additionally, while seal 

hunting can occur year round in the 

Beaufort Sea, it most commonly occurs 

from October until June (outside of the 

time frame of the USGS’s activity). 

Moreover, most seal hunting does not 

occur this far offshore. 

Therefore, since NMFS preliminarily 

determined (based on the information 

contained in the draft IHA application) 

that the USGS’s activity would not 

affect the availability of a species or 

stock of marine mammals for taking for 

subsistence purposes, NMFS 

determined that their activity did not 

trigger the requirement for independent 

peer review of the monitoring plan. The 

trigger for needing an independent peer 

review of the monitoring plan is slightly 

different than the ‘‘no unmitigable 

adverse impact’’ determination that 

NMFS must make prior to the issuance 

of an IHA. If the AEWC or other 

interested parties wish to have the 

opportunity to make comments on the 

monitoring proposed by the USGS for 

its seismic survey, comments may be 

provided to NMFS for consideration 

during the 30-day public comment 

period for the proposed IHA announced 

in the Federal Register notice. 

Comment 15: The Conflict Avoidance 

Agreement (CAA) contains protective 

measures that should have been applied 

to USGS’s operations to ensure effective 

communication between the ships and 

AEWC whaling captains and to ensure 

that those ships adhere to travel routes 

through the Chukchi that AEWC 

whaling captains have designated. The 

AEWC is particularly concerned 

because the Federal Register notice and 

the IHA application make clear that the 

USGS intends to transit the Healy 

through the Bering Strait, across the 

Chukchi Sea, and into the survey area 

in the Beaufort Sea during the first week 

of August, 2010. The NSB and AEWC 

states that vessel transit across the 

Chukchi, a major issue of concern for 

their whaling community and a focus of 

the Open Water Season CAA, was to 

begin even earlier. The NSB and AEWC 

also reiterates that NMFS should be 

imposing the mitigation measures 

developed in the CAA to ensure that 

regulated activities do not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence activities. In this case, the 

USGS plans to transit the Chukchi Sea 

in early August and the CAA speaks 

directly to this issue, with those 

provisions having been developed by 

whaling captains and offshore operators 

over several seasons. Neither USGS nor 

NMFS discusses in the IHA application 

or the Federal Register notice the 

potential impacts resulting from vessel 

transit or the protective measures 

developed by the AEWC, which have 

been approved by the local whaling 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60185 

captains. The AEWC asks for 

clarification from NMFS as to whether 

it views the USGS’s vessel transit as an 

activity that potentially results in take of 

marine mammals or adverse impacts to 

subsistence activities. The AEWC is 

concerned that NMFS failed to consider 

at all the potential impacts of vessel 

traffic to and from the survey area. A 

simple and straightforward manner to 

address these issues would be to adopt 

the provisions of the CAA or simply 

require the USGS the CAA as a basis for 

making the statutorily required findings 

of no unmitigable adverse impacts to 

subsistence activities. The AEWC states 

that it is extremely unfortunate that the 

AEWC are only being given an 

opportunity to comment on these 

activities as they are already occurring 

or have already occurred. 

Response: USGS, in the comments 

matrix of the EA, responded to the 

overall concern about complying with 

the CAA as follows ‘‘the CAA is 

intended primarily for oil and gas 

activities in the nearshore (see scope 

statement, p. 4 of CAA, industry 

funding of communication centers p. 14 

of CAA, etc.).’’ To the extent the 

proposed activity of this EA is to 

conduct work greater than 100 km (62.1 

mi) offshore, primarily for scientific 

research, the CAA is not directly 

applicable. 

However, USGS is following the spirit 

of the CAA through their Plan of 

Cooperation. Through discussions with 

the NSB and AEWC about conducting 

the seismic lines within the U.S. EEZ, 

i.e., the lines closest to the locations of 

the potential migration pathway of the 

bowhead whale and subsistence hunting 

activities, USGS has agreed to conduct 

these tracks at the beginning of the 

survey (early to mid August) when it 

should pose no interference or potential 

to interfere with the Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, 

or Barrow whaling seasons. 

Part of the Plan of Cooperation is for 

the Healy to also carry as part of the 

science party an Alaska Native 

community observer to ensure that 

communications with the subsistence 

community are maintained. Both the 

Healy and St. Laurent will have PSOs as 

part of the proposed strategy for 

monitoring and mitigation. 

With regards to the concern about the 

Healy in the Chukchi Sea, the Healy was 

on transit through the Chukchi Sea to 

begin work in the Beaufort Sea. The 

CAA requests that transiting vessels 

‘‘should remain as far offshore as 

weather and ice conditions allow and at 

all times at least 8 km (5 mi) during 

transit.’’ During transit, the Healy 

remained more than 48.3 km (30 mi) 

offshore during its transit through the 

Chukchi Sea. USGS also has hired a 

member of the Alaska Native 

community as an observer and 

communicator aboard the Healy. 

Therefore, although USGS has not 

specifically mentioned the CAA in the 

EA (and the CAA, which focuses on 

industry activities, is not directly 

relevant to the proposed USGS activity), 

USGS is following the spirit of the 

agreement. Location of the Healy’s 

transit track through the Chukchi Sea, as 

monitored by the sailwx.info 

organization can be found online at: 

http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/

shipposition.phtml?call=NEPP. 

The signing of a CAA is not a 

requirement to obtain an IHA. The CAA 

is a document that is negotiated 

between and signed by the industry 

participant, AEWC, and the Village 

Whaling Captains’ Associations. NMFS 

has no role in the development or 

execution of this agreement. Although 

the contents of a CAA may inform 

NMFS’ no unmitigable adverse impact 

determination for bowhead and beluga 

whales and ice seals, the signing of it is 

not a requirement. Despite the lack of a 

signed CAA for USGS activities, NMFS 

is confident that USGS’s survey and the 

measures contained in the IHA will 

ensure no unmitigable adverse impact to 

subsistence users. 

Comment 16: The NSB and AEWC 

reiterates earlier comments they have 

made with respect to previous IHA 

applications and proposed IHAs for this 

open water season, namely that OPR 

lacks an adequate scientific and legal 

basis for issuing the proposed IHAs. As 

an example, OPR continues to operate 

under flawed monitoring and mitigation 

measures that fail to provide adequate 

protections against takes for Level A 

harassment and do not adhere to the 

best available science. And, OPR 

similarly fails entirely to consider the 

impacts of this project in the context of 

all other oil and gas activities planned 

for the Arctic Ocean. As opposed to 

restating those comments, the NSB and 

AEWC incorporates them by reference 

and asks that NMFS give serious 

consideration to the concerns set forth 

in those earlier documents. 

Response: NMFS has addressed the 

NSB’s and AEWC’s comments 

submitted regarding earlier proposed 

IHAs for this open water season, see 

NMFS’ responses in the Notice of 

Issuance of IHAs for Shell Offshore, Inc. 

(75 FR 49710) and Statoil USA E&P (75 

FR 49760), published in the Federal 

Register. NMFS believes that USGS’ 

monitoring and mitigation measures are 

adequate (see Mitigation and Monitoring 

and Reporting sections below), and 

NMFS has determined that USGS’ 

activities will not result in Level A 

harassment (injury) or mortality of 

marine mammals, and no injury or 

mortality is authorized under the IHA. 

A number of public comments about 

the accuracy of data were raised in the 

EA and are addressed in the comment 

matrix (p. 228 to 232). USGS’s final EA 

and Finding of No Significant Impact 

can be found online at: http:// 

pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1117/. Included 

in the comment matrix are a response to 

questions about associations between 

seismic activity and to Level A 

harassment, strandings and mortality. 

USGS agrees that more data are 

required, but ‘‘nearly all cases have 

shown clear evidence of harm or cause 

of death by something other than 

underwater sounds.’’ The EA also 

expanded the section on cumulative 

impacts to address similar concerns 

raised in comments on the draft EA. 

Comment 17: The AEWC reiterates 

how this proposed project demonstrates 

the flawed nature of NMFS’ mitigation 

measures as they relate to EZs. As plain 

logic and the best available science tell 

us, EZs are only as effective as the 

people who monitor those areas for 

marine mammals. NMFS has stated that 

the PSO will not be on duty during 

nighttime operations and yet seismic 

operations will be allowed to continue 

24 hours per day (75 FR 39369). USGS 

survey crews will encounter as much as 

8.5 hours of darkness per day during the 

survey operations. During those times, 

NMFS states that bridge personnel will 

keep watch for marine mammals 

‘‘insofar as practical.’’ This requirement 

is meaningless, as anyone who has 

spent time on the water will tell you 

that no bridge personnel can identify 

marine mammals at night in Arctic 

conditions. It is absolutely unacceptable 

for NMFS to simply look the other way 

while vessels shoot seismic in the Arctic 

without any monitoring at all to prevent 

take by Level A harassment. Given the 

fact that the proposed operations will 

emit sounds well in excess of 190 dB 

(rms), and the fact that USGS will be 

operating without any observers for 

much of the time, AEWC fails to see 

how NMFS could possibly rule out the 

potential for take by Level A 

harassment. This determination simply 

has no basis in science or law. 

Response: It will be continuous 

daylight during most of the survey, 

which will accommodate 24 hour/day 

monitoring by PSOs during most of the 

survey. The IHA, which authorizes 

Level B harassment, is only valid for the 

St. Laurent and Healy’s activities 

associated with seismic survey 

operations within the EEZ of the U.S. 

and the Healy’s icebreaking operations 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60186 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

in international waters. The GSC has 

written a Categorical Declaration stating 

that ‘‘while in U.S. waters, the GSC 

operators will comply with any and all 

environmental mitigation measures 

required by NMFS.’’ The two icebreakers 

work cooperatively in U.S. waters for 

only a small portion (approximately 5 

days) of the seismic survey. NMFS has 

determined that USGS’ activities will 

not result in injury or mortality of 

marine mammals, and no injury or 

mortality is authorized under the IHA. 

Comment 18: Because the AEWC is 

responsible for protecting their bowhead 

subsistence hunt, that is the cornerstone 

of their subsistence livelihood and way 

of life, they take very seriously the 

changes and impacts the AEWC are 

seeing in their waters and the need for 

vigilant Federal regulatory oversight of 

potential impacts. The AEWC hope that 

NMFS and NOAA will take seriously 

the lessons being learned at the 

Department of the Interior regarding the 

costs of lax regulatory oversight, in the 

wake of the Deep Water Horizon 

disaster. Similarly, the AEWC hopes 

that these agencies will take seriously 

the legal risk their communities face in 

the context of an increasingly irrational 

process at the International Whaling 

Commission. 

Response: USGS and NMFS 

conducted a thorough analysis of the 

potential impacts of this proposed 

activity (with a focus on sound from 

geophysical surveys and icebreaking) on 

marine mammals; a cumulative impact 

analysis was also done under NEPA. 

Multiple studies and research have been 

cited that support NMFS’ MMPA and 

NEPA determinations that the localized 

and short-term disturbance from seismic 

surveys, with strict mitigation and 

monitoring measures implemented, is 

likely to result in negligible impacts to 

marine mammals and no significant 

impact to the human environment, 

respectively. NMFS does not have any 

direct role in issuing permits for 

offshore drilling other than evaluating 

impacts of leasing and other activities 

under the MMPA and ESA. NOAA has 

been in communication with the 

BOEMRE regarding activities on the 

outer continental shelf. 

Comment 19: The AEWC states that 

they are forced to write comments to 

NMFS expressing their concerns about 

impacts to their marine mammal species 

from operations that are supposedly 

regulated by NMFS that are already 

occurring out in the water. Rather than 

consult with the directly affected 

communities, as it has agreed to do, 

NMFS ignores the AEWC, allowing 

applicants to commence operations 

before reviewing their public comments 

submitted as part of the general public 

process, before responding to their 

comments, or even before the IHA has 

been issued. AEWC states that this is no 

more than a simple exercise in paper 

shuffling without any substantive and 

meaningful opportunity for input from 

the local community. 

Response: NMFS does not authorize 

operations in Arctic waters; NMFS 

authorizes the take of marine mammals 

incidental to an otherwise legal specific 

activity in a specified geographic area. 

NMFS disagrees with the AEWC’s 

statement regarding ignoring the review 

of their public comments submitted as 

part of the general public process. The 

AEWC submitted comments on the 

USGS IHA application and proposed 

IHA to NMFS OPR via email after the 

close of business on August 11, 2010 

and were reviewed by NMFS OPR on 

August 12, 2010. The public comment 

period for the USGS proposed IHA 

closed on August 9, 2010, and the IHA 

was issued to USGS on August 11, 2010, 

after reviewing and responding to 

substantive comments from the 

Commission and NSB. See other NMFS 

responses to comments in this notice 

regarding opportunities for substantive 

and meaningful input from the local 

community. 

Comment 20: AEWC states that NMFS 

is in plain violation of the MMPA by 

failing to provide to the public a 

‘‘proposed IHA.’’ Instead of providing a 

draft of the authorization itself, NMFS 

publishes a Federal Register notice that 

describes the application and the basis 

for the agency’s proposed statutory 

findings. Because the IHA is the specific 

authorization that governs the harassing 

activities, it is imperative that the 

AEWC be allowed input into the actual 

draft authorization and not simply be 

given a description of the mitigation 

measures and proposed findings. In a 

functional governmental system, NMFS 

would publish a draft authorization and 

take public comment on that document 

well in advance so that AEWC whaling 

captains could provide meaningful 

input. In the alternative and in the event 

of a timing issue, NMFS would consult 

directly with AEWC under the NMFS/ 

NOAA–AEWC Cooperative Agreement. 

Because the ships have already been 

deployed, it would be impossible for 

NMFS to consult with us or review the 

AEWC comments and, for instance, 

require USGS to implement more 

rigorous monitoring protocols. That is 

now impossible or impractical because 

the ships have already left port. This is 

but one example of NMFS disregard of 

its regulatory responsibilities and its 

utter lack of concern for the local 

impacts it is charged with preventing. 

Response: The July 8, 2010, proposed 

IHA notice (75 FR 39336) contained all 

the relevant information needed by the 

public to provide comments on the 

proposed authorization itself. The 

notice contained the permissible 

methods of taking by harassment, means 

of effecting the least practicable impact 

on such species or stocks (i.e., 

mitigation), information that ensures no 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock for 

taking for subsistence use, and 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The notice provided detail on all of 

these points and, in NMFS view, 

allowed the public to comment on the 

proposed authorization and inform 

NMFS’ final decision. 

Also, for many years, NMFS has 

conducted the Arctic Open Water 

Meeting, which brings together the 

Federal agencies, the oil and gas 

industry, and affected Alaska Native 

organizations to discuss the proposed 

activities and monitoring plans. Local 

knowledge is considered at these times, 

and it is not too late for that knowledge 

to serve a useful purpose. These 

communities are also afforded the 

opportunity to submit comments on the 

application and proposed IHA notice, 

which are then considered by NMFS 

before making a final determination on 

whether or not to issue an IHA. 

NOAA and the AEWC co-manage 

bowhead whales pursuant to a 

cooperative agreement. This agreement 

has allowed the AEWC to play a 

significant role in the management of a 

valuable resource by affording Alaska 

Natives the opportunity to protect 

bowhead whales and the Eskimo culture 

and to promote scientific investigation, 

among other purposes. NMFS works 

closely with Alaska Natives when 

considering whether to permit the take 

of marine mammals incidental to 

operations in the Arctic. NMFS has met 

repeatedly over the years with Alaska 

Native representatives to discuss 

concerns related to NMFS’ MMPA 

program in the Arctic, and has also 

taken into account recommended 

monitoring and mitigation measures to 

reduce the impact of operations on 

marine mammals and to ensure the 

availability of marine mammals for 

taking for subsistence uses. NMFS has 

participated in Alaska Native 

community meetings in the past and 

will continue to do so. 

Comment 21: The AEWC states that 

NMFS has a long track record of 

publishing its response to AEWC public 

comments many weeks and months 

after the IHA has been issued and after 

the activities have commenced (and in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60187 

many times concluded). This issue 

again convinces us that the AEWC 

comments are not given serious 

consideration by the agency before its 

decision has been made. If the agency 

cannot articulate a rationale response to 

public comments, it should not grant 

the requested authorization. Moreover, 

if activities are going to commence in 

AEWC waters, potentially interfering 

with subsistence activities or the 

migration of the AEWC’s marine 

mammals, the government owes us a 

reasoned response to their concerns 

before allowing the activities to proceed. 

Again, as the AEWC writes their 

comments, they know that the boats are 

already in the water, the activities will 

begin in a matter of days, and NMFS 

will not bother to respond to the 

AEWC’s concerns until well after the 

harmful activities have taken place. This 

is little more than an exercise in paper 

shuffling with the agency already 

having made up its mind or simply 

turning a blind eye to activities that will 

occur without coverage from a valid 

IHA. 

The AEWC states that NMFS’ public 

process is fundamentally broken and 

must be reformulated. NMFS should not 

allow USGS to commence operations 

until the AEWC has had the statutorily 

required opportunity to comment on the 

draft authorization and NMFS has 

published responses to those comments. 

Time and again, NMFS has requested 

input from the AEWC and other 

stakeholders into how the agency can 

better respond to the AEWC’s concerns. 

At bare minimum, the AEWC asks that 

NMFS reformulate its public 

participation process to provide 

meaningful opportunities for the local 

community. As it stands now, the 

agency has given every indication that 

it does not give serious consideration to 

the AEWC’s concerns. 

Response: NMFS does not agree with 

AEWC’s statement that NMFS’ failure to 

release its response to comments until 

after an IHA has been issued or 

activities have commenced casts doubt 

on the validity of NMFS’ public 

involvement process, or the underlying 

analysis of impacts to subsistence 

activities and marine mammals. All 

substantive public comments received 

during the 30 day comment period on 

proposed IHAs are seriously considered 

before NMFS’ decides whether to issue 

IHAs. The decision to issue an IHA to 

USGS for its proposed marine surveys 

in the Arctic Ocean is based in large 

part on NMFS’ definitions of ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ and ‘‘unmitigable adverse 

impact,’’ the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures, the scope of 

activities proposed to be conducted, 

including time of year, location, and 

presence of marine mammals in the 

project area, extensive research and 

studies on potential impacts of 

anthropogenic sounds to marine 

mammals, marine mammal behavior, 

distribution, and movements in the 

vicinity of USGS’s proposed project 

area, USGS’s Plan of Cooperation, and 

on public comments received during the 

commenting period. The reason that 

NMFS was not able to publish its 

response to comments on proposed IHA 

activities for USGS’s until the end of the 

survey activities was largely due to 

travel and workload issues. NMFS will 

continue to ensure that all public 

comments are considered in full and 

strive to publish responses at the time 

IHAs or LOAs are issued. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Activity Area 

Regarding marine mammals, a total of 

nine cetacean species, including four 

odontocete species (dolphins, porpoises, 

and small- and large-toothed whales), 

five mysticete species (baleen whales), 

and five pinniped species (seals, sea 

lions, and walrus) and the polar bear are 

known to occur in the area affected by 

the specified activities associated with 

the proposed Arctic Ocean marine 

seismic survey (see Table 3 of USGS’s 

application). Cetaceans and pinnipeds, 

which are the subject of this IHA 

application, are protected by the MMPA 

and managed by NMFS in accordance 

with its requirements. In the U.S., the 

walrus and polar bear are managed 

under the jurisdiction of the USFWS 

and are not considered further in this 

analysis. Information on the occurrence, 

distribution, population size, and 

conservation status for each of the 14 

marine mammal species that may occur 

in the proposed project area is presented 

in the Table 4 of USGS’s application as 

well as here in the table below (Table 4). 

Several marine mammal species that 

may be affected by the proposed IHA are 

listed as Endangered or Threatened 

under Section 4 of the ESA, including 

the bowhead, fin and humpback whale, 

and polar bear. The bowhead whale is 

common in the Arctic, but unlikely in 

the survey area. Based on a small 

number of sightings in the Chukchi Sea, 

the fin whale is unlikely to be 

encountered along the planned trackline 

in the Arctic Ocean. Humpback whales 

are uncommon in the Chukchi Sea and 

normally do not occur in the Beaufort 

Sea. Several humpback sightings were 

recorded during vessel-based surveys in 

the Chukchi Sea in 2007 (three 

sightings) and 2008 (one sighting; Haley 

et al., 2009). The only known 

occurrence of humpback whale in the 

Beaufort Sea was a single sighting of a 

cow and calf reported and photographed 

in 2007 (Green et al., 2007). Based on 

the low number of sightings in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas, humpback 

whales would be unlikely to occur in 

the vicinity of the proposed geophysical 

activities. 

The marine mammal species under 

NMFS jurisdiction most likely to occur 

in the seismic survey area include two 

cetacean species (beluga and bowhead 

whales), and two pinniped species 

(ringed and bearded seals). These 

species however, will likely occur in 

low numbers and most sightings will 

likely occur in locations within 100 km 

(62 mi) of shore where no seismic work 

is planned. The marine mammal most 

likely to be encountered throughout the 

cruise is the ringed seal. 

Five additional cetacean species— 

narwhal, killer whale, harbor porpoise, 

gray whale, and minke whale—could 

occur in the project area. Gray whales 

occur regularly in continental shelf 

waters along the Chukchi Sea coast in 

summer and to a lesser extent along the 

Beaufort Sea coast. Recent evidence 

from monitoring activities in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas during 

industry seismic surveys suggests that 

harbor porpoise and minke whales, 

which have been considered uncommon 

or rare in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

seas, may be increasing in numbers in 

these areas (Funk et al., 2009). Small 

numbers of killer whales have also been 

recorded during these industry surveys, 

along with a few sightings of fin and 

humpback whales. The narwhal occurs 

in Canadian waters and occasionally in 

the Beaufort Sea, but is rare there and 

not expected to be encountered. Each of 

these species is uncommon or rare in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and 

relatively few if any encounters with 

these species are expected during the 

seismic program. 

Additional pinniped species that 

could be encountered during the 

proposed seismic survey include 

spotted and ribbon seals, and Pacific 

walrus. Spotted seals are more abundant 

in the Chukchi Sea and occur in small 

numbers in the Beaufort Sea. The ribbon 

seal is uncommon in the Chukchi Sea 

and there are few sightings in the 

Beaufort Sea. The Pacific walrus is 

common in the Chukchi Sea, but 

uncommon in the Beaufort Sea and not 

likely to occur in the deep waters of the 

proposed survey area. None of these 

species would likely be encountered 

during the proposed cruise other than 

perhaps transit periods to and from the 

survey area. 

Table 4 below outlines the marine 

mammal species, their habitat and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60188 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

abundance in the proposed project area, 

their conservation status, and density. 

Additional information regarding the 

distribution of these species expected to 

be found in the project area and how the 

estimated densities were calculated may 

be found in USGS’s IHA application and 

was included in the notice of the 

proposed IHA (75 FR 39336, July 8, 

2010). 

TABLE 4—THE HABITAT, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, CONSERVATION STATUS, AND BEST AND MAXIMUM DENSITY ESTIMATES

OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. See 

TABLE 4 AND 5 IN USGS’S APPLICATION FOR FURTHER DETAIL

Species Habitat Abundance/regional 

population size ESAa MMPAo

Best b density 

(#/km2) open 

water, ice margin, polar pack 

Max c density (#/ 

km2) open water, 

ice margin, polar 

pack 

Odontocetes: 

Beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus 

leucas).

Offshore, coastal, ice 

edges.

3,710 d ........................

39,257 e ......................

NL NC ..............................

D—Cook Inlet .............

0.0354 

0.0354 

0.0035 

0.0709 

0.0709 

0.0071 

Narwhal (Monodon 

monocerus).

Offshore, ice edge ...... Rare f .......................... NL N.A. ............................ 0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0001 

0.0002 

0.0001 

Killer whale 

(Orcinus orca).

Widely distributed ....... Rare ............................ NL NC ..............................

D—AT1 Transient 

Population, Southern Resident Population.

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.0001 

Harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena 

phocoena).

Coastal, inland waters, 

shallow offshore waters.

Common (Chukchi) ....

Uncommon (Beaufort) 

NL NC .............................. 0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.0001 

Mysticetes: 

Bowhead whale 

(Balaena 

mysticetus).

Pack ice and coastal .. 10,545 g ...................... EN D ................................. N.A. N.A. 

Eastern Pacific 

gray whale 

(Eschrichtius 

robustus).

Coastal, lagoons ........ 488 h ...........................

17,500 i .......................

NL NC ..............................

D—Western North Pacific Population.

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.0001 

Minke whale 

(Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Shelf, coastal .............. Small numbers ........... NL NC .............................. 0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.0001 

Fin whale 

(Balaenoptera 

physalus).

Slope, mostly pelagic Rare (Chukchi) ........... E D ................................. 0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.0001 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Shelf, coastal .............. Rare ............................ EN D ................................. 0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.0001 

Pinnipeds: 

Bearded seal 

(Erignathus 

barbatus).

Pack ice, open water 300,000—450,000 j ..... C NC .............................. 0.0096 

0.0128 

0.0013 

0.0384 

0.0512 

0.0051 

Spotted seal 

(Phoca largha).

Pack ice, open water, 

coastal haul-outs.

59,214 k ...................... P–T NC .............................. 0.0001 

0.0001 

0.0000 

0.0004 

0.0004 

0.0000 

Ringed seal 

(Phoca hispida).

Landfast and pack ice, 

open water.

18,000 l .......................

208,000–252,000 m ....

C NC .............................. 0.1883 

0.2510 

0.0251 

0.7530 

1.0040 

0.1004 

Ribbon seal 

(Histriophoca 

fasciata).

Pack ice, open water 90,000–100,000 n ....... NL NC .............................. N.A. N.A. 

Pacific walrus 

(Odobenus 

rosmarus 

divergens).

Ice, coastal ................. N.A. ............................ NL S—Pacific ................... N.A. N.A. 

Carnivores: Polar bear 

(Ursus maritimus 

marinus) 

Ice, coastal ................. N.A. ............................ T S—Chukchi/Bearing 

Sea.

N.A. N.A. 

N.A.—Data not available or species status was not assessed. 

a U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate, P = Proposed, NL = Not listed. 

bBest estimate as listed in Table 5 and Add-3 of the application. 

c Maximum estimate as listed in Table 5 and Add-3 of the application. 

dEastern Chukchi Sea stock based on 1989 to 1991 surveys with a correction factor (Angliss and Allen, 2009) 

eBeaufort Sea stock based on surveys in 1992 (Angliss and Allen, 2009) 

f DFO (2004) states the population in Baffin Bay and the Canadian Arctic archipelago is approximately 60,000; very few of these enter the 

Beaufort Sea. gAbundance of bowhead whales surveyed near Barrow, as of 2001 (George et al., 2004). Revised to 10,545 by Zeh and Punt (2005). hSouthern Chukchi Sea and northern Bering Sea (Clarks and Moore, 2002) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60189 

iEastern North Pacific gray whale population (Rugh et al., 2008) 

jBased on earlier estimates, no current population estimate available (Angliss and Allen, 2009) 

kAlaska stock based on aerial surveys in 1992 (Angliss and Allen, 2009) 

lBeaufort Sea minimum estimate with no correction factor based on aerial surveys in 1996 to 1999 (Frost et al., 2002 in Angliss and Allen, 

2009) m Eastern Chukchi Sea population (Bengston et al., 2005) nBering Sea population (Burns, 1981a in Angliss and Allen, 2009) 

o U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: NC = Not Classified, D = Depleted, S = Strategic. 

Within the latitudes of the proposed 

survey when the Healy will be breaking 

ice outside of U.S. waters, no cetaceans 

were observed by PSOs along 

approximately 21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) 

of effort during projects in 2005, 2006, 

2008, and 2009 (Haley and Ireland, 

2006; Haley, 2006; Jackson and 

DesRoches, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009). 

The estimated maximum amount of 

icebreaking outside of U.S. waters for 

this project, i.e., 3,372 line km (2,095.3 

mi), is considerably less than the 

combined trackline for the 

aforementioned projects. At least one 

PSO will stand watch at all times while 

the Healy is breaking ice for the St. 

Laurent. USGS does not expect that 

PSOs will observe any cetaceans during 

the proposed survey. Seals were 

reported by PSOs during the 2005, 2006, 

2008, and 2009 effort within the 

latitudes of the proposed survey. 

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF PINNIPEDS REPORTED DURING 2005, 2006, 2008, AND 2009 PROJECTS WITHIN THE LATITUDES

WHERE THE Healy WILL BE BREAKING ICE OUTSIDE OF U.S. WATERS FOR THE PROPOSED ARCTIC OCEAN SURVEY

(HALEY AND IRELAND, 2006; HALEY, 2006, GSC UNPUBLISHED DATA, 2008; MOSHER ET AL., 2009) 

Pinniped species Number of 

sightings 

Number of 

individuals 

Ringed seal .............................................................................................................................................................. 116 125 

Bearded seal ............................................................................................................................................................ 24 26 

Unidentified seal ...................................................................................................................................................... 128 140 

Totals ................................................................................................................................................................ 268 291 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds 

The effects of sounds from airguns 

might result in one or more of the 

following: tolerance, masking of natural 

sounds, behavioral disturbances, 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, or non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects (Richardson et al., 

1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et 

al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). 

Permanent hearing impairment, in the 

unlikely event that it occurred, would 

constitute injury, but temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) is not an injury 

(Southall et al., 2007). Although the 

possibility cannot be entirely excluded, 

it is unlikely that the project would 

result in any cases of temporary or 

especially permanent hearing 

impairment, or any significant nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects. Some behavioral disturbance is 

expected, but this would be localized 

and short-term. 

The notice of the proposed IHA (75 

FR 39336, July 8, 2010) included a 

discussion of the effects of sound from 

airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and 

pinnipeds, including tolerance, 

masking, behavioral disturbance, 

hearing impairment, and other nonauditory physical effects. Additional 

information on the behavioral reactions 

(or lack thereof) by all types of marine 

mammals to seismic vessels can be 

found in USGS’s application and 

associated EA. 

The notice of the proposed IHA also 

included a discussion of the potential 

effects of the multi-beam echosounders 

(MBES), sub-bottom profilers (SBP), 

acoustic Doppler current profilers 

(ADCP), and icebreaking activities. 

Because of the shape of the beams of 

these sources (i.e., MBES, SBP, and 

ADCP), NMFS believes it unlikely that 

marine mammals will be exposed to 

sound levels at or above those likely to 

cause Level B harassment. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals by 

Incidental Harassment 

The notice of the proposed IHA (75 

FR 39336, July 8, 2010) included an indepth discussion of the methods used to 

calculate the densities of the marine 

mammals in the area of the seismic 

survey and the take estimates. 

Additional information was included in 

USGS’s application. A summary is 

included here. 

All anticipated takes would be ‘‘takes 

by Level B harassment,’’ involving 

temporary changes in behavior. The 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures are expected to minimize the 

possibility of injurious takes or 

mortality. However, as noted earlier, 

there is no specific information 

demonstrating that injurious ‘‘takes’’ or 

mortality would occur even in the 

absence of the planned monitoring and 

mitigation measures. NMFS believes, 

therefore, that injurious take or 

mortality to the affected species marine 

mammals is extremely unlikely to occur 

as a result of the specified activities 

within the specified geographic area for 

which USGS seeks the IHA. The 

sections below describe methods to 

estimate ‘‘take by harassment,’’ and 

present estimates of the numbers of 

marine mammals that could be affected 

during the seismic study in the Arctic 

Ocean. The estimates of ‘‘take by 

harassment’’ are based on data obtained 

during marine mammal surveys in and 

near the Arctic Ocean by Stirling et al. 

(1982), Kingsley (1986), Moore et al. 

(2000b), Haley and Ireland (2006), Haley 

(2006), GSC unpublished data (2008), 

and Mosher et al. (2009), Bowhead 

Whale Aerial Survey Program (BWASP), 

and on estimates of the sizes of the areas 

where effects could potentially occur. In 

some cases these estimates were made 

from data collected from regions and 

habitats that differed from the proposed 

project area. 

Detectability bias, quantified in part 

by ƒ(0), is associated with diminishing 

sightability with increasing lateral 

distance from the trackline. Availability 

bias (g[0]) refers to the fact that there is 

less than 100 percent probability of 

sighting an animal that is present along 

the survey trackline. Some sources of 

densities used below included these 

correction factors in their reported 

densities. In other cases the best 

densities used below included these 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60190 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

correction factors in their reported 

densities. In other cases the best 

available correction factors were applied 

to reported results when they had not 

been included in the reported data 

(Moore et al., 2000b). Adjustments to 

reported population or density estimates 

were made on a case by case basis to 

take into account differences between 

the source data and the general 

information on the distribution and 

abundance of the species in the 

proposed project area. 

Although several systematic surveys 

of marine mammals have been 

conducted in the southern Beaufort Sea, 

few data (systematic or otherwise) are 

available on the distribution and 

numbers of marine mammals in the 

northern Beaufort Sea or offshore water 

of the Arctic Ocean. The main sources 

of distributional and numerical data 

used in deriving the estimates are 

described in the next subsection. Both 

‘‘maximum estimates’’ as well as ‘‘best 

estimates’’ of marine mammal densities 

(see Table 5 of the IHA application) and 

the numbers of marine mammals 

potentially exposed to underwater 

sound (see Table 6 of the IHA 

application) were calculated as 

described below. The best (or average) 

estimate is based on available 

distribution and abundance data and 

represents the most likely number of 

animals that may be encountered during 

the survey, assuming no avoidance of 

the airguns or vessel. The maximum 

estimate is either the highest estimate 

from applicable distribution and 

abundance data or the average estimate 

increased by a multiplier intended to 

produce a very conservative (over) 

estimate of the number of animals that 

may be present in the survey area. There 

is some uncertainty about how 

representative the available data are and 

the assumptions used below to estimate 

the potential ‘‘take by harassment.’’ 

However, the approach used here is 

accepted by NMFS as the best available 

at this time. 

USGS has calculated exposures to 

marine mammals within U.S. waters 

only. After the St. Laurent (a Canadian 

icebreaker) exits U.S. waters, their 

activities no longer fall under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. or the MMPA. 

The following estimates are based on 

a consideration of the number of marine 

mammals that might be disturbed 

appreciably over the approximately 806 

line km (501 mi) of seismic surveys 

within U.S. waters across the Arctic 

Ocean. An assumed total of 1,007.5 km 

(626 mi) of trackline includes a 25 

percent allowance over and above the 

planned approximately 806 km to allow 

for turns, lines that might have to be 

repeated because of poor data quality, or 

for minor changes to the survey design. 

The anticipated radii of influence of 

the lower energy sound sources 

including Chirp echosounder (on the St. 

Laurent) and bathymetric echosounder 

(on the Healy) are less than that for the 

airgun configuration. It is assumed that 

during simultaneous operation of the 

airgun array and echosounder, any 

marine mammals close enough to be 

affected by the MBES, SBP, and ADCP 

would already be affected by the 

airguns. However, whether or not the 

airguns are operating simultaneously 

with the other sound sources, marine 

mammals are expected to exhibit no 

more than short-term and 

inconsequential responses to the MBES, 

SBP, and ADCP sounder given its 

characteristics (e.g., narrow downwarddirected beam) and other considerations 

described in the IHA application. 

Similar responses are expected from 

marine mammals exposed to the Healy’s 

bathymetric profiler. Such reactions are 

not considered to constitute ‘‘taking’’ as 

defined by NMFS (NMFS, 2001). 

Therefore, no additional allowance is 

included for animals that might be 

exposed to sound sources other than the 

airguns and icebreaking. 

Marine Mammal Density Estimates 

Numbers of marine mammals that 

might be present and potentially 

disturbed are estimated based on 

available data about marine mammal 

distribution and densities in the Arctic 

Ocean study area during the summer. 

‘‘Take by harassment’’ is calculated by 

multiplying expected densities of 

marine mammals likely to occur in the 

survey area by the area of water 

potentially ensonified to sound levels 

≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for the airgun 

operations and ≥120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

for icebreaking activities. Estimates for 

icebreaking are based on a consideration 

of the number of marine mammals that 

might be disturbed appreciably over the 

approximately 3,102 to 3,372 line km 

(1,927.5 to 2,095.3 mi) of icebreaking 

that may occur during the proposed 

project. This section provides 

descriptions of the estimated densities 

of marine mammals that may occur in 

the proposed survey area. The area of 

water that may be ensonified to the 

indicated sound level is described 

further below. There is no evidence that 

avoidance at received sound levels ≥160 

dB would have significant effects on 

individual animals or that the subtle 

changes in behavior or movements 

would rise to the level of taking 

according to guidance by NMFS (NMFS, 

2001). 

Some surveys of marine mammals 

have been conducted near the southern 

end of the proposed project area, but 

few data are available on the species 

and abundance of marine mammals in 

the northern Beaufort Sea and the Arctic 

Ocean. No published densities of 

marine mammals are available for the 

region of the proposed survey 

(including between 74° and 84° North 

where the Healy will be breaking ice 

outside U.S. waters), although vesselbased surveys through the general area 

in 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 

encountered few marine mammals. A 

total of two polar bears, 36 seals, and a 

single beluga whale sighting(s) were 

recorded along approximately 2,299 km 

(1,429 mi) of monitored trackline 

between 71° North and 74° North (Haley 

and Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006; GSC 

unpublished data, 2008; Mosher et al., 

2009). PSOs recorded 268 sightings of 

291 individual seals along 

approximately 21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) 

of monitored trackline between 74° and 

84° North (Haley and Ireland, 2006; 

Haley, 2006; GSC unpublished data, 

2008; Mosher et al., 2009). No cetaceans 

were observed during the surveys 

between 74° and 84° North. Given the 

few sightings of marine mammals along 

the 21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) vessel 

trackline in previous years, USGS 

estimate that the densities of marine 

mammals encountered while breaking 

ice will be 1/10 of the estimated 

densities of marine mammals 

encountered within the ice margin 

habitat described in the original 

application. 

Given that the survey lines within 

U.S. waters extend from latitudes 71° to 

74° North, it is likely that seismic 

operations will be conducted in both 

open-water and sea-ice conditions. 

Because densities of marine mammals 

often differ between open-water and 

pack-ice areas, the likely extent of the 

pack-ice at the time of the survey was 

estimated. Images of average monthly 

sea ice concentration for August from 

2005 through 2009, available from the 

National Snow and Ice Data Center 

(NSIDC), were used to identify 74° 

North latitude as a reasonable ice-edge 

boundary applicable to the proposed 

study period and location. Based on 

these satellite data, the majority of the 

survey in U.S. waters will be conducted 

in open water and unconsolidated pack 

ice, in the southern latitudes of the 

survey area. This region will include the 

ice margin where the highest densities 

of cetaceans and pinnipeds are likely to 

be encountered. The proposed survey 

lines within U.S. waters reach 

approximately 74.10° North, extending 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60191 

within the estimated ice-edge boundary 

for August, 2010 by approximately 19 

km (10 nmi). This comprises less than 

3 percent of the total trackline within 

U.S. waters. USGS has divided the 

survey effort between the two habitat 

zones of open water and ice margin 

based on the 2005 to 2009 NSIDC 

satellite data described above and the 

planed location of the tracklines. NSIDC 

data from 2005 to 2009 suggests little ice 

will be present south of 74° North, 

although data from the 2009 cruise 

(Mosher et al., 2009) shows that interannual variability could result in a 

greater amount of ice being encountered 

than expected. As a conservative 

measure, USGS estimated that, within 

U.S. waters, 80 percent of the survey 

tracklines will occur in open water and 

20 percent of the tracklines will occur 

within the ice margin. 

The NSIDC (2009) reported that more 

Arctic sea ice cover in 2009 remained 

after the summer than in the recordsetting low years of 2007 and 2008. 

USGS expects that sea ice density and 

extent in 2010 will be closer to the 

density and extent of sea ice in 2009 

rather than the record-setting low years 

of 2007 and 2008. All animals observed 

during the 2009 survey (Mosher et al., 

2009) were north of the proposed 

seismic survey area, i.e., north of 74° 

North. 

Cetaceans—Average and maximum 

densities for each cetacean species or 

species group reported to occur in U.S. 

waters of the Arctic Ocean, within the 

study area, are presented in Table 5 of 

the IHA application. Densities were 

calculated based on the sightings and 

effort data from available survey reports. 

No cetaceans were observed during 

surveys near the proposed study area in 

August/September, 2005 (Haley and 

Ireland, 2006), August, 2006 (Haley, 

2006), August/September, 2008 (GSC 

unpublished data, 2008) or August/ 

September, 2009 (Mosher et al., 2009). 

Seasonal (summer and fall) 

differences in cetacean densities along 

the north coast of Alaska have been 

documented by Moore et al. (2000b). 

The proposed survey will be conducted 

in U.S. waters from approximately 

August 6 to 12, 2010, and is considered 

to occur during the summer season. 

The summer beluga density (see Table 

5 of the IHA application) was based on 

41 sightings along 9,022 km (5,606 mi) 

of on-transect effort that occurred over 

water greater than 2,000 m (6,561.7 ft) 

during the summer in the Beaufort Sea 

(Moore et al., 2000b; see Table 2 of the 

IHA application). A mean group size of 

2.8 derived from BWASP data of August 

beluga sightings in the Beaufort Sea in 

water depths greater than 2,000 m was 

used in the density calculation. A ƒ(0) 

value of 2.326 from Innes et al. (1996) 

and a g(0) value of 0.419 from Innes et 

al. (1996) and Harwood et al. (1996) 

were also used in the density 

computation. The CV associated with 

group size was used to select an 

inflation factor of 2 to estimate the 

maximum density that may occur in the 

proposed study area within U.S. waters. 

Most Moore et al. (2000b) sightings were 

south of the proposed seismic survey. 

However, Moore et al. (2000b) found 

that beluga whales were associated with 

both light (1 to 10 percent) and heavy 

(70 to 100 percent) ice cover. Five of 23 

beluga whales that Suydam et al. (2005) 

tagged in Kaseglauk Lagoon (northeast 

Chukchi Sea) traveled to 79 to 80° North 

into the pack ice and within the region 

of the proposed survey. These and other 

tagged whales moved into areas as far as 

1,100 km (594 nmi) offshore between 

Barrow and the Mackenzie River delta, 

spending time in water with 90 percent 

ice coverage. Therefore, we applied the 

observed density calculated from the 

Moore et al. (2000b) sightings as the 

average density for both ‘‘open water’’ 

and ‘‘ice margin’’ habitats. Because no 

beluga whales were sighted during 

surveys in the proposed survey area 

(Harwood et al., 2005; Haley and 

Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006; GSC 

unpublished data, 2008; and Mosher et 

al., 2009) the densities in Table 5 of the 

IHA application are probably higher 

than densities likely to be encountered. 

By the time the survey begins in early 

August, most bowhead whales have 

typically traveled east of the proposed 

project area to summer in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf. 

Industry aerial surveys of the 

continental shelf near Camden Bay in 

2008 recorded eastward migrating 

bowhead whales until July 12 (Lyons 

and Christie, 2009). No bowhead 

sightings were recorded again despite 

continued flights until August 19, 2010. 

A summer bowhead whale density was 

derived from 9,022 km (5,606 mi) of 

summer (July/August) aerial survey 

effort reported by Moore et al. (2000b) 

in the Alaska Beaufort Sea during which 

six sightings of bowhead whales were 

documented in water greater than 2,000 

m (6,561.7 ft). A mean group size of 

bowhead whale sightings in September, 

in waters greater than 2,000 m deep, 

was calculated to be 1.14 (CV = 0.4) 

from BWASP data. A ƒ(0) value of 2.33 

and g(0) value of 0.073, both from 

Thomas et al. (2002) were used to 

estimate a summer density for bowhead 

whales of 0.0122 whales/km2. This 

density falls within the range of 

densities, i.e., 0.0099 to 0.0717 whales/ 

km2, reported by Lyons and Christie 

(2009) based on data from three July, 

2008 surveys. 

Treacy et al. (2006) reported that in 

years of heavy ice conditions, bowhead 

whales occur farther offshore than in 

years of light to moderate ice. NSIDC 

(2009) reported that September, 2009 

had the third lowest sea ice extent since 

the start of their satellite records in 

1979. The extent of sea ice at the end 

of the 2009 Arctic summer, however, 

was greater than in 2007 or 2008. USGS 

does not expect 2010 to be a heavy ice 

year during which bowhead whales 

might occur farther offshore in the area 

of the proposed survey. During the 

lowest ice-cover year on record (2007), 

BWASP reported no bowhead whale 

sightings in the greater than 2,000 m 

depth waters far offshore. Because few 

bowhead whales have been documented 

in the deep offshore waters of the 

proposed survey area, half of the 

bowhead whale density estimate from 

size and standard error reported in 

Thomas et al. (2002) for ƒ(0) and g(0) 

correction factors suggest that an 

inflation factor of two is appropriate for 

estimating the maximum density from 

the average density. NSIDC did not 

forecast that 2010 would be a heavy ice 

year and USGS anticipates that 

bowheads will remain relatively close to 

shore, and in areas of light ice coverage. 

Therefore, USGS has applied the same 

density for bowheads to the open-water 

and ice-margin categories. Bowhead 

whales were not sighted during recent 

surveys in the Arctic Ocean (Haley and 

Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006; GSC 

unpublished data, 2008; Mosher et al., 

2009), suggesting that the bowhead 

whale densities shown in Table 5 are 

likely higher than actual densities in the 

survey area. 

For other cetacean species that may be 

encountered in the Beaufort Sea, 

densities are likely to be very low in the 

summer when the survey is scheduled. 

Fin and humpback whales are unlikely 

to occur in the Beaufort Sea. No gray 

whales were observed in the Beaufort 

Sea by Moore et al. (2000b) during 

summer aerial surveys in water greater 

than 2,000 m. Gray whales were not 

recorded in water greater than 2,000 m 

by the BWASP during August in 29 

years of survey operation. Harbor 

porpoises are not expected to be present 

in large numbers in the Beaufort Sea 

during the fall although small numbers 

may be encountered during the summer. 

Neither gray whales nor harbor 

porpoises are likely to occur in the faroffshore waters of the proposed survey 

area (Table 5 of the IHA application). 

Narwhals are not expected to be 

encountered within the survey area 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

although a few individuals could be 

present if ice is nearby. Because these 

species occur so infrequently in the 

Beaufort Sea, little to no data are 

available for the calculation of densities. 

Minimal cetacean densities have 

therefore been assigned to these three 

species for calculation purposes and to 

allow for chance encounters (see Table 

5 of the IHA application). Those 

densities include ‘‘0’’ for the average and 

0.0001 individuals/km2 for the 

maximum. 

Pinnipeds—Extensive surveys of 

ringed and bearded seals have been 

conducted in the Beaufort Sea, but most 

surveys were conducted over the 

landfast ice during aerial surveys, and 

few seal surveys have occurred in open 

water or in the pack ice. Kingsley (1986) 

conducted ringed seal surveys of the 

offshore pack ice in the central and 

eastern Beaufort Sea during the late 

spring (late June). These surveys 

provide the most relevant information 

on densities of ringed seals in the ice 

margin zone of the Beaufort Sea. The 

density estimate in Kingsley (1986) was 

used as the average density of ringed 

seals that may be encountered in the 

ice-margin area of the proposed survey 

(see Table 5 of the IHA application). The 

average density was multiplied by four 

to estimate maximum density, as was 

done for all seal species likely to occur 

within the survey area. Ringed seals are 

closely associated with sea ice therefore 

the ice-margin densities were multiplied 

by a factor of 0.75 to estimate a summer 

open-water ringed-seal density for 

locations with water depth greater than 

2,000 m (6,561.7 ft). 

Densities of bearded seals were 

estimated by multiplying the ringed seal 

densities by 0.051 based on the 

proportion of bearded seals to ringed 

seals reported in Stirling et al., (1982; 

see Table 6–3 of IHA application). 

Because bearded seals are associated 

with the pack ice edge and shallow 

water, their estimated summer icemargin density was also multiplied by 

a factor of 0.75 for the open-water 

density estimate. Minimal values were 

used to estimate spotted seal densities 

because they are uncommon offshore in 

the Beaufort Sea and are not likely to be 

encountered. 

Numbers of marine mammals that 

might be present and potentially 

disturbed are estimated below based on 

available data about marine mammal 

distribution and densities in the three 

different habitats during the summer as 

described in Table 5 of the IHA 

application. 

The number of individuals of each 

species potentially exposed to received 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 

1 μPa (rms) (for seismic airgun 

operations) or 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (for 

icebreaking) was estimated by 

multiplying: 

• The anticipated area to be 

ensonified to the specified sound level 

in both open water, the ice margin, and 

polar pack by 

• The expected species density. 

Some of the animals estimated to be 

exposed to sound levels greater than or 

equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) or 120 

dB re 1 μPa (rms), particularly migrating 

bowhead whales, might show avoidance 

reactions before actual exposure to this 

sound level (see Appendix D of the IHA 

application). Thus, these calculations 

actually estimate the number of 

individuals potentially exposed to 

greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) or 

120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) that would occur 

if there were no avoidance of the area 

ensonified to that level. 

Estimated Area Exposed to ≥160 dB 

(rms) 

The area of water potentially exposed 

to received levels greater than or equal 

to 160 dB by the proposed operations 

was calculated by multiplying the 

planned trackline distance within U.S. 

waters by the cross-track distance of the 

sound propagation. The airgun array of 

two 500 in3 and one 150 in3 G-airguns 

that will be used for the proposed 2010 

survey within U.S. waters was measured 

during a 2009 project in the Arctic 

Ocean. The propagation experiment 

took place at 74°50.4′ North; 156°34.31′ 

West, in 3,863 m (12,674 ft) of water. 

The location was near the northern end 

of the two proposed survey lines in U.S. 

waters. USGS expects the sound 

propagation by the airgun array in the 

planned 2010 survey will be the same 

as that measured in 2009, because of the 

similar water depths and relative 

locations of the test site and proposed 

survey area. The greater than or equal to 

160 dB (rms) sound level radius was 

estimated to be approximately 2,500 m 

(8,202.1 ft) based on modeling of the 0 

to peak energy of the airgun array (Roth 

and Schmidt, 2010). The 0 to peak 

values were corrected to rms by 

subtracting 10 dB. 

Closely spaced survey lines and large 

cross-track distances of the greater than 

or equal to 160 dB radii can result in 

repeated exposure of the same area of 

water. Excessive amounts of repeated 

exposure can lead to overestimation of 

the number of animals potentially 

exposed through double counting. The 

trackline for the proposed USGS survey 

in U.S. waters, however, covers a large 

geographic area without adjacent 

tracklines and the potential for multiple 

or repeated exposure is unlikely to be a 

concern. 

The USGS 2010 geophysical survey is 

planned to occur approximately 108 km 

(67.1 mi) offshore, along approximately 

806 km (501 mi) of survey lines in U.S. 

waters, during the first half of August 

exposing a total of approximately 4,109 

km2 (1,586.5 mi2) of water to sound 

levels of greater than or equal to 160 dB 

(rms). USGS included an additional 25 

percent allowance over and above the 

planned tracklines within U.S. waters to 

allow for turns, lines that might have to 

be repeated because of poor data 

quality, or for minor changes to the 

survey design. The resulting estimate of 

5,136.5 km2 (1,983.2 mi2) was used to 

estimate the numbers of marine 

mammals exposed to underwater sound 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB 

(rms). 

Based on the operational plans and 

marine mammal densities described in 

Table 5 of the IHA application, the 

estimates of marine mammals 

potentially exposed to sounds greater 

than or equal to 160 dB (rms) in the 

proposed survey area within U.S. waters 

are presented in Table 6 of the IHA 

application. For the common species, 

the requested numbers are calculated as 

described above and based on the 

average densities from the data reported 

in the different studies mentioned 

above. For less common species, 

estimates were set to minimal values to 

allow for chance encounters. Discussion 

of the number of potential exposures is 

summarized by species in the following 

subsections. 

Cetaceans—Based on density 

estimates and area ensonified, one 

endangered cetacean species (bowhead 

whale) is expected by USGS to be 

exposed to received levels greater than 

or equal to 160 dB, unless bowheads 

avoid the survey vessel before the 

received levels reach 160 dB. Migrating 

bowheads are likely to do so, though 

many of the bowheads engaged in other 

activities, particularly feeding and 

socializing may not. The USGS 

estimated the number of bowhead 

whales potentially exposed to sound 

levels ≥160 dB (rms) in the portion of 

the survey area in U.S. waters to be 

between 31 and 63 (see Table 6 of the 

IHA application). NMFS subsequently 

did an analysis and found that bowhead 

whales are unlikely to be exposed to 

sound levels ≥160 dB (rms). Although 

take was calculated based on density 

estimates in the proposed action area, 

the proposed seismic survey will be 

conducted during the fall migration for 

bowhead whales, but at locations 

starting at greater than 185.2 km (100 

nmi) offshore, well north of the known 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60193 

bowhead migration corridor and well 

beyond distances (20 to 30 km [12.4 to 

18.6], Miller et al., 1999; Richardson et 

al., 1999) known to potentially affect 

this species. Other endangered cetacean 

species that may be encountered in the 

area are fin and humpback whales; both 

are unlikely to be exposed given their 

minimal density in the area. 

The only other cetacean species likely 

to occur in the proposed survey area is 

the beluga whale. Average (best) and 

maximum estimates of the number of 

exposures of belugas to sound levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) are 

182 and 364, respectively. Estimates for 

other cetacean species are minimal (see 

Table 6 of the IHA application). 

Pinnipeds—The ringed seal is the 

most widespread and abundant 

pinniped in ice-covered arctic waters, 

and there is a great deal of annual 

variation in abundance and distribution 

of these marine mammals. Ringed seals 

account for the vast majority of marine 

mammals expected to be encountered, 

and hence exposed to airgun sounds 

with received levels greater than or 

equal to 160 dB (rms) during the 

proposed marine seismic survey. The 

average (best and maximum number of 

exposures of ringed seals to sound 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB 

(rms) were estimated to be 1,031 and 

4,126, respectively. 

Two additional pinniped species 

(other than the Pacific walrus) are likely 

to occur in the proposed project area. 

The average and maximum numbers of 

exposures of bearded seals to sound 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB 

(rms) were estimated to be 53 and 210, 

respectively. The ribbon seal is unlikely 

to be encountered in the survey area, 

but a chance encounter could occur. 

Estimated Area Exposed to ≥120 dB 

(rms) 

The area potentially exposed to 

received levels greater than or equal to 

120 dB (rms) due to icebreaking 

operations was estimated by 

multiplying the anticipated trackline 

distance breaking ice by the estimated 

cross-track distance to received levels of 

120 dB caused by icebreaking. 

In 2008, acousticians from Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography Marine 

Physical Laboratory and University of 

New Hampshire Center for Coastal and 

Ocean Mapping conducted 

measurements of SPLs of Healy 

icebreaking under various conditions 

(Roth and Schmidt, 2010). The results 

indicated that the highest mean SPL 

(185 dB [rms]) was measured at survey 

speeds of 4 to 4.5 knots in conditions of 

5⁄10 ice and greater. Mean SPL under 

conditions where the ship was breaking 

heavy ice by backing and ramming was 

actually lower (180 dB). In addition, 

when backing and ramming, the vessel 

is essentially stationary, so the 

ensonified area is limited for a short 

period (on the order of minutes to tens 

of minutes) to the immediate vicinity of 

the boat until the ship breaks free and 

once again makes headway. 

Although the report by Roth and 

Schmidt has not yet been reviewed 

externally nor peer-reviewed for 

publication, the SPL results reported are 

consistent with previous studies 

(Thiele, 1981, 1988; LGL and 

Greenridge, 1986; Richardson et al., 

1995). 

The existing threshold for Level B 

harassment for continuous sounds is a 

received sound level of 120 dB SPL. 

Using a spherical spreading model, a 

source level of 185 dB decays to 120 dB 

in about 1,750 m (5,741.5 ft). This 

model is corroborated by Roth and 

Schmidt (2010). Therefore, as the ship 

travels through the ice, a swath 3,500 m 

(11,483 ft) wide would be subjected to 

sound levels greater than or equal to 120 

dB (rms). This results in the potential 

exposure of 11,802 km2 (4,557.8 mi2) to 

sounds greater than or equal to 120 dB 

(rms) from icebreaking. 

Based on the operational plans and 

marine mammal densities described 

above, the estimates of marine mammals 

exposed to sounds greater than or equal 

to 120 dB (rms) during the maximum 

estimation of icebreaking outside of U.S. 

waters (3,372 km [2,095.3 mi]) are 

presented in Table Add-4 of the IHA 

application. For the common marine 

mammal species, the requested numbers 

are calculated as described above and 

based on the average densities from the 

data reported in the different studies 

mentioned above. For less common 

species, estimates were set to minimal 

values to allow for chance encounters. 

Based on models, bowhead whales 

likely would respond to the sound of 

the icebreakers at distances of 2 to 25 

km (1.2 to 15.5 mi) from the icebreakers 

(Miles et al., 1987). This study predicts 

that roughly half of the bowhead whales 

show avoidance responses to an 

icebreaker underway in open water at a 

range of 2 to 12 km (1.3 to 7.5 mi) when 

the sound-to-noise ratio is 30 dB (rms). 

The study also predicts that roughly half 

of the bowhead whales would show 

avoidance response to an icebreaker 

pushing ice at a range of 4.6 to 6.2 km 

(2.9 to 12.4 mi) when the sound-to-noise 

ratio is 30 dB. 

Richardson et al. (1995b) found that 

bowheads migrating in the nearshore 

lead during the spring migration often 

tolerated exposure to playbacks of 

recorded icebreaker sounds at received 

levels up to 20 dB or more above the 

natural ambient noise levels at 

corresponding frequencies. The source 

level of an actual icebreaker is much 

higher than that of the projectors 

(projecting the recorded sound) used in 

this study (median difference 34 dB 

over the frequency range 40 Hz to 6.3 

kHz). Over the two-season period (1991 

and 1994) when icebreaker playbacks 

were attempted, an estimated 93 

bowheads (80 groups) were seen near 

the ice camp when the projectors were 

transmitting icebreaker sounds into the 

water, and approximately 158 bowheads 

(116 groups) were seen near there 

during quiet periods. Some bowheads 

diverted from their course when 

exposed to levels of projected icebreaker 

sound greater than 20 dB above the 

natural ambient noise level in the 1⁄3

octave band of the strongest icebreaker 

noise. However, not all bowheads 

diverted at that sound-to-noise ratio, 

and a minority of whales apparently 

diverted at a lower sound-to-noise ratio. 

The study concluded that exposure to a 

single playback of variable icebreaker 

sounds can cause statistically, but 

probably not biologically significant 

effects on movements and behavior of 

migrating whales in the lead system 

during the spring migration east of Point 

Barrow, Alaska. The study indicated the 

predicted response distances for 

bowheads around an actual icebreaker 

would be highly variable; however, for 

typical traveling bowheads, detectable 

effects on movements and behavior are 

predicted to extend commonly out to 

radii of 10 to 30 km (6.2 to 18.6 mi). 

Predicting the distance a whale would 

respond to an icebreaker like the Healy 

is difficult because of propagation 

conditions and because ambient noise 

varies with time and with location. 

However, because the closest survey 

activities and icebreaking are 

approximately 116 km (72.1 mi) away 

and are of limited duration (5 days), and 

the next closest survey activities are 397 

km (246.7 mi) away to the north and 

west in the Arctic ocean, NMFS does 

not anticipate that icebreaking activities 

would have biologically significant 

effects on the movements and behavior 

of bowhead whales. 

Table 6 (see below) outlines the 

species, estimated stock population 

(minimum and best), and estimated 

percentage of the regional population or 

stock exposed to seismic pulses and 

icebreaking activities in the project area. 

Additional information regarding the 

status, abundance, and distribution of 

the marine mammals in the action area 

and how densities were calculated was 

included in Table 4 (see above), the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39337, July 8, 2010) and may be found 

in USGS’s application. 

TABLE 6—THE ESTIMATES OF THE POSSIBLE NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS EXPOSED TO SOUND LEVELS GREATER

THAN OR EQUAL TO 120 DB (RMS) (FOR ICEBREAKING) OR 160 DB (RMS) (FOR SEISMIC AIRGUN OPERATIONS) DURING USGS’S PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN U.S. WATERS IN THE NORTHERN BEAUFORT SEA AND ARCTIC OCEAN, 

IN AUGUST 2010. RECEIVED LEVELS ARE EXPRESSED IN DB RE 1 μPA (RMS) (AVERAGED OVER PULSE DURATION), 

CONSISTENT WITH NMFS’ PRACTICE. NOT ALL MARINE MAMMALS WILL CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR WHEN EXPOSED

TO THESE SOUND LEVELS, BUT SOME MAY ALTER THEIR BEHAVIOR WHEN LEVELS ARE LOWER (SEE TEXT). SEE

TABLES 4 TO 5 AND ADD-3 AND ADD-4 IN USGS’S APPLICATION FOR FURTHER DETAIL. 

Species 

# of individuals exposed 

(best) 1

open water, 

ice margin, 

polar pack 

# of individuals exposed 

(max) 2

open water, 

ice margin, 

polar pack 

Total 

(best) 

Approx. 

percent of 

regional 

population 

(best) 2

Odontocetes: 

Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) ..................................................................... 146 

36 

42 

291 

73 

84 

224 

....................

....................

0.57 

....................

....................

Narwhal (Monodon monocerus) ............................................................................... 0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

....................

....................

0 

....................

....................

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ....................................................................................... 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

....................

....................

0 

....................

....................

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ................................................................... 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

....................

....................

0 

....................

....................

Mysticetes: 

Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) ..................................................................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Eastern Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) ................................................. 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

....................

....................

0 

....................

....................

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) .............................................................. 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

....................

....................

0 

....................

....................

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) .......................................................................... 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

....................

....................

0 

....................

....................

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) ........................................................... 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

....................

....................

0 

....................

....................

Pinnipeds: 

Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) ........................................................................ 39 

13 

15 

158 

53 

60 

67 

....................

....................

0.02 

....................

....................

Spotted seal (Phoca largha) ..................................................................................... 0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

....................

....................

0 

....................

....................

Ringed seal (Phoca hispida) .................................................................................... 774 

258 

296 

3,094 

1,031 

1,185 

1,328 

....................

....................

7.38 

....................

....................

Ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata) ......................................................................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) ...................................................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Carnivores: 

Polar bear (Ursus maritimus marinus) ..................................................................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

N.A.—Data not available or species status was not assessed. 

1Best estimate and maximum density estimates are from Table 5 and Table Add-3 of USGS’s application. 

2 Regional population size estimates are from Table 4. 

Conclusions—Bowhead whales are 

considered by NMFS to be disturbed 

after exposure to underwater sound 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB 

(rms) for impulse sources and 120 dB 

(rms) for continuous sources. The 

relatively small airgun array proposed 

for use in this survey limits the size of 

the 160 dB (rms) EZ around the vessel 

and is not expected to result in any 

bowhead whale exposures to 

underwater sound levels sufficient to 

reach the disturbance criterion as 

defined by NMFS. 

Odontocete reactions to seismic 

energy pulses are usually assumed to be 

limited to lesser distances from the 

airgun(s) than are those of mysticetes, 

probably in part because odontocete 

low-frequency hearing is assumed to be 

less sensitive than that of mysticetes. 

However, at least when in the Canadian 

Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear 

to be fairly responsive to seismic energy, 

with few being sighted within 10 to 20 

km (6.2 to 12.4 mi) of seismic vessels 

during aerial surveys (Miller et al., 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60195 

2005). Belugas will likely occur in small 

numbers in the project area within U.S. 

waters during the survey period. Most 

belugas will likely avoid the vicinity of 

the survey activities and few will likely 

be affected. 

Taking into account the mitigation 

measures that are planned, effects on 

cetaceans are generally expected to be 

restricted to avoidance of a limited area 

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

the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B 

harassment.’’ Furthermore, the estimated 

numbers of animals potentially exposed 

to sound levels sufficient to cause 

appreciable disturbance are very low 

percentages of the population sizes in 

the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas. 

Based on the ≥160 dB disturbance 

criterion, the best estimates of the 

numbers of cetacean exposures to 

sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) represent 

less than one percent of the populations 

of each species in the Chukchi Sea and 

adjacent waters. For species listed as 

Endangered under the ESA, USGS 

estimates suggest it is unlikely that fin 

whales, or humpback whales will be 

exposed to received levels ≥160 dB and/ 

or ≥120 dB, but that approximately 38 

bowheads (0.36 percent of the regional 

population) may be exposed at this 

level. The latter is less than one percent 

of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort 

population of greater than 14,247 

animals assuming 3.4 percent 

population growth from the 2001 

estimate of greater than 10,545 animals 

(Zeh and Punt, 2005). NMFS 

subsequently did an analysis, and found 

that bowheads are unlikely to be 

exposed to sound levels ≥160 dB (rms) 

from airgun operations and/or ≥120 dB 

(rms) from icebreaking activities. NMFS 

does not anticipate bowhead whales to 

be potentially affected by the proposed 

survey activities due to its location far 

offshore of the bowhead fall migration 

pathway. 

Some monodontids may be exposed 

to sounds produced by the airgun arrays 

during the proposed survey, and the 

numbers potentially affected are small 

relative to the population sizes (see 

Table 6 of the IHA application). The 

best estimate of the number of belugas 

(224 animals) that might be exposed to 

≥160 dB and/or ≥120 dB represents less 

than one percent (0.57 percent) of their 

regional population. 

The many reported cases of apparent 

tolerance by cetaceans of seismic 

exploration, vessel traffic, and some 

other human activities show that coexistence is possible. Monitoring and 

mitigation measures such as controlled 

vessel speed, dedicated PSOs, nonpursuit, shut-downs or power-downs 

when marine mammals are seen within 

defined ranges will further reduce shortterm reactions and minimize any effects 

on hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the 

effects are expected to be short-term, 

with no lasting biological consequence. 

Several pinniped species may be 

encountered in the study area, but the 

ringed seal is by far the most abundant 

marine mammal species in the survey 

area. The best (average) estimates of the 

numbers of individual seals exposed to 

airgun sounds at received levels ≥160 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) and/or ≥120 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) for icebreaking during the 

marine survey are as follows: Ringed 

seals (1,328 animals; 7.4 percent of the 

regional population), bearded seals (67 

animals; 0.02 percent of the regional 

population), and spotted seals (0 

animals, 0 percent of the regional 

population), representing less than a 

few percent of the Bering-ChukchiBeaufort populations for each species. It 

is probable that only a small percentage 

of the pinnipeds exposed to sound level 

≥160 dB (rms) or 120 dB (rms) would 

actually be disturbed. The short-term 

exposures of pinnipeds to airgun sounds 

are not expected to result in any longterm negative consequences for the 

individuals or their populations. 

Potential Effects on Habitat 

The proposed USGS seismic survey 

will not result in any permanent impact 

on habitats used by marine mammals, 

including the food sources they use. The 

proposed activities will be of short 

duration in any particular area at any 

given time; thus any effects would be 

localized and short-term. The main 

impact associated with the proposed 

activity will be temporarily elevated 

noise levels and the associated direct 

effects on marine mammals, as 

described above. 

Icebreaking could alter ice conditions 

in the immediate area around the 

vessels. However, ice conditions at this 

time of year are typically highly variable 

and relatively unstable in most locations 

the survey will take place. Although 

there is the potential for the destruction 

of ringed seal lairs or polar bear dens 

due to icebreaking, these animals will 

not be using lairs or dens at the time of 

the planned survey. 

One of the reasons for the adoption of 

airguns as the standard energy source 

for marine seismic surveys was that, 

unlike explosives, they do not result in 

any appreciable fish kill. However, the 

existing body of information relating to 

the impacts of seismic on marine fish 

and invertebrate species, the primary 

food sources of pinnipeds and belugas, 

is very limited. 

In water, acute injury and death of 

organisms exposed to seismic energy 

depends primarily on two features of 

the sound source: (1) The received peak 

pressure, and (2) the time required for 

the pressure to rise and decay (Hubbs 

and Rechnitzer, 1952; Wardle et al., 

2001). Generally, the higher the received 

pressure and less time required for the 

pressure to rise and decay, the greater 

the chance of acute pathological effects. 

Considering the peak pressure and rise/ 

decay time characteristics of seismic 

airgun arrays used today, the 

pathological zone for fish and 

invertebrates would be expected to be 

within a few meters of the seismic 

source (Buchanan et al., 2004). For the 

proposed survey, any injurious effects 

on fish would be limited to very short 

distances from the sound source and 

well away from the nearshore waters 

where most subsistence fishing 

activities occur. 

The survey off of northern Alaska will 

occur in an area designated as Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH) for Arctic cod 

(Arctogadus glacialis) (NPFMC, 2009). 

The approximately 806 km (435 nmi) of 

seismic survey lines that will be 

conducted in U.S. waters represents the 

maximum possible extent of potential 

EFH that would be ensonified during 

the project; the border of the U.S. EEZ 

defines the potential Arctic cod EFH 

boundary for Arctic cod. Effects on 

managed EFH species (Arctic cod) by 

the seismic operations assessed here 

would be temporary and minor. The 

main effect would be short-term 

disturbance that might lead to 

temporary and localized relocation of 

the EFH species or their food. The 

actual physical and chemical properties 

of the EFH will not be impacted. The 

only other designated Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) species that may occur in 

the area of the project during the 

seismic survey are salmon (adult), and 

their occurrence in waters north of the 

Alaska coast is limited. Adult fish near 

seismic operations are likely to avoid 

the immediate vicinity of the source, 

thereby avoiding injury (see Appendix E 

of the IHA application). No EFH species 

will be present as very early life stages 

when they would be unable to avoid 

seismic exposure that could otherwise 

result in minimal mortality. 

Studies have been conducted on the 

effects of seismic activities on fish 

larvae and a few other invertebrate 

animals. Generally, seismic was found 

to only have potential harmful effects to 

larvae and invertebrates that are in 

direct proximity (a few meters) of an 

active airgun array (see Appendix E and 

F of the IHA application). The proposed 

Arctic Sea seismic program for 2010 is 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60196 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

predicted to have negligible to low 

physical effects on the various life 

stages of fish and invertebrates. 

Therefore, physical effects of the 

proposed program on fish and 

invertebrates would not be significant. 

The Healy is designed for continuous 

passage at 5.6 km (3 knots) through ice 

1.4 m (4.6 ft) thick. During this project 

the Healy will typically encounter firstor second-year ice while avoiding thick 

ice floes, particularly large intact multiyear ice, whenever possible. In addition, 

the icebreaker will follow leads when 

possible while following the survey 

route. As the icebreaker passes through 

the ice, the ship causes the ice to part 

and travel alongside the hull. This ice 

typically returns to fill the wake as the 

ship passes. The effects are transitory, 

i.e., hours at most, and localized, i.e., 

constrained to a relatively narrow swath 

perhaps 10 m (32.8 ft) to each side of the 

vessel. 

The Healy’s maximum beam is 25 m 

(82 ft). Applying the maximum 

estimated amount of icebreaking, i.e., 

3,372 km (2,095.3 mi), to the corridor 

opened by the ship, USGS anticipates 

that a maximum of approximately 152 

km2 (58.7 mi2) of ice may be disturbed. 

This encompasses an insignificant 

amount (less than 0.005 percent) of the 

total Arctic ice extent in August and 

September of 2008 and 2009 which 

ranged from 3.24 million to 4.1 million 

km2 (1,235,527 to 1,583,019 mi2). 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

A detailed discussion of the potential 

effects of this action on marine mammal 

habitat, including physiological and 

behavioral effects on marine fish and 

invertebrates was included in the 

proposed IHA (75 FR 39336, July 8, 

2010). Based on the discussion in the 

proposed IHA notice and the nature of 

the activities (limited duration), 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. 

Similarly, any effects to food sources are 

expected to be negligible. 

The airgun operations will not result 

in any permanent impact on habitats 

used by marine mammals, or to the food 

sources they use. The main impact issue 

associated with the activities will be 

temporarily elevated noise levels and 

the associated direct effects on marine 

mammals, as well as the potential 

effects of icebreaking, as described 

above. The potential effects of 

icebreaking include locally altered ice 

conditions which may temporarily alter 

the haul-out pattern of seals in the 

immediate vicinity of the vessel. The 

destruction of ringed seal lairs or polar 

bear dens is not expected to be a 

concern at this time of year. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an Incidental Take 

Authorization (ITA) for small numbers 

of marine mammals under Section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses. For the 

proposed seismic survey in the Arctic 

Ocean, USGS will deploy an airgun 

array of three G-airguns. The source will 

be relatively small in size and source 

level, relative to airgun arrays typically 

used for industry seismic surveys. 

Important mitigation factors built into 

the design of the survey include the 

following: 

• In deep offshore waters (where the 

survey will occur), sound from the 

airguns is expected to attenuate 

relatively rapidly as compared with 

attenuation in shallower waters; 

• The airguns comprising the array 

will be clustered with only limited 

horizontal separation (see Appendix B 

of the IHA application), so the arrays 

will be less directional than is typically 

the case with larger airgun arrays. This 

will result in less downward directivity 

than is often present during seismic 

surveys, and more horizontal 

propagation of sound; and 

• Airgun operations will be limited to 

offshore waters, far from areas where 

there is subsistence hunting or fishing, 

and in waters where marine mammal 

densities are generally low. 

In addition to the mitigation measures 

that are built into the general project 

design, several specific mitigation 

measures will be implemented to avoid 

or minimize effects on marine mammals 

encountered along the tracklines. These 

include ramping-up the airguns at the 

beginning of operations, and powerdowns or shut-downs when marine 

mammals are detected within specified 

distances from the source. The GSC has 

written a Categorical Declaration (see 

Appendix C of the IHA application) 

stating that: ‘‘While in U.S. waters (i.e., 

the U.S. 200 mile EEZ), the GSC 

operators will comply with any and all 

environmental mitigation measures 

required by the U.S. National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS).’’ 

Received sound fields were measured 

for the airgun configuration, in relation 

to distance and direction from the 

airgun(s). The proposed radii around the 

airgun(s) where received levels would 

be 180 and 190 dB (rms) are shown in 

Table 2 of the IHA application. The 180 

and 190 dB (rms) levels are used to 

initiate a power-down or, if necessary, 

shut-down criteria applicable to 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, 

as specified by NMFS (2000). 

Vessel-based PSOs will watch for 

marine mammals near the airgun(s) 

when they are in use. Mitigation and 

monitoring measures proposed to be 

implemented for the seismic survey 

have been developed and refined in 

cooperation with NMFS during previous 

seismic studies in the Arctic and 

described in associated EAs, IHA 

applications, and IHAs. The mitigation 

and monitoring measures described 

herein represent a combination of the 

procedures required by past IHAs for 

Arctic projects. 

Some cetacean species (such as 

bowhead whales) may be feeding or 

migrating in the Beaufort Sea during 

August and September. However, most 

of the proposed geophysical activities 

will occur north of the main migration 

corridor and the number of individual 

animals expected to closely approach 

the vicinity of the proposed activity will 

be small in relation to regional 

population sizes. With the monitoring, 

ramp-up, power-down, and shut-down 

provisions (see below), any effects on 

individuals are expected to be limited to 

behavioral disturbance. The following 

subsections provide more detailed 

information about the mitigation 

measures that are an integral part of the 

planned activity. 

Exclusion Zones (EZ) 

Mosher et al. (2009) collected 

received sound level data for the airgun 

configuration that will be used in the 

proposed survey in similar water 

depths, i.e., greater than 2,000 m 

(6,561.7 ft). The empirical data were 

plotted in relation to distance and 

direction from the three airguns by Roth 

and Schmidt (2010; see Figure B–3). 

Based on model fit to the measured 

received levels and source modeling 

estimates from Gundalf, the 180 and 190 

dB (rms) EZ are estimated to be 216 m 

(708.7 ft) and 68 m (223.1 ft), 

respectively. As a conservative measure 

for the proposed EZ, the sound-level EZ 

indicated by the empirical data have 

been increased to 500 m (1,640.4 ft) for 

the 180 dB isopleths and to 100 m (328 

ft) for the 190 dB isopleths (see Table 2 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60197 

of the IHA application). The 180 and 

190 dB levels are shut-down criteria 

applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, 

respectively, as specified by NMFS 

(2000); these levels were used to 

establish the EZs. If the PSO detects 

marine mammal(s) within or about to 

enter the appropriate EZ, the airguns 

will be powered-down (or shut-down if 

necessary) immediately (see below). 

Detailed recommendations for new 

science-based noise exposure criteria 

were published in early 2008 (Southall 

et al., 2007). USGS will be prepared to 

revise its procedures for estimating 

numbers of mammals ‘‘taken,’’ EZs, etc., 

as may be required by any new 

guidelines that result. As yet, NMFS has 

not specified a new procedure for 

determining EZs. Such procedures, if 

applicable would be implemented 

through a modification to the IHA if 

issued. 

In addition to monitoring, mitigation 

measures that will be adopted during 

the Arctic Ocean survey include: 

(1) Speed or course alteration, 

provided that doing so will not 

comprise operational safety 

requirements; 

(2) Power-down procedures; 

(3) Shut-down procedures; and 

(4) Ramp-up procedures. 

No start-up of airgun operations 

would be permitted unless the full 180 

dB (rms) EZ is visible for at least 30 min 

during day or night. Other proposed 

provisions associated with operations at 

night or in periods of poor visibility 

include the following: 

• During foggy conditions or darkness 

(which may be encountered starting in 

late August), the full 180 dB (rms) EZ 

may not be visible. In that case, the 

airguns could not start-up after a full 

shut-down until the entire 180 dB (rms) 

radius was visible. 

• During any nighttime operations, if 

the entire 180 dB (rms) EZ is visible 

using vessel lights, then start-up of the 

airgun array may occur following a 30 

min period of observation without 

sighting marine mammals in the EZ. 

• If one or more airguns have been 

operational before nightfall, they can 

remain operational throughout the 

night, even though the entire EZ may 

not be visible. 

Speed or Course Alteration—If a 

marine mammal (in water) is detected 

outside the EZ and, based on its 

position and relative motion, is likely to 

enter the EZ, the vessel’s speed and/or 

direct course may, when practical and 

safe, be changed in a manner that also 

minimizes the effect on the planned 

science objectives. The marine mammal 

activities and movements relative to the 

seismic vessel will be closely monitored 

to ensure that the marine mammal does 

not approach within the EZ. If the 

mammal appears likely to enter the EZ, 

further mitigative actions will be taken, 

i.e., either further course alterations or 

power-down or shut-down of the 

airgun(s). 

Power-down Procedures—A powerdown involves reducing the number of 

airguns in use such that the radius of 

the 180 dB or 190 dB (rms) EZ are 

decreased to the extent that marine 

mammals are no longer in or about to 

enter the EZ. A power-down of the 

airgun array can also occur when the 

vessel is moving from one seismic line 

to another. During a power-down for 

mitigation, one airgun (or some other 

number of airguns less than the full 

airgun array) will be operated. The 

continued operation of one airgun is 

intended to alert (1) marine mammals to 

the presence of the seismic vessel in the 

area, and (2) retain the option of 

initiating a ramp-up to full operations 

under poor visibility conditions. In 

contrast, a shut-down occurs when all 

airgun activity is suspended. 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the EZ but is likely to enter the 

EZ, and if the vessel’s speed and/or 

course cannot be changed to avoid 

having the marine mammal enter the 

EZ, the airguns (as an alternative to a 

complete shut-down) will be powereddown to a single airgun before the 

animal is within the EZ. Likewise, if a 

mammal is already within the EZ when 

first detected, the airguns will be 

powered-down immediately if this is a 

reasonable alternative to a complete 

shut-down. During a power-down of the 

airgun array, the number of operating 

airguns will be reduced to a single 150 

in3 G-airgun. The 180 dB (rms) EZ for 

the power-down sound source has been 

estimated to be 62 m (203 ft); the 

proposed distance for use by PSOs is 75 

m (246 ft). If a marine mammal is 

detected within or near the smaller EZ 

around that single 150 in3 airgun (see 

Table 2 of USGS’s application and Table 

2 above), all airguns will be shut-down 

(see next subsection). 

Following a power-down, operation of 

the full airgun array will not resume 

until the marine mammal is outside the 

EZ for the full array. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the EZ if it: 

(1) Is visually observed to have left 

the EZ, or 

(2) Has not been seen within the EZ 

for 15 minutes in the case for species 

with shorter dive durations (e.g., small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds); or 

(3) Has not been seen within the EZ 

for 30 minutes in the case for species 

with longer dive durations (e.g., 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including killer whales). 

During airgun operations following a 

power-down (or shut-down) whose 

duration has exceeded the limits 

specified above and subsequent animal 

departures, the airgun array will be 

ramped-up gradually. Ramp-up 

procedures are described below. 

Shut-down Procedures—The 

operating airguns(s) will be shut-down 

if a marine mammal is detected within 

or approaching the EZ for a single 

airgun source (i.e., a power-down is not 

practical or adequate to reduce exposure 

to less than 190 or 180 dB (rms), as 

appropriate). Shut-downs will be 

implemented (1) if an animal 

approaches or enters the EZ of the single 

airgun after a power-down has been 

initiated, or (2) if an animal is initially 

seen within the EZ of a single airgun 

when more than one airgun (typically 

the full array) is operating. Airgun 

activity will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the EZ, or until the 

PSO is confident that the animal has left 

the vicinity of the vessel (or the PSO not 

observing the animal[s] within the EZ 

for 15 or 30 min depending upon the 

species). Criteria for judging that the 

animal has cleared the EZ will be as 

described in the preceding subsection. 

Ramp-up procedures will be followed 

during resumption of full seismic 

operations after a shut-down of the 

airgun array. 

Ramp-up Procedures—A ramp-up 

procedure will be followed when the 

airgun array begins operating after a 

specified period without airgun 

operations or when a power-down (or 

reduced airgun operations) has 

exceeded that specified duration period. 

The specified period depends on the 

speed of the source vessel, the size of 

the airgun array that is being used, and 

the size of the EZ, but is often about 10 

min. NMFS normally requires that, once 

ramp-up commences, the rate of rampup be no more than 6 dB per 5 min 

period. Ramp-up will begin with a 

single airgun (the smallest airgun in the 

array). Airguns will be added in a 

sequence such that the source level of 

the array will increase in steps not 

exceeding 6 dB per 5 min period over 

a total duration of approximately 10 

minutes. During ramp-up, the PSOs will 

monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals 

are sighted, a power-down or shut-down 

will be implemented as though the full 

array were operational. 

If the complete 180 dB (rms) EZ has 

not been visible for at least 30 min prior 

to the start of operations in either 

daylight or nighttime, ramp-up will not 

commence unless at least one airgun 

(150 in3 or similar) has been operating 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

during the interruption of seismic 

survey operations. Given these 

provisions, it is likely that the three Gairgun array will not be ramped-up from 

a complete shut-down at night or in 

thick fog, because the outer part of the 

EZ for that array will not be visible 

during those conditions. If the entire EZ 

is visible using vessel lights, then startup of the airguns from a complete shutdown may occur at night. 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 be alerted to the 

approaching seismic vessel by the 

sounds from the single airgun and could 

move away if they choose. Given the 

responsiveness of bowhead and beluga 

whales to airgun sounds, it can be 

assumed that those species in particular 

will move away during a ramp-up. 

Ramp-up of the airguns will not be 

initiated during the day or at night if a 

marine mammal is sighted within or 

near the applicable EZ during the 

previous 15 or 30 min, as applicable. 

Helicopter Flights—The use of a 

helicopter to conduct ice 

reconnaissance flights and vessel-tovessel personnel transfers is likely to 

occur during survey activities in U.S. 

waters. However, collection of spot 

bathymetry data or on-ice landings, both 

of which required low altitude flight 

patterns, will not occur in U.S. waters. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

require that requests for IHAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present. 

USGS will sponsor marine mammal 

monitoring during the proposed project, 

in order to implement the mitigation 

measures that require real-time 

monitoring, to satisfy the anticipated 

monitoring requirements of the IHA, 

and to meet any monitoring 

requirements agreed to as part of the 

Plan of Cooperation. USGS’s Monitoring 

Plan is described below as well as in 

their IHA application. 

The monitoring work described here 

has been planned as a self-contained 

project independent of any other related 

monitoring projects that may be 

occurring simultaneously in the same 

regions. USGS is prepared to discuss 

coordination of its monitoring program 

with any related work that might be 

done by other groups insofar as this is 

practical and desirable. 

Vessel-based Visual Monitoring 

Vessel-based Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs) will monitor for 

marine mammals near the seismic 

source vessel during all daytime airgun 

operations and during any nighttime 

start-ups of the airguns. The survey area 

within U.S. waters is located within 

high latitudes (approximately 72° to 74° 

North) and the project will take place 

during the summer when little darkness 

will be encountered (see Table 9 of the 

IHA application). Some periods of 

darkness will be encountered towards 

the end of the survey when there will 

be several hours between sunset and 

sunrise. 

The PSO’s observations will provide 

the real-time data needed to implement 

the key mitigation measures. Airgun 

operations will be powered-down or (if 

necessary) shut-down when marine 

mammals are observed within, or about 

to enter, a designated EZ where there is 

a possibility of effects on hearing or 

other physical effects. Vessel-based 

PSOs will also watch for marine 

mammals near the seismic vessel for at 

least 30 min prior to the planned start 

of airgun operations after an extended 

shut-down of the airgun. When feasible, 

observations will also be made during 

daytime periods without seismic 

operations (e.g., during transits). 

TABLE 7—THE DAYLIGHT TIMES AND PERIODS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA FROM BEGINNING (AUGUST 7, 

2010) TO END (SEPTEMBER 3, 2010) OF THE PLANNED SURVEY ACTIVITIES WITHIN LATITUDES OF THE PLANNED

SURVEY WITHIN U.S. WATERS. TIME IS IN ALASKA DAYLIGHT TIME (AKDT) 

72° North 74° North 

Date ................................................................................................................. August 7 September 3 August 7 September 3 

Sunrise ............................................................................................................. 09:29 12:14 — 12:00 

Sunset .............................................................................................................. 06:42 03:45 — 03:59 

Period of daylight (hours) ................................................................................ 21:13 15:31 24:00 15:59 

• During daylight, vessel-based PSOs 

will watch for marine mammals near the 

seismic vessel during all periods of 

airgun activity and for a minimum of 30 

min prior to the planned start of airgun 

operations after an extended shut-down. 

• Although there will be only a brief 

period during the survey when darkness 

will be encountered in U.S. waters, 

USGS proposes to conduct nighttime as 

well as daytime operations. PSOs 

dedicated to protected species 

observations are proposed not to be on 

duty during ongoing seismic operations 

at night, given the very limited 

effectiveness of visual observation at 

night. At night, bridge personnel will 

watch for marine mammals (insofar as 

practical at night) and will call for the 

airguns to be shut-down if marine 

mammals are observed in or about to 

enter the EZ. 

PSOs will be stationed aboard both 

the seismic source vessel (St. Laurent) 

and Healy during the proposed survey. 

The vessels will typically work together 

in tandem while making way through 

heavy ice with the Healy in the lead 

breaking ice and collecting multi-beam 

data. The St. Laurent will follow 

collecting seismic reflection and 

refraction data. In light ice conditions, 

the vessels will separate to maximize 

data collection. ‘‘Real-time’’ 

communication between the two vessels 

regarding marine mammal detections 

will be available through VHF radio. 

During operations in U.S. EEZ waters, 

a complement of five PSOs will work on 

the source vessel, the St. Laurent, and 

two will be stationed on the Healy. 

Three trained PSOs will board the St. 

Laurent in Kagluktuk, Nunavut, Canada. 

Three experienced PSOs and one Alaska 

Native community observer will be 

aboard the Healy at the outset of the 

project. Before survey operations begin 

in U.S. waters, two of the PSOs on the 

Healy will transfer to the St. Laurent to 

provide additional observers during 

airgun operations. When not surveying 

in U.S. waters, the distribution of PSOs 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60199 

will return to three on the St. Laurent 

and four on the Healy. 

PSOs on the St. Laurent will monitor 

for marine mammals during all daylight 

airgun operations. Airgun operations 

will be shut-down when marine 

mammals are observed within, or about 

to enter, a designated EZ (see below) 

where there may be a possibility of 

significant effects on hearing or other 

physical effects. PSOs on both the 

source vessel and the Healy will also 

watch for marine mammals within or 

near the EZ for at least 30 min prior to 

the planned start of airgun operations 

after an extended shut-down of the 

airgun array. When feasible, 

observations will also be made during 

periods without seismic operations (e.g., 

during transits). Environmental 

conditions will be recorded every half 

hour during PSO watch. 

The PSOs aboard the Healy will also 

watch for marine mammals during 

daylight seismic activities conducted in 

both U.S. and international waters. They 

will maximize their time on watch but 

will not watch continuously, as will 

those on the St. Laurent, because they 

will not have mitigation duties and 

there will be only two PSOs aboard the 

Healy. The Healy PSOs will report 

sightings to the PSOs on the St. Laurent 

to alert them of possible needs for 

mitigation. 

In U.S. waters, at least one observer, 

and when practical two observers, will 

monitor for marine mammals from the 

St. Laurent during ongoing daytime 

operations and nighttime start-ups 

(when darkness is encountered). Use of 

two simultaneous observers will 

increase the proportion of the animals 

present near the source vessel that are 

detected. PSOs will normally be on duty 

in shifts of no longer than four hours 

duration although more than one hour 

shift may be worked per day with a 

maximum of 12 hours of daily watch 

time. During seismic operations in 

international waters, PSOs aboard the 

St. Laurent will conduct eight hour 

watches. This schedule accommodates 

24 hour/day monitoring by three PSOs 

which will be necessary during most of 

the survey when daylight will be 

continuous. Healy PSOs will limit 

watches to four hours in U.S. waters. 

The St. Laurent crew will be 

instructed to assist in detecting marine 

mammals and implementing required 

mitigation (if practical). The crew will 

be given instruction on mitigation 

requirements and procedures for 

implementation of mitigation prior to 

the start of the seismic survey. Members 

of the Healy crew will be trained to 

monitor for marine mammals and asked 

to contact the Healy observers for 

sightings that occur while the PSOs are 

off-watch. 

The St. Laurent and Healy are suitable 

platforms for observations for marine 

mammals. When stationed on the flying 

bridge, eye level will be approximately 

15.4 m (51 ft) above sea level on the St. 

Laurent and approximately 24 m (78.7 

ft) above sea level on the Healy. On both 

vessels the PSO will have an 

unobstructed view around the entire 

vessel from the flying bridge. If 

surveying from the bridge of the St. 

Laurent or the Healy the PSO’s eye level 

will be approximately 12.1 m (40 ft) 

above sea level or 21.2 m (69 ft) above 

sea level, respectively. The PSO(s) will 

scan the area around the vessel 

systematically with laser range finding 

binoculars and with the unaided eye. 

The survey will be conducted at high 

latitudes and continuous daylight will 

persist through much of the proposed 

survey area through the month of 

August. Day length will decrease to 

approximately 18 hours in the northern 

portion of the survey area by about early 

September. Laser range-finding 

binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser 

rangefinder or equivalent) will be 

available to assist with distance 

estimation; this equipment is useful in 

training observers to estimate distances 

visually, but is generally not useful in 

measuring distances to animals directly. 

When marine mammals are detected 

within or about to enter the designated 

EZ, the airgun(s) will be powered-down 

or shut-down immediately. The 

distinction between power-downs and 

shut-downs is described above and in 

the IHA application. Channels of 

communication between the PSOs and 

the airgun technicians will be 

established to assure prompt 

implementation of shut-downs when 

necessary as has been done in other 

recent seismic survey operations in the 

Arctic (e.g., Haley, 2006). During powerdowns and shut-downs, PSOs will 

continue to maintain watch to 

determine when the animal(s) are 

outside the EZ. Airgun operations will 

not resume until the animal is outside 

the EZ. The animal will be considered 

to have cleared the EZ if it is visually 

observed to have left the EZ. 

Alternatively, in U.S. waters the EZ will 

be considered clear if the animal has not 

been seen within the EZ for 15 min for 

small odontocetes and pinnipeds or 30 

min for mysticetes. Within international 

waters the PSOs will apply a 30 min 

period for all species. 

PSO Data and Documentation 

PSOs will record data to estimate the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

various received sound levels and to 

document apparent disturbance 

reactions or lack thereof. Data will be 

used to estimate numbers of animals 

potentially ‘taken’ by harassment (as 

defined in the MMPA). They will also 

provide information needed to order a 

power-down or shut-down of the 

seismic source when a marine mammal 

is within or near the EZ. 

When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

will be recorded: 

(1) Species, group size, and age/size/ 

sex categories (if determinable); 

behavior when first sighted and after 

initial sighting; heading (if consistent), 

bearing, and distance from seismic 

vessel; sighting cue; apparent reaction to 

the seismic source or vessel (e.g., none, 

avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.); 

and behavioral pace. 

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

The data listed under (2) above will 

also be recorded at the start and end of 

each observation watch, and during a 

watch whenever there is a change in one 

or more of the variables. 

All observations, as well as 

information regarding seismic source 

power-downs and shut-downs, will be 

recorded in a standardized format. Data 

will be entered into a custom database 

using a notebook computer. The 

accuracy of data entry will be verified 

by computerized data validity checks as 

the data are entered and by subsequent 

manual checking of the database. These 

procedures will allow initial summaries 

of data to be prepared during and 

shortly after the field program, and will 

facilitate transfer of the data to 

statistical, graphical, and other 

programs for further processing and 

archiving. 

Results for the vessel-based 

observations will provide: 

(1) The basis for real-time mitigation 

(airgun power-down or shut-down). 

(2) Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which must be 

reported to NMFS per terms of MMPA 

authorizations or regulations. 

(3) Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted. 

(4) Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals relative to the source vessel at 

times with and without seismic activity. 

(5) Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 

A report on USGS activities and on 

the relevant monitoring and mitigation 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

results will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report will be submitted 

to NMFS, providing full documentation 

of methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all acoustic 

characterization work and vessel-based 

monitoring. The 90-day report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all marine 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). The number and 

circumstances of ramp-ups, powerdowns, shut-downs, and other 

mitigation measures will be reported. 

Sample size permitting, the report will 

also include estimates of the amount 

and nature of potential ‘‘take’’ of marine 

mammals. 

All injured or dead marine mammals 

(regardless of cause) will be reported to 

NMFS as soon as practicable. The report 

will include species or description of 

animal, condition of animal, location, 

time first found, observed behaviors (if 

alive) and photo or video, if available. 

Encouraging and Coordinating Research 

USGS will coordinate the planned 

marine mammal monitoring program 

associated with the seismic survey in 

the Arctic Ocean with other parties that 

may have an interest in this area and/ 

or be conducting marine mammal 

studies in the same region during 

operations. No other marine mammal 

studies are expected to occur in the 

main (northern) parts of the study area 

at the proposed time. However, other 

industry-funded seismic surveys may be 

occurring in the northeast Chukchi and/ 

or western Beaufort Sea closer to shore, 

and those projects are likely to involve 

marine mammal monitoring. USGS has 

coordinated, and will continue to 

coordinate, with other applicable 

Federal, State and Borough agencies, 

and will comply with their 

requirements. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

of Marine Mammals Analysis and 

Determination 

The Secretary, in accordance with 

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

shall authorize the take of small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental 

to specified activities other than 

commercial fishing within a specific 

geographic region if, among other 

things, he determines that the 

authorized incidental take will have a 

‘‘negligible impact’’ on species or stocks 

affected by the authorization. NMFS 

implementing regulations codified at 50 

CFR 216.103 states that a ‘‘negligible 

impact is an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein, of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat within the specific area 

of study for the Arctic Ocean marine 

geophysical survey, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, found 

that USGS’s proposed activities would 

result in the incidental take of small 

numbers of marine mammals, by Level 

B harassment only, and that the total 

taking from the proposed seismic survey 

would have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals. As a basis for its small 

numbers determination, NMFS 

evaluated the number of individuals 

taken by Level B harassment relative to 

the size of the stock or population. 

While the number of marine 

mammals potentially incidentally 

harassed will depend on the 

distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the survey 

activity, the number of potential Level 

B incidental harassment takings (see 

Table 6 above) is estimated to be small, 

less than a few percent of any of the 

estimated population sizes based on the 

data disclosed in Tables 4 and 6 of this 

notice, and has been mitigated to the 

lowest level practicable through the 

incorporation of the monitoring and 

mitigation measures mentioned 

previously in this document. Tables 4 

and 6 in this notice disclose the habitat 

regional abundance, conservation status, 

density, and the number of individuals 

exposed to sound levels greater than or 

equal to 120 dB (rms) (for icebreaking) 

or 160 dB (rms) (for seismic airgun 

operations). Also, there are no known 

important reproductive or feeding areas 

in the proposed action area. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document, the specified activities 

associated with the proposed survey are 

not likely to cause TTS, PTS or other 

non-auditory injury, serious injury, or 

death to affected marine mammals 

because: 

(1) The likelihood that, given 

sufficient notice through relatively slow 

ship speed, marine mammals are 

expected to move away from a noise 

source that is annoying prior to its 

becoming potentially injurious; 

(2) The fact that cetaceans and 

pinnipeds would have to be closer than 

500 m (1,640.4 ft) and 30 m (98.4 ft), in 

deep water when the full array is in use 

at tow depth from the vessel to be 

exposed to levels of sound (180 dB and 

190 dB, respectively) believed to have 

even a minimal chance of causing PTS; 

(3) The fact that marine mammals 

would have to be closer than 2,500 m 

(8,202.1 ft) in deep water when the full 

array is in use at tow depth from the 

vessel to be exposed to levels of sound 

(160 dB) believed to have even a 

minimal chance of causing TTS; and 

(4) The likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

observers is high at that short distance 

from the vessel. 

As a result, no take by injury, serious 

injury, or death is anticipated or 

authorized, and the potential for 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment is very low and will be 

avoided through the incorporation of 

the proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures. 

In making a negligible impact 

determination NMFS evaluated factors 

such as: no anticipated injury, serious 

injury or mortality; the number, nature, 

intensity and duration of harassment 

(all relatively limited); the low 

probability that take will likely result in 

effects to annual rates of recruitment of 

survival; the context in which it occurs 

(i.e., impacts to areas of significance, 

impacts to local populations, and 

cumulative impacts when taking into 

account successive/contemporaneous 

actions when added to baseline data); 

the status of stock or species of marine 

mammal (i.e., depleted, not depleted, 

decreasing, increasing, stable, impact 

relative to the size of the population); 

impacts on habitat affecting rates of 

recruitment/survival; and the 

effectiveness of monitoring and 

mitigation measures. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There is subsistence hunting for 

marine mammals in the waters off of the 

coast of Alaska, in the Arctic Ocean, 

that implicates MMPA Section 

101(a)(5)(D). Subsistence hunting and 

fishing continue to be prominent in the 

household economies and social welfare 

of some Alaska residents, particularly 

among those living in small, rural 

villages (Wolfe and Walker, 1987; 

Braund and Kruse, 2009). Subsistence 

remains the basis for Alaska Native 

culture and community. In rural Alaska, 

subsistence activities are often central to 

many aspects of human existence, 

including patterns of family life, artistic 

expression, and community religious 

and celebratory activities. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60201 

Subsistence Hunting 

Marine mammals are legally hunted 

in Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska 

Natives; species hunted include 

bowhead and beluga whales; ringed, 

spotted, and bearded seals; walruses, 

and polar bears. The importance of each 

of the various species varies among the 

communities based largely on 

availability. Bowhead whales, belugas, 

and walruses are the marine mammal 

species primarily harvested during the 

time of the proposed seismic survey. 

Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska 

Native culture and community, and 

subsistence activities are often central to 

many aspects of human existence, 

including patterns of family life, artistic 

expression, and community religious 

and celebratory activities. 

Bowhead whale hunting is a key 

activity in the subsistence economies of 

Barrow and other Native communities 

along the Beaufort Sea coast. The whale 

harvests have a great influence on social 

relations by strengthening the sense of 

Inupiat culture and heritage in addition 

to reinforcing family and community 

ties. 

An overall quota system for the 

hunting of bowhead whales was 

established by the International Whaling 

Commission in 1977. The quota is now 

regulated through an agreement between 

NMFS and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC) which extends to 

2012 (NMFS, 2008b). The AEWC 

allocates the number of bowhead whales 

that each whaling community may 

harvest annually during five-year 

periods (USDI/BLM, 2005; NMFS, 

2008). 

The community of Barrow hunts 

bowhead whales in both the spring and 

fall during the whales’ seasonal 

migration along the coast (see Figure 2 

of the IHA application). Often the bulk 

of the Barrow bowhead harvest is taken 

during the spring hunt. However, with 

larger quotas in recent years, it is 

common for a substantial fraction of the 

annual Barrow quota to remain available 

for the fall hunt (see Table 7 of the IHA 

application). The communities of 

Nuiqsut and Kaktovik participate only 

in the fall bowhead harvest. The fall 

migration of bowhead whales that 

summer in the eastern Beaufort Sea 

typically begins in late August or 

September. Fall migration into Alaskan 

waters is primarily during September 

and October. However, in recent years a 

small number of bowheads have been 

seen or heard offshore from the Prudhoe 

Bay region during the last week of 

August (Treacy, 1993; LGL and 

Greenridge, 1996; Greene, 1997; Greene 

et al., 1999; Blackwell et al., 2004). 

TABLE 8—NUMBER OF BOWHEAD WHALE LANDING BY YEAR AT BARROW, CROSS ISLAND (NUIQSUT), AND KAKTOVIK, 

1993 TO 2008. BARROW NUMBERS INCLUDE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WHALES LANDED FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWED BY

THE NUMBERS LANDED DURING THE FALL HUNT IN PARENTHESES. CROSS ISLAND (NUIQSUT) AND KAKTOVIK LANDINGS ARE IN AUTUMN

Year Point Hope Wainwright Barrow Cross Island Kaktovik 

1993 ................................................................................................ 2 5 23 (7) 3 3 

1994 ................................................................................................ 5 4 16 (1) 0 3 

1995 ................................................................................................ 1 5 19 (11) 4 4 

1996 ................................................................................................ 3 3 24 (19) 2 1 

1997 ................................................................................................ 4 3 30 (21) 3 4 

1998 ................................................................................................ 3 3 25 (16) 4 3 

1999 ................................................................................................ 2 5 24 (6) 3 3 

2000 ................................................................................................ 3 5 18 (13) 4 3 

2001 ................................................................................................ 4 6 27 (7) 3 4 

2002 ................................................................................................ 0 1 22 (17) 4 3 

2003 ................................................................................................ 4 5 16 (6) 4 3 

2004 ................................................................................................ 3 4 21 (14) 3 3 

2005 ................................................................................................ 7 4 29 (13) 1 3 

2006 ................................................................................................ 0 2 22 (19) 4 3 

2007 ................................................................................................ 3 4 20 (7) 3 3 

2008 ................................................................................................ 2 2 21 (12) 4 3 

Sources: USDI/BLM and references therein; Burns et al., 1993; Koski et al., 2005; Suydam et al., 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. 

The spring hunt at Barrow occurs 

after leads open due to the deterioration 

of pack ice; the spring hunt typically 

occurs from early April until the first 

week of June. The location of the fall 

subsistence hunt depends on ice 

conditions and (in some years) 

industrial activities that influence the 

bowheads as they move west (Brower, 

1996). In the fall, subsistence hunters 

use aluminum or fiberglass boats with 

outboards. Hunters prefer to take 

bowheads close to shore to avoid a long 

tow during which the meat can spoil, 

but Braund and Moorehead (1995) 

report that crews may (rarely) pursue 

whales as far as 80 km (49.7 mi). The 

fall hunts begin in late August or early 

September in Kaktovik and at Cross 

Island. At Barrow the fall hunt usually 

begins in mid-September, and mainly 

occurs in the waters east and northeast 

of Point Barrow in the Chukchi Sea 

(Suydam et al., 2008). The whales have 

usually left the Beaufort Sea by late 

October (Treacey, 2002a, b). 

The scheduling of this seismic survey 

has been discussed with representatives 

of those concerned with the subsistence 

bowhead hunt, most notably the AEWC, 

the Barrow Whaling Captains’ 

Association, and the North Slope 

Borough (NSB) Department of Wildlife 

Management. The timing of the 

proposed seismic survey in early to 

mid-August will affect neither the 

spring nor the fall bowhead hunt. The 

Healy is planning to change crew after 

the completion of the seismic survey 

through Barrow via helicopter or boat. 

That crew change is scheduled for 

approximately September 4 to 5, 2010, 

well before the fall bowhead whaling 

which typically begins late September 

or early October. All of the proposed 

geophysical activities will occur 

offshore between 71° and 84° North 

latitude well north of Beaufort Sea 

whaling activities. 

Beluga whales are available to 

subsistence hunters at Barrow in the 

spring when pack-ice conditions 

deteriorate and leads open up. Belugas 

may remain in the area through June 

and sometimes into July and August in 

ice-free waters. Hunters usually wait 

until after the spring bowhead whale 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
60202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

hunt is finished before turning their 

attention to hunting belugas. The 

average annual harvest of beluga whales 

taken by Barrow for 1962 to 1982 was 

five (MMS, 1996). The Alaska Beluga 

Whale Committee recorded that 23 

beluga whales had been harvested by 

Barrow hunters from 1987 to 2002, 

ranging from zero in 1987, 1988 and 

1995 to the high of eight in 1997 (Fuller 

and George, 1997; Alaska Beluga Whale 

Committee, 2002 in USDI/BLM, 2005). 

The proposed seismic survey is unlikely 

to overlap with the beluga harvest, and 

the survey initiates well outside the area 

where impacts to beluga hunting by 

Barrow villagers could occur. 

Ringed seals are hunted mainly from 

October through June. Hunting for these 

smaller mammals is concentrated 

during winter because bowhead whales, 

bearded seals, and caribou are available 

through other seasons. In winter, leads 

and cracks in the ice off points of land 

and along barrier islands are used for 

hunting ringed seals. The average 

annual ringed seal harvest by the 

community of Barrow from the 1960s 

through much of the 1980s has been 

estimated as 394 (see Table 8 of the IHA 

application). More recently Bacon et al. 

(2009) estimated that 586, 287, and 413 

ringed seals were harvest by villagers at 

Barrow in 2000, 2001, and 2003, 

respectively. Although ringed seals are 

available year-round, the seismic survey 

will not occur during the primary 

period when these seals are typically 

harvested. Also, the seismic survey will 

be largely in offshore waters where the 

activities will not influence ringed seals 

in the nearshore areas where they are 

hunted. 

The spotted seal subsistence hunt 

peaks in July and August, as indicated 

by data from 1987 to 1990, but involves 

few animals. Spotted seals typically 

migrate south by October to overwinter 

in the Bering Sea, Admiralty Bay, less 

than 60 km (37.3 mi) to the east of 

Barrow, is a location where spotted 

seals are harvested. Spotted seals are 

also occasionally hunted in the area off 

Point Barrow and along the barrier 

islands of Elson Lagoon to the east 

(USDI/BLM, 2005). The average annual 

spotted seal harvest by the community 

of Barrow from 1987 to 1990 was one 

animal (Braund et al., 1993; see Table 7 

of the IHA application). More recently 

however, Bacon et al. (2009) estimated 

that 32, 7, and 12 spotted seals were 

harvested by villagers at Barrow in 

2000, 2001, and 2003, respectively. 

Spotted seals become less abundant at 

Nuiqsut and Kaktovik and few if any 

spotted seal are harvested at these 

villages. The seismic survey will 

commence at least 115 km (71.5 mi) 

offshore from the preferred nearshore 

harvest area of these seals. 

Bearded seals, although not favored 

for their meat, are important to 

subsistence activities in Barrow because 

of their skins. Six to nine bearded seal 

hides are used by whalers to cover each 

of the skin-covered boats traditionally 

used for spring whaling. Because of 

their valuable hides and large size, 

bearded seals are specifically sought. 

Bearded seals are harvested during the 

summer months in the Beaufort Sea 

(USDI/BLM, 2005). The animals inhabit 

the environment around the ice floes in 

the drifting ice pack, so hunting usually 

occurs from boats in the drift ice. 

Braund et al. (1993) estimated that 174 

bearded seals were harvested annually 

at Barrow from 1987 to 1990 (see Table 

8 of the IHA application). More recently 

Bacon et al. (2009) estimated that 728, 

327, and 776 bearded seals were 

harvested by villagers at Barrow in 

2000, 2001, and 2003, respectively. 

Braund et al. (1993) mapped the 

majority of bearded seal harvest sites 

from 1987 to 1990 as being within 

approximately 24 km (14.9 mi) of Point 

Barrow, well inshore of the proposed 

survey which is to start approximately 

115 km (71.5 mi) offshore and terminate 

greater than 200 km (124.3 mi) offshore. 

The average annual take of bearded 

seals by the Barrow community from 

1987 to 1990 was 174 (see Table 8 of the 

IHA application). 

TABLE 9—AVERAGE ANNUAL TAKE OF

MARINE MAMMALS OTHER THAN

BOWHEAD WHALES HARVEST BY THE

COMMUNITY OF BARROW (COMPILED

BY LGL ALASKA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, 2004) 

Beluga 

whales 

Ringed 

seals 

Bearded 

seals 

Spotted 

seals 

** 5 * 394 * 174 * 1 

* Average annual harvest for years 1987 to 

1990 (Braund et al., 1993). 

** Average annual harvest for years 1962 to 

1982 (MMS, 1996). 

Plan of Cooperation 

The USGS has communicated with 

community authorities and residents of 

Barrow to foster understanding of the 

proposed survey. There are elements of 

the proposed survey, intrinsic to the 

project that significantly limit the 

potential conflict with subsistence 

users. Operations will be conducted 

during early August before bowhead 

whale hunting typically occurs off 

Barrow and approximately 108 km (67.1 

mi) offshore, farther offshore than 

traditional subsistence hunting grounds. 

USGS continues to work with the 

people of Barrow to identify and avoid 

areas of potential conflict. 

• The USGS initiated contact with 

NSB scientists and the chair of the 

AEWC in mid-December, 2010 via an 

emailed description of the proposed 

survey that included components 

intended to minimize potential 

subsistence conflict. 

• Invitations were extended 

December 31, 2009 to members of the 

NSB, AEWC, and North Slope 

Communities to attend a teleconference 

arranged for January 11, 2010. The 

teleconference served as a venue to 

promote understanding of the project 

and discuss shareholder concerns. 

Participants in the teleconference 

included Harry Brower, chair of the 

AEWC, and NSB wildlife biologist Dr. 

Robert Suydam. 

• To further promote cooperation 

between the project researchers and the 

community, Dr. Deborah Hutchinson 

with USGS presented the proposed 

survey at a meeting of the AEWC in 

Barrow on February 11, 2010. Survey 

plans were explained to local hunters 

and whaling captains, including NSB 

Department of Wildlife Management 

biologists, Craig George and Dr. Robert 

Suydam. Dr. Hutchinson consulted with 

stakeholders about their concerns and 

discussed the aspects of the survey 

designed to mitigate impacts. 

• Dr. Deborah Hutchinson of the 

USGS emailed a summary of the topics 

discussed during the teleconference and 

the AEWC meeting in Barrow to 

representatives of the NSB, AEWC, and 

North Slope communities. These 

included: 

Æ Surveying within U.S. waters is 

scheduled early (approximately August 

11 to 19) to avoid conflict with hunters. 

Æ The EA and IHA application have 

been distributed as early as possible to 

NSB and AEWC. 

Æ A community observer will be 

present aboard the Healy during the 

project. 

Æ Mitigation of the one crew transfer 

near Barrow in early September will be 

arranged—probably through Barrow 

Volunteer Search and Rescue. 

• Representatives of the USGS 

attended the Arctic Open-water Meeting 

in Anchorage, March 22 to 24, 2010. 

Æ Dr. Deborah Hutchinson presented 

information regarding the proposed 

survey to the public during the Openwater meeting. 

Æ Dr. Jonathan Childs and Dr. 

Deborah Hutchinson also met with 

stakeholders and agency representatives 

while at the meeting. 

Subsequent meetings with whaling 

captains, other community 

representatives, the AEWC, NSB, and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60203 

any other parties to the plan will be 

held if necessary to coordinate the 

planned seismic survey operation with 

subsistence hunting activity. The USGS 

has informed the chairman of the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Committee (AEWC), 

Harry Brower, Jr., of its survey plan. 

As noted above and in the IHA 

application, in the unlikely event that 

subsistence hunting or fishing is 

occurring within 5 km (3 mi) of the 

project vessel tracklines, or where 

potential impacts could occur, the 

airgun operations will be suspended 

until the vessel is greater than 5 km 

away and otherwise not interfering with 

subsistence activities. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

On May 21, 2010, USGS initiated 

informal consultation, under Section 7 

of the ESA, with the NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, Endangered 

Species Division, on this seismic 

survey. Based on the information 

provided by USGS, NMFS concurred 

with their determination that the 

activities conducted during the 

proposed seismic survey are not likely 

to adversely affect endangered whales in 

the study area. No designated critical 

habitat occurs within the action area for 

this experiment, therefore, no critical 

habitat will be affected by the proposed 

bathymetric and seismic surveys and 

other associated activities. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

USGS provided NMFS an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) 

analyzing the direct, indirect and 

cumulative environmental impacts of 

the proposed specified activities on 

marine mammals including those listed 

as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. The EA, prepared by LGL 

Environmental Research Associated 

(LGL) on behalf of USGS, is titled 

‘‘Environmental Assessment of a Marine 

Geophysical Survey of Parts of the 

Arctic Ocean, August—September 2010 

(EA)’’. NMFS has adopted the USGS’s 

EA and issued a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 

issuance of the IHA. 

Determinations 

NMFS has determined that the impact 

of conducting the specific marine 

seismic survey activities described in 

this notice and the IHA request in the 

specific geographic region within the 

U.S. EEZ and within the Arctic Ocean 

may result, at worst, in a temporary 

modification in behavior (Level B 

harassment) of small numbers of marine 

mammals. No take by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated, and take by harassment 

will be at the lowest level practicable 

due to incorporation of the mitigation 

and monitoring measures mentioned 

previously in this document. Further, 

this activity is expected to result in a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals. NMFS 

has determined that this proposed 

activity will not have an unmitigable 

impact on the availability of the affected 

species or stock of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses. USGS will coordinate 

with local communities on 

implementation of the Plan of 

Cooperation. 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS issued an IHA to USGS for 

conducting a marine seismic survey in 

the Arctic Ocean from August to 

September 2010, including the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

The duration of the IHA does not exceed 

one year from the date of its issuance. 

Dated: September 22, 2010. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24335 Filed 9–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES2