Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Offshore Seismic Activities in the Beaufort Sea

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D.061498A]

Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Offshore Seismic

Activities in the Beaufort Sea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of bowhead whales

and other marine mammals by harassment incidental to conducting seismic

surveys in the Western Beaufort Sea in state and federal waters has

been issued to Western Geophysical/Western Atlas International of

Houston, Texas (Western Geophysical).

DATES: Effective from July 23, 1998, until November 1, 1998, unless

extended.

ADDRESSES: The application, authorization, monitoring plan,

environmental assessment (EA), and a list of references used in this

document are available by writing to the Chief, Marine Mammal Division,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed

here.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2055, Brad Smith, Western Alaska

Field Office, NMFS, (907) 271-5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)

directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request,

the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S.

citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial

fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are

made and 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.

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a

negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an

unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or

stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of

taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of

such taking are set forth.

On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884), NMFS published an interim rule

establishing, among other things, procedures for issuing incidental

harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA in

Arctic waters. For additional information on the procedures to be

followed for this authorization, please refer to that document.

Summary of Request

On April 15, 1998, NMFS received an application from Western

Geophysical requesting an authorization for the harassment of small

numbers of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting

seismic surveys during the open water season in the Beaufort Sea

between Harrison Bay and Flaxman Island, AK. Weather

permitting, the survey is expected to take place from middle- to late-

July and to extend until approximately October 20, 1998.

Disturbance by seismic noise is the principal means of taking by

this activity. Support vessels and aircraft will provide a secondary

source of noise. The physical presence of vessels and aircraft could

also lead to non-acoustic effects involving visual or other cues.

Seismic surveys are used to obtain data about formations several

thousands of feet deep. The proposed seismic operation is an ocean

bottom cable (OBC) survey. OBC surveys involve dropping cables from a

ship to the ocean bottom, forming a patch consisting of four parallel

cables 10 kilometers (km) (6.2 mi) long, separated 750 m (2,500 ft)

from each other. Sensors (hydrophones and geophones) are attached to

the cables. These hydrophones are used to detect seismic energy

reflected back from underground rock strata. The original source of

this energy is a submerged acoustic source, called a seismic airgun

array, that releases compressed air into the water, creating an

acoustical energy pulse that is directed downward toward the seabed.

The source level planned for this project - a maximum of 249 dB re 1

Pa-m (27.2

[[Page 40506]]

bar-meters; zero to peak) or 255 dB re 1 Pa-m (53 bar-meters;

peak-to-peak (p-p)) from a 1,500 in3 array of airguns is in

the lower to middle portion of the range of source levels commonly used

for seismic operations with airgun arrays (Richardson et al., 1995).

Normally, 36 seismic lines are run for each patch, covering an area 6.0

km by 17.5 km (3.7 mi by 10.87 mi), centered over the patch. The source

lines for one patch will normally overlap with those for adjacent

patches.

After sufficient data have been recorded to allow accurate mapping

of the rock strata, the cable is lifted onto the deck of a cable-

retrieval vessel, moved to a new location (ranging from several hundred

to a few thousand feet away), and placed onto the seabed again. A

detailed description of the work proposed for 1998 is contained in the

application (Western Geophysical, 1998) and is available upon request

(see ADDRESSES).

Comments and Responses

A notice of receipt of the application and proposed authorization

was published on May 20, 1998 (63 FR 27709), and a 30-day public

comment period was provided on the application and proposed

authorization. During the comment period, comments regarding this

application (and/or on a related application from BP Exploration

(Alaska) (BPXA)), were received from the Marine Mammal Commission

(MMC), the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), LGL Ltd.

environmental research associates on behalf of the applicant, and

Greenpeace Alaska (Greenpeace). Information on the activity and

authorization request that are not subject to reviewer comments can be

found in the proposed authorization notice and is not repeated here.

General Concerns

Comment 1: LGL Ltd provided information updating and correcting the

Federal Register notice that (1) Western Geophysical's cables include

both hydrophones and geophones, not just hydrophones, and (2) Western

Geophysical's airguns discharge once every 16 to 24 seconds, not 1

second in duration every 5 to 12 seconds. These pulses are much less

than 1 second in duration near the source, increasing to as much as 1

second in duration as received in the water at long horizontal

distances.

Response: Thank you for providing this information.

Comment 2: On July 1, 1998, Western Geophysical submitted a letter

to NMFS outlining modifications to its May 20, 1998, application. That

letter noted that Western Geophysical's activity would be amended by

the addition of shallow water cable equipment and the inclusion of a

shallow water acoustic source. The shallow water equipment would be

used in locations and times when the OBC system was not usable. The two

sources would not be used simultaneously.

Response: NMFS has reviewed this letter and determined that,

because the shallow water source is smaller (560 in3 ) than

either the 750 in3 or the 1500 in3 seismic

array, and would not be used simultaneously with the larger

sources, there will not be a cumulative effect. This modification is

not considered significant. The IHA will ensure that the two sources

are not used simultaneously and will require sound transmission

measurements be made of both sources to ensure that the designated

safety zones are conservative.

Marine Mammal Impact Concerns

Comment 3: Greenpeace contends that NMFS, Western Geophysical and,

BPXA, the second applicant, rely on outdated, incomplete, and

inaccurate information concerning the zone of influence for seismic

operations on bowhead whales. Greenpeace believes that NMFS fails to

respect or incorporate either the traditional knowledge (TK) of local

whalers presented at various hearings or the results of the 1997 aerial

surveys, both of which indicate a seismic zone of influence greater

than the 7.5 km (4.5 mi) used by NMFS. The AEWC believes the data

clearly shows that bowheads are displaced and deflected at least 20 km

(12 miles) by the noise of the seismic vessel when operating.

Response: Western Geophysical's application and the notice of

proposed authorization note that, in addition to the known responses

out to a distance of several kilometers, less conspicuous and/or less

frequent effects may extend to greater distances. Since the application

was submitted, a draft final report describing BPXA's combined 1996 and

1997 monitoring results (Richardson [ed.], 1998) has been completed.

That report shows that (1) BPXA's 1996 and 1997 seismic programs did

not greatly influence the position of the overall migration corridor;

(2) although the aerial surveys showed at least partial avoidance of

the area within 20 km (12 mi) of seismic operations, the 20 km (12 mi)

figure is a very imprecise estimate of potential avoidance radius; and

(3) the pattern of bowhead call detection rates at various locations

north and east of the 1996 area of seismic operations has suggested

that migrating bowheads either called less often when near active

seismic vessel, or tended to divert away from that area, or both. For

additional information on the estimated zones that seismic airguns have

on bowhead whales, please refer to the proposed authorization notice

mentioned in this document.

It is recognized that it is difficult (for scientists at least) to

determine the maximum distance at which reactions occur (Moore and

Clark, 1992) that may have an adverse impact on subsistence needs.

Inuit whalers, on the other hand, believe that whales exhibit avoidance

reactions as far as 48 km (30 miles) away (MMS, 1997). As a result,

Western Geophysical developed a Conflict and Avoidance Agreement (C&AA)

with the whalers to reduce any potential interference with the hunt.

That agreement was concluded by both parties on July 8, 1998.

Also, it is believed that the monitoring plan proposed by Western

Geophysical (LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge, 1998b), revised on the basis of

comments received during this public review period and at the Peer-

Review Workshop, will provide information that will help resolve

uncertainties about the effects of seismic exploration on the

accessibility of bowheads to hunters.

Comment 4: Greenpeace notes that Western Geophysical fails to

address the impact of an airgun on bowhead hearing at any number of

distances within and beyond the zone of influence and fails to account

for the impact from an airgun array operating 70 m (210 ft) from a

bowhead. LGL Ltd. comments that the application notice states that

temporary threshold shift (TTS) is a theoretical possibility for

animals within a few hundred meters and that mitigation measures are

designed to avoid exposing mammals to sound pulses that have any

possibility of causing hearing damage. LGL Ltd notes that TTS is a

natural protective mechanism built into the mammalian ear. Modest

levels of TTS do not constitute hearing damage.

Response: The impact of airguns on bowhead hearing has been

addressed in several documents, including Western Geophysical's

application, the supporting EA, and in LGL and Greeneridge (1998).

Without an ability to collect empirical information on physical impacts

from airguns on large marine mammals, scientists must rely on either

surrogate species and make conservative assumptions based upon findings

for those species.

Comment 5: Greenpeace notes in its letter that marine mammals use

sound to communicate and, it is clear, that many species are extremely

sensitive to

[[Page 40507]]

both sound and physical disturbance. Greenpeace also notes that

industrial noise and other activities interfere with bowhead cow-calf

bonding and cause displacement from feeding areas and migratory routes.

The energetic costs of noise-related changes in behavior and

distribution patterns are potentially significant and will inevitably

constitute harassment and ``take.''

Response: Thank you for providing this comment. Because there are

potential effects on bowhead whales by seismic activities, an IHA is

warranted. Under the IHA, NMFS will require Western Geophysical to

incorporate mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce potential

impacts to the lowest level practicable.

Comment 6: Greenpeace states that the fall bowhead migration

begins in August, and a significant proportion of the population may be

in the vicinity of Western Geophysical's seismic operations during the

latter half of August. Citing Moore and Clarke (1991), Greenpeace

states that, during mid- to late-August, as many as 1,200-3,000 bowhead

whales may be present in the Beaufort Sea region from the Canadian

border to the offshore area demarcated by the western boundary of the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Response: NMFS notes that the region cited by the commenters is

east of the proposed seismic survey area for Western Geophysical and

that bowhead whale numbers referenced by Greenpeace are overstated

because they include bowheads located in the Canadian Beaufort Sea.

Moore and Clark (1991) estimated that in 1982 through 1984, up to 500

(range 0-500) bowheads may be in the region annually between the Barter

and Flaxman islands; however, no whales were sighted west of that

region prior to September 1 during those years. This is verified by

Ljungblad et al. (1987). Most sighted bowheads were still in Canadian

waters.

NMFS notes that, in general, bowhead whales migrate westward

through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea from late August to late October, but

only a portion of the population has been estimated during this time

period. Other bowheads are either undetectable to observers (i.e.,

under the ice), migrate prior to surveys commencing, or do not migrate

to the Canadian Beaufort Sea.

Comment 7: LGL Ltd. provided information that airgun sounds may be

audible to beluga whales at long distances not only because of the high

source levels, but also because some energy at frequencies of a few

hundred hertz propagates horizontally from the seismic vessel. Beluga

hearing is more sensitive to these frequencies than to the lower

frequencies that dominate the seismic output (Richardson and Wursig,

1997; see also Goold, 1998).

Response: Thank you for providing this information.

Comment 8: LGL Ltd. provided information from a paper by Kastak and

Schusterman (1998) updating information provided in Western

Geophysical's application and in the notice of proposed authorization

which indicates that, for one harbor seal tested, the hearing threshold

was 102 dB re 1 uPa at 75 Hz, 96 dB at 100 Hz, and 84 dB at 200 and 400

Hz. These results are consistent with previously reported preliminary

data at 100 Hz.

Response: Thank you for providing this information.

Comment 9: LGL Ltd. corrected a statement in the notice that ``no

studies to date have focused on pinniped reaction to underwater noise

from pulsed, seismic arrays,'' noting that while this was true up to

early 1996, the monitoring results from the 1996 and 1997 BPXA program

have provided considerable information about reactions of seals. These

have been described in detail in the 90-day and final reports on the

1996 and 1997 BPXA monitoring programs, as described in Richardson

[ed.] (1998).

Response: Thank you for the comment. NMFS notes, however, that,

while opportunistic observations have been made of seismic noise

impacts on pinnipeds over the last few years, NMFS is aware of only one

researcher who has physiologically monitored individual animals

reaction to seismic noise. Preliminary information provided by this

individual earlier this year at the annual meeting of the Marine Mammal

Society in Monaco supports the results reported here.

Subsistence Concerns

Comment 10: The AEWC objects to the issuance of IHA permits to BPXA

and Western Geophysical because of their opposition to seismic

activities which interfere with the availability of bowhead whales

within their subsistence hunting area. Greenpeace believes that seismic

activities will result in a significant and unmitigable impact to

subsistence communities.

Response: As mentioned previously, BPXA withdrew its application

for an incidental harassment authorization on July 6, 1998. As a

result, only Western Geophysical will conduct open water seismic

operations this summer in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. In part, section

101(a)(5) of the MMPA requires NMFS to ensure that any taking will not

have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species

or stock(s) for subsistence uses. Two elements must be present for NMFS

to determine that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on

subsistence uses: First, the impact resulting from the specified

activity must be likely to reduce the availability of the species to a

level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (1)

causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (2)

directly displacing subsistence users, or (3) placing physical barriers

between the marine mammals and subsistence hunters. Second, it must be

an impact that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to

increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs

to be met (50 CFR 216.103). This standard of determining impact does

not require the elimination of adverse impacts, but it does require

mitigation sufficient to meet subsistence requirements. However, the

MMPA also requires that, where applicable, the measures will ensure the

least practicable impact on the availability of marine mammals for

taking for subsistence uses. In 1996 and 1997, these conditions were

met through the C&AA (also known as a Plan of Cooperation) by requiring

seismic operations to move west of Cross Island no later than September

1 or when whalers commenced the bowhead hunting season, whichever was

earlier. A similar agreement for 1998 was concluded on July 8, 1998,

between the AEWC/North Slope Borough (NSB) and Western Geophysical. As

a result of this signed C&AA, NMFS concludes that there will not be an

unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence needs of the NSB whalers

this year due to seismic activities.

Comment 11 : In order to mitigate impacts on the availability of

bowhead whales for subsistence needs, the AEWC believes the IHAs, if

issued to both BPXA and Western Geophysical, must require that (1) all

seismic operations east of Cross Island cease on August 15 or when a

bowhead whale is sighted at Kaktovik (whichever is earlier); (2) all

seismic operations east of 150 degrees West cease on August 15 or when

active whaling begins in Nuiqsut or Kaktovik (whichever is earlier);

and (3) all seismic operations cease on September 1 until Kaktovik,

Nuiqsut, and Barrow have completed their hunts.

Response: A signed C&AA requiring, among other things, for Western

Geophysical to cease all seismic activities east of Cross Island after

August 31 and to move to the westernmost portion of their seismic

activity area if impacts to bowhead whales continue after moving west

of

[[Page 40508]]

Cross Island is the result of negotiations between the AEWC and Western

Geophysical. This signed C&AA supercedes the recommendations made on

June 2, 1998, by the AEWC.

Mitigation Concerns

Comment 12: LGL Ltd. noted several errors in the shutdown distances

for airgun restrictions as published in the notice of proposed

authorization.

Response: For clarity, NMFS is republishing the shutdown distance

criteria in this document (see Mitigation).

Comment 13: The AEWC recommends that, after August 15, the two

seismic operations must be arranged so that (1) neither is directly

offshore of the other, and (2) they are separated by at least a 25-mile

east-west distance (so that the 12 miles (20 km) exclusion zone, seen

in the 1997 monitoring, do not overlap.

Response: Since there are no longer two planned seismic operations

to be conducted in the Beaufort Sea this summer, response to this

comment is no longer applicable.

Monitoring Concerns

Comment 14: Greenpeace contends that the monitoring program

proposed by Western Geophysical is not sufficiently rigorous nor

independent to adequately provide reliable research to support findings

about the impacts of seismic operations on marine mammals. Greenpeace

recommends an additional 5 bottom-mounted acoustic recorders be

installed in the offshore Beaufort Sea to detect marine mammal

(principally bowhead whale) vocalizations. Greenpeace also recommends

noise measurements be conducted at distances of 10 km (6 mi), 20 km (12

mi), 30 km (18 mi), 40 km (24 mi), and 50 km (30 mi).

Response: Thank you for your recommendations. Section

101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(II) of the MMPA requires authorizations issued under

this section to prescribe, where applicable, requirements pertaining to

the monitoring and reporting of such taking by harassment, including

requirements for independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans

or other research proposals where the proposed activity may affect the

availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence purposes.

Western Geophysical's proposed monitoring plan for 1998 and the

results from LGL Ltd.'s 1996 and 1997 Beaufort Sea research were the

subject of a scientific peer-review workshop held in Seattle, WA, on

May 17 through 19, 1998. As a result of that workshop and the comments

submitted on their application, Western Geophysical amended its

monitoring plan and submitted that plan to NMFS for approval.

Modifications to the original plan include (1) reference to boat-based

marine mammal observers onboard the second source vessel; (2) a 32-km

westward extension of aerial surveys to address the question how far

west of the seismic area do bowhead whales remain farther offshore than

usual if bowheads are displaced offshore by seismic; (3) an additional

autonomous seafloor acoustic recorder (ASAR) farther offshore from the

area of seismic operations as well as the three previously proposed

ones along the 25-m contour; and (4) an attempt to retrive the two

ASARs left on the bottom of the Beaufort Sea last fall.

This amended plan is being independently peer-reviewed for NMFS.

Greenpeace's monitoring recommendations will be provided to these

reviewers for consideration. It should be noted that workshop

participant's recommended that, in addition to the three bottom-mounted

recorders planned for deployment by each seismic acitivity, an

additional 2-3 bottom-mounted recorders be installed offshore of the

area of seismic operations. However, the withdrawal of BPXA from an

active seismic program in 1998, made unnecessary the use of a

significant increase in the number of offshore recorders.

Comment 15: Greenpeace states that the monitoring program is

inadequate because it fails to account for the cumulative impact of two

open-water seismic programs operating concurrently. Greenpeace also

states that the monitoring program fails to account for the additional

impacts of ongoing, concurrent and future oil and gas activities. The

monitoring program must be sufficiently rigorous in design and scope to

determine this cumulative impact.

Response: Western Geophysical's and BPXA's proposed monitoring

plans were the subject of a peer-review workshop held in Seattle, WA,

between May 17 and 19, 1998. These monitoring plans were being amended

based upon that workshop when BPXA withdrew from participating in

seismic exploration during the 1998 open water season. Part of their

monitoring programs would have addressed the effects of cumulative

impact of their seismic programs on bowheads. As a result of BPXA's

withdrawal, there will not be a cumulative impact from seismic

activities this year (Western Geophysical's two seismic vessels will

not operate at the same time). A copy of Western's final monitoring

program is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS is unaware of any oil and gas activities currently underway in

the offshore Beaufort Sea that might result in impacts to marine

mammals. Distant water and nearshore activities are presumed by NMFS to

result in an increase in the ambient noise in the marine environment.

Increasing ambient noise in this environment is of concern to NMFS.

Ambient noise measurements have been made by LGL Ltd. in 1996 and 1997;

opportunistic measurements will continue in 1998 during a one-week

acoustical measurement program and by use of sonobuoys and bottom

recorders.

Comment 16: The MMC recommends NMFS review the data to determine

whether a single observer is able to locate and determine when any

marine mammal is in, or is likely to enter, the designated safety zone

around the towed array and, if not, require that additional observers

be required.

Response: NMFS has reviewed the information provided in the 1996

and 1997 monitoring program report and determined that a single

biological observer is unable to ensure that no marine mammals (e.g.,

seals) enter the designated safety zone and that a single observer

cannot adequately view both the safety zone and that portion of the

zone of influence visible from the ship's bridge. However, because

bowheads appear to avoid the area visible to the observer and because

seals appear at times to be attracted to seismic vessels, NMFS has

determined that two observers on watch at all times is unncessary

except whenever the seismic source is powered (ramped) up. In addition,

observers will be required to ensure that no marine mammals enter the

bow aspect of the safety zone; a lesser effort should be spent on seals

entering from the sides or rear portions of the safety zone. This

year's reporting requirement will include a requirement for a

comprehensive assessment on the effectiveness of single observer

coverage. NMFS will review the data obtained during 1998 season to

determine whether future authorizations will need additional observers

during all daytime seismic operations.

Comment 17: Greenpeace believes that the monitoring program is

inadequate because observers will be unable to visually identify whales

or seals at night or at other times of poor visibility. Where the

impacts will occur after mid-July, because of the increasing hours of

darkness, the probability of impacts at night and the inadequacies of

the monitoring program to detect them are a virtual certainty. Similar

impairment can be expected in times of fog and in other periods of poor

visibility.

[[Page 40509]]

Response: Observers monitor the safety zones and zones of potential

harassment around the seismic source whenever visibility permits, and

the source is either on or within 30 minutes of powering up. Observers

are aided by night-vision equipment for monitoring the safety zone.

Assessments of takes by harassment will be made based upon the

percentage of time spent observing in relation to the total time for

seismic operations. Because: (1) relatively few marine mammals are

expected in the area during the time of the survey, (2) the vessels are

underway at low speeds while laying or pulling OBC cable or conducting

seismic surveys, theoretically allowing animals sufficient time to move

away from any annoyances, and (3) documented observations indicate that

bowhead whales avoid active seismic survey areas few, if any, bowheads

are expected to approach the vessel and therefore, terminating surveys

at night and during inclement weather is not warranted.

Comment 18: The AEWC has recommended that a monitoring program be

in place for each seismic operation and, after September 1, must be at

least as detailed as that used during monitoring the 1997 seismic

operation. In addition, the IHA should require the (aerial survey)

monitoring to be expanded to the west to the extent needed to determine

when whales, displaced by seismic noise, return to their normal

migration route.

Response: Thank you for the comment. This monitoring recommendation

was also provided by the AEWC at the 1998 Seattle workshop. As a

result, the monitoring plan has been revised to follow this

recommendation.

Comment 19: The MMC recommends NMFS (1) take such steps as

necessary to verify that the operation of, and the sounds produced by,

the cable, seismic source, and related support vessels are unlikely to

have any effect on marine mammals in or near the proposed survey area;

and (2) require the Monitoring Plan be augmented to measure the levels

and characteristics of sounds produced by the various vessels and

confirm those sounds have no effect on marine mammals.

Response: While NMFS does not believe that noise from vessels will

have no impact on marine mammals, it is recognized as being a secondary

source for potential harassment of marine mammals. These sources are

authorized under the IHA, should an incidental harassment occur. The

1998 monitoring program will continue the program of previous years to

measure vessel sounds, with an emphasis on vessels not recorded in 1996

or 1997. The results of these measurements are reported annually.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Concerns

Comment 20: Greenpeace believes that, for several reasons, NMFS has

failed to meet NEPA standards. First, the 1996 EA was written by BPXA,

not by NMFS, and is deficient. Second, the 1998 activity is for a

broader area and timeframe than described in the 1996 EA. Third, the

1996 EA fails to take account of the cumulative impact of two

activities (BPXA and Western Geophysical applications). Finally,

significant new information has become available since the 1996 EA was

issued.

Response: In conjunction with the 1996 notice of proposed

authorization for BPXA's application (61 FR 26501, May 28, 1996), NMFS

released an EA that addressed the impacts on the human environment from

the proposed issuance of an IHA to BPXA to conduct a 3-D seismic survey

in the Western Beaufort Sea and the alternatives to that proposed

action. That document was written for NMFS by LGL Ltd under funding

provided by BPXA. This procedure is considered proper for building a

Record of Decision. No comments were received on the EA, and, on July

18, 1996, NMFS adopted the contractor-drafted EA and concluded that

neither implementation of the proposed authorization to BPXA for the

harassment of small numbers of several species of marine mammals

incidental to conducting an ocean-bottom cable seismic survey during

the open water season (July through October) in the Northstar Unit and

nearby waters in the U.S. Beaufort Sea nor the alternatives to that

action would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

That determination was based on an evaluation of a single airgun array

with 8-12 guns totaling 1,200-1,500 in3, (2,000 psi, 250 dB

re 1 Pa-m, p-p), a possible second array (see page 64 of the

EA), and the use of a second single airgun source (40 in3;

232 db re p-p) for calibration, for up to 100 days of operations. It

should be noted that, although the planned focus of efforts for the

1996 seismic survey was the Northstar Island area, figure 1 of the EA

indicates the area of possible seismic activity extended from Spy

Island in the west to Flaxman Island in the east. In addition, the EA

notes that BPXA may relocate to another site and continue the survey

until freeze-up (approximately October 20th).

Western Geophysical's planned seismic area for 1998 is roughly

between Harrison Bay in the west to Camden Bay/Flaxman Island in the

east; negligibly different from that described in the EA. In addition,

both the 1996 application (and EA) and the 1998 applications indicate

that surveys would be conducted between July and October.

In 1998, weather permitting, activity in the U.S. Beaufort Sea was

proposed to increase, with primary airgun arrays being used by Western

Geophysical (up to 16 guns in an array totaling to 1,500 in3

@ 2,000 psi). Western Geophysical plans to utilize a third source of

560 in3 (which it does not plan to use at the same time as

the primary source).

While neither applicant's activity alone exceeds the activity

description found in the 1996 EA, both applicants' activities together

had the potential to result in cumulative impacts not addressed in the

1996 EA, and a new analysis was warranted. However, BPXA's withdrawal

from open-water seismic activities on the North Slope in 1998 made the

preparation of a new environmental analysis unnecessary. Should more

than one seismic survey take place on the North Slope in 1999, NMFS

will release a revised EA that addresses the impacts from more than one

survey being conducted concurrently.

Comment 21: Greenpeace believes that the described action fits the

standard neither for a FONSI nor for a ``Categorical Exclusion.''

Greenpeace believes that because of impacts on native subsistence as

well as on the Arctic marine ecosystem, particularly the bowhead whale

and other marine species, NMFS must prepare a full, comprehensive EIS.

Response: NMFS disagrees. As discussed in this document, neither

commenters, recent monitoring and research, nor TK have provided

information that the impact (with mitigation and C&AA in place) would

be more than negligible (i.e., significant; see the definition in 40

CFR 1508.24) on the bowhead or beluga whales or on several species of

seals and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of these marine mammal species for subsistence uses. Since

NMFS must analyze a request for IHAs to determine whether the proposed

activity has no more than a negligible impact on a species or stock of

marine mammals and does not have an unmitigable adverse impact on

subsistence users, it believes that the issuance of a small take

authorization requires only the preparation of an EA and not of an EIS.

In this case, the agency found through preparing an EA in 1996, that

the proposed action(s) will

[[Page 40510]]

not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, thus

making a finding of no significant impact. If the EA results in this

finding, no additional documents are required by NEPA (NOAA Directives

Manual 02-10).

Information on the impacts on the marine environment from Beaufort

Sea oil and gas leasing activities, including seismic, in the area

under discussion has been addressed in several EISs prepared by

Minerals Management Service (MMS). Final EISs for Lease Sale 124 and

144 were completed in 1990 and 1996.

Cumulative Impact Concerns

Comment 22: Greenpeace believes NMFS is ignoring cumulative impacts

from oil exploration and development on subsistence communities,

bowhead whales, and other marine mammals in the Arctic environment.

Greenpeace believes that impacts from seismic operations cannot be

assessed separately from offshore exploratory drilling, development,

and transportation activities that may follow or are already occurring.

Response: The commenter is correct, however, NMFS would like to

clarify that NMFS' responsibility in this action is limited to the

issuance or denial of an authorization for the short-term, incidental

harassment of a small number of marine mammals by Western while

conducting a seismic survey within an authorized lease sale area. NMFS

does not authorize the exploration and development of oil and gas

itself (e.g., conducting seismic surveys) as such authorization is

provided by the MMS of the U.S. Department of the Interior and is not

within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce.

NMFS also notes that the responsibility for reviewing an activity's

cumulative impact belongs primarily to the responsible permitting

agency, and, if that activity is Federal, federally funded or federally

permitted cumulative impacts are usually reviewed under NEPA. MMS has

responsibility for leasing and subsequent exploration and development

activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. As a result,

MMS published draft and final EISs under NEPA regarding leasing of

offshore oil and gas exploration for Lease Sale Area 144. Cumulative

impacts from oil and gas exploration operations are described in those

NEPA documents.

In addition, a multi-agency NEPA document is currently under public

review and comment. This document will analyze the proposal for oil and

gas development at Northstar and the alternatives to that proposal. A

notice of NEPA scoping was published for public comment in November

1995; a draft EIS was released by the Corps of Engineers on June 1,

1998. An analysis of concerns regarding potential future oil and gas

industry and other environmental issues will be found in this document.

Comment 23: The MMC recommended NMFS consult with appropriate

agencies and organizations to determine the long-term monitoring that

would be required to confirm that the proposed seismic surveys and

possible future exploration and development activities do not cause

changes in the seasonal distribution patterns, abundance, or

productivity of marine mammal populations in the area.

Response: NMFS agrees but notes that this recommendation extends

beyond the requirements of the 1998 monitoring program for Western

Geophysical's seismic survey. However, to the extent practicable, NMFS

intends to use the peer-review process required by the MMPA for small

take authorizations in Arctic waters to address these cumulative impact

monitoring concerns in the future.

ESA

Comment 24: Greenpeace states that the issuance of an IHA to

Western Geophysical (or BPXA) would violate the ESA as it is

inconsistent with the requirements and underlying purposes of the ESA

and with the requirements that each agency use the best scientific and

commercial data available.

Response: NMFS disagrees, noting that the issuance of an IHA to

Western Geophysical triggers section 7 of the ESA, as the issuance of

the IHA is a Federal action. However, the major federal agency for

offshore oil and gas lease activities is the Minerals Management

Service (MMS). Consultation under section 7 for lease sale 144 was

concluded on November 16, 1995, with a finding that the action was not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.

Reinitiation of formal consultation under section 7 is warranted

only when there is new scientific information that has the potential to

call into question the scientific and commercial data used in the

previous biological opinion. At this time, NMFS does not consider the

recent findings on impacts to listed marine species from the

disturbance from seismic surveys sufficient to reinitiate consultation.

Mitigation

Western Geophysical will use biological observers to monitor marine

mammal presence in the vicinity of the seismic array. To avoid serious

injury to marine mammals, Western Geophysical will power down the

seismic source if pinnipeds are sighted within the area delineated by

the 190 dB isopleth or:

(1) Within 170 m (558 ft) of an array 3

operating at 3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;

(3) Within 200 m (656 ft) of an array 1500

in3 operating at 1500

in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth.

Western Geophysical will power down the seismic source

if bowhead, gray, or belukha whales are sighted within the area

delineated by the 180 dB isopleth or:

(1) Within 660 m (2,165 ft) of an array 3

operating at 3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;

(3) Within 750 m (2,461 ft) of an array 1500

in3 operating at 1500

in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth.

In addition, Western Geophysical proposes to ramp-up the seismic

source to operating levels at a rate no greater than 6 dB/min,

commencing with an 80 in3 airgun. Additional guns

will be added at intervals appropriate to limit the rate of increase in

source level to a maximum of 6 dB/min.

Monitoring and Reporting Monitoring

As part of its application, Western Geophysical provided a

monitoring plan for assessing impacts to marine mammals from seismic

surveys in the Beaufort Sea. This monitoring plan is described in

Western Geophysical (1998) and in LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences

Inc. (1998). As mentioned previously, this monitoring plan was amended

based on review and comment and was submitted to NMFS on July 15, 1998.

As required by the MMPA, this monitoring plan will be subject to a

peer-review panel of technical experts prior to formal acceptance by

NMFS.

Preliminarily, Western Geophysical plans to conduct the following:

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring

A minimum of two biologist-observers aboard the seismic vessel will

search for and observe marine mammals whenever seismic operations are

in progress and for at least 30 minutes prior to planned

[[Page 40511]]

start of shooting. These observers will scan the area immediately

around the vessels with reticulated binoculars during the daytime and

with night-vision equipment during the night (prior to mid-August,

there are no hours of darkness). Individual watches will normally be

limited to no more than four consecutive hours during daylight hours.

When mammals are detected within a safety zone designated to

prevent injury to the animals (see Mitigation), the geophysical crew

leader will be notified so that shutdown procedures can be implemented

immediately.

Aerial Surveys

From September 1, 1998, until 3 days after the seismic program

ends, aerial surveys will be conducted daily, weather permitting. The

primary objective will be to document the occurrence, distribution, and

movements of bowhead and belukha whales in and near the area where they

might be affected by the seismic pulses. These observations will be

used to estimate the level of harassment takes and to assess the

possibility that seismic operations affect the accessibility of bowhead

whales for subsistence hunting. Pinnipeds will be recorded when seen.

Aerial surveys will be at an altitude of 300 m (1,000 ft) above sea

level. Western Geophysical proposes to avoid overflights of the Cross

Island area where whalers from Nuiqsut are based during their fall

whale hunt.

Consistent with 1996 and 1997 aerial surveys in the U.S. Beaufort

Sea, the daily aerial surveys are proposed to cover two grids: (1) A

grid of 16 north-south lines spaced 8 km (5 mi) apart and extending

from about 50 km (30 mi) west of the western side of the then-current

seismic exploration area to 50 km (30 mi) east of its eastern edge, and

from the barrier islands north to approximately the 100 m (328 ft)

depth contour; and (2) a grid of 4 survey lines within the above

region, also spaced 8 km (5 mi) apart and mid-way between the longer

lines, to provide more intensive coverage of the area of the seismic

operations and immediate surrounding waters.

When the seismic program is relocated east or west along the coast

during the 1998 season, both survey grids will be relocated a

corresponding distance along the coast. Information on the survey

program can be found in Western Geophysical (1998) and in LGL Ltd. and

Greeneridge Sciences Inc. (1998).

Acoustical Measurements

The acoustic measurement program proposed for 1998 is designed to

continue the research conducted in 1996 and 1997 (see BPXA, 1996a,

1997, and 1998; LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., 1996, 1997, and

1998). The acoustic measurement program is planned to include (1) boat-

based acoustic measurements, (2) OBC-based acoustic measurements, (3)

use of air-dropped sonobuoys, and (4) bottom-mounted acoustical

recorders.

The boat-based acoustical measurement program is proposed for a 7-

day period in August 1998. The objectives of this survey will be as

follows: (1) To measure the levels and other characteristics of the

horizontally propagating seismic survey sounds from the type(s) of

airgun array(s) to be used in 1998 as a function of distance and aspect

relative to the seismic source vessel(s) and to water depth.

(2) To measure the levels and frequency composition of the vessel

sounds emitted by vessels used regularly during the 1998 program.

(3) To obtain additional site-specific ambient noise data, which

determine signal-to-noise ratios for seismic and other acoustic signals

at various ranges from their sources.

Western Geophysical and its proposed consultant (Greeneridge

Sciences) are investigating the use of the OBC-system to help document

horizontal propagation of the seismic surveys. In addition, during late

August and September, four autonomous seafloor acoustic recorders will

be placed on the sea bottom to record low-frequency sounds nearly

continuously for up to 3 weeks at a time. Information includes

characteristics of the seismic pulses, ambient noise, and bowhead

calls. Additional data on these noise sources will be obtained from

sonobuoys dropped from aircraft after September 1.

For a more detailed description of planned monitoring activities,

please refer to the application and supporting document (Western

Geophysical, 1998; LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., 1998b).

Estimates of Marine Mammal Take

Estimates of takes by harassment will be made through vessel and

aerial surveys. Preliminarily, Western Geophysical will estimate the

number of (a) marine mammals observed within the area ensonified

strongly by the seismic vessel; (b) marine mammals observed showing

apparent reactions to seismic pulses (e.g., heading away from the

seismic vessel in an atypical direction); (c) marine mammals subject to

take by type (a) or (b) above when no monitoring observations were

possible; and (d) bowheads displaced seaward from the main migration

corridor.

Reporting

Western Geophysical will provide an initial report on 1998

activities to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of the seismic

program. This report will provide dates and locations of seismic

operations, details of marine mammal sightings, estimates of the amount

and nature of all takes by harassment, and any apparent effects on

accessibility of marine mammals to subsistence users.

A final technical report will be provided by Western Geophysical

within 20 working days of receipt of the document from the contractor,

but no later than April 30, 1999. The final technical report will

contain a description of the methods, results, and interpretation of

all monitoring tasks.

Consultation

Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has completed consultations on the

issuance of this authorization.

Conclusions

NMFS has determined that the short-term impact of conducting

seismic surveys in the Western Beaufort Sea will result, at worst, in a

temporary modification in behavior by certain species of cetaceans.

While behavioral modifications may be made by these species of

cetaceans and seals to avoid the resultant noise, this behavioral

change is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals.

The number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on

the distribution and abundance of marine mammals (which vary annually

due to variable ice conditions and other factors) in the area of

seismic operations. Due to the distribution and abundance of marine

mammals during the projected period of activity and to the location of

the proposed seismic activity in waters generally too shallow and

distant from the edge of the pack ice for most marine mammals of

concern, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be

small (see 63 FR 27709, May 20, 1998, for potential levels of take). In

addition, no take by injury and/or by death is anticipated, and the

potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment will be avoided

through incorporation of the mitigation measures described in the

authorization.

Because bowhead whales are east of the seismic area in the Canadian

Beaufort Sea until late August/early September, seismic activities are

not

[[Page 40512]]

expected to impact subsistence hunting of bowhead whales prior to that

date. After August 31, 1998, Western Geophysical will initiate aerial

survey flights for bowhead whale assessments, and take other actions to

avoid having an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses.

Appropriate mitigation measures to avoid an unmitigable adverse impact

on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence needs is the

subject of consultation between Western Geophysical and subsistence

users. As a result of discussions between the two parties, a C&AA has

been completed. This Agreement consists of three main components: (1)

Communications, (2) conflict avoidance, and (3) dispute resolution.

Summer seismic exploration in the U.S. Beaufort Sea has a small

potential to influence seal hunting activities by residents of Nuiqsut.

However, NMFS believes that, because (1) the peak sealing season is

during the winter months, (2) the main summer sealing is off the

Colville delta, and (3) the zone of influence by seismic sources on

beluga and seals is fairly small, the 1998 Western Geophysical seismic

survey will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability

of these stocks for subsistence uses.

Since NMFS is assured that the taking would not result in more than

the incidental harassment (as defined by the MMPA Amendments of 1994)

of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals, would have only

a negligible impact on these stocks, would not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of these stocks for subsistence

uses, and would result in the least practicable impact on the stocks,

NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of

the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.

Authorization

Accordingly, NMFS has issued an IHA to Western Geophysical for the

above described seismic survey during the 1998 open water season

provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements

described in the authorization are undertaken.

Dated: July 23, 1998.

Patricia A. Montanio,

Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine

Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98-20280 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F