Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26217 

credible evidence that a principal, 

employee, agent, contractor, subgrantee, subcontractor, or other person 

has submitted a false claim under the 

False Claims Act or has committed a 

criminal or civil violation of laws 

pertaining to fraud, conflict of interest, 

bribery, gratuity, or similar misconduct 

involving those funds. 

Ensuring Responsible Spending of 

Recovery Act Funds. The agency intends 

to implement this program in 

compliance with Office of Management 

and Budget guidance on the President’s 

Memorandum for the Heads of 

Executive Departments and Agencies of 

March 20, 2009. Ensuring Responsible 

Spending of Recovery Act Funds, 74 FR 

12531 (Mar. 25, 2009), when such 

guidance becomes available. 

Best Practices to Promote Equality of 

Opportunity. Pursuant to OMB 

Guidance (see, e.g., ‘‘Updated 

Implementing Guidance for the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009,’’ April 3, 2009) and 

consistent with the Recovery Act and 

other applicable laws, DoC encourages 

recipients to implement best practices to 

promote equality of opportunity, to 

provide opportunities for small and 

disadvantaged businesses, including 

veteran-owned small businesses and 

service disabled veteran-owned small 

businesses, and to follow sound labor 

practices. 

Reporting. Award Recipients shall 

provide access to information that is 

required to assess the project’s progress 

throughout the project life cycle. The 

following reports are required: 

a. Technical Performance Reports. 

Award Recipients shall submit a 

technical performance report in 

triplicate (an original and two copies) 

on a calendar quarter basis for the 

periods ending March 31, June 30, 

September 30, and December 31, or any 

portion thereof. Reports are due no later 

than 30 days following the end of each 

reporting period. A final technical 

performance report shall be submitted 

within 90 days after the expiration date 

of the award. Two copies of the 

technical performance reports shall be 

submitted to the Project Manager and 

the original report to the NIST Grants 

Officer. Technical performance reports 

shall contain information as prescribed 

in 15 CFR 14.51. 

b. Financial Reports. For recipients 

under this program, Article A.01 of the 

DoC Financial Assistance Standard 

Terms and Conditions dated March 

2008 is revised as follows: 

Award Recipients shall submit a 

Federal Financial Report (SF–425) in 

triplicate (an original and two copies) 

on a calendar quarter basis for the 

periods ending March 31, June 30, 

September 30, and December 31, or any 

portion thereof. Reports are due no later 

than 30 days following the end of each 

reporting period. A final SF–425 shall 

be submitted within 90 days after the 

expiration date of the award. All SF– 

425s shall be submitted to the NIST 

Grants Officer. 

c. Recovery Act Reports—Job Creation 

and Retention. As set out in Sec. 1512(c) 

of the Recovery Act, no later than ten 

(10) days after the end of each calendar 

quarter, any recipient that received 

funds under the Recovery Act from 

NIST must submit a report to NIST that 

contains the following four items: 

(1) The total amount of Recovery Act 

funds received from NIST. 

(2) The amount of Recovery Act funds 

received that were obligated and 

expended to projects or activities. This 

reporting will also include unobligated 

allotment balances to facilitate 

reconciliations. 

(3) A detailed list of all projects or 

activities for which recovery funds were 

obligated and expended, including: 

(a) The name of the project or activity; 

(b) A description of the project or 

activity; 

(c) An evaluation of the completion 

status of the project or activity; 

(d) An estimate of the number of jobs 

created and the number of jobs retained 

by the project or activity; and 

(e) For infrastructure investments 

made by State and local governments, 

the purpose, total cost, and rationale of 

the agency for funding the infrastructure 

investment with funds made available 

under this Act, and name of the person 

to contact at the agency if there are 

concerns with the infrastructure 

investment. 

(4) Detailed information on any 

subcontracts or subgrants awarded by 

the recipient to include the data 

elements required to comply with the 

Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109– 

282), allowing aggregate reporting on 

awards below $25,000 or to individuals, 

as prescribed by the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

Recipients that must report 

information in accordance with 

paragraph (4) above must register with 

the Central Contractor Registration 

database (http://www.ccr.gov/) or 

complete other registration 

requirements as determined by the 

Director of OMB. Section 1512(d) 

further requires that no later than thirty 

(30) days after the end of each calendar 

quarter, NIST must make the 

information in reports submitted under 

section 1512(c) of the Recovery Act as 

outlined above publicly available by 

posting the information on a Web site. 

OMB Memo M–09–10, ‘‘Initial 

Implementing Guidance for the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009,’’ which can be accessed at 

http://www.recovery.gov/, provides 

information on requirements for Federal 

agencies under the Recovery Act. 

Additional guidance may be 

forthcoming related to responsibilities 

of recipients of grants and cooperative 

agreements under the Recovery Act. 

Reporting requirements are described 

in the Department of Commerce 

Financial Assistance Standard Terms 

and Conditions dated March, 2008, 

found on the Internet at: http:// 

oamweb.osec.doc.gov/docs/GRANTS/ 

DOC%20STCsMAR08Rev.pdf. 

The references to Financial Reporting 

Form SF–269 in the DoC Standard 

Terms & Conditions, A.01 and B.01, are 

hereby replaced with the SF–425, 

‘‘Federal Financial Report,’’ as required 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) (73 FR 61175, October 

15, 2008). As authorized under 15 CFR 

14.52 and 24.41, the OMB approved SF– 

425 shall be used in the place of the SF– 

269 and SF–272 under the uniform 

administrative requirements and 

elsewhere under awards in this program 

where such forms are referenced. 

Dated: May 26, 2009. 

Patrick Gallagher, 

Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–12664 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XP00 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; 

Open-water Marine Survey Program in 

the Chukchi Sea, Alaska, During 2009– 

2010 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental take 

authorization; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from Shell Offshore Inc. and 

Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc., collectively 

known as Shell, for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

marine mammals incidental to an openwater marine survey program, which 

includes shallow hazards and site 

26218 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

clearance work and strudel scour 

surveys, in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an IHA to Shell to incidentally 

take, by harassment, small numbers of 

several species of marine mammals 

during the Arctic open-water seasons 

between August 2009, and July, 2010, 

during the aforementioned activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

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

20910–3225. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is PR1.0648– 

XP00@noaa.gov. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must 

not exceed a 10–megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications without 

change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

A copy of the application 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#applications. 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at the aforementioned 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Candace Nachman, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289 or 

Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska Region, 

(907) 271–3023. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ’’...an impact resulting from 

the specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. Except 

with respect to certain activities not 

pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: 

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

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

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 

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

day time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a 30–day public 

notice and comment period on any 

proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the comment period, NMFS must 

either issue or deny the authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On December 15, 2008, NMFS 

received an application from Shell for 

the taking, by Level B harassment only, 

of small numbers of several species of 

marine mammals incidental to 

conducting an open-water marine 

survey program during the 2009/2010 

Arctic open-water season in the 

Chukchi Sea. Shell plans to conduct site 

clearance and shallow hazards surveys 

and a strudel scour survey in the 

Chukchi Sea. These surveys are a 

continuation of those conducted by 

Shell in the Chukchi Sea in 2008. 

Shell’s December 2008, application also 

requested MMPA coverage for site 

clearance and shallow hazards surveys, 

an ice gouge survey, and a strudel scour 

survey in the Beaufort Sea and an ice 

gouge survey in the Chukchi Sea for the 

2009/2010 season. However, in an 

addendum to the IHA application 

submitted to NMFS on March 10, 2009, 

Shell indicated that it has cancelled all 

of the planned survey programs for the 

Beaufort Sea and the ice gouge survey 

for the Chukchi Sea in 2009. Therefore, 

this Federal Register Notice only 

describes the potential effects of 

conducting site clearance and shallow 

hazards surveys and a strudel scour 

survey in the Chukchi Sea for the 2009/ 

2010 open-water season. Shell 

submitted a second addendum to its 

application on May 19, 2009, indicating 

that Shell now plans to use a 40 in3

airgun array instead of the 20 in3 array 

(see the ‘‘Description of the Specified 

Activity’’ section later in this document 

for more detail on the specifics of the 

project). 

Site clearance and shallow hazards 

surveys will evaluate the seafloor and 

shallow sub-seafloor at prospective 

exploration drilling locations, focusing 

on the depth to seafloor, topography, the 

potential for shallow faults or gas zones, 

and the presence of archaeological 

features. The types of equipment used to 

conduct these surveys use low level 

energy sources focused on limited areas 

in order to characterize the footprint of 

the seafloor and shallow sub-seafloor at 

prospective drilling locations. 

NMFS issued an IHA to Shell on 

August 20, 2008, to conduct its marine 

seismic survey program in the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas for the 2008/2009 

Arctic open-water season. This IHA is 

valid through August 19, 2009, or until 

a new IHA is issued to Shell, whichever 

is earlier. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Chukchi Site Clearance and Shallow 

Hazards Surveys 

Site clearance and shallow hazards 

surveys of potential proposed locations 

for exploration drilling will be executed 

as required by the Minerals 

Management Service’s (MMS) 

regulations. These surveys gather data 

on: (1) bathymetry; (2) seabed 

topography and other seabed 

characteristics (e.g., boulder patches); 

(3) potential geohazards (e.g., shallow 

faults and shallow gas zones); and (4) 

the presence of any archeological 

features (e.g., shipwrecks). Site 

clearance and shallow hazards surveys 

can be accomplished by one vessel with 

acoustic sources. No other vessels are 

necessary to accomplish the proposed 

work. 

The Chukchi Sea site clearance and 

shallow hazards surveys will be 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26219 

conducted on leases that were acquired 

in Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease 

Sale 193. Site clearance surveys are 

confined to small specific areas within 

OCS blocks. Actual locations of site 

clearance and shallow hazards surveys 

have not been definitively set as of this 

date, although the surveys will occur 

within the Chukchi Sea marine survey 

area of OCS lease blocks shown in 

Figure 1 of Shell’s application. These 

surveys will occur more than 113 km 

(70 mi) or more offshore of the Alaska 

coast. Before the commencement of 

operations, survey location information 

will be supplied to MMS as ancillary 

activities authorizations and provided to 

other interested agencies as it becomes 

available. 

Shell anticipates shooting 

approximately 480 km (298 mi) of 

survey lines (plus approximately 120 

km (74.6 mi) of mitigation gun activity 

between survey lines) from August 

through October, 2009, exposing 

approximately 900 km2 (347.5 mi2) of 

water to sounds of 160 dB (rms) or 

greater. The operation will be active 24 

hr/day and use a single vessel to collect 

the geophysical data. 

The vessel that will be conducting the 

site clearance and shallow hazards 

surveys may also be used in the 

deployment and retrieval of underwater 

Ocean Bottom Hydrophones (OBHs) as 

described in the Marine Mammal 

Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (4MP) 

in Attachment A of Shell’s application 

and also later in this document. These 

OBHs are anchored underwater buoys 

that record marine mammal 

vocalizations and other underwater 

sounds. 

These surveys are confined to small 

specific areas within OCS blocks. At 

this time, Shell has indicated that the R/ 

V Norseman II will be used to conduct 

the activity. The R/V Norseman II is a 

diesel powered vessel, 35.05 m (115 ft) 

long, 8.66 m (28.4 ft) wide, with a 4.08 

m (13.4 ft) draft. In the event the R/V 

Norseman II is unavailable, Shell would 

utilize a similar vessel to conduct the 

activities. 

It is proposed that the following 

acoustic instrumentation, or something 

similar, will be used: (1) dual-frequency 

side scan sonar (2–7 kHz or 8–23 kHz), 

or similar; (2) single beam Echo Sounder 

(33–210 kHz), or similar; (3) multibeam 

Echo Sounder (200 kHz), or similar; (4) 

high resolution multi-channel twodimensional (2D) system, 40 in3 (4 x 10) 

airgun array (0–150 Hz), or similar; (5) 

shallow sub-bottom profiler (SBP; 1–12 

kHz), or similar; and (6) medium 

penetration SBP (400–800 Hz), or 

similar. 

This activity is proposed to occur 

during August-October 2009, and, as 

proposed, the total program will last a 

maximum of 50 days of active data 

acquisition, excluding downtime due to 

weather and other unforeseen delays. 

This vessel may also be used to perform 

other activities, such as deploying and 

retrieving the OBHs. The time for 

deploying and retrieving the OBHs is 

not included in the 50–day estimate. 

Chukchi Strudel Scour Survey 

During the early melt, the rivers begin 

to flow and discharge water over the 

coastal sea ice near the river deltas. That 

water rushes down holes in the ice 

(‘‘strudels’’) and scours the seafloor. 

These erosional areas are called ‘‘strudel 

scours’’. Information on these features is 

required for prospective pipeline 

planning. Two proposed activities are 

required to gather this information: 

aerial survey via helicopter overflights 

during the melt to locate the strudels 

and strudel scour marine surveys to 

gather bathymetric data. The overflights 

investigate possible sources of overflood 

water and will survey local streams that 

discharge in the vicinity of potential 

pipeline shore crossings. These 

helicopter overflights will occur during 

mid-May/early June 2010 and, weather 

permitting, should take no more than 

four days. There are no planned 

landings during these overflights other 

than at local airports. Areas that have 

strudel scour identified during the aerial 

survey will be verified and surveyed 

with a marine vessel after the breakup 

of nearshore ice. This proposed activity, 

i.e., marine surveys to gather 

bathymetric data, is not anticipated to 

take more than 10 days to conduct, 

excluding downtime due to weather and 

other unforeseen delays. It is anticipated 

to occur in July through mid-August 

2010. This is a daylight only operation. 

The specific locations for pipeline shore 

crossings have not yet been identified. 

This vessel will use the following 

equipment: multi-beam bathymetric 

sonar, or similar; side-scan sonar 

system, or similar; and single beam 

bathymetric sonar, or similar. 

The vessel has not been contracted; 

however, it is anticipated that it will be 

the diesel-powered R/V Annika Marie 

which has been utilized from 2006– 

2008 and measures 13.1 m (43 ft) long, 

or similar vessel. Only one vessel is 

needed to complete the survey, and the 

acoustic sources will be deployed from 

that vessel. 

Marine Mammals Affected by the 

Activity 

Marine mammals that occur in the 

proposed survey areas belong to three 

taxonomic groups: (1) odontocetes 

(toothed cetaceans), (2) mysticetes 

(baleen whales), and (3) carnivora 

(pinnipeds and polar bears). Cetaceans 

and pinnipeds (except walrus) are the 

subject of this IHA request to NMFS. In 

the U.S., the walrus and polar bear are 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). A separate permit 

application for this survey has been 

submitted to USFWS for incidental 

‘‘takes’’ specific to walruses and polar 

bears, and these species are not 

discussed further in Shell’s application 

or this Federal Register Notice. 

Marine mammal species under the 

jurisdiction of NMFS which are known 

to or may occur in the open-water 

marine survey area of the Chukchi Sea 

include eight cetacean species and four 

species of pinnipeds (see Table 4–1 in 

Shell’s application). Three of these 

species, the bowhead, humpback and 

fin whales, are listed as ‘‘endangered’’ 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). The bowhead whale is more 

common in the survey area than other 

endangered species. Based on a small 

number of sightings, the fin whale is 

unlikely to be encountered along the 

planned trackline in the Chukchi Sea. 

Humpback whales normally are not 

found in the Chukchi Sea; however, 

several humpback sightings were 

recorded during vessel-based surveys in 

the Chukchi Sea in 2007 (Reiser et al., 

2008). 

The marine mammal species under 

NMFS jurisdiction that are most likely 

to occur in the survey area include four 

cetacean species (beluga, bowhead, and 

gray whales and harbor porpoise), and 

three pinniped species (ringed, bearded, 

and spotted seals). Most encounters are 

likely to occur in nearshore shelf 

habitats or along the ice edge. Animal 

densities are generally expected to be 

lower in deep water and at locations faroffshore. The marine mammal species 

that is likely to be encountered most 

widely (in space and time) throughout 

the survey period is the ringed seal. 

Encounters with bowhead and gray 

whales are expected to be limited to 

particular regions and seasons, as 

discussed in Shell’s application. 

Four additional cetacean species and 

one pinniped species-the killer, minke, 

humpback, and fin whales and ribbon 

seals-could occur in the project area, but 

each of these species is uncommon or 

rare in the survey area and relatively 

few encounters with these species are 

expected during the open-water marine 

survey program. Descriptions of the 

biology, distribution, and population 

status of the marine mammal species 

under NMFS’ jurisdiction can be found 

in Shell’s application and the NMFS 

26220 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARS). The 

Alaska SAR is available at: http:// 

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

ak2008.pdf. Please refer to those 

documents for information on these 

species. 

Potential Effects of Survey Activities on 

Marine Mammals 

The only anticipated impacts to 

marine mammals associated with 

Shell’s proposed activities (primarily 

resulting from noise propagation) are 

from vessel movements and airgun 

operations. Aircraft may provide a 

potential secondary source of sound. 

The physical presence of vessels and 

aircraft could also potentially lead to 

non-acoustic effects on marine 

mammals involving visual or other cues. 

The effects of sounds from airguns 

might include one or more of the 

following: tolerance, masking of natural 

sounds, behavioral disturbance, and 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment or non-auditory effects 

(Richardson et al., 1995). As outlined in 

previous NMFS documents, the effects 

of noise on marine mammals are highly 

variable, and can be categorized as 

follows (based on Richardson et al., 

1995): 

(1) The noise may be too weak to be 

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

lower than the prevailing ambient noise 

level, the hearing threshold of the 

animal at relevant frequencies, or both); 

(2) The noise may be audible but not 

strong enough to elicit any overt 

behavioral response; 

(3) The noise may elicit reactions of 

variable conspicuousness and variable 

relevance to the well being of the 

marine mammal; these can range from 

temporary alert responses to active 

avoidance reactions such as vacating an 

area at least until the noise event ceases; 

(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine 

mammal may exhibit diminishing 

responsiveness (habituation), or 

disturbance effects may persist; the 

latter is most likely with sounds that are 

highly variable in characteristics, 

infrequent, and unpredictable in 

occurrence, and associated with 

situations that a marine mammal 

perceives as a threat; 

(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is 

strong enough to be heard has the 

potential to reduce (mask) the ability of 

a marine mammal to hear natural 

sounds at similar frequencies, including 

calls from conspecifics, and underwater 

environmental sounds such as surf 

noise; 

(6) If mammals remain in an area 

because it is important for feeding, 

breeding, or some other biologically 

important purpose even though there is 

chronic exposure to noise, it is possible 

that there could be noise-induced 

physiological stress; this might in turn 

have negative effects on the well-being 

or reproduction of the animals involved; 

and 

(7) Very strong sounds have the 

potential to cause temporary or 

permanent reduction in hearing 

sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and 

presumably marine mammals, received 

sound levels must far exceed the 

animal’s hearing threshold for there to 

be any temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

in its hearing ability. For transient 

sounds, the sound level necessary to 

cause TTS is inversely related to the 

duration of the sound. Received sound 

levels must be even higher for there to 

be risk of permanent hearing 

impairment. In addition, intense 

acoustic or explosive events may cause 

trauma to tissues associated with organs 

vital for hearing, sound production, 

respiration and other functions. This 

trauma may include minor to severe 

hemorrhage. 

Tolerance 

Numerous studies have shown that 

pulsed sounds from airguns are often 

readily detectable in the water at 

distances of many kilometers. 

Numerous studies have shown that 

marine mammals at distances more than 

a few kilometers from operating seismic 

vessels often show no apparent 

response. That is often true even in 

cases when the pulsed sounds must be 

readily audible to the animals based on 

measured received levels and the 

hearing sensitivity of that mammal 

group. Although various baleen whales, 

toothed whales, and (less frequently) 

pinnipeds have been shown to react 

behaviorally to airgun pulses under 

some conditions, at other times, 

mammals of all three types have shown 

no overt reactions. In general, pinnipeds 

and small odontocetes seem to be more 

tolerant of exposure to airgun pulses 

than baleen whales. 

Masking 

Masking effects of pulsed sounds will 

be limited relative to continuous sound 

sources. Bowhead whales are known to 

continue calling in the presence of 

marine survey sounds, and their calls 

can be heard between sound pulses, 

although at reduced rates (Greene et al., 

1999; Richardson et al., 1986). Masking 

effects are expected to be minimal to 

nonexistent in the case of belugas given 

that sounds important to that species are 

predominantly at much higher 

frequencies than are airgun sounds. 

Behavioral Effects 

Any impacts to marine mammals 

associated with sound propagation from 

vessel movements and survey 

operations would be non-lethal, 

temporary, and, at most, may result in 

short-term displacement of whales and 

seals from within the ensonified zones 

produced by such sound sources. The 

following discussion of potential 

behavioral deflection of whales or seals 

pertains to observations of behavior 

during relatively large scale seismic 

programs, such as deep 3D seismic 

sound sources. As Shell’s planned 2009/ 

2010 open-water marine survey program 

in the Chukchi Sea only includes smallscale sound sources used to perform site 

clearance and shallow hazards and 

strudel scour surveys, NMFS anticipates 

any effects to marine mammals to be 

similar to or less than those described 

next. 

Any impacts on the whale and seal 

populations in the vicinity of Shell’s 

Chukchi Sea operations are expected to 

be non-lethal, short-term, and transitory 

in nature arising from the temporary 

displacement of individuals or small 

groups from locations they may occupy 

at the time they are exposed to sounds 

between 160 dB to 190 dB (rms) 

received levels. In the case of migrating 

bowhead whales, displacement may 

take the form of deflection from their 

swim path away from (seaward of) 

received sound levels lower than 160 dB 

(rms; Richardson et al., 1999). While it 

is not presently known at what distance 

after passing the sound source bowhead 

whales return to their previous 

migration route, any deflection is 

expected to be only temporary and does 

not appear to adversely impact the 

whales or materially affect their 

successful completion of the migration 

to the winter calving grounds. 

Results from the 1996–1998 BP and 

Western Geophysical seismic 

monitoring programs in the Beaufort Sea 

indicate that most fall migrating 

bowhead whales deflected seaward to 

avoid an area within about 20 km (12.4 

mi) of an active nearshore seismic 

operation, with the exception of a few 

close sightings when there was an 

island or very shallow water between 

the seismic operations and the whales 

(Miller et al., 1998, 1999). The available 

data do not provide an unequivocal 

estimate of the distance (and received 

sound levels) at which approaching 

bowheads begin to deflect, but this may 

be on the order of 35 km (21.7 mi). Any 

deflection as a result of being exposed 

to seismic operations would be 

temporary and would not adversely 

impact the whales or materially affect 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26221 

the whales’ successful completion of the 

migration to winter calving grounds. 

When the received levels of sound 

exceed some threshold, cetaceans are 

expected to exhibit behavioral 

disturbance reactions. The levels, 

frequencies, and types of sound that 

will elicit a response vary between and 

within species, individuals, locations, 

and seasons. Behavioral changes may be 

subtle alterations in surface, respiration, 

and dive cycles. More conspicuous 

responses include changes in activity or 

aerial displays, movement away from 

the sound source, or complete 

avoidance of the area. The reaction 

threshold and degree of response also 

are related to the activity of the animal 

at the time of the disturbance. Whales 

engaged in active behaviors, such as 

feeding, socializing, or mating, appear 

less likely than resting animals to 

exhibit overt behavioral reactions, 

unless the disturbance is perceived as 

directly threatening. 

Hearing Impairment and Other Physical 

Effects 

Temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment is a possibility when marine 

mammals are exposed to very strong 

sounds, but there has been no specific 

documentation of this for marine 

mammals exposed to sequences of 

airgun pulses. Currently, NMFS’ 

practice regarding exposure of marine 

mammals to high-level sounds is that 

cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be 

exposed to impulsive sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) greater than 180 and 190 

dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively (NMFS, 

2000). Those criteria have been used in 

defining the safety (shutdown) radii 

planned for the proposed survey 

activities. However, those criteria were 

established before there were any data 

on the minimum received levels of 

sounds necessary to cause temporary 

auditory impairment in marine 

mammals. The precautionary nature of 

these criteria are summarized here: 

• The 180 dB criterion for cetaceans 

is precautionary (i.e., lower than 

necessary to avoid TTS, let alone 

permanent auditory injury, at least for 

belugas and delphinids) as it was 

established prior to empirical research 

on marine mammals that now indicate 

that permanent auditory injury would 

not occur until significantly higher SPLs 

were encountered. 

• The minimum sound level 

necessary to cause permanent hearing 

impairment is higher, by a variable and 

generally unknown amount, than the 

level that induces TTS. 

• The level associated with the onset 

of TTS is often considered to be a level 

below which there is no danger of 

permanent damage. 

Several aspects of the planned 

monitoring and mitigation measures for 

this project are designed to detect 

marine mammals occurring near the 

airguns to avoid exposing them to sound 

pulses that might cause hearing 

impairment. In addition, many 

cetaceans are likely to show some 

avoidance of the area with high received 

levels of airgun sound (see above). In 

those cases, the avoidance responses of 

the animals themselves will reduce or 

(most likely) prevent any possibility of 

hearing impairment. 

Non-auditory physical effects might 

also occur in marine mammals exposed 

to strong underwater pulsed sound. 

Possible types of non-auditory 

physiological effects or injuries that 

theoretically might occur in mammals 

close to a strong sound source include 

stress, neurological effects, bubble 

formation, and other types of organ or 

tissue damage. Some marine mammal 

species (i.e., beaked whales) may be 

especially susceptible to injury and/or 

stranding when exposed to strong 

pulsed sounds. However, as discussed 

below, there is no definitive evidence 

that any of these effects occur even for 

marine mammals in close proximity to 

large arrays of airguns, and beaked 

whales do not occur in the proposed 

project area. It is unlikely that such 

effects would occur during Shell’s 

proposed surveys given the brief 

duration of exposure and the planned 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

described later in this document. The 

following sections discuss the 

possibilities of TTS, permanent 

threshold shift (PTS), and non-auditory 

physical effects in more detail. 

(TTS) – TTS is the mildest form of 

hearing impairment that can occur 

during exposure to a strong sound 

(Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, 

the hearing threshold rises and a sound 

must be stronger in order to be heard. 

At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can 

last from minutes or hours to (in cases 

of strong TTS) days. For sound 

exposures at or somewhat above the 

TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in 

both terrestrial and marine mammals 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

noise ends. Few data on sound levels 

and durations necessary to elicit mild 

TTS have been obtained for marine 

mammals, and none of the published 

data concern TTS elicited by exposure 

to multiple pulses of sound. 

For toothed whales exposed to single 

short pulses, the TTS threshold appears 

to be, to a first approximation, a 

function of the energy content of the 

pulse (Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). 

Given the available data, the received 

level of a single seismic pulse (with no 

frequency weighting) might need to be 

approximately 186 dB re 1 μPa2• s (i.e., 

186 dB sound exposure level [SEL]) in 

order to produce brief, mild TTS. 

Exposure to several strong seismic 

pulses that each have received levels 

near 175–180 dB SEL might result in 

slight TTS in a small odontocete, 

assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first 

approximation) a function of the total 

received pulse energy. For Shell’s 

proposed survey activities, the distance 

at which the received energy level (per 

pulse) would be expected to be ≥175– 

180 dB SEL is the distance to the 190 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth (given that 

the rms level is approximately 10–15 dB 

higher than the SEL value for the same 

pulse). Seismic pulses with received 

energy levels ≥175–180 dB SEL (190 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms)) are expected to be 

restricted to radius of approximately 50 

m (164 ft) around the airgun array. For 

an odontocete closer to the surface, the 

maximum radius with ≥175–180 dB SEL 

or ≥190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) would be 

smaller. 

For baleen whales, there are no data, 

direct or indirect, on levels or properties 

of sound that are required to induce 

TTS. The frequencies to which baleen 

whales are most sensitive are lower than 

those to which odontocetes are most 

sensitive, and natural background noise 

levels at those low frequencies tend to 

be higher. As a result, auditory 

thresholds of baleen whales within their 

frequency band of best hearing are 

believed to be higher (less sensitive) 

than are those of odontocetes at their 

best frequencies (Clark and Ellison, 

2004). From this, it is suspected that 

received levels causing TTS onset may 

also be higher in baleen whales. 

However, no cases of TTS are expected 

given the small size of the airguns 

proposed to be used and the strong 

likelihood that baleen whales 

(especially migrating bowheads) would 

avoid the approaching airguns (or 

vessel) before being exposed to levels 

high enough for there to be any 

possibility of TTS. 

In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds 

associated with exposure to brief pulses 

(single or multiple) of underwater sound 

have not been measured. Initial 

evidence from prolonged exposures 

suggested that some pinnipeds may 

incur TTS at somewhat lower received 

levels than do small odontocetes 

exposed for similar durations (Kastak et 

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

Au et al., 2000). However, more recent 

indications are that TTS onset in the 

most sensitive pinniped species studied 

(harbor seal, which is closely related to 

26222 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

the ringed seal) may occur at a similar 

SEL as in odontocetes (Kastak et al., 

2004). 

NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that 

cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be 

exposed to pulsed underwater noise at 

received levels exceeding, respectively, 

180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The 

established 180- and 190–dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) criteria are not considered to be 

the levels above which TTS might 

occur. Rather, they are the received 

levels above which, in the view of a 

panel of bioacoustics specialists 

convened by NMFS before TTS 

measurements for marine mammals 

started to become available, one could 

not be certain that there would be no 

injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, 

to marine mammals. As summarized 

above, data that are now available imply 

that TTS is unlikely to occur unless 

bow-riding odontocetes are exposed to 

airgun pulses much stronger than 180 

dB re 1 μPa rms (Southall et al., 2007). 

No cases of TTS are expected as a 

result of Shell’s proposed activities 

given the small size of the source, the 

strong likelihood that baleen whales 

(especially migrating bowheads) would 

avoid the approaching airguns (or 

vessel) before being exposed to levels 

high enough for there to be any 

possibility of TTS, and the mitigation 

measures proposed to be implemented 

during the survey described later in this 

document. 

(PTS) – When PTS occurs, there is 

physical damage to the sound receptors 

in the ear. In some cases, there can be 

total or partial deafness, whereas in 

other cases, the animal has an impaired 

ability to hear sounds in specific 

frequency ranges. 

There is no empirical evidence that 

exposure to pulses of airgun sound can 

cause PTS in any marine mammal, even 

with large arrays of airguns (see 

Southall et al., 2007). However, given 

the possibility that mammals close to an 

airgun array might incur TTS, there has 

been further speculation about the 

possibility that some individuals 

occurring very close to airguns might 

incur PTS. Single or occasional 

occurrences of mild TTS are not 

indicative of permanent auditory 

damage in terrestrial mammals. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, but are assumed to be 

similar to those in humans and other 

terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at 

a received sound level at least several 

decibels above that inducing mild TTS 

if the animal is exposed to the strong 

sound pulses with very rapid rise time. 

It is highly unlikely that marine 

mammals could receive sounds strong 

enough (and over a sufficient duration) 

to cause permanent hearing impairment 

during a project employing the airgun 

sources planned here (i.e., an airgun 

array with a total discharge volume of 

40 in3). In the proposed project, marine 

mammals are unlikely to be exposed to 

received levels of seismic pulses strong 

enough to cause more than slight TTS. 

Given the higher level of sound 

necessary to cause PTS, it is even less 

likely that PTS could occur. In fact, 

even the levels immediately adjacent to 

the airgun may not be sufficient to 

induce PTS, especially because a 

mammal would not be exposed to more 

than one strong pulse unless it swam 

immediately alongside the airgun for a 

period longer than the inter-pulse 

interval. Baleen whales, and belugas as 

well, generally avoid the immediate area 

around operating seismic vessels. The 

planned monitoring and mitigation 

measures, including visual monitoring, 

power-downs, and shutdowns of the 

airguns when mammals are seen within 

the safety radii, will minimize the 

already-minimal probability of exposure 

of marine mammals to sounds strong 

enough to induce PTS. 

Non-auditory Physiological Effects – 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to strong 

underwater sound include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation, 

and other types of organ or tissue 

damage. However, studies examining 

such effects are very limited. If any such 

effects do occur, they probably would be 

limited to unusual situations when 

animals might be exposed at close range 

for unusually long periods. It is doubtful 

that any single marine mammal would 

be exposed to strong seismic sounds for 

an extended period such that significant 

physiological stress would develop. 

Only individuals swimming close to, 

parallel to, and at the same speed as the 

vessel would incur a number of high 

intensity sounds. The small airgun array 

proposed to be used by Shell would 

only have 190 and 180 dB distances of 

50 and 160 m (164 and 525 ft), 

respectively. 

In general, little is known about the 

potential for seismic survey sounds to 

cause auditory impairment or other 

physical effects in marine mammals. 

Available data suggest that such effects, 

if they occur at all, would be limited to 

short distances or more likely to projects 

involving large airgun arrays. However, 

the available data do not allow for 

meaningful quantitative predictions of 

the numbers (if any) of marine mammals 

that might be affected in those ways. 

Marine mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of seismic vessels, including 

most baleen whales, some odontocetes 

(including belugas), and some 

pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to 

incur auditory impairment or other 

physical effects. Also, the planned 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

(described later in this document) 

include shutdowns of the airguns, 

which will reduce any such effects that 

might otherwise occur. 

Stranding and Mortality 

In numerous past IHA notices for 

seismic surveys, commenters have 

referenced two stranding events 

allegedly associated with seismic 

activities, one off Baja California and a 

second off Brazil. NMFS has addressed 

this concern several times, and, without 

new information, does not believe that 

this issue warrants further discussion. 

For information relevant to strandings of 

marine mammals, readers are 

encouraged to review NMFS’ response 

to comments on this matter found in 69 

FR 74905 (December 14, 2004), 71 FR 

43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 

(August 24, 2006), and 71 FR 49418 

(August 23, 2006). In addition, a June, 

2008, stranding of 30–40 melon-headed 

whales off Madagascar that appears to 

be associated with seismic surveys is 

currently under investigation. One 

report indicates that the stranding began 

prior to seismic surveys starting. 

It should be noted that strandings 

have not been recorded for marine 

mammal species in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi seas. NMFS notes that in the 

Beaufort Sea, aerial surveys have been 

conducted by MMS and industry during 

periods of industrial activity (and by 

MMS during times with no activity). No 

strandings or marine mammals in 

distress have been observed during 

these surveys and none have been 

reported by North Slope Borough 

inhabitants. Additionally, if bowhead 

and gray whales react to sounds at very 

low levels and therefore move away 

from the source and outside of the safety 

radii, then strandings would be unlikely 

to occur in the Arctic Ocean since a 

reaction or physical impact that could 

potentially lead to serious injury or 

mortality would not likely occur. As a 

result, NMFS does not expect any 

marine mammals will incur serious 

injury or mortality in the Arctic Ocean 

or strand as a result of the proposed 

survey. 

Possible Effects from Sonar Equipment 

While the sonar equipment proposed 

to be used for this project generates high 

sound energy, the equipment operates at 

frequencies (≤100 kHz) beyond the 

effective hearing range of most marine 

mammals likely to be encountered 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26223 

during the proposed activities 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The 

equipment proposed for the seismic 

profiling operate at a frequency range 

and sound level that could affect marine 

mammal behavior if they occur within 

a relatively close distance to the sound 

source (Richardson et al., 1995). 

However, given the direct downward 

beam pattern of these sonar systems 

coupled with the high-frequency 

characteristics of the signals, the 

horizontal received levels of 180 and 

190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) would be much 

smaller when compared to those from 

the low-frequency airguns with similar 

source levels. Therefore, NMFS believes 

that effects of signals from sonar 

equipment to marine mammals will be 

negligible. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

The anticipated harassments from the 

activities described above may involve 

temporary changes in behavior. There is 

no evidence that the planned activities 

could result in serious injury or 

mortality, for example due to collisions 

with vessels or strandings. Disturbance 

reactions, such as avoidance, are very 

likely to occur amongst marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the source 

vessel. The mitigation and monitoring 

measures proposed to be implemented 

(described later in this document) 

during this survey are based on Level B 

harassment criteria and will minimize 

any potential risk of injury. 

The sections below describe methods 

to estimate ‘‘take by harassment’’ and 

present estimates of the numbers of 

marine mammals that might be affected 

during the proposed site clearance and 

shallow hazards program in the Chukchi 

Sea. The estimates are based on data 

obtained during marine mammal 

surveys in and near the proposed survey 

area and on estimates of the sizes of the 

areas where effects could potentially 

occur. In some cases, these estimates 

were made from data collected in 

regions, habitats, or seasons that differ 

from those in the proposed survey areas. 

Adjustments to reported population or 

density estimates were made to account 

for these differences insofar as possible. 

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 

Chukchi Sea beyond the 200 m (656 ft) 

bathymetry contour. The main sources 

of distributional and numerical data 

used in deriving the estimates are 

described below and in Shell’s 

application. While there is some 

uncertainty related to the use of regional 

population densities for applications 

that are local in focus, these estimates 

are based on the best available scientific 

data and represents standard practice. 

Marine Mammal Density Estimates 

This section provides estimates of the 

number of individuals potentially 

exposed to sound levels at or above 160 

dB re 1 μPa (rms). The estimates are 

based on a consideration of the number 

of marine mammals that might be 

disturbed appreciably by operations in 

the Chukchi Sea. 

For the Chukchi Sea, cetacean 

densities during the summer (JulyAugust) were estimated from effort and 

sightings data in Moore et al. (2000b) 

while pinniped densities were 

estimated from Bengtson et al. (2005). 

Because few data are available on the 

densities of marine mammals other than 

large cetaceans in the Chukchi Sea in 

the fall (September-October), density 

estimates from the summer period have 

been adjusted to reflect the expected 

ratio of summer-to-fall densities based 

on the natural history characteristic of 

each species. Alternatively, some 

densities from data collected aboard 

industry vessels in 2006 and 2007 in the 

Chukchi Sea have been used. 

As noted above, there is some 

uncertainty about the representativeness 

of the data and assumptions used in the 

calculations. To provide some 

allowance for the uncertainties, 

‘‘maximum estimates’’ as well as 

‘‘average estimates’’ of the numbers of 

marine mammals potentially affected 

have been derived and provided by 

Shell in their application. For a few 

marine mammal species, several density 

estimates were available, and in those 

cases, the average and maximum 

estimates were calculated from the 

survey data. In other cases, only one, or 

no applicable estimate was available so 

correction factors were used to arrive at 

‘‘average’’ and ‘‘maximum’’ estimates. 

These are described in detail in Shell’s 

application and the following 

subsections. Except where noted, the 

‘‘maximum’’ estimates have been 

calculated as twice the ‘‘average’’ 

estimates. The densities presented are 

believed to be similar to, or in most 

cases higher than, the densities that will 

actually be encountered during the 

survey. 

Detectability bias, quantified in part 

by [f(0)], is associated with diminishing 

sightability with increasing lateral 

distance from the survey trackline. 

Availability bias [g(0)] refers to the fact 

that there is less than 100 percent 

probability of sighting an animal that is 

present along the survey trackline. 

These correction factors were applied to 

the data from Moore et al. (2000b) and 

were already included in data provided 

by Richardson and Thompson (2002) on 

beluga and bowhead whales, and where 

possible were applied to the available 

data for other species. 

Estimated densities of marine 

mammals in the Chukchi Sea during the 

‘‘summer’’ (July and August) site 

clearance and shallow hazards survey 

are presented in Table 6–1 of Shell’s 

application. Densities of marine 

mammals estimated for the ‘‘fall’’ period 

of Shell’s proposed activities in the 

Chukchi Sea (September and possibly 

October) are presented in Table 6–2 of 

the application. Both ‘‘average’’ and 

‘‘maximum’’ densities are provided in 

the tables. Unless otherwise noted by 

Shell in the application, maximum 

densities are twice the average densities. 

However, since Shell did not provide a 

rationale regarding the maximum 

estimate, NMFS has decided that the 

average density data of marine mammal 

populations will be used to calculate 

estimated take numbers because these 

numbers are based on surveys and 

monitoring of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the proposed project area. 

NMFS only used the ‘‘maximum’’ 

estimates for marine mammal species 

that are considered rare in the project 

area and for which little to no density 

information exists (i.e., killer, fin, 

humpback, and minke whales and 

ringed seals). 

(1) Cetaceans 

Nine species of cetaceans are known 

to occur in the Chukchi Sea project area. 

Only four of these (bowhead, beluga, 

and gray whales and harbor porpoise) 

are expected to be encountered in 

meaningful numbers during the 

proposed survey. Three of the nine 

species (bowhead, fin, and humpback 

whales) are listed as endangered under 

the ESA. 

Beluga Whales – Summer densities of 

beluga whales in offshore waters are 

expected to be very low. Aerial surveys 

have recorded very few belugas in the 

offshore Chukchi Sea during the 

summer months (Moore et al., 2000b). 

Additionally, no belugas were observed 

during more than 42,000 km (26,100 mi) 

of useable visual effort from industry 

vessels operating in the Chukchi Sea in 

2006 and 2007 (Ireland et al., 2007a,b; 

Patterson et al., 2007; Reiser et al., 

2008). Shallow hazards and site 

clearance survey activities in 2009 will 

largely be restricted to open-water areas 

as were the 2006 and 2007 surveys. 

Expected densities have been calculated 

from data in Moore et al. (2000b; see 

Table 6–1 in Shell’s application). 

26224 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

In the fall, beluga whale densities in 

the Chukchi Sea are expected to be 

higher than in the summer because 

individuals of the Beaufort Sea stock 

will be migrating south to their 

wintering grounds in the Bering Sea 

(Angliss and Outlaw, 2008). Densities 

are assumed to be similar in open-water 

and ice-margin areas although they are 

probably somewhat higher along the 

edge of the pack ice than in open-water 

areas where shallow hazards and site 

clearance surveys will be conducted. 

Densities derived from survey results in 

the northern Chukchi Sea in Moore et 

al. (2000b) were used as the average 

density for open-water and ice-margin 

fall estimates (see Table 6–2 in Shell’s 

application). 

Bowhead Whales – By July, most 

bowhead whales are northeast of the 

Chukchi Sea, within or migrating 

toward their summer feeding grounds in 

the eastern Beaufort Sea resulting in low 

density estimates for the Chukchi Sea 

(Moore et al., 2000b). The summer 

estimate in the Chukchi Sea was 

calculated by assuming there was one 

bowhead sighting during the 10,684 km 

(6,639 mi) of survey effort in the 

Chukchi Sea during the summer months 

reported in Moore et al. (2000b), 

although, no bowheads were actually 

observed during those surveys. During 

the autumn, bowhead whales that 

summered in the Beaufort Sea and 

Amundsen Gulf are migrating west and 

south to their wintering grounds in the 

Bering Sea making it more likely that 

bowheads will be encountered in the 

Chukchi Sea. However, a tagging study 

of two bowhead whales from 2006 

showed that both whales occurred 

together along the northern Chukotka 

coast in November of that year, 

indicating that perhaps they traveled 

through the northern Chukchi Sea to 

reach Russian waters (Quakenbush, 

2007). A correction factor of x0.05 has 

been used to adjust the observed 

autumn densities from the Beaufort Sea 

(Richardson and Thomson, 2002) to 

estimated densities in the Chukchi Sea, 

for the following reasons: (1) the 

migration corridor is narrower in the 

Beaufort Sea where available data have 

been obtained; (2) bowheads sometimes 

linger to feed for extended periods in 

the Beaufort Sea but extended feeding 

has not been documented in the central 

and eastern Chukchi Sea in autumn; and 

(3) most bowheads will travel through 

the Chukchi Sea north of the shallow 

hazards and site clearance survey area 

after activities are expected to be 

completed in 2009. 

Gray Whales – Gray whale densities 

were estimated from summer aerial 

surveys by Moore et al. (2000b). Moore 

et al. (2000b) found large summer 

concentrations of gray whales off the 

Seward Peninsula, far to the south of 

Shell’s planned open-water marine 

surveys. The distribution of gray whales 

in the proposed survey area was 

scattered and limited to nearshore areas 

where most whales were observed in 

water less than 35 m (115 ft) deep 

(Moore et al., 2000b). A density 

calculated from effort and sightings in 

Moore et al. (2000b) in water greater 

than 35 m (115 ft) in depth was used as 

the average estimate for the Chukchi Sea 

during the summer period. In the 

autumn, gray whales may be dispersed 

more widely through the northern 

Chukchi Sea (in the area of the survey), 

and densities are expected to be slightly 

higher. A density calculated from effort 

and sightings in water greater than 35 m 

(115 ft) deep during autumn in Moore 

et al. (2000b) was used as the average 

estimate for the Chukchi Sea during the 

fall period. 

Harbor Porpoise – Harbor porpoise 

densities were estimated from industry 

data collected during 2006 activities in 

the Chukchi Sea. Prior to 2006, no 

reliable estimates were available for the 

Chukchi Sea, and harbor porpoise 

presence was expected to be very low 

and limited to nearshore regions. 

Observers on industry vessels in 2006, 

however, commonly recorded sightings 

throughout the Chukchi Sea during the 

summer and early autumn months. A 

density estimate from these data has 

been used for the summer period. No 

sightings were recorded during the 

majority of the fall period, so minimal 

values have been used for that time 

period. 

The remaining four cetacean species 

that could be encountered in the 

Chukchi Sea during Shell’s proposed 

open-water marine survey include the 

humpback, killer, minke, and fin 

whales. Although there is evidence of 

the occasional occurrence of these 

species in the Chukchi Sea, it is 

unlikely that individuals will be 

encountered during the proposed 

survey. George and Suydam (1998) 

reported killer whales, Brueggeman et 

al. (1990) reported one minke whale, 

Suydam and George (1992) and Ireland 

et al. (2008) reported harbor porpoise, 

and Gambell (1985) recorded the 

northern extent of fin whales to be in 

the Chukchi Sea. Small numbers of 

minke and humpback whales were 

observed during industry activities in 

2006 and 2007 (Ireland et al., 2008). 

(2) Pinnipeds 

Four species of pinnipeds may be 

encountered in the Chukchi Sea area of 

Shell’s proposed shallow hazards and 

site clearance program: ringed, bearded, 

spotted, and ribbon seals. Each of these 

species, except the spotted seal, is 

associated with both the ice margin and 

the nearshore area. The ice margin is 

considered preferred habitat (as 

compared to the nearshore areas) during 

most seasons. Spotted seals are often 

considered to be predominantly a 

coastal species except in the spring 

when they may be found in the southern 

margin of the retreating sea ice, before 

they move to shore. However, satellite 

tagging has shown that they sometimes 

undertake long excursions into offshore 

waters, as far as 120 km (74.6 mi) off the 

Alaskan coast in the eastern Chukchi 

Sea, during summer (Lowry et al., 1994, 

1998). Ribbon seals have been reported 

in very small numbers within the 

Chukchi Sea by observers on industry 

vessels (Ireland et al., 2007a; Patterson 

et al., 2007) so minimal values have 

been used for expected densities. 

Ringed and Bearded Seals – For 

ringed and bearded seals both ‘‘average’’ 

and ‘‘maximum’’ summer densities are 

available in Bengtson et al. (2005) from 

spring surveys in the offshore pack ice 

zone of the northern Chukchi Sea (see 

Tables 6–1 and 6–2 in Shell’s 

application). The ringed seal density 

estimates calculated from data collected 

during 2006 and 2007 industry 

operations were 0.262 and 0.041seals/ 

km2, respectively (Jankowski et al., 

2007; Reiser et al., 2008), and are lower 

than those estimated by Bengtson et al. 

(2005). The fall density of ringed seals 

in the Chukchi Sea has been estimated 

as two-thirds the summer densities 

because at that time of year, ringed seals 

reoccupy nearshore fast ice areas as the 

fast ice forms. 

Spotted Seals – Very little 

information on spotted seal densities in 

offshore areas of the Chukchi Sea is 

available because of the difficulty in 

estimating their density when at sea. 

Spotted seal densities were estimated by 

multiplying the bearded seal density 

from Bengtson et al. (2005) by 0.2 based 

on the ratio of abundance estimates of 

spotted seal to bearded seal. 

Exposure Calculations of Marine 

Mammals 

Numbers of marine mammals that 

might be present and potentially 

disturbed as a result of the site clearance 

and shallow hazards survey are 

estimated below based on available data 

about mammal distribution and 

densities at different locations and times 

of the year, as described in the previous 

subsections. The proposed survey 

would take place in the Chukchi Sea 

over two different seasons (i.e., half in 

the summer, August, and half in the fall, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26225 

September). The estimates of marine 

mammal densities have therefore been 

separated both spatially and temporally 

in an attempt to represent the 

distribution of animals expected to be 

encountered over the duration of the 

survey. 

The number of individuals of each 

species potentially exposed to received 

sound levels at or above 160 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) within the survey region, time 

period, and habitat zone was estimated 

by multiplying: 

• The expected species density (as 

provided in Tables 6–1 and 6–2 of 

Shell’s application); by 

• The anticipated area to be 

ensonified to the specified level in the 

survey region (900 km2), time period, 

and habitat zone to which that density 

applies. 

The numbers of potential individuals 

exposed were then summed for each 

species across the survey regions, 

seasons, and habitat zones. Some of the 

animals estimated to be exposed, 

particularly migrating bowhead whales, 

might show avoidance reactions before 

being exposed to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

Thus, these calculations actually 

estimate the number of individuals 

potentially exposed to sound at or above 

160 dB (rms) that would occur if there 

were no avoidance of the area 

ensonified to that level. 

The area of water potentially exposed 

to received levels at or above 160 dB 

(rms) by the proposed operations was 

calculated by multiplying the planned 

trackline distance by the cross-track 

distance of the sound propagation 

measured during previous field seasons. 

For site clearance and shallow hazards 

surveys in 2008 in the Chukchi Sea, the 

160 dB radius from the Cape Flattery’s 

four 10 in3 airguns measured in 2008 

was 1,400 m (0.87 mi), and the single 10 

in3 airgun was 440 m (0.27 mi). 

Closely spaced survey lines and large 

cross-track distances of the 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. However, the relatively short 

cross-track distances of the 160 dB radii 

associated with the site clearance and 

shallow hazards surveys result in little 

overlap of exposed waters during the 

survey, so multiple exposures due to 

overlap of ensonified areas have not 

been removed from the area 

calculations. 

Shallow hazards and site clearance 

surveys in the Chukchi Sea are planned 

to occur along approximately 480 km 

(298 mi) of survey lines (plus 

approximately 120 km (74.6 mi) of 

mitigation gun activity between survey 

lines) from August-September exposing 

approximately 900 km2 (347.5 mi2) of 

water to sounds at or above 160 dB 

(rms). 

Density estimates in the Chukchi Sea 

have been derived for two time periods, 

the summer period (August) and the fall 

period (September). Animal densities 

encountered in the Chukchi Sea during 

both of these time periods will further 

depend on the habitat zone within 

which the source vessel is operating: (1) 

open-water; or (2) ice margin. The 

survey vessel is not an icebreaker and 

cannot tow survey equipment through 

pack ice. Under this assumption, 

densities of marine mammals expected 

to be observed in or near ice margin 

areas have been applied to 10 percent of 

the proposed survey trackline. Densities 

of marine mammals expected to occur 

in open-water areas have been applied 

to the remaining 90 percent of the 

survey trackline. 

Approximately half of the proposed 

Chukchi Sea site clearance and shallow 

hazards survey is planned to be 

completed in August, so the summer 

density estimates have been applied to 

50 percent of the trackline falling within 

each habitat zone. The other half of the 

trackline is planned to be surveyed in 

September, so the fall marine mammal 

densities have also been applied to 50 

percent of the trackline in each habitat 

zone. 

Based on the operational plans and 

marine mammal densities described 

above, the estimates of marine mammals 

potentially exposed to sounds at or 

above 160 dB (rms) in the Chukchi Sea 

are presented in Table 6–7 of 

Addendum 2 to Shell’s application. A 

discussion of the number of potential 

exposures is summarized by species in 

the following subsections. 

(1) Cetaceans 

Based on density estimates, one ESAlisted cetacean species (the bowhead 

whale) is expected to be exposed to 

received sound levels at or above 160 

dB (rms) unless bowheads avoid the 

survey vessel before the received levels 

reach 160 dB. Migrating bowheads are 

likely to avoid the survey vessel, though 

many of the bowheads engaged in other 

activities, particularly feeding and 

socializing may not. Using average 

density estimates, Shell estimates that 

one bowhead whale may potentially be 

exposed to sounds at or above 160 dB 

(rms) in the Chukchi Sea project area 

during the site clearance and shallow 

hazards survey (see Table 6–7 of 

Addendum 2 to Shell’s application). 

Two other cetacean species listed as 

endangered under the ESA that may be 

encountered in the project area (fin and 

humpback whales) are unlikely to be 

exposed given their low ‘‘average’’ 

density estimates in the area. However, 

Shell has estimated that a ‘‘maximum’’ 

of five humpback whales and five fin 

whales may be exposed to sound levels 

at or above 160 dB (rms) during the 

proposed survey (see Table 6–7 in 

Addendum 2). NMFS’ reasoning for 

using the ‘‘maximum’’ estimate for these 

species was explained earlier in this 

document. 

Most of the cetaceans exposed to 

survey sounds with received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) 

would involve mysticetes (bowhead and 

gray whales), monodontids (beluga 

whales), and porpoise (harbor porpoise). 

Average and maximum estimates of the 

number of exposures of cetaceans other 

than bowheads are beluga whale (10 and 

19, respectively), gray whale (19 and 37, 

respectively), and harbor porpoise (6 

and 11, respectively). Average estimates 

for the other cetacean species are zero 

(see Table 6–7 in Addendum 2 to Shell’s 

application) since accurate density 

estimates are not possible given the 

paucity of sightings. However, 

maximum estimates are provided for 

these species (see Table 6–7). 

For the common species, the 

requested numbers are calculated as 

described previously in this document 

and based on the average densities from 

the data reported in the different studies 

mentioned previously. 

(2) 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 

population size 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 re 

1 μPa (rms) during the proposed site 

clearance and shallow hazards survey. 

The average (and maximum) exposure 

estimate is that 692 (1,078) ringed seals 

might be exposed to marine survey 

sounds with received levels at or above 

160 dB (rms). 

Two additional pinniped species 

(other than Pacific walrus) are expected 

to be encountered. They are the bearded 

seal (31 and 43, average and maximum 

estimates, respectively) and the spotted 

seal (6 and 11, average and maximum 

estimates, respectively; Table 6–7 in 

Addendum 2 to Shell’s application). 

Survey activities near spotted seal 

haulouts at Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea 

will remain more than 8 km (5 mi) from 

shore and be timed to minimize the 

26226 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

chance of disturbance to hauled out 

seals. The ribbon seal is unlikely to be 

encountered. Therefore, only a 

maximum estimate (5) has been 

provided for this species based on the 

minimal density data and extremely low 

density estimates for this species in the 

Chukchi Sea. NMFS’ reasoning for using 

the ‘‘maximum’’ estimate for this 

species was explained earlier in this 

document. 

Conclusions 

(1) Cetaceans 

Most of the bowhead whales 

encountered during the summer will 

likely show overt disturbance 

(avoidance) if they receive airgun 

sounds with levels at or above 160 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms). The small airgun array 

proposed for use in this survey greatly 

limits the size of the 160 dB zone 

around the ship (1,400 m (0.87 mi)). The 

use of this smaller airgun array will 

result in fewer bowhead whales being 

disturbed by the survey when compared 

to the use of larger airgun arrays. 

Seismic operators sometimes see 

dolphins and other small toothed 

whales near operating airgun arrays, but 

in general, there seems to be a tendency 

for most delphinds to show some 

limited avoidance of operating seismic 

vessels (Stone, 2003; Moulton and 

Miller, 2005; Holst et al., 2006; Stone 

and Tasker, 2006). Studies that have 

reported cases of small toothed whales 

close to the operating airguns include 

Duncan (1985), Arnold (1996), Stone 

(2003), and Holst et al. (2006). 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 10–20 km 

(6.2–12.4 mi) of seismic vessels during 

aerial surveys. These results were 

consistent with the low number of 

beluga sightings reported by observers 

aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting 

that some belugas might be avoiding the 

seismic operations at distances of 10–20 

km (6.2–12.4 mi; Miller et al., 2005). 

The study conducted by Miller et al. 

(2005) was aboard a vessel conducting 

a 3D seismic survey, utilizing two 

identical 2,250 in3 airgun arrays with 

each array containing 24 guns. Since the 

acoustic sources proposed to be used 

during Shell’s survey are significantly 

smaller (40 in3 array) than the ones 

described in the Miller et al. (2005) 

study, deflections of that magnitude are 

not expected. Belugas will likely occur 

in small numbers in the Chukchi Sea 

during the survey period and few will 

likely be affected by the survey activity. 

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 relatively low 

percentages of the population sizes in 

the Bearing-Chukchi-Beaufort seas, as 

described next. 

Based on the 160 dB (rms) 

disturbance criterion, the best (average) 

estimates of the numbers of cetacean 

exposures to sounds at or above 160 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms) represent varying 

proportions of the populations of each 

species in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent 

waters (cf. Table 6–1 in Shell’s 

application). For species listed as 

endangered under the ESA, Shell’s 

estimates suggest it is unlikely that fin 

whales or humpback whales will be 

exposed to received levels greater than 

or equal to 160 dB rms, but that 

approximately one bowhead may be 

exposed at this level. The latter is less 

than 0.01 percent of the BeringChukchi-Beaufort population of greater 

than 13,779 individuals assuming 3.4 

percent annual population growth from 

the 2001 estimate of 10,545 animals 

(Zeh and Punt, 2005). 

Beluga whales 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 size (Table 6– 

7 in Addendum 2 to Shell’s 

application). The best estimate of the 

number of belugas that might be 

exposed to sounds at or above 160 dB 

(10) represents 0.27 percent of the 

eastern Chukchi Sea population of 

approximately 3,710 individuals 

(Angliss and Allen, 2009). 

Gray whales and harbor porpoise may 

also be exposed to sounds produced by 

the airguns. The best (average) estimate 

of the number of gray whales and harbor 

porpoise that might be exposed to 

sounds at or above 160 dB (rms) 

represents 0.11 percent of the Eastern 

North Pacific stock of gray whales and 

less than 0.01 percent of the Bering Sea 

stock of harbor porpoise. 

In addition, killer, fin, humpback, and 

minke whales could also be taken by 

Level B harassment as a result of the 

proposed survey. However, the 

possibility is low. The numbers of 

‘‘average’’ estimated take of these 

species are not available because they 

are rare in the project area and little 

density data exist for these species in 

the proposed project area. Since the 

Chukchi Sea represents only a small 

fraction of the North Pacific and Arctic 

basins where these animals occur, and 

these animals do not regularly 

congregate in the vicinity of the project 

area, NMFS believes that only relatively 

small numbers, if any, of these marine 

mammal species would be potentially 

affected by the proposed open-water 

marine survey program. 

Varying estimates of the numbers of 

marine mammals that might be exposed 

to sounds from the airgun array during 

the 2009 Shell shallow hazards and site 

clearance surveys have been presented 

(average vs. maximum). The relatively 

short-term exposures that will occur are 

not expected to result in any long-term 

negative consequences for the 

individuals or their populations. 

The many reported cases of apparent 

tolerance by cetaceans of seismic 

exploration, vessel traffic, and some 

other human activities show that coexistence is possible. Mitigation 

measures such as controlled vessel 

speed, dedicated marine mammal 

observers (MMOs), non-pursuit, 

shutdowns or power-downs when 

marine mammals are seen within 

defined ranges, and avoiding migration 

pathways when animals are likely most 

sensitive to noise will further reduce 

short-term reactions and minimize any 

effects on hearing sensitivity. In all 

cases, the effects are expected to be 

short-term, with no lasting biological 

consequence. Subsistence issues are 

addressed later in this document. 

Potential Bowhead Disturbance at 

Lower Received Levels – Aerial surveys 

during fall seismic surveys in the 

Beaufort Sea showed that migrating 

bowhead whales appeared to avoid 

seismic activities at distances of 20–30 

km (12.4–18.6 mi) and received sound 

levels of 120–130 dB rms (Miller et al., 

1999; Richardson et al., 1999). 

Therefore, it is possible that a larger 

number of bowhead whales than 

estimated above may be disturbed to 

some extent if reactions occur at or near 

approximately 130 dB (rms). Using the 

same method of calculation as described 

earlier in this document for estimating 

take, the number of migrating bowhead 

whales exposed to sounds greater than 

or equal to 120 dB by the proposed 

survey would be approximately 8.5 the 

number estimated at 160 dB. (It should 

be noted though that this calculation is 

more accurate for the Beaufort Sea 

where the bowhead whale migration 

pathway is narrower and more clearly 

defined than in the Chukchi Sea.) 

However, acoustic data collected in the 

vicinity of seismic surveys in the 

Beaufort Sea in 2007 indicated that 

bowhead whales did not avoid the 

sound source at distances equivalent to 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26227 

120 dB (rms) and instead tolerated 

sounds at higher levels while likely 

changing their calling behavior 

(Blackwell et al., 2008). 

Reducing operations during the 

bowhead whale subsistence harvest is 

meant to accomplish two mitigation 

objectives. It greatly reduces the 

potential for conflicts with subsistence 

hunting activities, and it allows a large 

proportion of the bowhead population 

to migrate past the survey area without 

being exposed to survey sounds at or 

above 160 dB (rms) or 120 dB (rms). 

The western Arctic stock of bowhead 

whales usually begins its westward 

migration through the Beaufort Sea in 

late August. Westbound bowheads 

typically reach the Barrow area in midSeptember and remain in that area until 

late October (Brower, 1996). Therefore, 

migrating bowhead whales are not 

expected in the proposed Chukchi Sea 

survey area until the second half of the 

survey, as the project is expected to 

occur for approximately 50 days 

between August and September. 

(2) Pinnipeds 

A few pinniped species are likely to 

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 likely 

to be exposed to airgun sounds at 

received levels at or above 160 dB re 1 

μPa (rms) during the open-water marine 

survey in the Chukchi Sea are as 

follows: ringed seals (692), bearded 

seals (31), and spotted seals (6), 

(representing 0.3 percent, 0.6 percent, 

and 0.01 percent, respectively, of the 

Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort populations 

for each species). It is probable that only 

a small percentage of the animals 

exposed to sound levels at 160 dB 

would actually be disturbed. For 

example, Moulton and Lawson (2002) 

indicate that most pinnipeds exposed to 

seismic sounds lower than 170 dB do 

not visibly react to that sound, and, 

therefore, pinnipeds are not likely to 

react to seismic sounds unless they are 

greater than 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms). 

Consequently, the take estimates 

presented in this document may be an 

overestimation. 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, as 

observations have shown pinnipeds to 

be rather tolerant of (or habituated to) 

underwater seismic sounds. 

Potential Impacts on Habitat 

The proposed activities will not result 

in any permanent impact on habitats 

used by marine mammals or to their 

prey sources. Site clearance and shallow 

hazards activities will occur during the 

time of year when bowhead whales are 

present (i.e., August and September). 

Any effects would be temporary and of 

short duration at any one place. The 

primary potential impacts to marine 

mammals are associated with acoustic 

sound levels from the proposed site 

clearance and shallow hazards survey 

work discussed earlier in this 

document. 

Mortality to fish, fish eggs, and larvae 

from energy sources would be expected 

within a few meters (0.5 to 3 m (1.6 to 

10 ft)) from the sound source. Direct 

mortality has been observed in cod and 

plaice within 48 hours that were 

subjected to pulses 2 m (6.6 ft) from the 

source (Matishov, 1992); however, other 

studies did not report any fish kills from 

sound source exposure (La Bella et al., 

1996; IMG, 2002; Hassel et al., 2003). To 

date, fish mortalities associated with 

normal operations are thought to be 

slight. Saetre and Ona (1996) modeled a 

worst-case mathematical approach on 

the effects of energy on fish eggs and 

larvae, and concluded that mortality 

rates caused by exposure to sounds are 

so low compared to natural mortality 

that issues relating to stock recruitment 

should be regarded as insignificant. 

Limited studies on physiological 

effects on marine fish and invertebrates 

to acoustic stress have been conducted. 

No significant increases in physiological 

stress from sound energy were detected 

for various fish, squid, and cuttlefish 

(McCauley et al., 2000) or in male snow 

crabs (Christian et al., 2003). Behavioral 

changes in fish associated with sound 

exposures are expected to be minor at 

best. Because only a small portion of the 

available foraging habitat would be 

subjected to sound pulses at a given 

time, fish would be expected to return 

to the area of disturbance within 

anywhere from 15 to 30 min (McCauley 

et al., 2000) to several days (Engas et al., 

1996). 

Available data indicate that mortality 

and behavioral changes of various fish 

or invertebrates do occur within very 

close range (less than 2 m (6.6 ft)) to the 

energy source. The proposed acquisition 

activities in distinct areas in the 

Chukchi Sea would impact less than 0.1 

percent of available food resources, 

which would have little, if any, effect on 

a marine mammal’s ability to forage 

successfully. 

The proposed activities are not 

expected to have any habitat-related 

effects that would produce long-term 

impacts to marine mammals or their 

habitat due to the limited extent of the 

acquisition areas and timing of the 

activities. 

Effects of Seismic Noise and Other 

Related Activities on Subsistence 

The disturbance and potential 

displacement of marine mammals by 

sounds from seismic activities are the 

principal concerns related to 

subsistence use of the area. Subsistence 

remains the basis for Alaska Native 

culture and community. Marine 

mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan 

waters by coastal Alaska Natives. In 

rural Alaska, subsistence activities are 

often central to many aspects of human 

existence, including patterns of family 

life, artistic expression, and community 

religious and celebratory activities. The 

main species that are hunted include 

bowhead and beluga whales, ringed, 

spotted, and bearded seals, walruses, 

and polar bears . The importance of 

each of these species varies among the 

communities and is largely based on 

availability. 

Communities that participate in 

subsistence hunts that have the 

potential to be affected by Shell’s openwater marine survey program in the 

Chukchi Sea proposed survey areas are 

Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, 

Barrow and possibly Kotzebue 

(however, this community is much 

farther to the south of the proposed 

project area). 

Point Hope residents subsistence hunt 

for bowhead and beluga whales, polar 

bears, and walrus. Bowhead and beluga 

whales are hunted in the spring and 

early summer along the ice edge. Beluga 

whales may also be hunted later in the 

summer along the shore. Walrus are 

harvested in late spring and early 

summer, and polar bears are hunted 

from October to April (MMS, 2007). 

Seals are available from October through 

June, but are harvested primarily during 

the winter months, from November 

through March, due to the availability of 

other resources during the other periods 

of the year (MMS, 2007). 

With Point Lay situated near 

Kasegaluk Lagoon, the community’s 

main subsistence focus is on beluga 

whales. Each year, hunters from Point 

Lay drive belugas into the lagoon to a 

traditional hunting location. The 

belugas have been predictably sighted 

near the lagoon from late June through 

mid- to late July (Suydam et al., 2001). 

Seals are available year-round, and 

polar bears and walruses are normally 

hunted in the winter. Hunters typically 

travel to Barrow, Wainwright, or Point 

Hope to participate in bowhead whale 

harvest, but there is interest in 

reestablishing a local Point Lay harvest. 

Shell’s activities are scheduled to avoid 

26228 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

the traditional subsistence beluga hunt, 

which annually occurs in July. 

Wainwright residents subsist on both 

beluga and bowhead whales in the 

spring and early summer. During these 

two seasons the chances of landing a 

whale are higher than during other 

seasons. Seals are hunted by this 

community year-round, and polar bears 

are hunted in the winter. 

Barrow residents’ main subsistence 

focus is concentrated on biannual 

bowhead whale hunts. They hunt these 

whales during the spring and fall. 

Westbound bowheads typically reach 

the Barrow area in mid-September and 

are in that area until late October (e.g., 

Brower, 1996). Autumn bowhead 

whaling near Barrow normally begins in 

mid-September to early October but may 

begin as early as late-August if whales 

are observed and ice conditions are 

favorable (USDI/BLM, 2005). Whaling 

near Barrow can continue into October, 

depending on the quota and conditions. 

Other animals, such as seals, walruses, 

and polar bears are hunted outside of 

the whaling season, but they are not the 

primary source of the subsistence 

harvest (URS Corporation, 2005). 

There could be an adverse impact on 

the Inupiat bowhead subsistence hunt if 

the whales were deflected seaward 

(further from shore) in traditional 

hunting areas. The impact would be that 

whaling crews would have to travel 

greater distances to intercept westward 

migrating whales thereby creating a 

safety hazard for whaling crews and/or 

limiting chances of successfully striking 

and landing bowheads. This potential 

impact is mitigated by application of the 

procedures established in the 4MP. 

Adaptive mitigation measures may be 

employed during times of active 

scouting and whaling within the 

traditional subsistence hunting areas of 

the potentially affected communities. 

Shell does not plan to begin activities 

until after completion of the spring 

bowhead hunts. However, there is a 

possibility that their data acquisition 

will not be completed prior to the start 

of the fall bowhead hunt in Barrow. 

However, it is not expected that the 

whales will be deflected further offshore 

before reaching Barrow since Shell’s 

survey will occur approximately 225 km 

(140 mi) west of Barrow. The whales 

will be traveling westward through the 

Beaufort Sea from Canada and will 

reach Barrow before entering the survey 

area in the Chukchi Sea. Based on these 

factors, Shell’s Chukchi Sea survey is 

not expected to interfere with the fall 

bowhead harvest in Barrow. In recent 

years, bowhead whales have 

occasionally been taken in the fall by 

coastal villages along the Chukchi coast, 

but the total number of these animals 

has been small. 

Shell has adopted a spatial and 

temporal operational strategy for its 

Chukchi Sea operations that should 

minimize impacts to subsistence 

hunters. Operations will not begin prior 

to the close of the spring bowhead hunt 

in the Chukchi coastal villages and will 

closely coordinate with and avoid 

imμPacts to beluga whale hunts and 

walrus hunts through subsistence 

advisors. 

The timing (late summer and fall after 

many of the Chukchi Sea communities 

have harvested sizeable portions of their 

marine mammal quota) and distance 

(approximately 113 km (70 mi) or more) 

from shore, as well as the low volume 

airguns that are proposed to be used and 

the proposed mitigation measures 

described later in this document, are 

expected to mitigate any adverse effects 

of the surveys on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence uses. 

NMFS does not expect subsistence users 

to be directly displaced by the proposed 

survey because subsistence hunters 

usually do not travel this far (113 km 

[70 mi]) offshore to harvest marine 

mammals. Additionally, because of the 

significant distance offshore and the 

lack of hunting in these areas, there is 

no expectation that any physical 

barriers would exist between marine 

mammals and subsistence users. Based 

on this information, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that Shell’s 

proposed open-water marine survey 

program in the Chukchi Sea in 2009/ 

2010 will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on subsistence uses. 

Plan of Cooperation (POC) 

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) 

require IHA applicants for activities that 

take place in Arctic waters to provide a 

POC or information that identifies what 

measures have been taken and/or will 

be taken to minimize adverse effects on 

the availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence purposes. Shell has 

prepared and will implement a draft 

POC for its 2009 activities. The POC 

also describes concerns received during 

2008. Shell developed the POC to 

mitigate and avoid any unreasonable 

interference from their planned 

activities with North Slope subsistence 

uses and resources. The POC is, and has 

been in the past, the result of numerous 

meetings and consultations between 

Shell, affected subsistence communities 

and stakeholders, and Federal agencies. 

The POC identifies and documents 

potential conflicts and associated 

measures that will be taken to minimize 

any adverse effects on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence use. 

The Draft POC document was 

distributed to the communities, 

subsistence users groups, NMFS, and 

USFWS on May 15, 2009. To be 

effective, the POC must be a dynamic 

document which will expand to 

incorporate the communications and 

consultation that will continue to occur 

throughout 2009 and 2010. Outcomes of 

POC meetings are typically included in 

updates attached to the POC as addenda 

and distributed to federal, state, and 

local agencies as well as local 

stakeholder groups that either 

adjudicate or influence mitigation 

approaches for Shell’s open-water 

programs. 

Shell has held and plans to hold 

additional community meetings in 

Barrow, Wainwright, Point Hope, Point 

Lay, and Kotzebue regarding its 2009 

Chukchi open-water marine survey 

program. Some of the community POC 

meetings that have already occurred 

include: February 2, 2009, in Barrow; 

March 24, 2009, in Point Hope; March 

25, 2009, in Kotzebue; March 26, 2009, 

in Wainwright; and April 22, 2009, in 

Point Lay. Shell plans to focus on 

lessons learned from the 2008 openwater program and begin preparing 

mitigation measures (beyond those 

already identified elsewhere in this 

document) to avoid potential conflicts. 

During 2009, Shell will continue to 

meet with the marine mammal 

commissions and committees including 

the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC), Eskimo Walrus Commission 

(EWC), Alaska Beluga Whale Committee 

(ABWC), Alaska Ice Seal Committee 

(AISC), and the Alaska Nanuuq 

Commission (ANC). Throughout 2009, 

Shell anticipates meeting with the 

marine mammal commissions and 

committees active in the subsistence 

harvests and marine mammal research. 

Also during 2009, Shell will meet at 

least twice with the commissioners and 

committee heads of ABWC, ANC, EWC, 

and AISC jointly in co-management 

meetings. During a pre-season comanagement meeting Shell will present 

pre-season planning to the 

commissioners and committee leads in 

order to gather their input on 

subsistence use concerns, consider their 

traditional knowledge in the design of 

project mitigations, and to hear about 

their involvement in research on marine 

mammals and/or traditional use. 

Following the season, Shell will have a 

post-season co-management meeting 

with the commissioners and committee 

heads to discuss results of mitigation 

measures and outcomes of the preceding 

season. The goal of the post-season 

meeting is to build upon the knowledge 

base, discuss successful or unsuccessful 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26229 

outcomes of mitigation measures, and 

possibly refine plans or mitigation 

measures if necessary. 

In addition, Shell will meet with 

North Slope officials and community 

leaders on an as-requested basis before 

the 2009 open-water season in order to 

discuss the proposed activities. Lastly, 

Shell intends to discuss adaptive 

conflict avoidance mechanisms to 

address concerns expressed by 

subsistence users in the North Slope 

communities. 

The POC also specifies times and 

areas to avoid in order to minimize 

possible conflicts with traditional 

subsistence hunts by North Slope 

villages for transit and open-water 

activities. As mentioned elsewhere in 

this document, Shell does not plan to 

conduct survey activities until the close 

of Point Lay’s spring beluga hunt, which 

usually occurs each year in July. 

Additionally, Shell has stated that 

vessel transits in the Chukchi Sea spring 

lead system will not occur prior to July 

1, 2009, and July 1, 2010. 

Proposed Mitigation and Monitoring 

As part of its application, Shell has 

proposed implementing a 4MP that will 

consist of monitoring and mitigation 

during their open-water shallow hazards 

data acquisition activities in the 

Chukchi Sea during the 2009/2010 

open-water season. The program 

consists of monitoring and mitigation 

during Shell’s various activities related 

to survey data acquisition, including 

transit and data acquisition. This 

program will provide information on the 

numbers of marine mammals potentially 

affected by the survey program and realtime mitigation to prevent possible 

injury or mortality of marine mammals 

by sources of sound and other vessel 

related activities. Monitoring efforts will 

be initiated to collect data to address the 

following specific objectives: (1) 

improve the understanding of the 

distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals in the Chukchi Sea project 

areas; and (2) assess the effects of sound 

and vessel activities on marine 

mammals inhabiting the project areas 

and their distribution relative to the 

local people that depend on them for 

subsistence hunting. These objectives 

and the monitoring and mitigation goals 

will be addressed through the 

utilization of vessel-based MMOs on the 

survey source vessels. Additional 

information can be found in Shell’s 

application. 

Proposed Mitigation Measures 

The proposed survey program 

incorporates both design features and 

operational procedures for minimizing 

potential impacts on cetaceans and 

pinnipeds and on subsistence hunts. 

The design features and operational 

procedures have been described in the 

IHA application submitted to NMFS and 

requests for LOAs submitted to USFWS 

and are summarized here. Survey design 

features include: 

• Timing and locating survey 

activities to avoid interference with the 

annual fall bowhead whale and other 

marine mammal hunts; 

• Selecting and configuring the 

energy source array in such a way that 

it minimize the amount of energy 

introduced into the marine environment 

and, specifically, so that it minimizes 

horizontal propagation; 

• Limiting the size of the acoustic 

energy source to only that required to 

meet the technical objectives of the 

survey; and 

• Early season field assessment to 

establish and refine (as necessary) the 

appropriate 180 dB and 190 dB safety 

zones, and other radii relevant to 

behavioral disturbance. 

The potential disturbance of cetaceans 

and pinnipeds during survey operations 

will be minimized further through the 

implementation of several ship-based 

mitigation measures, which include 

establishing and monitoring safety and 

disturbance zones, speed and course 

alterations, ramp-up (or soft start), 

power-down, and shutdown procedures, 

and provisions for poor visibility 

conditions. 

(1) Safety and Disturbance Zones 

Safety radii for marine mammals 

around airgun arrays are customarily 

defined as the distances within which 

received pulse levels are greater than or 

equal to 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for 

cetaceans and greater than or equal to 

190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pinnipeds. 

These safety criteria are based on an 

assumption that seismic pulses at lower 

received levels will not injure these 

animals or impair their hearing abilities, 

but that higher received levels might 

have such effects. It should be 

understood that marine mammals inside 

these safety zones will not necessarily 

be seriously injured or killed as these 

zones were established prior to the 

current understanding that significantly 

higher levels of impulse sounds would 

be required before injury or mortality 

could occur (see Southall et al., 2007). 

Shell anticipates that monitoring 

similar to that conducted in the Chukchi 

Sea in 2007–8 will also be required in 

2009. Shell plans to use MMOs onboard 

the survey vessel to monitor the 190 and 

180 dB (rms) safety radii for pinnipeds 

and cetaceans, respectively, and to 

implement appropriate mitigation as 

discussed in this document. 

In addition, a 160–dB (rms) vessel 

monitoring zone for bowhead and gray 

whales will be established and 

monitored during all survey activities. 

Whenever an aggregation of 12 or more 

bowhead or gray whales are observed 

during a vessel-monitoring program 

within the 160–dB zone around the 

source vessel, the survey will not 

commence or will shutdown until 

MMOs confirm they are no longer 

present within the 160–dB safety radius 

of surveying operations (see the ‘‘Powerdowns and Shutdowns’’ subsection later 

in this document). The radius of the 

160–dB isopleth based on modeling is 

1,400 m (0.87 mi). 

During previous survey operations in 

the Chukchi Sea, Shell utilized early 

season sound source verification (SSV) 

to establish safety zones for the 

previously mentioned sound level 

criteria. As the equipment being utilized 

in 2009 is similar to that used in 2008, 

Shell will initially utilize the derived 

(i.e., measured) sound criterion 

distances from 2008. An acoustics 

contractor will perform the direct 

measurements of the received levels of 

underwater sound versus distance and 

direction from the energy source arrays 

using calibrated hydrophones. The 

acoustic data will be analyzed as 

quickly as reasonably practicable in the 

field and used to verify (and if necessary 

adjust) the safety distances. 

(2) Ramp-up 

A ramp-up of an energy source array 

provides a gradual increase in energy 

levels, and involves a step-wise increase 

in the number and total volume of 

energy released until the full 

complement is achieved. The purpose of 

a ramp-up (or ‘‘soft start’’) is to ‘‘warn’’ 

cetaceans and pinnipeds in the vicinity 

of the energy source and to provide the 

time for them to leave the area and thus 

avoid any potential injury or 

impairment of their hearing abilities. 

During the proposed survey program, 

the operator will ramp up energy 

sources slowly, if the energy source 

being utilized generates sound energy 

within the frequency spectrum of 

cetacean or pinniped hearing. Full 

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

shut down, when no airguns have been 

firing) will begin by firing one small 

airgun. The minimum duration of a 

shut-down period, i.e., without air guns 

firing, which must be followed by a 

ramp-up typically is the amount of time 

it would take the source vessel to cover 

the 180–dB safety radius. The actual 

time period depends on ship speed and 

the size of the 180–dB safety radius, 

26230 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

which are not known at this time. 

However, previous SSV measurements 

indicate that the 180–dB safety radius 

for the 4 x 10 in3 airgun array is 

approximately 160 m (525 ft). 

Ramp-up, after a shutdown, will not 

begin until there has been a minimum 

of a 30 min period of observation by 

MMOs of the safety zone to assure that 

no marine mammals are present. The 

entire safety zone must be visible during 

the 30 min lead-in to a full ramp-up. If 

the entire safety zone is not visible, then 

ramp-up from a cold start cannot begin. 

If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within 

the safety zone during the 30–min 

watch prior to ramp-up, ramp-up will be 

delayed until the marine mammal(s) is 

sighted outside of the safety zone or the 

animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15– 

30 minutes: 15 min for small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min 

for baleen whales (large odontocetes do 

not occur within the project area). 

During periods of turn around and 

transit between survey transects, at least 

one airgun (or energy source) will 

remain operational. The ramp-up 

procedure still will be followed when 

increasing the source levels from one air 

gun to the full array. Keeping one air 

gun firing, however, will avoid the 

prohibition of a cold start during 

darkness or other periods of poor 

visibility. Through use of this approach, 

survey operations can resume upon 

entry to a new transect without a full 

ramp-up and the associated 30–min 

lead-in observations. MMOs will be on 

duty whenever the airguns are firing 

during daylight and during the 30–min 

periods prior to ramp-ups as well as 

during ramp-ups. Daylight will occur for 

24 hr/day until mid-August, so until 

that date, MMOs will automatically be 

observing during the 30–min period 

preceding a ramp-up. Later in the 

season, MMOs will be called out at 

night to observe prior to and during any 

ramp-up. The vessel operator and 

MMOs will maintain records of the 

times when ramp-ups start and when 

the airgun arrays reach full power. 

(3) Power-downs and Shutdowns 

A power-down is the immediate 

reduction in the number of operating 

energy sources from all firing to some 

smaller number. A shutdown is the 

immediate cessation of firing of all 

energy sources. The arrays will be 

immediately powered down whenever a 

marine mammal is sighted approaching 

near or close to the applicable safety 

zone of the full arrays but is outside the 

applicable safety zone of the single 

source. If a marine mammal is sighted 

within the applicable safety zone of the 

single energy source, the entire array 

will be shut down (i.e., no sources 

firing). Although MMOs will be located 

on the bridge ahead of the center of the 

airgun array, the shutdown criterion for 

animals ahead of the vessel will be 

based on the distance from the bridge 

(vantage point for MMOs) rather than 

from the airgun array a precautionary 

approach. For marine mammals sighted 

alongside or behind the airgun array, the 

distance is measured from the array. 

Following a power-down or 

shutdown, operation of the airgun array 

will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the applicable 

safety zone. The animal will be 

considered to have cleared the safety 

zone if it: 

(1) Is visually observed to have left 

the safety zone; 

(2) Has not been seen within the zone 

for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds; or 

(3) Has not been seen within the zone 

for 30 min in the case of mysticetes. 

For the aggregation of 12 or more 

bowhead or gray whales, the acoustic 

equipment will not be turned back on or 

return to full power until the 

aggregation has left the 160–dB isopleth 

or the animals forming the aggregation 

are reduced to fewer than 12 bowhead 

or gray whales. 

(4) Operations at Night and in Poor 

Visibility 

Shell plans to conduct the site 

clearance and shallow hazards survey 

24 hr/day. Regarding nighttime 

operations, note that there will be no 

periods of total darkness until midAugust. When operating under 

conditions of reduced visibility 

attributable to darkness or to adverse 

weather conditions, infra-red or nightvision binoculars will be available for 

use. It is recognized, however, that their 

effectiveness is limited. For that reason, 

MMOs will not routinely be on watch at 

night, except in periods before and 

during ramp-ups. As stated earlier, if the 

entire safety zone is not visible for at 

least 30 min prior to ramp-up, then 

ramp-up may not proceed. It should be 

noted that if one small energy source 

has remained firing, the rest of the array 

can be ramped up during darkness or in 

periods of low visibility. Survey 

operations may continue under 

conditions of darkness or reduced 

visibility. 

(5) Speed and Course Alterations 

If a marine mammal (in water) is 

detected outside the safety radius and, 

based on its position and the relative 

motion, is likely to enter the safety 

radius, the vessel’s speed and/or direct 

course would be changed in a manner 

that does not compromise safety 

requirements. The animal’s activities 

and movements relative to the source 

vessel will be closely monitored to 

ensure that the individual does not 

approach within the safety radius. If the 

mammal is sighted approaching near or 

close to the applicable safety radius, 

further mitigative actions will be taken, 

i.e., either further course alterations or 

power-down or shutdown of the 

airgun(s). 

Proposed Marine Mammal Monitoring 

Vessel-based monitoring for marine 

mammals will be conducted throughout 

the period of survey operations. The 

4MP will be implemented by a team of 

experienced MMOs, including both 

biologists and Inupiat personnel. All 

MMOs will be approved by NMFS prior 

to the start of operations. At least one 

observer on the survey vessel will be an 

Inupiat who will have the responsibility 

of communicating with the Inupiat 

community and (during the whaling 

season) directly with the Subsistence 

Advisors in coastal villages. 

The MMOs will be stationed aboard 

the survey source vessel throughout the 

active field season. The duties of the 

MMOs will include watching for and 

identifying cetaceans and pinnipeds; 

recording their numbers, distances, and 

reactions to the survey operations; 

initiating mitigation measures when 

appropriate; and reporting the results. 

MMOs aboard the survey source vessel 

will be on watch during all daylight 

periods when the energy sources are in 

operation and when energy source 

operations are to start up at night. Each 

MMO shift will not exceed more than 4 

consecutive hours, and no MMO will 

work more than 3 shifts in a 24 hr 

period (i.e., 12 hours total per day) in 

order to avoid fatigue. 

Crew leaders and most other 

biologists serving as observers in 2009 

will be individuals with experience as 

observers during one or more of the 

1996–2008 monitoring projects for 

Shell, WesternGeco, or BP and/or 

subsequent offshore monitoring projects 

for other clients in Alaska, the Canadian 

Beaufort, or other offshore areas. 

Biologist-observers to be assigned will 

have previous marine mammal 

observation experience and field crew 

leaders will be highly experienced with 

previous vessel-based monitoring 

projects. Qualifications for those 

individuals will be provided to NMFS 

for review and acceptance. Inupiat 

observers will be experienced in the 

region and familiar with the marine 

mammals of the area. An MMO 

handbook, adapted for the specifics of 

the proposed survey programs from the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26231 

handbooks created for previous 

monitoring projects will be prepared 

and distributed beforehand to all MMOs 

(see Shell’s 4MP for additional details 

on the handbook). Observers, including 

Inupiat observers, will also complete a 

2–day training and refresher session on 

marine mammal monitoring to be 

conducted shortly before the anticipated 

start of the 2009 open-water season. The 

training session(s) will be conducted by 

marine mammalogists with extensive 

crew-leader experience during previous 

vessel-based monitoring programs. 

(1) Monitoring Methodology 

The observer(s) will watch for marine 

mammals from the best available 

vantage point on the operating source 

vessel, which is usually the bridge or 

flying bridge. The observer(s) will scan 

systematically with the naked eye and 7 

x 50 reticle binoculars, supplemented 

with 20 x 50 image stabilized 

binoculars, and night-vision equipment 

when needed. Personnel on the bridge 

will assist the MMOs in watching for 

pinnipeds and cetaceans. 

The observer(s) will give particular 

attention to the areas within the ‘‘safety 

zone’’ around the source vessel. These 

zones are the maximum distances 

within which received levels may 

exceed 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for 

cetaceans or 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for 

pinnipeds. MMOs will also be able to 

monitor the 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) radius 

for Level B harassment takes, as this 

radius is expected to be a maximum of 

1,400 m (0.87 mi). The 160–dB isopleth 

(1,400 m [0.87 mi]) will also be 

monitored for the presence of 

aggregations of 12 or more bowhead or 

gray whales. 

Information to be recorded by MMOs 

will include the same types of 

information that were recorded during 

previous monitoring programs (1998– 

2008) in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas 

(Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Patterson 

et al., 2007). When a mammal sighting 

is made, the following information 

about the sighting will be recorded: 

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

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from the source vessel, 

apparent reaction to the source vessel 

(e.g., none, avoidance, approach, 

paralleling, etc.), closest point of 

approach, and behavioral pace; 

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, and operational 

state (e.g., operating airguns, ramp-up, 

etc.), sea state, ice cover, visibility, and 

sun glare; and 

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

the vicinity of the source vessel. This 

information will be recorded by the 

MMOs at times of whale (but not seal) 

sightings. 

The ship’s position, heading, and 

speed, the operational state (e.g., 

number and size of operating energy 

sources), and water temperature (if 

available), water depth, sea state, ice 

cover, visibility, and sun glare will also 

be recorded at the start and end of each 

observation watch and, during a watch, 

every 30 min and whenever there is a 

change in one or more of those 

variables. 

Distances to nearby marine mammals, 

e.g., those within or near the 190 dB (or 

other) safety zone applicable to 

pinnipeds, will be estimated with 

binoculars (7 x 50) containing a reticle 

to measure the vertical angle of the line 

of sight to the animal relative to the 

horizon. 

Observers will use a laser rangefinder 

to test and improve their abilities for 

visually estimating distances to objects 

in the water. Previous experience 

showed that this Class 1 eye-safe device 

was not able to measure distances to 

seals more than about 70 m (230 ft) 

away. (Previous SSV measurements 

indicate that the 190–dB safety radius 

for the 4 x 10 in3 airgun array proposed 

for use during Shell’s site clearance and 

shallow hazards survey is 

approximately 50 m (164 ft), well within 

the range of 70 m (230 ft)). However, it 

was very useful in improving the 

distance estimation abilities of the 

observers at distances up to about 600 

m (1968 ft)-the maximum range at 

which the device could measure 

distances to highly reflective objects 

such as other vessels. 

When a marine mammal is seen 

within the safety radius applicable to 

that species, the geophysical crew will 

be notified immediately so that 

mitigation measures described 

previously in this document can be 

implemented. As in 1996–2001 and in 

2006–2008, it is expected that the airgun 

arrays will be shut down within several 

seconds-often before the next shot 

would be fired, and almost always 

before more than one additional shot is 

fired. The MMO will then maintain a 

watch to determine when the 

mammal(s) is outside the safety zone 

such that airgun operations can resume. 

Night vision equipment (‘‘Generation 

3’’ binocular image intensifiers or 

equivalent units) will be available for 

use when needed. Prior to mid-August, 

there will be no hours of total darkness 

in the proposed project area. The 

operators will provide or arrange for the 

following specialized field equipment 

for use by the onboard MMOs: reticule 

binoculars, 20 x 50 image stabilized 

binoculars, ‘‘Big-eye’’ binoculars, laser 

rangefinders, inclinometer, laptop 

computers, night vision binoculars, and 

possibly digital still and digital video 

cameras. 

(2) Field Data-recording and Verification 

The observers will record their 

observations onto datasheets or directly 

into handheld computers. During 

periods between watches and periods 

when operations are suspended, those 

data will be entered into a laptop 

computer running a custom computer 

database. The accuracy of the data entry 

will be verified in the field by 

computerized validity checks as the 

data are entered and by subsequent 

manual checking of the database 

printouts. These procedures will allow 

initial summaries of data to be prepared 

during and shortly after the field season 

and will facilitate transfer of the data to 

statistical, graphical, or other programs 

for further processing. Quality control of 

the data will be facilitated by the startof-season training session, subsequent 

supervision by the onboard field crew 

leader, and ongoing data checks during 

the field season. 

(3) Acoustic Sound Source Verification 

Measurements 

As part of the IHA application process 

for similar shallow hazards and marine 

survey acquisition in 2006–2008, Shell 

contracted JASCO Research Ltd. to 

conduct acoustic measurements of 

vessel and energy source arrays on 

source and support to broadband 

received levels of 190, 180, 170, 160, 

and 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms; see Table 1 

of Attachment A in Shell’s application). 

The radii measured by these previous 

SSV tests will be utilized as temporary 

safety radii until current SSV 

measurements of the actual airgun array 

sound are available as mentioned earlier 

in this document. The measurements 

will be made at the beginning of the 

field season and the measured radii 

used for the remainder of the survey 

period. 

In 2009, Shell plans to utilize similar 

equipment aboard its survey source 

vessel. Shell intends to make new SSV 

measurements at the start of its 

proposed 2009 Chukchi Sea surveys 

even though the equipment planned for 

2009 surveying operations are similar to 

the one used in 2006–2008. Verification 

measurements will be performed on or 

as close as possible to the actual survey 

locations, with ice conditions being the 

limiting factor. 

The objective of the SSV tests planned 

for 2009 in the Chukchi Sea will be to 

measure the distances in the broadside 

and endfire directions at which 

26232 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

broadband received levels reach 190, 

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

for the energy source array 

combinations that may be used during 

the survey processes. The configurations 

will include at least the full array 

operating and the operation of a single 

source that will be used during power 

downs. The measurements of energy 

source array sounds will be made at the 

beginning of the survey, and the 

distances to the various radii will be 

reported as soon as possible after 

recovery of the equipment. The primary 

radii of concern will be the 190 and 180 

dB safety radii for pinnipeds and 

cetaceans, respectively, and the 160 dB 

disturbance radii. In addition to 

reporting the radii of specific regulatory 

concern, nominal distances to other 

sound isopleths down to 120 dB (rms) 

will be reported in increments of 10 dB. 

Data will be previewed in the field 

immediately after download from the 

OBHs. An initial sound source analysis 

will be supplied to NMFS and the 

operators within 120 hr of completion of 

the measurements and analysis, if 

possible. The report will indicate the 

distances to sound levels between 190 

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

(rms) based on a fits of empirical 

transmission loss formulae to data in the 

endfire and broadside directions. The 

120 hr report findings will be based on 

analysis of measurements from at least 

three of the OBH systems. A more 

detailed report including analysis of 

data from all OBH systems will be 

issued to NMFS as part of the 90–day 

report following completion of the 

acoustic program (see the ‘‘Reporting’’ 

section later in this document). 

Airgun pressure waveform data from 

the OBH systems will be analyzed using 

JASCO’s suite of custom signal 

processing software that implements the 

following data processing steps: 

• Energy source pulses in the OBH 

recordings are identified using an 

automated detection algorithm. The 

algorithm also chooses the 90 percent 

energy time window for rms sound level 

computations. 

• Waveform data is converted to 

units of μPa using the calibrated 

acoustic response of the OBH system. 

Gains for frequency-dependent 

hydrophone sensitivity, amplifier and 

digitizer are applied in this step. 

• For each pulse, the distance to the 

airgun array is computed from GPS 

deployment positions of the OBH 

systems and the time referenced DGPS 

navigation logs of the survey vessel. 

• The waveform data are processed 

to determine flat-weighted peak SPL, 

rms SPL, and SEL. 

• Each energy pulse is Fast Fourier 

Transformed to obtain 1–Hz spectral 

power levels in 1 s steps. 

• The spectral power levels are 

integrated in standard 1/3–octave bands 

to obtain band sound pressure levels for 

bands from 10 Hz to 20 kHz. Mweighted SPL’s for each airgun pulse 

may be computed in this step for 

species of interest. 

The output of the above data 

processing steps includes listings and 

graphs of airgun array narrow band and 

broadband sound levels versus range 

and spectrograms of shot waveforms at 

specified ranges. Of particular 

importance are the graphs of level 

versus range that are used to compute 

representative radii to specific sound 

level thresholds. 

(4) Chukchi Sea Acoustic Arrays 

Shell and ConocoPhillips are jointly 

funding an extensive acoustic 

monitoring program in the Chukchi Sea 

in 2009. This program incorporates the 

acoustic programs of 2006–2008 with a 

total of 44 recorders distributed both 

broadly across the Chukchi lease area 

and the nearshore environment and 

intensively on the Burger and Klondike 

lease areas. The broad area arrays are 

designed to capture both general 

background soundscape data and 

marine mammal call data across the 

lease area. From these recordings, it is 

anticipated that Shell (and others) may 

be able to gain insights into large-scale 

distribution of marine mammals, 

identification of marine mammal 

species present, movement and 

migration patterns, and general 

abundance data. 

The intense area arrays are designed 

to support localization of marine 

mammal calls on and around the 

leasehold areas. In the case of the Burger 

prospect, where Shell intends to 

conduct shallow hazards data 

acquisition, localized calls will enable 

investigators to understand response of 

marine mammals to survey operations 

both in terms of distribution around the 

operation and behavior (i.e., calling 

behavior). 

(5) Aerial Surveys 

No manned aerial overflights are 

anticipated during the 2009 shallow 

hazards and marine survey activities. In 

the Chukchi Sea, all shallow hazards 

activities will be conducted beyond 113 

km (70 mi) from shore and well away 

from coastal communities or nearshore 

concentrations of subsistence resources. 

The strudel scour survey will be 

conducted beyond 8 km (5 mi) from 

shore and will utilize sources of low 

energy and frequencies outside the 

hearing ranges of cetacean and pinniped 

species in the area. Additionally, the 

energy source to be utilized by Shell for 

the proposed survey operations are 

minimal by comμParison to larger scale 

seismic operations. It is not anticiμPated 

that manned overflights would 

accomplish any direct mitigative effects 

or monitoring purpose. Although no 

manned aerial surveys are planned as 

part of the 4MP, NMFS believes that the 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

proposed by Shell in its 4MP will be 

sufficient to reduce impacts on marine 

mammals to the lowest level 

practicable. 

(6) Monitoring Plan Independent Peer 

Review 

The MMPA requires that monitoring 

plans be independently peer reviewed 

‘‘where the proposed activity may affect 

the availability of a species or stock for 

taking for subsistence uses’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this 

requirement, NMFS’ implementing 

regulations state, ‘‘Upon receipt of a 

complete monitoring plan, and at its 

discretion, [NMFS] will either submit 

the plan to members of a peer review 

panel for review or within 60 days of 

receipt of the proposed monitoring plan, 

schedule a workshop to review the 

plan’’ (50 CFR 216.108(d)). Shell’s 4MP 

was discussed by meeting participants 

at the Arctic Stakeholder Open-water 

Workshop in Anchorage, Alaska, on 

April 6–8, 2009. On April 24, 2009, 

NMFS received a letter from the AEWC, 

which noted that while there was 

discussion of the 4MP at the workshop, 

they do not believe that there was ample 

review of the plan and wanted to know 

NMFS’ plans to hold an independent 

peer review in order to meet its 

statutory requirement. 

NMFS has considered the AEWC’s 

request and has decided to establish an 

independent peer review μPanel to 

review the 4MP for Shell’s activities 

during the 2009/2010 open-water 

season. μPanelists are selected by 

NMFS, in consultation with the Marine 

Mammal Commission, AEWC and/or 

other Alaskan native organizations as 

appropriate, and the applicant. Selected 

panelists are experts who are not 

currently employed or contracted by 

either the affected Alaskan native 

organization or the applicant. NMFS 

plans for this independent peer review 

of the 4MP to occur during the comment 

period for this proposed IHA. After 

completion of the peer review, NMFS 

will consider all recommendations 

made by the panel, incorporate 

appropriate changes into the monitoring 

requirements of the IHA (if issued), and 

publish the panel’s findings and 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26233 

recommendations in the final IHA 

notice of issuance or denial document. 

Reporting 

SSV Report 

A report on the preliminary results of 

the acoustic verification measurements, 

including as a minimum the measured 

190-, 180-, and 160–dB (rms) radii of the 

airgun sources, will be submitted within 

120 hr after collection and analysis of 

those measurements at the start of the 

field season. This report will specify the 

distances of the safety zones that were 

adopted for the survey. 

Technical Reports 

The results of the 2009 Shell vesselbased monitoring, including estimates 

of ‘‘take’’ by harassment, will be 

presented in the ‘‘90–day’’ and Final 

Technical reports, as required by NMFS 

under IHAs. Shell proposes that the 

Technical Reports will include: (1) 

summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., 

total hours, total distances, and marine 

mammal distribution through study 

period versus operational state, sea 

state, and other factors affecting 

visibility and detectability of marine 

mammals); (2) summaries of the 

occurrence of power-downs, shutdowns, 

ramp-ups, and ramp-up delays; (3) 

analyses of the effects of various factors, 

influencing detectability of marine 

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

observers, and fog/glare); (4) species 

composition, occurrence, and 

distribution of marine mammal 

sightings, including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender categories (if 

determinable), group sizes, and ice 

cover; (5) sighting rates of marine 

mammals versus operational state (and 

other variables that could affect 

detectability); (6) initial sighting 

distances versus operational state; (7) 

closest point of approach versus 

operational state; (8) observed behaviors 

and types of movements versus 

operational state; (9) numbers of 

sightings/individuals seen versus 

operational state; (10) distribution 

around the acoustic source vessel versus 

operational state; and (11) estimates of 

take by harassment. The take estimates 

will be calculated using two different 

methods to provide both minimum and 

maximum estimates. The minimum 

estimate will be based on the numbers 

of marine mammals directly seen within 

the relevant radii (160, 180, and 190 dB 

(rms)) by observers on the source vessel 

during survey activities. The maximum 

estimate will be calculated using 

densities of marine mammals 

determined for non-acoustic areas and 

times. These density estimates will be 

calculated from data collected during (a) 

vessel based surveys in non-operational 

areas, or (b) observations from the 

source vessel or supply boats during 

non-operational periods. The estimated 

densities in areas without data 

acquisition activity will be applied to 

the amount of area exposed to the 

relevant levels of sound to calculate the 

maximum number of animals 

potentially exposed or deflected. This 

report will be due 90 days after 

termination of the 2009 open-water 

season and will include the results from 

any seismic work conducted in the 

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas in 2009 under 

the previous IHA, which expires on 

August 19, 2009, or upon issuance of 

this proposed IHA. 

Comprehensive Monitoring Reports 

In November, 2007, Shell (in 

coordination and cooperation with other 

Arctic seismic IHA holders) released a 

final, peer-reviewed edition of the 2006 

Joint Monitoring Program in the 

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

is available on the NMFS Protected 

Resources website (see ADDRESSES). In 

March, 2009, Shell released a final, 

peer-reviewed edition of the Joint 

Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas, Open Water Seasons, 

2006–2007 (Ireland et al., 2009). This 

report is also available on the NMFS 

Protected Resources website (see 

ADDRESSES). A draft comprehensive 

report for 2008 (Funk et al., 2009) was 

provided to NMFS and those attending 

the Arctic Stakeholder Open-water 

Workshop in Anchorage, Alaska, on 

April 6–8, 2009. The 2008 report 

provides data and analyses from a 

number of industry monitoring and 

research studies carried out in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during the 

2008 open-water season with 

comparison to data collected in 2006 

and 2007. Reviewers plan to provide 

comments on the 2008 report to Shell 

shortly. Once Shell is able to 

incorporate reviewer comments, the 

final 2008 report will be made available 

to the public. 

Following the 2009 open-water 

season, a comprehensive report 

describing the acoustic and vessel-based 

monitoring programs will be prepared. 

The comprehensive report will describe 

the methods, results, conclusions and 

limitations of each of the individual 

data sets in detail. The report will also 

integrate (to the extent possible) the 

program into an assessment of 2009 

industry activities and their imμPacts on 

marine mammals. The report will help 

to establish long term data sets that can 

assist with the evaluation of changes, if 

any, in the Chukchi Sea ecosystem. The 

report will attempt to provide a regional 

synthesis of available data on industry 

activity in offshore areas of northern 

Alaska that may influence marine 

mammal density, distribution, and 

behavior. 

This report will consider data from 

many different sources including 

differing types of acoustic systems for 

data collection (net array and OBH 

systems) and vessel based observations. 

Collection of comparable data across the 

wide array of programs will help with 

the synthesis of information and allow 

integration of the data sets over a period 

of years. Data protocols for the acoustic 

operations will be similar to those used 

in 2006–2008 to facilitate this 

integration. 

Endangered Species Act 

NMFS previously consulted under 

section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of 

IHAs for seismic survey activities in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. In a 

Biological Opinion issued on July 17, 

2008, NMFS concluded that the 

issuance of seismic survey permits by 

MMS and the issuance of the associated 

IHAs for seismic surveys are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened or endangered species 

(specifically the bowhead, humpback, 

and fin whales) under the jurisdiction of 

NMFS or destroy or adversely modify 

any designated critical habitat. The 2008 

Biological Opinion takes into 

consideration all oil and gas related 

activities that are reasonably likely to 

occur, including exploratory (but not 

production) oil drilling activities. NMFS 

believes that Shell’s proposed activities 

described and analyzed in this 

document for the 2009/2010 open-water 

season are adequately analyzed in the 

2008 Biological Opinion. Therefore, 

NMFS does not plan to conduct a new 

section 7 consultation. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS is currently conducting an 

analysis, pursuant to NEPA, to 

determine whether or not this proposed 

activity may have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This analysis 

will be completed prior to the issuance 

or denial of this proposed IHA. 

Preliminary Determinations 

Based on the information provided in 

Shell’s application, Shell’s answers to 

the supplemental information request, 

this document, the 2006 and 2007 Final 

Comprehensive Reports, and the 2008 

Draft Comprehensive Report, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

impact of Shell conducting its proposed 

26234 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

open-water marine survey program (site 

clearance and shallow hazards and 

strudel scour surveys) in the Chukchi 

Sea during the 2009/2010 open-water 

season may result, at worst, in a 

temporary modification in behavior 

(Level B Harassment) of small numbers 

of 12 species of marine mammals, will 

have no more than a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks, and 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stock for taking for 

subsistence purposes, provided the 

mitigation measures described 

previously in this document are 

implemented. 

While the number of potential 

incidental harassment takes will depend 

on the distribution and abundance of 

marine mammals (which vary annually 

due to variable ice conditions and other 

factors) in the area of survey operations, 

the number of potential harassment 

takings is estimated to be small (less 

than one percent of any of the estimated 

population sizes) and has been 

mitigated to the lowest level practicable 

through incorporation of the measures 

mentioned previously in this document. 

NMFS anticipates the actual take of 

individuals to be lower than the 

numbers presented in the analysis 

because those numbers do not reflect 

either the implementation of the 

proposed mitigation measures or the 

fact that some animals will avoid the 

sound at levels lower than those 

expected to result in harassment. 

In addition, no take by death and/or 

serious injury is anticipated, and the 

potential for temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment will be avoided 

through the incorporation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

proposed earlier in this document. This 

determination is supported by the fact 

that: (1) given sufficient notice through 

slow ship speed and ramp-up of 

acoustic equipment, marine mammals 

are expected to move away from a 

sound source prior to it becoming 

potentially injurious; (2) TTS is unlikely 

to occur, especially in odontocetes and 

pinnipeds, until sound levels above 180 

dB re 1 μPa (rms) and 190 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms), respectively, are reached; and (3) 

injurious levels of sound are only likely 

very close to the vessel (approximately 

160 m (525 ft) for the 180 dB (rms) 

radius and 50 m (164 ft) for the 190 dB 

(rms) radius). No rookeries, mating 

grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, 

or other areas of special significance for 

marine mammals occur within or near 

the planned area of operations during 

the season of operations. 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that Shell’s proposed open-water marine 

survey program in the Chukchi Sea in 

2009/2010 will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the subsistence uses 

of bowhead whales and other marine 

mammals. This preliminary 

determination is supported by the 

information in this Federal Register 

Notice, including: (1) Survey activities 

will not begin prior to the closure of the 

spring bowhead hunt in Chukchi coastal 

villages; (2) Shell will closely 

coordinate with and avoid impacts to 

beluga whale hunts through subsistence 

advisors; (3) activities are scheduled to 

avoid the traditional subsistence beluga 

hunt, which annually occurs in July in 

the community of Point Lay; (4) Barrow 

is east of the proposed project area, so 

the animals will reach Barrow before 

entering the project area on their fall 

westward migration through the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas; (5) the fact 

that survey activities will occur more 

than 113 km (70 mi) or more from shore, 

and most cetaceans and pinnipeds are 

hunted much closer to the shore; and (6) 

that several of the mitigation and 

monitoring conditions proposed for the 

IHA (described earlier in this document) 

are designed to ensure that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses of marine mammals. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to 

authorize the take of marine mammals 

incidental to Shell’s 2009/2010 openwater marine survey program in the 

Chukchi Sea, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: May 26, 2009. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–12659 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0097] 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Submission for OMB Review; Taxpayer 

Identification Number Information 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of reinstatement request 

for an information collection 

requirement regarding an existing OMB 

clearance. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 

Regulatory Secretariat has submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request to review and approve 

a request to reinstate a previously 

approved information collection 

requirement concerning Taxpayer 

Identification Number Information. A 

request for public comments was 

published at 73 FR 20613 on April 16, 

2008. No comments were received. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary; whether it will 

have practical utility; whether our 

estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate, 

and based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways in 

which we can minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, through the use of 

appropriate technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

July 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect 

of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to: General Services 

Administration (GSA) Desk Officer, 

OMB, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, 

DC 20503, and a copy to the General 

Services Administration, Regulatory 

Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street NW., 

Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405. 

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0097, 

Taxpayer Identification Number 

Information, in all correspondence. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, 

Contract Policy Division, GSA, (202) 

501–3775. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

When the IRS issued its final 

regulations implementing section 

6050M of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 

(Pub. L. 99–514), the reporting 

requirements included the requirement 

to report certain modifications to 

contracts that were awarded before 

January 1, 1989, necessitating a revision 

to Subpart 4.9 of the FAR. As 

implemented by Section 6050M of the