[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40996-41005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 050701A]


Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Shallow-water Hazard 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 shallow 
hazard surveys in the central and eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea, has 
been issued to BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc; ExxonMobil Production Co, 
a division of Exxon Mobil Corporation; and Phillips Alaska, Inc. (BP/
EM/PAI), working as members of a study team referred to in their 
application as the North American Natural Gas Pipeline Group, and now 
known as the Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team.

DATES: Effective July 23, 2001, through September 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The application, authorization, monitoring plan, Biological 
Opinion, and a list of references used in this document are available 
by writing to Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation 
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, (301) 713-
2055, ext 128; Brad Smith, (907) 271-5006.

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, notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have 
no more than 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 IHAs under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for activities in Arctic waters. For 
additional information on the procedures to be followed for this 
authorization, please refer to that document.

Summary of Request

    On March 20, 2001, NMFS received an application from BP/EM/PAI 
requesting an authorization for the harassment of small numbers of 
several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting shallow 
hazards surveys during the open water season in the Beaufort Sea 
between Prudhoe Bay, AK and the United States/Canadian border. Weather 
permitting, the survey is expected to take place between approximately 
July 20 and September 1, 2001. A more detailed description of the work 
proposed for 2001 is contained in the application (BP/EM/PAI, 2001) 
which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    BP/EM/PAI plan to conduct a nearshore shallow hazards survey along 
a proposed natural gas pipeline route in the central and eastern 
Alaskan Beaufort Sea during the 2001 open-water season. The primary 
purpose of the survey is to acquire detailed data on sea bottom and

[[Page 40997]]

sub-bottom characteristics to support pipeline route selection, 
pipeline design, safe pipeline operation, and acquisition of pipeline 
right-of-way permits and a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
Certificate of Convenience and Public Necessity. A secondary purpose of 
the survey is to locate and document areas of potential archaeological 
significance along the proposed pipeline route as required by the 
Minerals Management Service (MMS) and other regulations. Two vessels 
will conduct the planned geophysical survey activities. In addition, a 
smaller support vessel will be used for resupply to enable the survey 
to be completed expeditiously. Water depths within the proposed 
pipeline route range from 20-60 ft (6.1-18.3 m).
    The primary activity planned under this proposed IHA is a high-
resolution shallow hazards pipeline route survey along a 500-m (1640-
ft) wide strip from Prudhoe Bay to the Alaska/Canada border. This work 
would likely occur preceding the period when hunters from Nuiqsut and 
Kaktovik hunt for bowheads (usually between September 1st and October 
15th). The shallow hazards survey will involve the use of acoustic 
energy sources of substantially lower power than airgun arrays used 
during marine seismic surveys. The acoustic recording of received 
signals from one of the shallow hazards sources will be accomplished 
using a mini-streamer hydrophone array towed by the source vessel.
    To increase the probability of completing the survey in a single 
open-water season, two vessels will be used. One vessel will acquire 
sub-bottom data using piezoelectric and electromagnetic sub-bottom 
profiling systems along with side-scan sonar and single-beam 
bathymetric sonar (sub-bottom vessel). A second vessel will be devoted 
to seabottom survey activities, and will operate side scan sonar, 
single-beam bathymetric sonar, and multi-beam bathymetric sonar (multi-
beam vessel). Each vessel will complete one round trip along the 
pipeline route. The sub-bottom vessel will transit the centerline, a 
parallel line offset 150 m (492 ft) to one side of the centerline, and 
cross-tie lines. The cross-tie lines will be spaced approximately 16 km 
(10 mi) and will be approximately 500 m (1640.4 ft) long. The multi-
beam vessel will transit the centerline and a parallel line offset 150 
m (492 ft) to the other side of the centerline. In the event that hard-
bottom habitat with the potential to meet the Alaska Biological Task 
Force definition of Boulder Patch is encountered, the survey vessels 
will circle to the north or south of the planned route in an attempt to 
better define the sea floor anomaly and to locate an alternate route 
around the hard-bottom area. The precise bathymetric contour to be 
surveyed will be determined by BP/EM/PAI later, but BP/EM/PAI has 
determined that the pipeline corridor will be within the zone where 
water depth is 20 to 60 ft (6.1 to 18.3 m)(see Figure 1 in BP/EM/PAI's 
application).
    The result of the two-vessel survey will be single coverage of the 
flanking lines and double coverage of the centerline. Both vessels are 
expected to operate at a towing speed of 3-5 knots and one will follow 
the other within a distance of approximately 7.4 km (4.6 mi), although 
operational considerations may necessitate altering this separation as 
the survey progresses. It is expected that each one-way survey transit 
time may take 7 to 10 days, or more, to complete. Wave and ice 
conditions may affect the specific timing of the survey. The entire 
shallow hazard survey may take 20 to 40 days.
    To conduct the shallow hazards survey, a minisparker will be used 
in addition to a mid-frequency sub-bottom profiler and several high-
frequency sonars. The sonars will include a side-scan sonar system, a 
multi-beam bathymetric sonar system and a single-beam bathymetric sonar 
system. The minisparker system would provide a frequency range of about 
100 to 2500 Hz, with a typical resolution of one meter. Typical pulse 
repetition frequencies are one pulse every one-half to 2 seconds. Pulse 
duration is typically 0.1 to 1.0 milliseconds (ms) and the nominal 
source level is 198 dB (re 1 Pa (on a root-mean-square (rms) 
basis) (200 to 1000 Joules on an energy basis) depending on sub-bottom 
characteristics. A mid-frequency piezoelectric sub-bottom profiler 
operating at a range from 2 kHz to 16 kHz range will be used to obtain 
a high-resolution profile of the shallow sea bottom sediments. Typical 
pulse frequencies are approximately 12 pulses/sec, with pulse duration 
between 10 and 40 ms at an energy level of 200 to 800 Joules. The 
nominal source level is 210 dB re 1 Pa (peak) with an rms 
source level approximately 198 dB re 1 Pa. A dual-channel side 
scan sonar system will be used to acquire continuous images of the sea 
bottom. The source level for a typical side scan sonar system is 
approximately 228 dB (re 1 Pa (peak)). The normal operating 
frequency will be 105 kHz, but may on occasion operate at 390 kHz. The 
side-scan sonar will have a pulse rate of up to 7 pulses per second. 
Pulse duration could range from 0.01 ms to 0.1 ms. Information on the 
single- and multi-beam bathymetric sonars are provided in comment 2 
later in this document.

Comments and Responses

    On May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29287), NMFS published a notice of receipt 
and a 30-day public comment period was provided on the application and 
proposed authorization. Comments were received from the Marine Mammal 
Commission (MMC), BP/EM/PAI, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center 
(on behalf of several environmental organizations)(NAEC), the Alaska 
Wilderness League (AWL), the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) 
and some private citizens. NMFS has not addressed in this document 
those comments and/or information that are contained in, and not in 
disagreement with, statements made in either the BP/EM/PAI application 
or the notice of proposed authorization (66 FR 29287, May 30, 2001).

Activity Concerns

    Comment 1: BP/EM/PAI clarify several points in regard to its 
proposed shallow hazards survey. These are: (1) a boomer will not be 
used during the 2001 survey, (2) drilling or coring operations are not 
planned for the 2001 open-water season, and (3) a 43-ft (13.1-ft) 
utility support vessel, as mentioned previously, will be employed. The 
support vessel operations may include: medical evacuation or rescue, 
route reconnaissance, transport of replacement parts and personnel, and 
acoustical measurements.
    Response: Thank you for providing this information. These 
modifications are reflected in this document.
    Comment 2: BP/EM/PAI wrote to provide minor, additional information 
and corrections on the proposed acoustic sources. First, the rms of the 
mini-sparker is not 203 dB, as quoted in the proposed authorization 
document, but will be about 198 dB re 1 Pa.
    Second, the sub-bottom profiler's frequency range will be from 2 to 
16 kHz, not 2-15 kHz. The pulse repetition rate will be ca.12 pulses 
per second (vs 10) with a pulse duration 10 (not 0.1) to 40 ms. The 
nominal source level is 210 dB re 1 Pa (peak). Burgess and 
Lawson (2001) found that the rms levels for a similar sub-bottom 
profiler were ca.12 dB less than peak levels; therefore, the rms source 
level of the unit is probably about 198 dB re 1 Pa (rms). The 
signal is beamed, with a beam width varying from 10 to 20 degrees. 
Effective source levels for receivers outside the beam width will be 
lower. Also the tow depth in the application (and Federal Register 
notice) was in error. The correct figure

[[Page 40998]]

is 1.5 m (5 ft) (Burgess and Lawson, 2001).
    Third, the side-scan sonars will normally operate at 105 kHz, but 
may, on infrequent occasions operate at 390 kHz (not 100 to 500 kHz 
noted in the IHA application, nor 200 to 500 kHz noted in the FR 
notice). The nominal source level will be 228 dB re 1 Pa 
(peak), not in rms as stated in the FR notice. The rms source level 
would be lower than 228 dB by some unknown amount. These source levels 
would apply only for a receiver in the narrow beam; effective source 
level would be substantially lower outside the beam.
    Fourth, the 215 dB source level of the single-beam 200-kHz 
bathymetric sonar quoted from the manufacturer is likely a peak (or 
possibly peak-to-peak) level. Source levels are low and moderate power 
settings are 202 dB and 209 dB at peak levels. The corresponding rms 
levels would be lower by an unknown amount.
    Fifth, the multi-beam source will operate at 240 kHz, which is 
within the 200-500 kHz range specified in the IHA application. The 
quoted 210 dB re 1 Pa source level is probably a peak level, 
not an rms level.
    Response: Thank you for providing this information. Appropriate 
changes have been made where necessary in this document.
    Comment 3: The NAEC state that the BP/EM/PAI project is an attempt 
to initiate the process of developing an offshore natural gas pipeline 
through the Beaufort Sea.
    Response: As stated in the BP/EM/PAI small take application, the 
pipeline survey route is part of an overall environmental, technical, 
and economic evaluation of two alternate gas pipeline routes for 
delivery of Alaska North Slope natural gas via Canada to the lower 48 
States market. The northern route comprises a marine segment from 
Prudhoe Bay to the Mackenzie Delta. One of the route alternatives for a 
gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states is called the Highway 
Route which originates at Prudhoe Bay and then follows the Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline corridor to about Delta junction. Then the route essentially 
follows the Alaska Highway corridor into Canada through the Yukon 
Territory and northern British Columbia into northern Alberta. From 
Alberta, various alternatives are being considered to transport the gas 
to lower 48 markets. Whether a pipeline is constructed is a matter for 
later determinations by other Federal agencies after completion of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
    Comment 4: The AWL states that if multiple low-frequency (LF) 
sources are used, as contemplated, the decibel level of BP/EM/PAI's 
boomer/minisparker systems will increase substantially as the 
convergence of their respective sound waves will produce even more 
intense levels of sound.
    Response: If sound waves (whether low-, mid- or high-frequency) 
converge, the sounds produced would not be more intense (greater) than 
would be if independent of, or not in convergence with, other sources. 
However, if in phase, these sound waves can result in lower 
attenuation, meaning that the sounds would be projected further with 
less loss of intensity. This is the physics for the U.S. Navy's 
Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System-Low Frequency Active (SURTASS 
LFA) sonar. For the BP/EM/PAI acoustic systems however, as stated in 
the BP/EM/PAI application, there will only be a single LF source used, 
so convergence is not possible. As explained by BP/EM/PAI in comment 1, 
the minisparker has been chosen as the LF sound source for this 
activity; a boomer will not be used.

Marine Mammal Impact Concerns

    Comment 5: The AWL notes several concerns regarding bowhead whale 
abundance, distribution, and impacts that will result because the 
proposed seismic activity would take place during a period of up to 40 
days prior to September 1 in the Alaskan waters of the central Beaufort 
Sea. Therefore, the Beaufort stock of bowhead whales is likely to be 
present during seismic testing.
    Response: First, as noted in the proposed authorization document, 
the proposed activity is not a ``seismic survey'' but a shallow hazards 
survey. Seismic surveys utilize towed arrays having a number of high 
energy, low frequency (LF) sound sources (called airguns), while 
shallow hazard surveys use different types of low-energy sound sources. 
Acousticians have estimated the sounds from the minisparker, the 
acoustic device being used in this project that will have the largest 
zone of influence on marine mammals, will attenuate to 160 dB at about 
155 m (508.5 ft) from the source. On the other hand, standard airgun 
arrays commonly used in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, at similar water 
depth, would be expected to attenuate to 160 dB at approximately 1,800 
m (5,905.5 ft). Therefore, impacts to marine mammals from the 
minisparker and other sonar sources would be less than expected during 
standard seismic surveys. The potential impacts from shallow hazards 
survey equipment on marine mammals, especially bowhead whales, is 
described elsewhere in this document.
    Second, it is recognized by BP/EM/PAI and NMFS that bowhead whales 
may be in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea prior to September 1. This was 
described in the BP/EM/PAI application and adopted by NMFS in the 
proposed authorization Federal Register notice (66 FR 29287, May 30, 
2001). However, the number of bowhead whales that might be within U.S. 
waters prior to September 1 are few in comparison to the numbers 
expected after September 1, 2001. It should be noted that BP/EM/PAI 
estimates that if the survey ends by August 31, between 42 and 1,601 
bowheads could potentially incur a harassment to the noise. If the 
shallow hazards survey continues until September 15, 2001, NMFS 
estimates that approximately 943 bowheads would incur a harassment 
response.
    Comment 6: The AWL believes that the base of biological and 
behavioral information (especially on long term effects of industrial 
noise), necessary for management decisions regarding potential impact 
on an endangered species by industrial activities, is not available 
either to NMFS or to the applicant in support of its petition.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the sufficient biological information 
regarding bowhead whales and other potentially affected marine mammals 
is not available. NMFS is required to make its determinations under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA on the best scientific information 
available. This information is available in several documents that are 
cited in the proposed authorization notice (66 FR 29287, May 30, 2001).
    Comment 7: The NAEC believes that the BP/EM/PAI request fails to 
consider the cumulative impacts from all of the seismic projects that 
will take place in the Beaufort Sea this summer. The NAEC is aware that 
summer seismic testing will occur in the area from Camden Bay to 
Harrison Bay-an area that overlaps the study area proposed by BP/EM/
PAI. Other activities that will add to the cumulative noise and visual 
impacts include the construction and installation of modules at 
Northstar, other potential seismic activities in the vicinity, and the 
normal Beaufort Sea barge traffic. The NAEC is concerned that these 
combined activities could have a considerable negative effect on 
ringed, spotted and bearded seals, polar bears, and beluga and bowhead 
whales and could negatively impact subsistence hunting by the Inupiat.
    Response: Cumulative impacts were addressed by the Corps of 
Engineers in its final environmental impact statement

[[Page 40999]]

(EIS) for Northstar (Corps, 1999). In addition, NMFS has reviewed the 
cumulative impacts on marine mammals due to Northstar and seismic in 
its 1999 Environmental Assessment (EA) for that year's seismic 
activity. Finally, LGL Ltd (environmental research associates)(LGL) 
provided NMFS with a draft document that reviewed the cumulative 
impacts of conducting more than a single seismic survey during the open 
water season. Considering that shallow hazard surveys are often part of 
the open water seismic activity in the Beaufort Sea, NMFS believes that 
the cumulative impacts of shallow hazard surveys combined with other 
activities have been adequately addressed.
    Comment 8: The AWL state that sounds propagate better at great 
depths, and, therefore, a bowhead whale will be more vulnerable to 
sound disturbance when deep underwater than when near the surface.
    Response: While the statement is true, the shallow hazards survey 
is being conducted in shallow water in the Beaufort Sea; deep water 
propagation is unlikely to occur in water depths inhabited by bowhead 
whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during their western migration. In 
addition, BP/EM/PAI are required to make acoustic measurements of all 
its sonars and sparker units to ensure that the estimated sound 
pressure levels (SPLs) are accurate.
    Comment 9: BP/EM/PAI notes that, as discussed in the IHA 
application, the 200 to 240 kHz sounds from the single- and multi-beam 
sonars are above the frequency range audible to any marine mammals in 
the Beaufort Sea. The 105 kHz sounds from the main side-scan sonars are 
above the frequency range audible to any marine mammals in the Beaufort 
Sea, except for the few belugas that might be encountered in nearshore 
waters. Because the side-scan sonar signals are beamed (i.e., not 
omnidirectional), and because at 105 kHz, absorption by seawater will 
cause the sounds to attenuate by an additional 39 dB/km over and above 
the usual spreading losses (see Richardson et al., 1995, p.73), impacts 
by the side-scan sonars are further reduced.
    Response: NMFS concurs that harassment or injury takings of marine 
mammals in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea are unlikely if the sounds are 
above those frequencies within which an animal can hear.
    Comment 10: BP/EM/PAI note that contrary to statements made in the 
Federal Register notice, that the 40- to 60-ft (12.2 to 18.3 m) depth 
contours are within the southern portion of the bowhead migration 
corridor. Also, the three species of seals covered by the IHA 
application can all occur anywhere within the 20 to 60 ft (6.1 to 18.3 
m) depth zone.
    Response: Thank you for providing this information. NMFS has made 
the appropriate changes in this document.
    Comment 11: BP/EM/PAI clarify that, contrary to statements made in 
the Federal Register notice, if the shallow hazards survey operations 
continued into September, then it is possible that the survey route 
could pass through one or more local areas of concentrated feeding by 
bowhead whales. Feeding concentrations occur in some (not all) years at 
unpredicted sites within the 20- to 60-ft (6.1- to 18.3-m) zone 
(Richardson et al.(eds), 1987).
    Response: NMFS has made the appropriate changes in this document 
and has taken this information into account when making its 
determinations under the MMPA.
    Comment 12: The AWL notes that although sonar systems have been 
used for seismic testing for many years, recent developments, such as 
the beaked whale stranding incidents in the Kyparissiakos Gulf in the 
Mediterranean in 1996 and in the Bahamas in 2000, indicate that certain 
uses of sonar may kill or severely impact marine mammals, rather than 
merely changing behavioral patterns, masking sounds temporarily, or 
inflicting stress.
    Response: We agree that certain sonars, because of the type and 
intensity of sounds used, have the potential to injure or kill marine 
mammals.
    Comment 13: The AWL states that the sonar system used by the Navy, 
to which the impacts described in the previous comment reference, 
reportedly operates at levels up to 240 dB and at stated operating 
ranges between 100 Hz and 500 Hz.
    Response: The AWL is confusing two different Navy sonars. While the 
Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar system operates between 100 Hz and 500 Hz, 
each of the 18 transmitters has a maximum SPL of 215 dB, not 240 dB. 
The sonar system used by several ships transiting the Bahamas Channel, 
and implicated in the Bahamas stranding incident in March, 2000, were 
standard, hull-mounted mid-frequency sonars with normal frequency 
ranges and power outputs of 3.5 and 7.5 kHz and 235 dB, respectively.
    Comment 14: The AWL states that underwater 170 dB has been 
described as equivalent to 144 dB in air, which is comparable to a jet 
engine at full throttle, which emits 140 dB.
    Response: A fully-loaded Boeing 747 jet aircraft, measured up-close 
at takeoff is approximately 150 dB (re 20 Pa); other aircraft 
may make more or less noise. To convert the in-air standard to the 
water standard used in this document (re 1 Pa), 62 dB needs to 
be added to the aerial standard (26 dB for the different sound 
reference levels, plus 36 dB for the specific impedance differences 
between air and water). By this conversion, the underwater equivalent 
of the 747 sound at takeoff is 150 dB + 62 dB = 212 dB. If the jet 
aircraft makes 140 dB of noise, the equivalent underwater level would 
be 202 dB, not 170 dB as stated.

Subsistence Concerns

    Comment 15: BP/EM/PAI note that they have had several meetings with 
representatives of the AEWC to discus development of a Conflict 
Avoidance Agreement (CAA). BP/EM/PAI has reviewed drafts of a proposed 
agreement and are in the process of completing a final agreement which 
is expected to be executed in early July.
    Response: Thank you for this information.
    Comment 16: The AEWC strongly opposes the construction of a natural 
gas pipeline along the northern route, including the shallow hazard 
survey proposed by BP/EM/PAI. All 10 villages of the AEWC have signed a 
resolution to this effect on February 20, 2001. However, recognizing 
that the shallow hazard survey has already been permitted, the AEWC 
anticipates signing a CAA with BP/EM/PAI for the 2001 open water season 
and expects that the CAA will provide sufficient mitigation for any 
noise-related impacts to subsistence hunting as a result of the 
proposed shallow hazards survey.
    Response: Thank you for this information. The AEWC has subsequently 
notified NMFS that the AEWC, and the whaling captains from the villages 
of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut, signed a CAA with BP/EM/PAI on this action.

Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Concerns

    Comment 17: The MMC concurs with NMFS that the short-term impact of 
conducting the proposed shallow hazards survey in the Alaskan Beaufort 
Sea will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by 
certain species of cetaceans and pinnipeds and that the monitoring and 
mitigation measures proposed by BP/EM/PAI appear to be adequate to 
ensure that the planned surveys will not result in the mortality or 
serious injury of any marine mammals or have unmitigable adverse 
effects on the availability of marine mammals for taking by Alaska 
Natives for subsistence uses. Therefore, the

[[Page 41000]]

MMC recommends that the requested IHA be issued, provided that NMFS is 
satisfied that the monitoring and mitigation programs will be carried 
out as described in the application.
    Response: Thank you for the comment. On June 5, 2001, NMFS convened 
a peer-review/stakeholders meeting in Seattle, WA to discuss the 
proposed monitoring and mitigation measures for this shallow hazards 
survey program. As a result of suggestions made by participants at this 
meeting, LGL revised the monitoring and mitigation program contained in 
the BP/EM/PAI application. The revised monitoring plan is available 
upon request (see ADDRESSES). A description of the monitoring and 
mitigation that will be required for this activity is described later 
in this document.
    Although NMFS has no reason to believe that the monitoring and 
mitigation plans will not be carried out, a report on all activities 
under the IHA will be required to be submitted to NMFS within 90 days 
of completion of the planned survey. This report will be reviewed by 
NMFS to determine whether BP/EM/PAI fully complied with the terms and 
conditions of the IHA, including the monitoring and mitigation 
requirements.
    Comment 18: The MMC questions however, whether there is a 
sufficient basis for concluding that the activity, combined with past 
and possible future activities, will not have non-negligible cumulative 
effects on any of the potentially affected marine mammal species or 
their availability to Alaska Natives for subsistence uses. Therefore, 
the MMC recommends (as in previous letters) that NMFS, if it has not 
already done so, assess whether the monitoring required as a condition 
of this and possible future IHAs will be adequate to detect possible 
non-negligible cumulative effects, and if not, what additional steps 
need to be taken to ensure that any such effects will be detected 
before they reach significant levels.
    Response: The proposed shallow hazards survey is unlikely to have 
more than minimal behavioral effects on affected marine mammal species. 
If the survey period extends into the fall bowhead migration season, 
there may be some effect on those bowheads inshore but sounds would be 
unlikely to reach the main migration path for bowheads which is well 
offshore.
    For cumulative effects from anthropogenic noise, NMFS believes that 
at a minimum, shipboard monitoring of the safety zone must continue to 
implement mitigation measures to protect marine mammals from potential 
injury. The Scientific Peer Review Workshop participants concluded 
previously that the current research and monitoring proposed by Western 
Geophysical for seismic surveys and by BPX for oil development at 
Northstar (see 66 FR 32321, June 14, 2001 and 65 FR 34014, May 25, 
2000), coupled with existing projects to monitor bowhead population 
abundance (trends in abundance), is the best way currently available to 
obtain the information necessary to determine overall cumulative 
impacts from noise on bowhead whales. Existing projects include those 
by the North Slope Borough (spring bowhead census), the MMS autumn 
aerial survey, and the MMS-funded photo-identification of bowhead 
whales being conducted as part of a bowhead feeding study. Provided 
trends in bowhead abundance continue to be positive, NMFS presumes 
industrial development on the North Slope is not adversely affecting 
the bowhead population. Similar work is underway for ringed seals.

MMPA Concerns

    Comment 19: The AWL claims that the taking of endangered species is 
governed by the MMPA, which requires that the Federal government 
observe a strict policy of species and habitat conservation.
    Response: The taking of endangered species is governed by the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA); the taking of endangered marine mammals 
is governed by both the ESA and the MMPA. NMFS must comply with the 
requirements of both acts prior to issuance of authorizations to take 
marine mammals incidental to lawful maritime activities.
    Comment 20: The AWL believes that the proposed activity would 
violate the MMPA since the proposed activity may deafen or even kill 
unknown numbers of the Beaufort Sea stock of bowhead whales. Thus, the 
AWL believes the BP/EM/PAI application does not support an affirmative 
finding of ``negligible impact.''
    Response: For reasons provided in detail elsewhere in this 
document, NMFS has reviewed the best scientific information available 
on this issue, and has determined that use of low-intensity, 
minisparker, a mid-frequency sub-bottom profiler and several high-
frequency sonars, including a side-scan sonar system, a multi-beam 
bathymetric sonar system, and a single-beam bathymetric sonar system 
will not result in more than small numbers of marine mammals being 
affected, have more than a negligible impact on bowhead whales or other 
species of marine mammals, nor have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the subsistence harvesting of marine mammals. NMFS has determined that 
the acoustic devices proposed for use by this activity are of low 
intensity which are simply incapable of causing serious injury or 
mortality.

ESA Concerns

    Comment 21: The AWL states that if the current application (by BP/
EM/PAI) to take by seismic testing is granted, it will be granted for a 
period during NMFS' review of an ESA petition to designate critical 
habitat for bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea in order to determine 
whether the Beaufort Sea area should be permanently protected from 
seismic testing. If NMFS grants the petition to take during the review 
period for the ESA petition to protect, it will defeat the entire 
purpose of its own review process.
    Response: On May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28141), NMFS announced receipt of 
a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Marine 
Biodiversity Protection Center to designate critical habitat for the 
Western Arctic stock of bowhead whales under the ESA. NMFS is currently 
reviewing this petition to determine whether designation of critical 
habitat is warranted. There is no provision under the ESA that 
activities that might impact critical habitat cease while a review is 
underway. However, Federally-permitted oil and gas exploration 
activities require consultation under section 7 of the ESA if 
endangered or threatened species might be taken. A consultation with 
the MMS was concluded on May 23, 2001. The finding of that consultation 
was that oil and gas exploration, and the issuance of small take 
authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, are not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of any species under the 
jurisdiction of NMFS. A copy of the Biological Opinion is available 
upon request (see ADDRESSES).

NEPA Concerns

    Comment 22: The NAEC believes that the offshore natural gas 
pipeline development project must undergo a complete EIS process, 
including scoping, prior to onset of the survey. Shallow hazard surveys 
should not be treated separately from the rest of the project or given 
a categorical exclusion from the complete NEPA process.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. NEPA does not mandate ground- truth 
surveys be delayed until completion of NEPA. Information obtained 
during on-site evaluations, biological data gathering, and research are 
needed prior to

[[Page 41001]]

drafting an EIS in order for the document to contain the best 
scientific and cultural information obtainable, fully address 
alternatives, and make environmental impact analyses. The reason why 
NMFS considers issuance of a small take authorization for this activity 
as a Categorical Exclusion is provided later in this document (see 
NEPA).

Other Concerns

    Comment 23: Several commenters noted that the Alaska State 
Legislature passed, and the Governor of Alaska signed into law, a bill 
prohibiting leases under the Right-of-Way Leasing Act on state land in 
or adjacent to the Beaufort Sea. The bill (SB 164) became effective on 
May 17, 2001. The intent of this new law is to specifically prohibit 
the placement of a natural gas pipeline in the Beaufort Sea. Thus, the 
NAEC notes, any application made by BP/EM/PAI for the study of such a 
route should summarily be denied as contrary to the laws of the State 
of Alaska.
    Response: As explained in detail in the proposed authorization 
document and in this document, the proposed action before NMFS is not 
an authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction of a 
natural gas pipeline, but rather an authorization to take marine 
mammals incidental to a shallow hazards survey. It is the pipeline 
construction that is prohibited by SB 164, not the shallow hazards 
survey.

Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

    A detailed description of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem and its 
associated marine mammals can be found in several documents (Corps, 
1999; NMFS, 1999; Minerals Management Service (MMS), 1992, 1996) and is 
not repeated here.

Marine Mammals

    The Beaufort/Chukchi Seas support a diverse assemblage of marine 
mammals, including bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), gray whales 
(Eschrichtius robustus), beluga (Delphinapterus leucas), ringed seals 
(Phoca hispida), spotted seals (Phoca largha) and bearded seals 
(Erignathus barbatus). Descriptions of the biology and distribution of 
these species and of others can be found in BP/EM/PAI (2001), NMFS 
(1999), Western Geophysical (2000) and several other documents (Corps, 
1999; Lentfer, 1988; MMS, 1992, 1996; Ferrero et al., 2000). 
Information on cetacean and pinniped hearing can be found in BP/EM/PAI 
(2001) and Richardson et al. (1995) and other sources. Please refer to 
these documents for additional information on marine mammals.

Potential Effects of Underwater Noise on Marine Mammals

    The effects of underwater 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 behavioral reactions of 
variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of 
the animal; these can range from subtle effects on respiration or other 
behaviors (detectable only by statistical analysis) to active avoidance 
reactions; (4) upon repeated exposure, animals may exhibit diminishing 
responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist (the 
latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in 
characteristics, unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with 
situations that the animal perceives as a threat); (5) any human-made 
noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce 
(mask) the ability of marine mammals to hear natural sounds at similar 
frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, echolocation sounds of 
odontocetes, and environmental sounds such as surf noise; and (6) very 
strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent 
reduction in hearing sensitivity. 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.
    Disturbance by anthropogenic noise is the principal means of taking 
by this activity. Vessels may provide a potential secondary source of 
noise. In addition, the physical presence of vessels could also lead to 
non-acoustic effects on marine mammals involving visual or other cues. 
For a discussion on the anticipated effects of ships, boats, and 
aircraft on marine mammals and their food sources, please refer to the 
BP/EM/PAI application. Information on these effects is adopted by NMFS 
as the best information available on this subject.
    The pulsed sounds produced by shallow hazards operations will be 
detectable to marine mammals some distance away from the area of the 
activity, depending on ambient conditions and the sensitivity of the 
receptor (Balla-Holden et al., 1998; Greene, 1998; Burgess and Lawson, 
2000). There are no available data on bowhead or beluga reactions to 
shallow hazards acoustic sources and limited data are available for 
seals. However, the planned types of shallow hazards and sub-bottom 
profiling equipment have lower source levels and higher frequencies 
than airgun arrays or even a single airgun. It is possible that the 
shallow hazards sources may disturb some marine mammals occurring in 
the area, but the radius of disturbance is expected to be significantly 
less than when an airgun array is used.
    Whales that are approached by the survey vessels may react to the 
vessels. Reactions may include temporary interruption of previous 
activities and localized displacement (Richardson et al., 1985; 
Richardson and Malme, 1993). However, the reaction to the survey 
vessels should be reduced because the vessels will be traveling at 
relatively slow speed.
    Permanent hearing damage is not expected to occur during the 
project. It is not positively known whether the hearing systems of 
marine mammals very close to a shallow hazards acoustic source would be 
at risk of temporary or permanent hearing impairment, but temporary 
threshold shift is a theoretical possibility for animals within a few 
meters of the source, depending on the species, the equipment being 
used, and the marine mammal species involved (Richardson et al., 1995). 
For that reason, monitoring the acoustic sources is warranted.
    Planned monitoring and mitigation measures (described later in this 
document) are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near the 
shallow hazards sources, and to avoid exposing them to sound pulses 
that have any possibility of causing hearing impairment. Moreover, as 
bowhead whales are known to avoid an area many kilometers in radius 
around ongoing seismic operations (Miller et al., 1998, 1999), bowheads 
will probably also avoid the planned shallow hazards operation, 
although not at such long range given the much lower level of the 
emitted sounds. Thus, at least in the case of baleen whales, the 
animals themselves are expected to remain far enough from a shallow 
hazards survey operation to avoid any possibility of hearing damage.
    Masking effects on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are 
expected to be limited in the case of bowhead and gray whales exposed 
to shallow hazards pulses. Although pulse repetition rates will be high 
during shallow-hazards surveys, the source

[[Page 41002]]

levels of those pulses will be considerably lower than during seismic 
surveys, and there will be little overlap in frequency with the 
predominant frequencies in bowhead calls. This will considerably reduce 
the potential for masking. Bowhead whales are known to continue calling 
in the presence of seismic survey sounds, and their calls can be heard 
between seismic pulses (Richardson et al., 1986; Greene, 1997; Greene 
et al., 1999). Bowheads are likely to continue calling in the presence 
of shallow hazard source pulses as well. In the case of bowhead whales, 
masking by shallow hazards sources will be limited because of the 
intermittent nature of shallow hazards survey pulses, their higher 
frequencies as compared with frequencies of bowhead calls, and their 
relatively low source levels. Masking effects are more likely to occur 
in the case of beluga whales, given that sounds important to them are 
predominantly at higher frequencies, including frequencies produced by 
some of the shallow hazards sources. However, the offshore distribution 
of beluga whales in the survey area and the rapid absorption of high-
frequency sound in seawater will limit the exposure of belugas to 
shallow hazards pulses and thereby limit the likelihood of masking.

Behavioral Reactions of Cetaceans to Disturbance

    When the received levels of noise exceed some behavioral reaction 
threshold, cetaceans will show disturbance reactions. The levels, 
frequencies, and types of noise 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 
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, are less likely than resting animals to show 
overt behavioral reactions, unless the disturbance is directly 
threatening. However, the actual radius of effect of noise on cetaceans 
is considerably smaller than the radius of detectability (Richardson et 
al., 1995).
    Reactions of cetaceans to a minisparker have not been reported. The 
source levels of this device is lower than the source level of a single 
airgun whose volume exceeds 10 in3, but the frequency range is broader. 
Both baleen and toothed whales sometimes move away from medium-
frequency sonars and similar sources (Richardson et al., 1995). If 
these avoidance effects do occur, the avoidance distances are expected 
to be substantially less (at least for bowhead and gray whales) than 
avoidance distances around an airgun array as used during seismic 
surveys. For example, sounds from an airgun array typically are above 
160 dB (re 1 uPa (rms)) at distances out to a few kilometers. In 
contrast, sounds from a mini-sparker and sub-bottom profiler, as 
measured in the Beaufort Sea during 1997 and 2000, diminished below 160 
dB within ranges of 155 m (508.5 ft), and less than 77 m (252.6 ft), 
respectively (Balla-Holden et al., 1998; Burgess and Lawson, 2000). 
Those studies indicate that, at a range of 2 km (1.2 mi), the received 
levels would be around 135 dB (re 1 uPa (rms)) for the minisparker and 
below 120 dB (re 1 uPa (rms)) for the sub-bottom profiler. If migrating 
bowhead whales are as sensitive to these mid-frequency sources as they 
are to LF pulses from an airgun array, then avoidance might be evident 
at distances as much as 2 km (1.2 mi), at least at times when the 
minisparker is in use.
    The side-scan, single-beam, and multi-beam sonars to be used in the 
shallow hazard survey will operate between 100 kHz and 390 kHz. These 
sounds are at frequencies above the expected hearing range of bowhead 
and gray whales. The 100-kHz side-scan sonar sounds (but not the 390 
kHz sounds) would be within the hearing range of belugas (White et al., 
1978; Johnson et al., 1989). Thus with the possible exception of the 
few belugas that might be exposed to the 100-kHz side-scan, these high-
frequency pulses will be inaudible to cetaceans. The probability that 
belugas will be exposed to the side-scan sonar is low because belugas 
are infrequent in nearshore waters of the study area. Also, side-scan 
sonar sounds at 100 kHz will be rapidly absorbed by seawater and will 
not be detectable at long range. At 100 kHz, there are absorption 
losses of 36 dB/km (36 dB/0.62 mi) in addition to the usual spreading 
loss (Richardson et al., 1995).

Behavioral Reactions of Pinnipeds to Disturbance

    Reactions of arctic seals to a minisparker and/or sub-bottom 
profiler are not known in any detail. Ringed seals have been noted to 
react ``vigorously'' to survey vessels when shallow hazard sources were 
silent, and no seals were seen at distances closer than 70 m (229.6 ft) 
when sources were on during an earlier shallow hazards survey in the 
Beaufort Sea. However, it is believed that the seals were reacting more 
to the small airgun used in that survey, than to the GeoPulse bubble 
pulser (which is not being used in this activity).
    The sounds emitted by the side-scan sonar will be largely or 
entirely inaudible to pinnipeds, as the frequencies (100 and 390 kHz) 
are well above the effective hearing range of pinnipeds.

Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected to be Taken

    Incidental takes of marine mammals by harassment could potentially 
occur for the duration of the proposed activity (potentially July 
through September, 2001) during times when the shallow-hazard acoustic 
sources would be in operation. Seals are in the area throughout the 
period; few whales are likely to be in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea before 
late August.
    Based on an analysis provided in its application, BP/EM/PAI 
estimates that the following numbers of marine mammals may be subject 
to Level B harassment, as defined in 50 CFR 216.3:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Harassment Takes in 2001
                     Species                           Population Size     -------------------------------------
                                                                                    Possible           Probable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead                                                              8,200  .......................  ...........
  160 dB criterion                                 .......................                       42            3
  2 km criterion                                   .......................                    1,601          285
Gray whale                                                          26,000                       10            0
Beluga                                                              39,258                      250          150
Ringed seal*                                                 1-1.5 million                       93           10
Spotted seal*                                                     >200,000                       10            2

[[Page 41003]]

 
Bearded seal*                                                     >300,000                       15           15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some individual seals may be harassed more than once

Effects of Anthropogenic Noise and Other Activities on Subsistence 
Needs

    The disturbance and potential displacement of marine mammals by 
sounds from shallow hazards activities are the principal concerns 
related to subsistence use of the area. The harvest of marine mammals 
(mainly bowhead whales, but also ringed and bearded seals) is central 
to the culture and subsistence economies of the coastal North Slope 
communities. In particular, if migrating bowhead whales are displaced 
farther offshore by elevated noise levels, the harvest of these whales 
could be more difficult and dangerous for hunters. The harvest could 
also be affected if bowheads become more skittish when exposed to 
seismic noise. The hunters are concerned about both displacement and 
skittish whales.
    Nuiqsut and Kaktovik are the communities that are closest to the 
area of the proposed activity. Hunters from both villages harvest 
bowhead whales only during the fall whaling season. In recent years, 
Nuiqsut whalers typically take two to four whales each season, while 
Kaktovik typically take 3 bowheads, with 4 bowheads taken when an 
``unused strike'' is allocated from another village. Nuiqsut whalers 
concentrate their efforts on areas north and east of Cross Island, 
generally in water depths greater than 20 m (65 ft). Cross Island, the 
principal field camp location for Nuiqsut whalers, is located 
immediately south of the potential pipeline route. Thus, the 
possibility and timing of potential shallow hazards activities in the 
Cross Island area requires BP/EM/PAI to provide NMFS with either a Plan 
of Cooperation with North Slope Borough residents or measures that have 
been or will be taken to avoid any unmitigable adverse impact on 
subsistence needs. BP/EM/PAI's application has identified those 
measures that will be taken to minimize any adverse effect on 
subsistence. In addition, the timing of shallow hazards activities have 
been addressed in a CAA with the Nuiqsut and Kaktovik whalers and the 
AEWC. The CAA is described in the BP/EM/PAI application.
    The location of the proposed activity is south of the center of the 
westward migration route of bowhead whales, but there is some overlap. 
Localized disturbance to bowheads by shallow hazards sources and the 
vessels that deploy them could occur if the shallow hazards operations 
continue into the bowhead migration season. The proposed timing of the 
shallow hazards survey is not expected to overlap with the bowhead hunt 
at either Kaktovik or Cross Island. However, if the shallow hazards 
survey does continue into the bowhead migration season, as discussed 
previously in this document, the radius of potential disturbance will 
be much smaller than would be the case during a seismic survey, given 
the much reduced source levels of the sounds used for shallow hazards 
surveys. Shallow hazards operations are expected to begin in July and 
be completed by September, depending upon ice conditions. If possible, 
BP/EM/PAI expects the work to be completed by the end of August. Few 
bowheads approach the project area before the end of August, and 
whaling does not normally begin until after September 1. However, the 
mitigation measure adopted in previous years to restrict operations to 
areas west of Cross Island during the bowhead hunting season is not 
possible for this project because nearly all of this survey is located 
east of Cross Island.
    Many Nuiqsut hunters hunt seals intermittently year round. During 
recent years, most seal hunting has been during the early summer in 
open water. In summer, boat crews hunt ringed, spotted, and bearded 
seals. The most important sealing area for Nuiqsut hunters is off the 
Colville delta, extending as far west as Fish Creek and as far east as 
Pingok Island. This area does not overlap with the planned shallow 
hazards survey area and, therefore, is not expected to influence the 
seal hunt by Nuiqsut residents.
    At Kaktovik, the planned shallow hazards survey during the summer 
has some potential to influence seal hunting activities, but any 
effects are expected to be negligible (BP/EM/PAI, 2001). During the 
open water season, both ringed and bearded seals are taken, along with 
an occasional spotted seal. Given the lower source levels of the 
shallow hazard sources, their radius of influence on seals is expected 
to be less than that of an airgun array even after allowing for the 
potentially greater sensitivity of seals to mid-frequency sounds. 
Therefore, it is unlikely that the shallow hazards survey would have 
more than a negligible impact on seals or subsistence hunting of seals.

Mitigation

    The timing of the shallow hazards survey has been planned by BP/EM/
PAI so that most or all of the survey will occur while there are few 
bowhead whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, and thus would avoid or 
minimize overlap with bowhead hunting. BP/EM/PAI proposes to complete 
all three survey segments (centerline, north offset, and south offset) 
near Cross Island at the beginning of the survey period (July), well in 
advance of 1 September, 2001.
    Safety zones will be established around each of the sources (except 
the multi-beam source because it is above the hearing frequencies of 
marine mammals) and monitored by marine mammal observers. Whenever a 
marine mammal is about to enter the safety zone appropriate for the 
species, the observer will ensure that each of the sources will be 
shut-down until the mammal leaves its safety zone. The safety zones 
proposed for this activity are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           RMS RADII (in m/ft)
                                                                      WATER DEPTH (m/  -------------------------
                     SOURCE                        TOW DEPTH (m/ft)         ft)            190 dB       180 dB
                                                                                          (Seals)      (Whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minisparker                                                   0.3/1              ~6/20         6/20        18/59
Sub-bottom profiler                                            3/10             ~13/43         3/10         8/26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 41004]]

    Within the first 10 days of the survey's start, BP/EM/PAI will 
measure and analyze the sounds from the various sources, and, after 
consultation with NMFS, adjust the proposed safety radii, provided 
here, as necessary.
    During night-time, floodlights may be employed to illuminate the 
safety zone, and night vision equipment will be available to facilitate 
observation. It should be noted that marine mammal monitoring will not 
be required for the multi-beam source vessel, only for the sub-bottom 
source vessel, since the sonar equipment that the multi-beam vessel 
will operate will emit sounds outside the frequency range at which 
those species of seals and whales expected in the area can hear well. 
Also, consistent with previous shallow hazards surveys, because of the 
lower-powered sources employed, no ramp-up procedure is proposed to be 
used for this activity.

Monitoring

    The BP/EM/PAI will sponsor marine mammal and acoustical monitoring 
of its 2001 shallow hazards program. This monitoring will be similar to 
monitoring conducted in association with the 1997 and 2000 shallow 
hazards operations in the Beaufort Sea. BP/EM/PAI will not conduct an 
aerial monitoring program because the zones of acoustical influence are 
likely to be significantly smaller than those found for seismic airgun 
array operations in the Beaufort Sea.
    The monitoring plan submitted to NMFS on March 20, 2001, was 
reviewed at a peer-review workshop held in Seattle, WA, on June 5, 
2001. The monitoring plan was revised in accordance with that meeting 
and was submitted to NMFS on July 2, 2001. A copy of this monitoring 
plan is available upon request (see ADDRESSES). The monitoring plan has 
two components.

Vessel Monitoring

    BP/EM/PAI will have a marine mammal observer aboard the sub-bottom 
source vessel to search for and observe marine mammals whenever the 
shallow hazards operations are in progress, and for at least 30 minutes 
prior to the planned start of operations. A total of 3 observers will 
be employed, consisting of two qualified biologists and an Inupiat 
Observer/Communicator with experience in this type of work. They will 
work in shifts usually no longer than 4 hours each to minimize observer 
fatigue. All marine mammal observations and shutdowns will be recorded 
in a standardized format, as done in previous acoustical surveys.
    When mammals are detected within, or about to enter, the safety 
zone designated to prevent injury to the animals (see Mitigation), the 
survey crew leader will be notified so that shutdown procedures can be 
implemented immediately.

Acoustical Monitoring

    Acoustical measurements of sounds emitted by the shallow hazards 
sources will be obtained by vessel-based hydrophones. A vessel-based 
acoustical measurement program is proposed to be conducted for a few 
days early in the program. The main objective will be to measure the 
levels and other characteristics of the horizontally propagating sound 
from the minisparker, and sub-bottom profiler. The sources will be 
measured at various distances and directions from the source. Routine 
vessel sounds, made by BP/EM/PAI vessels, will also be recorded for any 
vessels whose sounds have not been recorded previously.

Reporting

    BP/EM/PAI will provide an initial report on the 2001 shallow 
hazards activity to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of the 
shallow hazards program. This report will provide dates and locations 
of shallow hazards 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 draft technical report will be provided by BP/EM/PAI within 
20 working days of receipt of the document from the contractor, but no 
later than April 30, 2002. The final technical report will contain a 
description of the methods, results, and interpretation of all 
monitoring tasks and will reflect suggestions and recommendations made 
during peer review.

Consultation

    Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS completed consultation with MMS on 
the oil and gas exploration and associated activities in the Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea on May 25, 2001. This consultation includes a review of 
seismic and related noise sources used by the oil and gas industry. The 
finding of that consultation was that oil and gas activities in the 
Alaskan Beaufort Sea, and the issuance by NMFS of a small take 
authorization for oil and gas activities, are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of the bowhead whale. In formulating this 
opinion, NMFS used the best available information, including 
information provided by MMS, recent research on the effects of oil and 
gas activities on the bowhead whale, and the traditional knowledge of 
Native hunters and the Inupiat along Alaska's North Slope. A copy of 
the Biological Opinion issued as a result of this consultation is 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

NEPA

    In conjunction with the 1996 notice of proposed authorization (61 
FR 26501, May 28, 1996) for open water seismic operations in the 
Beaufort Sea, NMFS released an Environmental Assessment (EA) that 
addressed the impacts on the human environment from issuance of the 
authorization and the alternatives to the proposed action. No comments 
were received on that document and, on July 18, 1996, NMFS concluded 
that neither implementation of the proposed 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 Alaskan Beaufort Sea nor the alternatives to that action would 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment. As a result, 
the preparation of an environmental impact statement on this action is 
not required by section 102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations.
    In 1999, NMFS determined that a new EA was warranted based on the 
proposed construction of the Northstar project, the collection of data 
from 1996 through 1998 on Beaufort Sea marine mammals and the impacts 
of seismic activities on these mammals, and the analysis of scientific 
data indicating that bowheads avoid nearshore seismic operations by up 
to about 20 km (12.4 mi). Accordingly, a review of the impacts expected 
from the issuance of an IHA has been assessed in the EA, and NMFS 
determined in 1999, that there would be no more than a negligible 
impact on marine mammals from the issuance of the harassment 
authorization that year and that there will not be any unmitigable 
impacts to subsistence communities, provided the mitigation measures 
required under the authorization were implemented. As a result, NMFS 
determined in 1999 that neither implementation of the 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 U.S. Beaufort Sea nor the alternatives to that action would 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Since this 
proposed action falls into a category of actions that do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant impact

[[Page 41005]]

on the human environment as determined through the 1999 EA, this action 
is categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis (NOAA NAO 216-6).

Determinations

    Based on the evidence provided in the application, the EA, and this 
document, and taking into consideration the comments submitted on the 
application and proposed authorization notice, NMFS has determined that 
there will be no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals from 
the issuance of the harassment authorization to BP/EM/PAI and that 
there will not be any unmitigable adverse impacts to subsistence 
communities. NMFS has determined that the short-term impact of 
conducting shallow hazards surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea will 
result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain 
species of cetaceans and pinnipeds. While behavioral modifications may 
be made by these species to avoid the resultant noise, this behavioral 
change is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals.
    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 shallow hazard survey operations, due to the distribution and 
abundance of marine mammals during the projected period of activity and 
the location of the proposed shallow hazards activity in waters 
generally too shallow and distant for most marine mammals of concern, 
the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In 
addition, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the 
potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment will be avoided 
through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this 
document. No rookeries or mating grounds are known to occur within or 
near the planned area of operations during the season of operations. 
However, there may be some overlap with areas of concentrated feeding 
as mentioned previously in this document.
    Because bowhead whales are east of the activity area in the 
Canadian Beaufort Sea until late August/early September, shallow hazard 
survey activities in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea are not expected to 
impact subsistence hunting of bowhead whales prior to that date. Using 
the expected density of whale abundance that could be subject to 
acoustic harassment from this work, the intensity and frequency of the 
sound source, and the equivalent received sound levels for this 
equipment when compared to a seismic array, a maximum of 1,601 bowhead 
whales could be incidentally harassed between the effective date of 
this authorization and September 30, 2001. This represents the 
estimated number of whales which would occur within 2 km of the source. 
The actual duration of the survey and the proximity of these operations 
to the bowhead fall migration corridor are likely to reduce this 
estimate substantially. Additionally, this estimate considered the 
distribution of the 1997 fall bowhead migration; a year in which the 
axis of the migration corridor was close to shore. The AGPPT estimates 
the most probable level of take as 285 bowhead whales. However, NMFS 
acknowledges that, should weather conditions delay survey work into 
September and survey work occur in deeper waters (e.g. over the 60 foot 
isobath rather than the 40 foot contour as expected), the higher 
estimate could be approached. Therefore, NMFS believes an appropriate 
estimate of take for this work may be established as the average 
between these estimates, or 943 animals. NMFS believes that no bowheads 
will be killed or seriously injured by BP/EM/PAI's activity and 
accordingly has not authorized takings by injury or mortality.
    Appropriate mitigation measures to avoid an unmitigable adverse 
impact on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence needs have 
been the subject of consultation between BP/EM/PAI and subsistence 
users. This CAA, which consists of three main components: (1) 
Communications, (2) conflict avoidance, and (3) dispute resolution, has 
been concluded for the 2001 open-water seismic season.
    Also, while shallow hazard surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea have 
the potential to influence seal hunting activities by residents of 
Kaktovik, because the zone of influence on seals by shallow hazard 
survey sources is expected to be small (less than a few hundred meters 
in diameter), and because the village of Nuiqsut conducts its major 
sealing during the summer months off the Colville Delta, west of the 
proposed survey area, NMFS believes that BP/EM/PAI's shallow hazards 
survey will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability 
of ringed, bearded and spotted seals needed for subsistence.
    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 bowhead whales, gray whales, beluga whales, and 
ringed, spotted and bearded seals, 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 BP/EM/PAI for the herein 
described shallow hazards survey during the 2001 open water season in 
the Alaskan Beaufort Sea provided the mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements described in this document and in the IHA are 
undertaken.

    Dated: July 23, 2001.
Wanda L. Cain,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-19618 Filed 8-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S