[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60174-60203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24335]



[[Page 60173]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities; Marine 
Seismic Survey in the Arctic Ocean, August to September, 2010; Notice

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

[[Page 60174]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XW05


Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities; 
Marine Seismic Survey in the Arctic Ocean, August to September, 2010

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS issued an 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) for the take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B 
harassment, incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey in the 
Arctic Ocean during August to September, 2010.

DATES: Effective August 11, 2010, through October 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and application are available by writing 
to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by 
telephoning the contact listed here.
    A copy of the application containing a list of the references used 
in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified 
above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 
notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at 
the aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, 
the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by United States (U.S.) citizens who engage in a specified 
activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a 
negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking 
and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting 
of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' 
in 50 CFR 216.103 as `` * * * an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization 
not to exceed one year to incidentally take small numbers of marine 
mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not 
pertinent here, the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:

Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [``Level A harassment'']; or (ii) has the potential to disturb 
a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
[``Level B harassment''].

16 U.S.C. 1362(18)
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' 
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment 
period for any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of 
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS 
must either issue or deny the authorization.

Summary of Request

    On March 9, 2010, NMFS received an IHA application and a draft 
Environmental Assessment (EA) from USGS for the taking, by Level B 
harassment only, of small numbers of several species of marine mammals 
incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean 
during August to September, 2010. NMFS received a revised IHA 
application on June 1, 2010, and a final EA on August 6, 2010.

Description of the Specified Activity

    USGS is conducting a marine geophysical (seismic reflection/
refraction) and bathymetric survey in the Arctic Ocean in August and 
September, 2010 (see Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 3 of the IHA 
application). The survey is being conducted from the Canadian Coast 
Guard (CCG) vessel CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent (St. Laurent) which will 
be accompanied by the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy, both of 
which are polar-class icebreakers. Descriptions of the vessels and 
their specifications are presented in Appendix A of the IHA 
application. The two vessels operate in tandem in the presence of ice 
but may diverge and operate independently in open water. Some minor 
deviation of the dates is possible, depending on logistics and weather 
(i.e., the cruise may depart earlier or be extended due to poor 
weather; there could be extra days of seismic operations if collected 
data are of sub-standard quality).
    One CCG helicopter is available for deployment from the St. Laurent 
for ice reconnaissance and crew transfers between the vessels during 
survey operations. Helicopter transfer of crew from the Healy is also 
planned for approximately one day during a ship-to-shore crew change at 
Barrow, Alaska at the end of the survey. The helicopter operations in 
Barrow will be conducted under Department of Interior (DOI) contract. 
Daily helicopter operations are anticipated pending weather conditions. 
Spot bathymetry will also be conducted from the helicopter outside U.S. 
waters.
    Acoustic sources onboard the St. Laurent include an airgun array 
comprised of three Sercel G-airguns and a Knudsen 320BR ``Chirp'' pulse 
echosounder operating at 12 kHz. The St. Laurent also tows a 3 to 5 kHz 
sub-bottom profiler while in open water and when not working with the 
Healy. The airgun array consists of two 500 in\3\ and one 150 in\3\ 
airguns for an overall discharge of 1,150 in\3\. Table 2 of the IHA 
application presents different sound pressure level (SPL) radii of the 
airgun array. Acoustic sources being operated on the St. Laurent are 
described in detail in Section VII and Appendix B in the IHA 
application. The seismic array and a hydrophone streamer towed from the 
St. Laurent operate under the provisions of a Canadian authorization 
based on Canada's environmental assessment of the proposed survey while 
in Canadian or international waters, and under the provisions of an IHA 
issued to the USGS by NMFS in U.S. waters. NMFS cannot issue an IHA 
directly to a non-U.S.

[[Page 60175]]

citizen, however, the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) has written a 
Categorical Declaration stating that ``while in U.S. waters (i.e., the 
U.S. 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone), the GSC will comply with any 
and all environmental mitigation measures required by the U.S. NMFS 
and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.'' The St. Laurent follows 
the lead of the Healy. The Healy breaks and clears ice approximately 
1.6 to 3.2 km (1 to 2 miles [mi]) in advance of the St. Laurent. In 
situations where the array (and hydrophone streamer) cannot be towed 
safely due to ice cover, the St. Laurent may escort the Healy. The 
Healy uses a multi-beam echosounder (Kongsberg EM122), a sub-bottom 
profiler (Knudsen 3.5 kHz Chirp), and a ``piloting'' echosounder (ODEC 
1500) continuously when underway and during the seismic profiling. 
Acoustic Doppler current profilers (75 kHz and 150 kHz) may also be 
used on the Healy. The Healy's acoustic systems are described in 
further detail in Section VII and Appendix B of the IHA application.
    In addition to the hydrophone streamer, marine sonobuoys are 
deployed to acquire wide angle reflection and refraction data for 
velocity determination to convert seismic reflection travel time to 
depth. Sonobuoys are deployed off the stern of the St. Laurent 
approximately every eight hours during seismic operations with as many 
as three deployments per day. The sonobuoy's hydrophone activates at a 
water depth of approximately 60 m (196.9 ft) and seismic signals are 
communicated via radio to the St. Laurent. The sonobuoys are pre-set to 
scuttle (i.e., deliberately sink) eight hours after activation.
    The program within U.S. waters consists of approximately 806 km 
(500.8 mi) of survey transect line, not including transits when the 
airguns are not operating (see Figure 1 and Table 1 of the IHA 
application). U.S. priorities include another 997 km (619.5 mi) of 
survey lines north of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), for a 
total of 1,804 km (1,121 mi) of tracklines of interest to the U.S. 
Table 1 of the IHA application lists all U.S. priority tracklines; 
Figure 1 of the IHA application includes all U.S. priority tracks and 
the area of interest to Canada near the proposed U.S. tracklines. Water 
depths within the U.S. study area range from approximately 1,900 to 
4,000 m (6,233.5 to 13,123.4 ft) (see Figure 1 of the IHA application). 
There may be additional seismic operations associated with airgun 
testing, start-up, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data 
quality is sub-standard. The tracklines being surveyed in U.S. waters 
include the southern 263.8 km (164 mi) of the line that runs North-
South in the western EEZ, the southern 264.5 km (164.4 mi) of the line 
that runs North--South in the central EEZ, and 277.7 km (172.6 mi) of 
trackline that connects the two (see Table 1 here and in Figure 1 of 
the IHA application). The IHA application requested the authorization 
of incidental takes of marine mammals for activities within U.S. 
waters. The survey line nearest to shore in U.S. waters is 
approximately 116 km (63 nmi) offshore at its closest point.

Table 1--U.S. Priority Tracklines for USGS and Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) 2010 Extended Continental Shelf
                              Survey in the Northern Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Time  (Hour
           Location               End point 1      End point 2       Kilometer     Nautical mile  [hr])  @ 4 nmi/
                                                                       (km)            (nmi)            hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS in central EEZ (south)....  71.22[deg]        72.27[deg]                  118              64              16
                                North;            North;
                                145.17[deg]       145.41[deg]
                                West.             West.
NS in central EEZ (north)....  72.27[deg]        73.92[deg]                  183             100              25
                                North;            North;
                                145.41[deg]       145.30[deg]
                                West.             West.
Central-western EEZ connector  73.92[deg]        71.84[deg]                  317             171              43
                                North;            North;
                                145.30[deg]       151.82[deg]
                                West.             West.
NS in western EEZ............  71.84[deg]        74.32[deg]                  281             152              39
                                North;            North;
                                151.82[deg]       150.30[deg]
                                West.             West.
South Northwind Ridge........  74.32[deg]        74.96[deg]                  239             129              32
                                North;            North;
                                150.30[deg]       158.01[deg]
                                West.             West.
Northwind Ridge connector....  74.96[deg]        76.30[deg]                  161              87              22
                                North;            North;
                                158.01[deg]       155.88[deg]
                                West.             West.
Mid-Northwind Ridge..........  76.30[deg]        75.41[deg]                  274             148              37
                                North;            North;
                                155.88[deg]       146.50[deg]
                                West.             West.
Northwind Ridge connector....  75.41[deg]        76.57[deg]                  129              70              17
                                North;            North;
                                146.50[deg]       146.82[deg]
                                West.             West.
Mid-Northwind Ridge..........  76.57[deg]        76.49[deg]                  102              55              14
                                North;            North;
                                146.82[deg]       150.73[deg]
                                West.             West.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Totals...................  ................  ...............           1,804             976             245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two vessels operate cooperatively during the seismic survey. 
The St. Laurent conducts seismic operations using an airgun array and 
also operates a 12 kHz Chirp echosounder. The St. Laurent also operates 
a 3 to 5 kHz sub-bottom profiler in open water when not working with 
the Healy. The Healy normally escorts the St. Laurent in ice cover, and 
continuously operates a bathymetric multi-beam echosounder, a 3.5 kHz 
Chirp sub-bottom profiler, a piloting echosounder, and two acoustic 
Doppler current profilers.
    The St. Laurent accessed the survey area from Canada and 
rendezvoused with the Healy on approximately August 10, 2010; the Healy 
approached the survey area from the Bering Straits. The St. Laurent 
deploys a relatively small airgun array comprised of three G-airguns 
and a single hydrophone streamer approximately 300 m (984 ft) in 
length. The airgun array consists of two 500 in \3\ and one 150 in \3\ 
airguns for an overall discharge of 1,150 in \3\. The St. Laurent 
follows the lead of the Healy which operates approximately 1.9 to 3.8 
km (1 to 2 nmi) ahead of the St. Laurent. In ice conditions where 
seismic gear cannot be safely towed, the St. Laurent escorts the Healy 
to optimize multi-beam bathymetry data collection. If extended open-
water conditions are encountered, Healy and St. Laurent may operate 
independently. After completion of the survey the St. Laurent will 
return to port in Canada, and the Healy will change crew at Barrow via 
helicopter or surface conveyance before continuing on another project.

Vessel Specifications

    The CCGS St. Laurent was built in 1969 by Canadian Vickers Ltd. in 
Montreal, Quebec, and underwent an extensive modernization in Halifax, 
Nova Scotia between 1988 to 1993. The St. Laurent is based at CCG Base 
Dartmouth in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Current vessel activities involve 
summer voyages to the Canadian Arctic for sealifts to various coastal 
communities and scientific expeditions. A description of the St. 
Laurent with vessel specifications is presented in Appendix A of the 
IHA application and is available online at: http://www.ccg-

[[Page 60176]]

gcc.gc.ca/eng/Fleet/Vessels?id=1111&info=5&subinfo.
    The Healy is designed to conduct a wide range of research 
activities, providing more than 390.2 m \2\ (4,200 ft \2\) of 
scientific laboratory space, numerous electronic sensor systems, 
oceanographic winches, and accommodations for up to 50 scientists. The 
Healy is designed to break 1.4 m (4.5 ft) of ice continuously at 5.6 
km/hour (three knots) and can operate in temperatures as low as -45.6 C 
(-50 degrees F). The Healy is a USCG icebreaker, capable of traveling 
at 5.6 km/hour (three knots) through 1.4 m (4.5 ft) of ice. A ``Central 
Power Plant,'' four Sultzer 12Z AU40S diesel generators, provides 
electric power for propulsion and ship's services through a 60 Hz, 
three-phase common bus distribution system. Propulsion power is 
provided by two electric AC Synchronous, 11.2 MW drive motors, fed from 
the common bus through a Cycloconverter system, that turn two fixed-
pitch, four-bladed propellers.
    The science community provided invaluable input on lab lay-outs and 
science capabilities during design and construction of the ship. The 
Healy is also a capable platform for supporting other potential 
missions in the polar regions, including logistics, search and rescue, 
ship escort, environmental protection, and enforcement of laws and 
treaties, and will also serve as the platform from which vessel-based 
Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will watch for marine mammals before 
and during airgun operations. Other details of the Healy can be found 
in Appendix A of the IHA application.
    NMFS believes that the realistic possibility of a ship-strike of a 
marine mammal by the vessel during research operations and in-transit 
during the proposed survey is discountable. The probability of a ship 
strike resulting in an injury or mortality of an animal has been 
associated with ship speed; however, it is highly unlikely that the 
proposed seismic survey would increase the rate of injury, serious 
injury, or mortality given the St. Laurent and Healy's slow survey 
speed.

Acoustic Source Specifications--Seismic Airguns and Radii

    The seismic source for the seismic survey is comprised of three 
Sercel G-airguns with a total volume of 1,150 in \3\. The three-airgun 
array is comprised of two 500 in \3\ and one 150 in \3\ G-airguns in a 
triangular configuration (see Figure B-1 in the IHA application). The 
single 150 in \3\ G-airgun is used if a power-down is necessary for 
mitigation. The G-airgun array is towed behind the St. Laurent at a 
depth of approximately 11 m (36.1 ft) (see Figure B-2 in the IHA 
application) along predetermined lines in water depths ranging from 
1,900 to 4,000 m (6,233.6 to 13,123.4 ft). One streamer approximately 
232 m (761.2 ft) in length with a single hydrophone is towed behind the 
airgun array at a depth of approximately 9 to 30 m (29.5 to 98.4 ft).
    A square wave trigger signal is supplied to the firing system 
hardware by a FEI-Zyfer GPStarplus Clock model 565, based on GPS time 
(typically at approximately 14 to 20 sec intervals). Vessel speed is 
approximately 10.2 km/hour (5.5 knots) resulting in a shot interval 
ranging from approximately 39 to 56 m (128 to 183.7 ft). G-airgun 
firing and synchronization are controlled by a RealTime Systems 
LongShot fire controller, which sends a voltage to the airgun solenoid 
to trigger firing with approximately 54.8 ms delay between trigger and 
fire point.
    Pressurized air for the pneumatic G-airguns is supplied by two 
Hurricane compressors, model 6T-276-44SB/2500. These are air cooled, 
containerized compressor systems. Each compressor is powered by a C13 
Caterpillar engine which turns a rotary screw first stage compressor 
and a three stage piston compressor capable of developing a total air 
volume of 600 SCFM @ 2,500 pounds per square inch (PSI). The seismic 
system is operated at 1,950 PSI and one compressor could easily supply 
sufficient volume of air under appropriate pressure.
    Seismic acquisition requires a watchkeeper in the seismic lab and 
another in the compressor container. The seismic lab watchkeeper is 
responsible for data acquisition/recording, watching over-the-side 
equipment, airgun firing and log keeping. A remote screen permits 
monitoring of compressor pressures and alerts, as well as communication 
with the compressor watchkeeper. The compressor watchkeeper is required 
to monitor the compressor for any emergency shut-down and provide 
general maintenance that might be required during operations.
    Sound level radii for the proposed three airgun array were measured 
in 2009 during a seismic calibration (Mosher et al., 2009; Roth and 
Schmidt, 2010). A transmission loss model was then constructed assuming 
spherical (20LogR) spreading and using the source level estimate 235 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 0-peak; 225 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) from the 
measurements. The use of 20LogR spreading fit the data well out to 
approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) where variability in measured vales 
increased (see Appendix B in the IHA application for more details and a 
figure of the transmission loss model compared to the measurement 
data). Additionally, the Gundalf modeling package was used to model the 
airgun array and estimated a source level output of 236.7 dB 0-peak 
(226.7 dB [rms]). Using this slightly stronger source level estimate 
and a 20LogR spreading the 180 and 190 dB (rms) radii are estimated to 
be 216 m (708.7 ft) and 68 m (223.1 ft), respectively. As a 
conservative measure for the proposed safety radii, the sound level 
radii indicated by the empirical data and source models have been 
increased to 500 m (1,640.4 ft) for the 180 dB isopleths and to 100 m 
(328 ft) of the 190 dB isopleths.
    The rms received levels that are used as impact criteria for marine 
mammals are not directly comparable to the peak or peak-to-peak values 
normally used to characterize source levels of airguns. The measurement 
units used above to describe the airgun source, peak or peak-to-peak 
dB, are always higher than the rms dB referred to in much of the 
biological literature. A measured received level of 160 dB (rms) in the 
far field would typically correspond to a peak measurement of about 170 
to 172 dB, at the same location (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al., 1998, 
2000). The precise difference between rms and peak or peak-to-peak 
values for a given pulse depends on the frequency content and duration 
of the pulse, among other factors. However, the rms level is always 
lower than the peak or peak-to-peak level for an airgun-type source.

[[Page 60177]]



 Table 2--Distances to Which Sound Levels Greater Than or Equal to 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) Could
 Be Received in Deep (Greater Than 1,000 m) Water During the Survey in the Arctic Ocean, August 7, to September
                                                     3, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Tow depth                            Predicted received RMS distances (m)
          Source and volume             (m) ice/         Water depth      --------------------------------------
                                       open water                             190 dB       180 dB       160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Mitigation Airgun (150 in\3\)       11/6-7  Deep (>1,000 m).......           30           75          750
Three G-airguns (1,150 in\3\).......       11/6-7  Deep (>1,000 m).......          100          500        2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acoustic Source Specifications--Multibeam Echosounders (MBES), Sub-
Bottom Profilers (SBP) and Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP)

    Along with the airgun operations, additional acoustic systems that 
are operated during the cruise include a 12 kHz Chirp echosounder and a 
3-5 kHz SBP from the St. Laurent. The Healy operates a 12 kHz Kongsberg 
MBES, a Knudsen 320BR profiler, a piloting echosounder, and two ADCPs. 
These sources are operated throughout most of the cruise to map 
bathymetry, as necessary, to meet the geophysical science objectives. 
During seismic operations, these sources are deployed from the St. 
Laurent and the Healy and generally operate simultaneously with the 
airgun array deployed from the St. Laurent.
    The Knudsen 320BR echosounder provides information on depth and 
bottom profile. The Knudsen 320BR is a dual-frequency system with 
operating frequencies of 3.5 and 12 kHz, however, the unit functions at 
the higher frequency, 12 kHz, because the 3.5 kHz transducer is not 
installed.
    While the Knudsen 320BR operates at 12 kHz, its calculated maximum 
source level (downward) is 215 dB re [mu]Pa at 1 m. The pulse duration 
is typically 1.5 to 5 ms with a bandwidth of 3 kHz (FM sweep from 3 kHz 
to 6 kHz). The repetition rate is range dependent, but the maximum is a 
one percent duty cycle. Typical repetition rate is between \1/2\ s (in 
shallow water) to 8 s in deep water. A single 12 kHz transducer (sub-
bottom) array, consisting of 16 elements in a 4x4 array will be used 
for the Knudsen 320BR. The 12 kHz transducer (TC-12/34) emits a conical 
beam with a width of 30[deg].
    The 3-5 kHz chirp SBP is towed by and operated from the St. Laurent 
in open water when the St. Laurent is not working in tandem with the 
Healy. The SBP provides information about sedimentary features and 
bottom topography. The chirp system has a maximum 7.2 kW transmit 
capacity into the towed array. The energy from the towed unit is 
directed downward by an array of eight transducers in a conical 
beamwidth of 80 degrees. The interval between pulses is no less than 
one pulse per second. SBPs of that frequency can produce sound levels 
200 to 230 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995).
    The Kongsberg EM 122 MBES operates at 10.5 to 13 (usually 12) kHz 
and is hull-mounted on the Healy. The transmitting beamwidth is 1[deg] 
or 2[deg] fore-aft and 150[deg] athwartship. The maximum source level 
is 242 dB re 1 [mu]Pam (rms). Each ``ping'' consists of eight (in water 
greater than 1,000 m deep) or four (less than 1,000 m) successive fan-
shaped transmissions, each ensonifying a sector that extends 1[deg] 
fore-aft. Continuous-wave (CW) pulses increase from two to 15 ms long 
in water depths up to 2,600 m (8,530 ft), and FM chirp pulses up to 100 
ms long are used in water greater than 2,600 m (8,530 ft). The 
successive transmissions span an overall cross-track angular extent of 
about 150[deg], with 2 ms gaps between pulses for successive sectors.
    The Knudsen 320BR hydrographic SBP provides information on 
sedimentary layering, down to between 20 and 70 m (65.6 to 229.7 ft), 
depending on bottom type and slope. The Knudsen 320 BR is a dual-
frequency system with operating frequencies of 3.5 and 12 kHz; only the 
low frequency is being used during this survey. At 3.5 kHz, the maximum 
output power into the transducer array, as wired on the Healy (where 
the array impedance is approximately 125 ohms), is approximately 6,000 
watts (electrical), which results in a maximum source level of 221 dB 
re 1 [micro]Pa at 1 m downward. Pulse lengths range from 1.5 to 24 ms 
with a bandwidth of 3 kHz (FM sweep from 3 kHz to 6 kHz). The 
repetition rate is range dependent, but the maximum is a one percent 
duty cycle. Typical repetition rate is between \1/2\ s (in shallow 
water) to 8 s in deep water. The 3.5 kHz transducer array on the Healy, 
consisting of 16 (TR109) elements in a 4x4 array, is being used for the 
Knudsen 320BR. At 3.5 kHz the SBP emits a downward conical beam with a 
width of approximately 26[deg].
    The piloting echosounder on the Healy is an Ocean Data Equipment 
Corporation (ODEC) Bathy-1500 that provides information on water depth 
below the vessel. The ODEC system has a maximum 2 kW transmit capacity 
into the transducer and has two operating modes, single or interleaved 
dual frequency, with available frequencies of 12, 24, 33, 40, 100, and 
200 kHz.
    The 150 kHz ADCP has a minimum ping rate of 0.65 ms. There are four 
beam sectors and each beamwidth is 3[deg]. The pointing angle for each 
beam is 30[deg] off from vertical with one each to port, starboard, 
forward, and aft. The four beams do not overlap. The 150 kHz ADCP's 
maximum depth range is 300 m (984.3 ft).
    The Ocean Surveyor 75 is an ADCP operating at a frequency of 75 
kHz, producing a ping every 1.4 s. The system is a four-beam phased 
array with a beam angle of 30[deg]. Each beam has a width of 4[deg] and 
there is no overlap. Maximum output power is 1 kW with a maximum depth 
range of 700 m (2,296.6 ft).

Acoustic Source Specifications--Icebreaking

    Icebreaking is considered by NMFS to be a continuous sound and NMFS 
estimates that harassment occurs when marine mammals are exposed to 
continuous sounds at a received sound level of 120 dB SPL or above. 
Potential takes of marine mammals may ensue from icebreaking activity 
in which the Healy is expected to engage outside of U.S. waters, i.e., 
north of approximately 74.1[deg] North. While breaking ice, the noise 
from the ship, including impact with ice, engine noise, and propeller 
cavitation, will exceed 120 dB (rms) continuously. If icebreaking does 
occur in U.S. waters, USGS expects it will occur during seismic 
operations. The exclusion zone (EZ) for the marine mammal Level B 
harassment threshold during the proposed seismic activities is greater 
than the calculated radius during icebreaking. Therefore, if the Healy 
breaks ice during seismic operations within the U.S. waters, the 
greater radius, i.e., that for seismic operations, supersedes that for 
icebreaking, so no

[[Page 60178]]

additional takes have been estimated within U.S. waters.

Dates, Duration, and Specific Geographic Area

    The seismic survey is being conducted for approximately 36 days 
from approximately August 2 to September 6, 2010. The approximately 806 
km (501 mi) of tracklines within U.S. waters will be surveyed first. 
These survey lines are expected to be completed by approximately August 
19, 2010. The seismic vessel St. Laurent departed from Kugluktuk, 
Nunavut, Canada on August 6, 2010 and returned to the same port on 
approximately September 15, 2010. The Healy departed from Dutch Harbor, 
Alaska on August 2, 2010, to meet the St. Laurent on August 10, 2010. 
After completion of this survey, the Healy is changing crew through 
Barrow via helicopter or surface vessel on September 6, 2010 (see Table 
3 of the IHA application). The entire survey area will be bounded 
approximately by 145[deg] to 158[deg] West longitude and 71[deg] to 
84[deg] North latitude in water depths ranging from approximately 1,900 
to 4,000 m (6,234 to 13,123 ft) (see Figure 1 and Table 1 of the IHA 
application). Ice conditions are expected to range from open water to 
10/10 ice cover. See Table 3 of the IHA application for a synopsis of 
the 2010 St. Laurent and Healy Extended Continental Shelf expeditions 
in the Arctic Ocean, August 2 to September 15, 2010.
    Icebreaking outside U.S. waters will occur between the latitudes of 
approximately 74[deg] to 84[deg] North. Vessel operations and ice 
conditions from similar survey activities and timing in 2008 and 2009 
were used to estimate the amount of icebreaking (in trackline km) that 
is likely to occur in 2010. USGS expects that the St. Laurent and the 
Healy will be working in tandem through the ice for a maximum of 23 to 
25 days while outside of U.S. waters. The average distance travelled in 
2008 and 2009 when the Healy broke ice for the St. Laurent was 135 km/
day (83.9 mi/day). Based on the 23 to 25 day period of icebreaking, 
USGS calculated that, at most approximately 3,102 to 3,372 km (1,927.5 
to 2,095.3 mi) of vessel trackline may involve icebreaking. This 
calculation is likely an overestimation because icebreakers often 
follow leads when they are available and thus do not break ice at all 
times.

 Table 3--Projected 2010 Icebreaking Effort for USGS/GSC 2010 Extended Continental Shelf Survey in the Northern
                                          Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Two-Ship        Two-Ship
                                                                    operations      operations        km/day
                                                                      (days)           (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................................              19           2,469             130
2009............................................................              27          37,744             140
Average 2008 to 2009............................................              23           3,122             135
Projected 2010..................................................           23-25     3,102-3,372  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments and Responses

    A Notice of Receipt of the USGS application and proposed IHA was 
published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336). During 
the comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal 
Commission (Commission), the North Slope Borough (NSB) Office of the 
Mayor, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). The public 
comments can be found online at:  http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The following are their comments, and NMFS's responses.
    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the 
requested IHA, provided NMFS ascertain who will be responsible for 
operating the Canadian vessel and the airguns and other instruments 
deployed from the St. Laurent and issue an IHA for these activities 
only if a U.S. agency or U.S. citizen(s) will be conducting those 
operations.
    Response: USGS's EA has clarified the roles and responsibilities of 
the Canadian vessel St. Laurent while operating within and outside U.S. 
waters:
    ``The activity that the USGS is funding and undertaking in both the 
U.S. waters (maritime zones) and the high seas is to collect multi-
beam, associated chirp sub-bottom data, and possibly sediment and rock 
samples both within and outside the 370.4 km (200 nmi) limit, as well 
as to break ice for the St. Laurent during operations in ice-covered 
area. The St. Laurent is a vessel entitled to sovereign immunity under 
international law, operated by the CCG with a seismic system owned and 
operated by Natural Resources Canada, and therefore not under the 
jurisdiction of U.S. laws or regulations outside the U.S. maritime 
zones where the U.S. has exclusive rights and jurisdiction. The USGS is 
acting as the responsible agency for MMPA, ESA, and NEPA for the St. 
Laurent while the St. Laurent is collecting seismic data within the 
U.S. EEZ. The operators of the seismic equipment on the St. Laurent 
have written a Categorical Declaration that, for operations in U.S. 
waters (i.e., within the U.S. EEZ), they will comply with any and all 
environmental mitigation measures required by NMFS and/or the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (see Appendix C of the EA). There are no 
U.S. Federal funds that are supporting the costs of operating St. 
Laurent, or its seismic gear'' (see p. 2 to 3 of the EA).
    The GSC is collecting seismic data in U.S. waters at the request of 
the U.S. and would not otherwise be operating in U.S. waters. Dr. 
Jonathan Childs, USGS liaison aboard the St. Laurent, will be 
responsible for establishing the start and end points of the lines 
within U.S. waters and for compliance with conditions of the IHA. The 
Categorical Declaration from Natural Resources Canada, United Nations 
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Program (see p. 116 in 
Appendix C of the EA) further states:
    ``While in U.S. waters (i.e., the U.S. EEZ), the GSC operators will 
comply with any and all environmental mitigation measures required by 
the NMFS and/or USFWS. A NMFS approved PSO and a U.S. liaison aboard 
the St. Laurent will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation 
measures required by NMFS and/or USFWS are implemented while the St. 
Laurent operates in U.S. waters.''
    ``While operating in U.S. waters, the GSC operators of the seismic 
profiling system categorically consent to comply with all applicable 
U.S. laws, including the MMPA and the ESA, as well as any terms and 
conditions that may be required under an IHA issued by NMFS and any 
measures that may arise from

[[Page 60179]]

ESA consultations with NMFS and/or USFWS. Operation of the seismic 
profiling system includes conditions under which the system will be 
turned on and operation continued or ceased in the presence of marine 
mammals (including polar bears), and the diversion of scientific 
tracklines for avoidance of observed wildlife. This declaration should 
in no way be constructed to influence or alter the safe operation of 
the vessel which is at the sole discretion of the CCG and its 
Commanding Officer.''
    Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the 
requested IHA, provided NMFS work with the applicant to re-estimate 
exposures for ice-breaking activities based upon the total area that 
may be exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms).
    Response: The Commission's concerns are that the USGS application 
states that an area of water 4,109 km\2\ (1,586.5 mi\2\) will be 
exposed to sound levels >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) but that the marine 
mammal ``takes'' are estimated using a larger number of 5,137 km\2\ 
(1,983.4 mi\2\) to allow for turns, repetition of certain tracklines 
because of poor data quality or minor changes in survey design (this 
larger number represents an uncertainty estimate of approximately 20 
percent). A critical clarification is that the 4,109 km\2\ and 5,137 
km\2\ numbers are for estimating the area of takes within U.S. waters 
based on seismic operations, using a radius of approximately 2,500 m 
(8,202 ft) (see page 69 of the EA) for the >=160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa 
(rms) isopleths, and not on the area ensonified by continuous noise of 
icebreaking at >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). This approach was taken 
because the area of take for the seismic source >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms), estimated at approximately a 2,500 m (8,202 ft) radius was 
greater than that estimated for >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) of 
continuous sound from icebreaking, estimated at 1,750 m (5,741.5 ft) 
radius (see page 213 of the EA). The estimated area ensonified for 
icebreaking outside of U.S. waters is 11,802 km\2\ (4,556.8 mi\2\) (see 
p. 213 of the EA).
    A point of confusion in this clarification is that the original 
request from NMFS was to estimate takes from icebreaking, rather than 
the total area exposed to sound levels >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). The 
addendum on icebreaking (see Appendix J of the EA) only estimated takes 
for the Healy breaking ice outside of U.S. waters because there would 
be no additional takes for the sound of icebreaking within U.S. waters 
beyond those estimated for the seismic source.
    One can calculate the area of potential icebreaking within U.S. 
waters by using the estimated track length (approximately 806 km [500.8 
mi], page 69 of the EA) and the >=120 dB [mu]Pa (rms) radius, estimated 
at 1,750 m (5,741.5 ft) (see page 213 of the EA), to get an ensonified 
area of 2,821 km\2\ (1,089.2 mi\2\), which, with an additional 
uncertainty estimate of 20 percent totals 3,385 km\2\ (1,307 mi\2\). 
This number is still smaller than either the 4,109 km\2\ or 5,137 km\2\ 
numbers cited in the comments from the Commission.
    It is important to also clarify that (a) the USGS estimated 
icebreaking assuming that maximum noise of icebreaking would occur 
along the total length of tracklines. The preferred strategy operating 
in the ice is to follow leads whenever possible, which reduces the 
total icebreaking effort. Canadian and U.S. ice observers and analysts 
are aboard both vessels to select paths through the ice to minimize 
icebreaking; (b) for some part of the cruise, depending on ice 
conditions, the St. Laurent will be leading Healy so that high-quality 
multi-beam data can be collected, further reducing the amount of 
icebreaking the Healy will be doing (and therefore reducing the area of 
ensonfication for >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa [rms]). The estimates of the 
area of ensonification in the EA and IHA do not include a correction 
for this type of data acquisition. Hence the area of ensonification is 
likely to be overestimated; (c) the tracklines are laid out to enable 
flexibility in where the ship may navigate through the ice, maximizing 
the opportunities to follow leads and reduce the requirement for 
icebreaking and therefore minimize the noise of icebreaking. Under 
international law as reflected in Article 76 of UNCLOS, the ECS outer 
limit points are to be no more than 111.1 km (60 nmi) apart. The cruise 
tracks are planned 92.6 km (50 nmi) apart or less so that the vessels 
can deviate approximately 18.5 km (10 nmi) either side of the track to 
follow leads; and (d) based on the latest ice imagery for August 3, 
2010, there will probably be no need to break ice within U.S. waters.
    As of August 3, 2010, http;//arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png shows the ice extent in the area 
north of the Alaska coast to be mostly open water. The PSOs aboard the 
Healy will be monitoring actual takes from icebreaking during the 
cruise, which can be compared with takes estimated and authorized in 
the IHA.
    Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the 
requested IHA, provided NMFS advise the applicant to consult with the 
USFWS regarding the need for a separate incidental taking authorization 
for walruses and polar bears.
    Response: On May 7, 2010, USGS requested that the USFWS review the 
operations for the summer 2010 Arctic Ocean geophysical experiment for 
potential impacts on Pacific walruses and polar bears. Given the 
USFWS's understanding of polar bear and walrus distribution, the 
planned travel routes and locations of the activity, the USFWS believe 
that it is unlikely the proposed studies will result in any major 
disturbances or impacts to individual polar bears or walruses. 
Considering the relatively low likelihood of encountering polar bears 
or walruses, along with the limited impact and anticipated responses of 
affected animals that would likely ensue from an encounter with either 
or both vessels, the USFWS has determined that an incidental take 
authorization is not necessary for this project. See the USFWS's 
informal ESA Section 7 consultation letter regarding walruses and polar 
bears in Appendix E of the EA (p. 128 to 132).
    Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the 
requested IHA, provided NMFS provide additional justification for its 
preliminary determination that the planned monitoring program will be 
sufficient to detect, with a high level of confidence, all marine 
mammals within or entering the identified exclusion zones (EZs). At a 
minimum, such justification should (1) identify those species that it 
believes can be detected with a high degree of confidence using visual 
monitoring only, (2) describe detection probability as a function of 
distance from the vessel, (3) describe changes in detection probability 
under various sea state and weather conditions and at night, and (4) 
explain how close to the vessel marine mammals must be for observer to 
achieve the anticipated high nighttime detection rate.
    Response: NMFS believes that the planned monitoring program will be 
sufficient to visually detect, with reasonable certainty, most marine 
mammals within or entering identified EZs. This monitoring, along with 
the required mitigation measures, will help ensure the authorized 
taking effects the least practicable adverse impact on the affected 
species or stocks and will have a negligible impact on the affected 
species or stocks.
    Until proven technological advances are made, nighttime mitigation 
measures during operations include combinations of the use of PSOs and

[[Page 60180]]

night vision devices (NVDs). Should the airgun array be powered-down, 
it is believed that the operation of a single airgun continues to serve 
as a sound source deterrent to marine mammals. In the event of a 
complete shut-down of the airgun array, for mitigation or repairs, 
airgun operations are suspended until nautical twilight-dawn (when PSOs 
are able to clear the EZ). Airgun operations do not begin until the 
entire EZ radius is visible for at least 30 minutes. In all likelihood 
there will be no nighttime start-ups for the time that the seismic data 
are collected in U.S. waters (mid-August), when 24 hour daylight is 
still occurring.
    Comment 5: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the 
requested IHA, provided NMFS clarify the meaning of the qualifiers 
``when practical,'' ``if practical,'' and ``when feasible'' to indicate 
how often and under what specific conditions the applicant expects to 
use (1) two Protected Species Observer (PSOs) to monitor the EZ for 
marine mammals during daytime operations and nighttime start-ups of the 
airguns, (2) crew members to assist PSOs in detecting marine mammals 
and implementing mitigation requirements, and (3) PSOs during daytime 
periods to compare sighting rates and animal behavior during times when 
seismic airguns are and are not operating.
    Response: The St. Laurent and Healy will carry trained, NMFS-
qualified and experienced PSOs for the seismic study involving the use 
of airguns and icebreaking for the upcoming proposed project. PSOs are 
appointed by USGS with NMFS concurrence. USGS will utilize vessel-based 
PSOs to watch for and monitor marine mammals near the icebreaking and 
seismic source vessels during all daytime airgun operations and before 
and during start-ups of the airguns day or night. PSOs will have access 
to reticle binoculars and NVDs to scan the area around each vessel. 
PSOs will alternate between binoculars and the naked eye to avoid eye 
fatigue. During all monitoring periods, PSOs will be on duty from 
observation locations that allow for optimal monitoring capabilities. 
During meal times and restroom breaks it is sometime difficult to have 
the full complement of PSOs on effort, but at least one PSO will be on 
watch during those brief times. The complement of PSOs rotates shifts, 
with duty shift lasting generally one to four hours.
    Regarding the Commission's sub-comment (1), the intention and 
requirement is for two PSOs to stand watch during all seismic 
operations in U.S. waters, including cold start and ramp-ups. Only one 
PSO is on watch during daylight non-seismic operations. Two U.S. PSOs 
will join the St. Laurent before seismic operations begin in U.S. 
waters so that there will be five PSOs aboard the St. Laurent for all 
seismic data collected in U.S. waters. The restriction on the U.S. PSOs 
not standing watch for more than four hours at a time and the as yet 
unknown schedules of the Canadian watches makes actual schedules at 
this time unknown, hence the qualifiers ``when practical,'' etc., are 
used to account for this uncertainty. There may also be short periods 
of time, for example during mandatory fire and boat safety drills, when 
the PSOs on watch must leave their observing stations. It is the 
responsibility of the U.S. liaison aboard the St. Laurent working with 
the Canadian counterparts to develop a watch schedule consistent with 
the requirements of the IHA, especially for the ramp-ups, whether 
during the day or night. In all likelihood there will be no nighttime 
start-ups for the time that the seismic data are collected in U.S. 
waters (mid-August), when 24 hour daylight is still occurring.
    Canada will follow its own permitting requirements for watches and 
start-ups when operating outside of U.S. waters. The two U.S. PSOs 
aboard the St. Laurent during the time the St. Laurent is in U.S. 
waters will return to the Healy after the U.S. waters portion of the 
survey is completed and stand watch on the Healy to aid in sighting 
marine mammals and alert the PSOs aboard the St. Laurent of their 
sightings during the two ships' operations.
    Regarding the Commission's sub-comment (2), the qualifiers to this 
condition refer to the situations in which (a) other members of the 
ship's or scientific crew on either vessel notice a marine mammal near 
the vessel and report it to the bridge or the PSOs; (b) the bridge 
watch can assist in marine mammal observations during the night when 
the PSO is not required to be on the bridge; or (c) the bridge watch 
aboard the Healy (in the steering station above the bridge, which is 
the highest and best vantage point for making observations) sees marine 
mammals. It is impossible to predict the frequency that these 
situations will occur, only that many more eyes are available to spot 
marine mammals than those of the PSOs, and that these additional eyes 
should be used whenever possible, practical, or feasible. It is not the 
intention in any of these situations for the crew or the bridge to 
implement mitigation requirements because that authority is with the 
PSOs. However, the bridge often acts as a central point of 
communication among science crew, ship's crew, and PSOs, and therefore 
plays a vital role in ensuring that the PSOs can implement appropriate 
mitigation procedures at the appropriate times.
    Regarding the Commission's sub-comment (3), the U.S. PSOs aboard 
the Healy (or when aboard the St. Laurent) will be on watch collecting 
marine mammal observation data whether the airguns are operating or 
not. When the Healy is operating independently of the St. Laurent 
(e.g., steaming north from Dutch Harbor or for operations at the 
beginning of the survey when in open water--and therefore independently 
surveying), the data collected by the PSOs is baseline data. For the 
seismic survey within U.S. waters, the St. Laurent will be steaming to 
the start of the tracks from the east and will have the U.S. PSOs 
aboard to record baseline observations during the steaming time. Both 
U.S. and Canadian observers will be recording baseline information for 
at least 30 min on site prior to initial start-up and ramp-ups of the 
airgun operations during the survey. If the St. Laurent is operating 
independently in either international or Canadian waters, it is the 
responsibility of the Canadian Chief Scientist, using the conditions 
set forth in the Canadian permits to determine whether the Canadian 
observers will stand watch to collect baseline information. When the 
ships are operating together in international or Canadian waters, the 
PSOs aboard the Healy will be making observations either in front of 
the St. Laurent (during seismic operations) or behind the St. Laurent 
(during multi-beam operations). It is neither practical nor economical 
to pre-survey all tracks for the presence of marine mammals (and 
baseline behavior) prior to conducting seismic operations because of 
the huge area covered by the joint expedition, so the most likely 
baseline information to be collected will be at breaks in lines for 
repair or maintenance of the seismic gear and at the start of the 
survey. Using the experience of 2008 and 2009, halts in seismic 
acquisition for equipment maintenance generally occurred every 48 to 72 
hours and lasted from 6 to 48 hours. Marine mammal observations made 
aboard the Healy cruise will allow the PSOs to collect baseline 
information whenever the seismic equipment is not operating.
    Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the 
requested IHA, provided NMFS propose to USGS that it revise its study 
design to collect meaningful baseline data on sighting rates for marine 
mammals. Such information is essential for a

[[Page 60181]]

realistic assessment of impacts from the proposed activities and 
recovery from those impacts.
    Response: NMFS is unclear about the Commission's recommendation 
regarding the revision of USGS's ``study design.'' Please clarify if 
you are referring to USGS overall study design or more specifically to 
the monitoring plan required under the MMPA. The purpose of the USGS's 
project is for marine geophysical research, not to conduct a dedicated 
marine mammal research survey. Extending the survey is not practicable 
from an operational standpoint for the applicant. Due to the remote 
location of the survey and the length of time needed to conduct the 
requested science experiment, there may be little time left for the 
vessel to operate without the need for refueling and servicing.
    During the cruise, there will be significant amounts of transit 
time pre- and post-survey during which PSOs will be on watch (e.g., 
prior to and after the seismic portions of the survey). The collection 
of this observational data by PSOs may provide meaningful baseline data 
for marine mammals, but it is unlikely that the information would 
result in any statistically robust conclusions for this particular 
seismic survey. See NMFS responses to comments above.
    To augment detection and baseline observations, the U.S. liaison 
aboard the St. Laurent will request that prior to the start of seismic 
activities in U.S. waters, the GSC operators deploy a sonobuoy that can 
be monitored through an audio channel for the presence of whales for at 
least the 30 min time period that the vessel is on site before 
commencing seismic operations. Detected vocalizations can be used to 
augment visual observations. The sonobuoy audio information is only 
intended to be used to identify the presence or absence of animals 
because the relative direction and distance to vocalizing animals 
cannot be determined from these sounds. The sonobuoy information is not 
intended to be used for mitigation purposes. As stated in the IHA, 
seismic operations will not begin if any bowhead whales are seen or 
heard. Use of sonobuoys is contingent upon concurrence by GSC 
operators, who are generally supportive of collecting additional data 
in support of marine mammal observations.
    In addition, USGS proposes that the sonobuoy data from the 
refraction part of the experiment will be made available to an 
appropriate biologist or acoustician for analysis for the presence of 
marine mammals. The data is recorded continuously for approximately 
eight hours, and the sonobuoy records sounds not only from the airguns, 
but ambient noise and any other sounds long after the vessel has left 
the area. Although no noise trains that might be interpreted as marine 
mammal sounds have been definitively identified on the sonobuoys 
examined during 2008 and 2009 joint expeditions (Chian, pers. comm.), 
the sonobuoys are a source of information available for closer 
scrutiny.
    Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the 
requested IHA, provided NMFS require the applicant to collect 
information to evaluate the assumption that 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) is 
the appropriate threshold at which harassment occurs for all marine 
mammals in the survey area. This assumption can and should be tested 
using in-situ measurements of sound propagation concurrent with 
observations of the responses of marine mammals exposed to such sounds. 
Such tests should be conducted using species-specific data, and test 
results should be used to inform decision makers regarding the 
applicability of the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold for specific 
species and to improve future mitigation measures.
    Response: Behavioral responses to sound are context specific and 
can vary by species and other factors. However, there are not currently 
enough species-specific data showing how marine mammals respond to 
sound to support the development of separate harassment thresholds for 
every species. Therefore, NMFS uses the best available applicable data, 
which includes studies of several different species, to predict at what 
levels marine mammals are likely to be harassed and NMFS believes that 
the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) threshold remains appropriate for the 
species in this project area.
    Regarding testing these behavioral harassment assumption, NMFS 
primarily relies on scientific research advances, and applicable 
monitoring results (where appropriate) to inform them. Behavioral 
response field studies that are able to definitively track what an 
animal is doing for some period of time (a baseline), expose it to a 
known received sound level, and record its behavior afterwards until it 
goes back to baseline are expensive and challenging to execute and 
while a few are currently underway, relatively few have been completed. 
Separately, in required monitoring measures, PSOs are required to make 
behavioral observations during seismic activities, however, while they 
can very effectively detect a marine mammal, identify it, and record 
its behavior at the surface for the moments that it is within view of 
the moving vessel--this information is typically not enough to support 
the development of a harassment threshold. Alternatively, there has 
been one longer-term (i.e., associated with a five year rulemaking) 
monitoring study that has generated numerous data of a robust and 
measureable nature through the deployment of an extensive hydrophone 
array.
    Regarding bowhead whales specifically, some published articles 
indicate that they may avoid seismic vessels at levels below 160 dB 
(rms), NMFS does not believe that these responses rise to the level of 
a take. Miller et al. (1999) indicated that some bowhead whales may 
have started to be deflected from their migratory path at 35 km (21.7 
mi) from the seismic vessel, during migration, however, as described in 
MMS' 2006 Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA), this 
response has not been seen at other times of the year and during other 
activities. To show the contextual nature of this minor behavioral 
modification, recent monitoring studies of Canadian seismic operations 
indicated that feeding, non-migratory bowhead whales do not move away 
from a noise source at an SPL of 160 dB. NMFS therefore continues to 
estimate ``takings'' under the MMPA from impulse noises, such as 
seismic, as occurring at 160 dB (re 1 [mu]Pa [rms]).
    Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS approve the 
requested IHA, provided NMFS require the applicant to make observations 
during all ramp-up procedures to gather the data needed to analyze and 
report on their effectiveness as mitigation. As it has noted in past 
correspondence, the Commission would be pleased to discuss with NMFS 
the collection and analysis of such data and the design of such 
experiments to promote a better understanding of the utility and 
shortcomings of ramp-up as a mitigation measure.
    Response: The IHA requires that PSOs on the St. Laurent and Healy 
make observations for 30 min prior to ramp-up, during all ramp-ups, and 
during all daytime seismic operations and record the following 
information when a marine mammal is sighted:
    (i) Species group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 
approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and 
behavioral pace; and

[[Page 60182]]

    (ii) Time, location, heading, speed activity of the vessel 
(including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up 
or power-down), Beaufort wind force and sea state, visibility, and sun 
glare.
    One of the primary purposes of monitoring is to result in 
``increased knowledge of the species'' and the effectiveness of 
monitoring and mitigation measures; marine mammal reactions to ramp-up 
would be useful information in this regard. NMFS has asked USGS to 
gather all data that could potentially provide information regarding 
the effectiveness of ramp-ups as a mitigation measure. However, 
considering the low numbers of marine mammal sightings and low number 
of ramp-ups, it is unlikely that the information will result in any 
statistically robust conclusions for this particular seismic survey. 
Over the long term, these requirements may provide information 
regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, 
provided animals are detected during ramp-up.
    A study investigating the efficacy of ramp-up has been jointly 
funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 
Enforcement (BOEMRE) and the Joint Industry Programme (JIP). Post-
cruise monitoring reports for numerous seismic surveys are currently 
available on the NMFS MMPA Incidental Take Program Web site should 
there be interest in further analysis of this data by the public.
    Comment 9: The NSB and its residents as well as the AEWC are 
concerned about potential health impacts to the environment associated 
with offshore development (i.e., industrial and commercial activities) 
on the North Slope. Activities allowed by the proposed authorization 
pose direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on species (especially 
marine mammals) that are critical to the subsistence harvesting 
villages the AEWC represents and the NSB people's subsistence harvest.
    Response: NMFS is unclear about the specific meaning of the term 
``health impacts'' as used in the public comments. The USGS and NMFS 
are making every effort to minimize the direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts through the federal NEPA, MMPA, and ESA process, as 
well as consulting with the Native communities. Cumulative impact 
assessments are USGS and NMFS responsibility under NEPA. The revised EA 
has addressed concerns about potential impacts using the best available 
science. In evaluating the severity of the impacts, it is important to 
realize that the proposed seismic activity within the U.S. EEZ is more 
than 100 km (54 nmi) offshore in a region well away from the main 
migration routes of the bowhead whale and will occur at a time prior to 
the bowhead whales beginning their fall migration from the Canadian 
Beaufort. Although a single individual bowhead whale has been 
identified in this region from tagging, there is little evidence to 
suggest that the location or timing of the survey overlaps with or 
interferes with bowhead whaling activities. As noted in the EA, 
``available information * * * does not indicate that marine and seismic 
surveys for oil and gas exploration activities has had detectable long-
term adverse population-level effects on the overall health, current 
status, or recovery of marine mammal species and populations in the 
Arctic region. For example, data indicated that the Bering-Chukchi-
Beaufort (BCB) bowhead whale population has continued to increase over 
the timeframe that oil and gas activities have occurred. There is no 
long-term displacement from habitat (although studies have not 
specifically focused on addressing this issue) * * * monitoring studies 
indicate that most fall migrating whales avoid an area with a radius of 
about 20 to 30 km (12.4 to 18.6 mi) around a seismic vessel operating 
in nearshore waters (Miller et al., 2002). USGS is not aware of data, 
however that indicate that such avoidance is long-lasting after 
cessation of the activity'' (EA, p. 81 to 82). Seismic survey 
activities in the Canadian and Russian Arctic occur in different 
geographical areas, therefore, they are not analyzed.
    NMFS does not allow activities in the Arctic, NMFS only authorizes 
the take of marine mammals incidental to an otherwise legal specified 
activity in a specified geographic area.
    Comment 10: The NSB is concerned that NSB communities are being 
overwhelmed by multiple planning processes both because of the 
constraints on time and expertise of communities and individuals and 
because of the seeming inability to meaningfully influence the 
decisions being made.
    Response: It is unfortunate that the NSB communities feel 
overwhelmed by the multiple planning processes, time constraints, and 
other issues. Because of the statutory timelines associated with the 
MMPA IHA process (which include the 30-day public review period), NMFS 
is also forced to work within challenging time constraints. However, 
NMFS has encouraged Arctic applicants to apply earlier than required by 
the regulations, which allows NMFS, NSB, BOEMRE, and the affected 
communities time to review the applications prior to meeting in Spring 
at the Open Water Meeting to discuss the applications. If the NSB has 
process recommendations that could make things easier for the 
communities while still allowing NMFS to meet our regulatory 
requirements, NMFS would be glad to discuss them. Separately, NMFS 
makes every effort to incorporate input from the NSB communities, where 
appropriate given our regulatory requirements.
    USGS included a statement about environmental justice in the EA, 
``the proposed action complies with EO 12898, Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income Populations 
and EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 
and Safety Risks. USGS solicited public comment on their Draft EA and 
published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 11, 
2010 (75 FR 33326). NMFS published a Notice of Receipt of the USGS 
application and proposed IHA in the Federal Register on July 8, 2010 
(75 FR 39336). The public comments were considered by USGS in 
developing the EA and by NMFS in developing the IHA. ``As part of its 
Plan of Cooperation, USGS is hiring an Alaska native to be a member of 
the science crew, serve as an observer, and provide communication with 
the subsistence communities.''
    Comment 11: The NSB and AEWC recognize the efforts made by the USGS 
to meet with representatives of their communities and to provide 
information on the proposed seismic survey work planned for this 
summer. The AEWC appreciate the opportunity to receive information 
directly from the Federal agency planning the activities, and those 
efforts have helped to provide the AEWC with a better understanding of 
the proposed seismic surveys. The AEWC looks forward to further 
dialogue in the future should the Federal government continue with 
similar work in the Arctic, AEWC wishes to emphasize that, given the 
willingness of the USGS to work with the AEWC. The NSB and AEWC do no 
object to the issuance of an IHA for these operations, despite the 
serious process concerns raised in their public comments.
    Response: NMFS has issued an IHA to USGS for conducting a marine 
seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean from August to September, 2010, 
which includes the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
described below.
    Comment 12: The NSB and AEWC objects to the ongoing flawed public 
process employed by the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), in 
which it purports to accept and consider

[[Page 60183]]

public comment (from local communities in regulating activities in the 
Arctic) on requests for Incidental Harassment Authorizations and in 
regulating activities in the Arctic. The AEWC strenuously objects to a 
public comment process that fails to provide an opportunity for 
meaningful input before the activities are scheduled to occur. Congress 
intended that the local impacted communities have an opportunity to 
provide substantive feedback to the Federal government before decisions 
are made and before any harassment takes place. The AEWC states that 
the people on the North Slope feel like they have no opportunity to 
influence government decisionmaking and therefore do not feel like 
NMFS' decisions reflect the interests or input of the local whaling 
captains, who have invaluable observations and direct experience, 
developed over hundreds of generations, to offer.
    This particular case provides a stark example of how and why OPR's 
process is flawed to the point of being irrelevant for the local 
impacted communities on the North Slope and must be wholly 
reformulated. The AEWC states that these issues have plagued OPR's 
program for years, and despite many lessons learned in the offshore 
context over the past several years, nothing at OPR has changed for the 
better. The AEWC welcomes the opportunity to work with OPR leadership 
to improve upon this important regulatory program if NMFS and OPR are 
willing to make substantive changes to ensure adequate public 
participation and adequate protection of their local communities and 
the marine mammals upon which they depend.
    Response: In order to issue an authorization pursuant to Section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must determine that the taking by 
harassment of small numbers of marine mammals species or stocks will 
have a negligible impact on affected species or stocks, and will not 
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of affected 
species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. If NMFS is able to 
make these findings, the Secretary is required to issue an IHA. As 
required by the MMPA and its implementing regulations, NMFS published a 
Notice of Receipt of the USGS application and proposed IHA in the 
Federal Register on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336). All substantive public 
comments were considered by NMFS in developing the IHA and responses to 
those public comments can be found here in this notice. NMFS determined 
that it was able to make the required MMPA findings.
    For many years, NMFS has conducted the Arctic Open Water Meeting, 
which brings together the Federal agencies, the oil and gas industry, 
and affected Alaska Native organizations to discuss the proposed 
activities and monitoring plans. Local and traditional knowledge is 
considered at these times, and it is not too late for that knowledge to 
serve a useful purpose. These communities are also afforded an 
opportunity to submit comments on the IHA application and proposed IHA 
notice, which are then considered by NMFS before making a final 
determination on whether or not to issue an IHA.
    Comment 13: The AEWC states that in implementing the MMPA, NMFS has 
done everything in its power to gut Congress' expressed intent to 
provide meaningful public participation. The way in which NMFS 
sequences the IHA applications and the public notices renders the 
public comment process ineffective and irrelevant for NMFS's decision-
making process.
    The NSB and AEWC state that in this action the proposed seismic 
activities were scheduled to begin at least two days before the public 
comment period closed. NMFS requested that comments be received by 
August 9, 2010, and the agency then supposedly has 45 days within which 
to analyze the comments and issue a final IHA. In the Federal Register 
notice, however, NMFS clarifies that USGS's two ships intend to 
rendezvous in the survey area on August 7, 2010. The obvious problem is 
that the ships have been deployed, the crews have been informed of 
their operational restrictions, and seismic activities have likely 
commenced before NMFS receives public comment or issues the final IHA. 
As a result, the AEWC cannot possibly provide meaningful input into the 
operations or how they should be regulated. While the AEWC are being 
forced to write detailed comments on a lengthy IHA application and 
Federal Register notice, the ships are already out in the water adding 
noise to the marine environment and transiting the Chukchi Sea. The 
AEWC states that it is absolutely insulting for the activities to 
commence before the public comment deadline has even been closed.
    The AEWC states that it is readily apparent from this sequencing 
that NMFS is actually allowing the USGS to operate without an IHA (or 
simply looking the other way) during a significant portion of the 
planned activities. Based on past experiences, it has taken NMFS 
several weeks to review public comments and issue a final IHA. Here, 
USGS plans to operate during August and September, and yet the public 
comment period did not close until August 9. It's very likely in this 
situation that USGS will therefore complete a majority of its planned 
operations before even receiving from NMFS the actual IHA, which spells 
out specific mitigation requirements such as monitoring of EZs and 
shut-down and ramp-up procedures. In its responses to comments, the 
AEWC requests explicit clarification from NMFS on whether and to what 
extent NMFS knew of or allowed USGS to conduct seismic activities 
before the IHA was issued. The AEWC also requests explicit 
clarification on whether USGS or NMFS was in violation of any 
provisions of the MMPA as a result.
    Response: NMFS received a revised IHA application from USGS that 
was deemed adequate and complete on June 1, 2010. NMFS published a 
Notice of Receipt of the USGS application and proposed IHA in the 
Federal Register on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39336), but due to the close of 
the 30 day public comment period falling on a weekend, the closing date 
was calculated as August 9, 2010 in the Federal Register. USGS was 
notified of the delayed closing date by NMFS. While it usually takes 
several weeks to address public comments, NMFS worked especially 
diligently to review and consider the comments in a timely manner such 
that NMFS could make a final decision in a time frame that would allow 
USGS and GSC to conduct the proposed seismic operations if NMFS did 
issue an IHA. NMFS does not authorize USGS to conduct seismic 
activities, NMFS authorizes the take of marine mammals incidental to an 
otherwise legal specific activity in a specified geographic area.
    While beginning seismic work in the U.S. EEZ on approximately 
August 7, 2010, was the optimum plan for the two-icebreaker experiment, 
experiments this large always have contingency plans for unexpected 
conditions (such as weather, ice conditions, equipment maintenance, 
ship maintenance, other emergencies, etc.). In the case of this 
experiment, the St. Laurent had approximately 10 days of work planned 
inside the Canadian EEZ after the two-icebreaker experiment ended. This 
Canadian survey work was started to account for the delay in obtaining 
the IHA. Likewise, the Healy had contingency multi-beam survey work 
planned on the Beaufort margin that could be conducted independently of 
the St. Laurent in case open water would allow the vessels to operate 
independently. The Healy began this work and continued doing this 
survey

[[Page 60184]]

work until the St. Laurent entered the ice on her way north. The Healy 
and St. Laurent did not begin any activities that NMFS believes would 
result in the potential take of marine mammals until after they 
received the IHA on August 11, 2010.
    Below is the sequence of dates and events of interactions between 
NMFS, USGS, and the GSC regarding the IHA and seismic survey:
     August 2, 2010--Healy departed Dutch Harbor, Alaska.
     August 6, 2010--St. Laurent underway from Kugluktuk, 
Nunavut, Canada.
     August 8, 2010--Healy commenced hydrographic survey of 
U.S./Canada disputed zone.
     August 9, 2010--Healy finished hydrographic survey of 
U.S./Canada disputed zone.
     August 10, 2010--Healy and St. Laurent rendezvous, 
transfer personnel, and proceed in convoy toward U.S. EEZ.
     August 11, 2010--Healy proceeds alone within U.S. EEZ for 
sampling program. IHA received via email and MSR received to conduct 
science operations in U.S. EEZ.
     August 12, 2010--St. Laurent begins seismic operations 
(line 6) in the U.S. EEZ.
     August 13, 2010--Healy joins the St. Laurent for seismic 
operations (line 7).
    While USGS has yet to submit its draft 90 day monitoring report, 
NMFS is not aware of any incidences of non-compliance or violations of 
the MMPA.
    Comment 14: The AEWC states that the authorization itself must 
prescribe certain requirements such as ``permissible methods for taking 
by harassment,'' ``means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species,'' measures to ``ensure no unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence 
use,'' requirements pertaining to ``monitoring and reporting,'' and for 
``independent peer review'' of such monitoring and reporting if the 
taking may affect subsistence use. Indeed, NMFS' regulations further 
provide that ``any preliminary finding of `negligible impact' and `no 
unmitigable adverse impact' shall be proposed for public comment along 
with the proposed IHA.'' Without understanding exactly how the IHA 
incorporates these requirements through specific language, the public 
is foreclosed from providing input on how the activities will be 
regulated.
    Response: The July 8, 2010, proposed IHA notice (75 FR 39336) 
contained all the relevant information needed by the public to provide 
comments on the proposed authorization itself. The notice contained the 
permissible methods of taking by harassment, means of effecting the 
least practicable impact on such species or stocks (i.e., mitigation), 
information that ensures no unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use, 
and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such 
taking. The notice provided detail on all of these points and, in NMFS 
view, allowed the public to comment on the proposed authorization and 
inform NMFS' final decision. Additionally, the notice contained NMFS' 
preliminary findings of small numbers, negligible impact, and no 
unmitigable adverse impact.
    NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.108(d) state that an 
independent peer review of a monitoring plan is required if the 
activity may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine 
mammals for taking for subsistence purposes. The independent peer 
review of monitoring plans for ITA applications is not required for 
activities that occur outside of Arctic waters or in Arctic waters if 
it is determined that the activity will not affect the availability of 
a species or stock of marine mammals for taking for subsistence 
purposes. The USGS provided NMFS with a draft IHA application in early 
March, 2010, which included information on the timing and location of 
its proposed seismic lines. The USGS application stated that the 
proposed survey will begin inside the U.S. EEZ and then move further 
and further offshore and eventually outside the U.S. EEZ for the 
majority of the survey. The lines inside U.S. waters were approximately 
96.6 km (60 mi) from Barrow and will be surveyed for five days, planned 
for mid-August. If equipment or weather malfunctions cause some delays, 
the USGS had indicated to NMFS that they will be outside of the U.S. 
EEZ by August 25, which has been the typical shut-down date in the 
Beaufort Sea so that villages could begin to prepare for the fall 
bowhead hunt. This whaling shut-down date especially applies to 
activities occurring near Kaktovik and Cross Island. This survey will 
be occurring west of those two communities' hunts.
    Based on this information, NMFS preliminarily determined that the 
proposed USGS seismic survey would not affect the availability of 
bowhead whales for taking for subsistence purposes. Belugas are not 
hunted at this time of the year in this particular part of the Arctic. 
Additionally, while seal hunting can occur year round in the Beaufort 
Sea, it most commonly occurs from October until June (outside of the 
time frame of the USGS's activity). Moreover, most seal hunting does 
not occur this far offshore.
    Therefore, since NMFS preliminarily determined (based on the 
information contained in the draft IHA application) that the USGS's 
activity would not affect the availability of a species or stock of 
marine mammals for taking for subsistence purposes, NMFS determined 
that their activity did not trigger the requirement for independent 
peer review of the monitoring plan. The trigger for needing an 
independent peer review of the monitoring plan is slightly different 
than the ``no unmitigable adverse impact'' determination that NMFS must 
make prior to the issuance of an IHA. If the AEWC or other interested 
parties wish to have the opportunity to make comments on the monitoring 
proposed by the USGS for its seismic survey, comments may be provided 
to NMFS for consideration during the 30-day public comment period for 
the proposed IHA announced in the Federal Register notice.
    Comment 15: The Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) contains 
protective measures that should have been applied to USGS's operations 
to ensure effective communication between the ships and AEWC whaling 
captains and to ensure that those ships adhere to travel routes through 
the Chukchi that AEWC whaling captains have designated. The AEWC is 
particularly concerned because the Federal Register notice and the IHA 
application make clear that the USGS intends to transit the Healy 
through the Bering Strait, across the Chukchi Sea, and into the survey 
area in the Beaufort Sea during the first week of August, 2010. The NSB 
and AEWC states that vessel transit across the Chukchi, a major issue 
of concern for their whaling community and a focus of the Open Water 
Season CAA, was to begin even earlier. The NSB and AEWC also reiterates 
that NMFS should be imposing the mitigation measures developed in the 
CAA to ensure that regulated activities do not have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on subsistence activities. In this case, the USGS plans 
to transit the Chukchi Sea in early August and the CAA speaks directly 
to this issue, with those provisions having been developed by whaling 
captains and offshore operators over several seasons. Neither USGS nor 
NMFS discusses in the IHA application or the Federal Register notice 
the potential impacts resulting from vessel transit or the protective 
measures developed by the AEWC, which have been approved by the local 
whaling

[[Page 60185]]

captains. The AEWC asks for clarification from NMFS as to whether it 
views the USGS's vessel transit as an activity that potentially results 
in take of marine mammals or adverse impacts to subsistence activities. 
The AEWC is concerned that NMFS failed to consider at all the potential 
impacts of vessel traffic to and from the survey area. A simple and 
straightforward manner to address these issues would be to adopt the 
provisions of the CAA or simply require the USGS the CAA as a basis for 
making the statutorily required findings of no unmitigable adverse 
impacts to subsistence activities. The AEWC states that it is extremely 
unfortunate that the AEWC are only being given an opportunity to 
comment on these activities as they are already occurring or have 
already occurred.
    Response: USGS, in the comments matrix of the EA, responded to the 
overall concern about complying with the CAA as follows ``the CAA is 
intended primarily for oil and gas activities in the nearshore (see 
scope statement, p. 4 of CAA, industry funding of communication centers 
p. 14 of CAA, etc.).'' To the extent the proposed activity of this EA 
is to conduct work greater than 100 km (62.1 mi) offshore, primarily 
for scientific research, the CAA is not directly applicable.
    However, USGS is following the spirit of the CAA through their Plan 
of Cooperation. Through discussions with the NSB and AEWC about 
conducting the seismic lines within the U.S. EEZ, i.e., the lines 
closest to the locations of the potential migration pathway of the 
bowhead whale and subsistence hunting activities, USGS has agreed to 
conduct these tracks at the beginning of the survey (early to mid 
August) when it should pose no interference or potential to interfere 
with the Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, or Barrow whaling seasons.
    Part of the Plan of Cooperation is for the Healy to also carry as 
part of the science party an Alaska Native community observer to ensure 
that communications with the subsistence community are maintained. Both 
the Healy and St. Laurent will have PSOs as part of the proposed 
strategy for monitoring and mitigation.
    With regards to the concern about the Healy in the Chukchi Sea, the 
Healy was on transit through the Chukchi Sea to begin work in the 
Beaufort Sea. The CAA requests that transiting vessels ``should remain 
as far offshore as weather and ice conditions allow and at all times at 
least 8 km (5 mi) during transit.'' During transit, the Healy remained 
more than 48.3 km (30 mi) offshore during its transit through the 
Chukchi Sea. USGS also has hired a member of the Alaska Native 
community as an observer and communicator aboard the Healy. Therefore, 
although USGS has not specifically mentioned the CAA in the EA (and the 
CAA, which focuses on industry activities, is not directly relevant to 
the proposed USGS activity), USGS is following the spirit of the 
agreement. Location of the Healy's transit track through the Chukchi 
Sea, as monitored by the sailwx.info organization can be found online 
at: http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=NEPP.
    The signing of a CAA is not a requirement to obtain an IHA. The CAA 
is a document that is negotiated between and signed by the industry 
participant, AEWC, and the Village Whaling Captains' Associations. NMFS 
has no role in the development or execution of this agreement. Although 
the contents of a CAA may inform NMFS' no unmitigable adverse impact 
determination for bowhead and beluga whales and ice seals, the signing 
of it is not a requirement. Despite the lack of a signed CAA for USGS 
activities, NMFS is confident that USGS's survey and the measures 
contained in the IHA will ensure no unmitigable adverse impact to 
subsistence users.
    Comment 16: The NSB and AEWC reiterates earlier comments they have 
made with respect to previous IHA applications and proposed IHAs for 
this open water season, namely that OPR lacks an adequate scientific 
and legal basis for issuing the proposed IHAs. As an example, OPR 
continues to operate under flawed monitoring and mitigation measures 
that fail to provide adequate protections against takes for Level A 
harassment and do not adhere to the best available science. And, OPR 
similarly fails entirely to consider the impacts of this project in the 
context of all other oil and gas activities planned for the Arctic 
Ocean. As opposed to restating those comments, the NSB and AEWC 
incorporates them by reference and asks that NMFS give serious 
consideration to the concerns set forth in those earlier documents.
    Response: NMFS has addressed the NSB's and AEWC's comments 
submitted regarding earlier proposed IHAs for this open water season, 
see NMFS' responses in the Notice of Issuance of IHAs for Shell 
Offshore, Inc. (75 FR 49710) and Statoil USA E&P (75 FR 49760), 
published in the Federal Register. NMFS believes that USGS' monitoring 
and mitigation measures are adequate (see Mitigation and Monitoring and 
Reporting sections below), and NMFS has determined that USGS' 
activities will not result in Level A harassment (injury) or mortality 
of marine mammals, and no injury or mortality is authorized under the 
IHA.
    A number of public comments about the accuracy of data were raised 
in the EA and are addressed in the comment matrix (p. 228 to 232). 
USGS's final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact can be found 
online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1117/. Included in the comment 
matrix are a response to questions about associations between seismic 
activity and to Level A harassment, strandings and mortality. USGS 
agrees that more data are required, but ``nearly all cases have shown 
clear evidence of harm or cause of death by something other than 
underwater sounds.'' The EA also expanded the section on cumulative 
impacts to address similar concerns raised in comments on the draft EA.
    Comment 17: The AEWC reiterates how this proposed project 
demonstrates the flawed nature of NMFS' mitigation measures as they 
relate to EZs. As plain logic and the best available science tell us, 
EZs are only as effective as the people who monitor those areas for 
marine mammals. NMFS has stated that the PSO will not be on duty during 
nighttime operations and yet seismic operations will be allowed to 
continue 24 hours per day (75 FR 39369). USGS survey crews will 
encounter as much as 8.5 hours of darkness per day during the survey 
operations. During those times, NMFS states that bridge personnel will 
keep watch for marine mammals ``insofar as practical.'' This 
requirement is meaningless, as anyone who has spent time on the water 
will tell you that no bridge personnel can identify marine mammals at 
night in Arctic conditions. It is absolutely unacceptable for NMFS to 
simply look the other way while vessels shoot seismic in the Arctic 
without any monitoring at all to prevent take by Level A harassment. 
Given the fact that the proposed operations will emit sounds well in 
excess of 190 dB (rms), and the fact that USGS will be operating 
without any observers for much of the time, AEWC fails to see how NMFS 
could possibly rule out the potential for take by Level A harassment. 
This determination simply has no basis in science or law.
    Response: It will be continuous daylight during most of the survey, 
which will accommodate 24 hour/day monitoring by PSOs during most of 
the survey. The IHA, which authorizes Level B harassment, is only valid 
for the St. Laurent and Healy's activities associated with seismic 
survey operations within the EEZ of the U.S. and the Healy's 
icebreaking operations

[[Page 60186]]

in international waters. The GSC has written a Categorical Declaration 
stating that ``while in U.S. waters, the GSC operators will comply with 
any and all environmental mitigation measures required by NMFS.'' The 
two icebreakers work cooperatively in U.S. waters for only a small 
portion (approximately 5 days) of the seismic survey. NMFS has 
determined that USGS' activities will not result in injury or mortality 
of marine mammals, and no injury or mortality is authorized under the 
IHA.
    Comment 18: Because the AEWC is responsible for protecting their 
bowhead subsistence hunt, that is the cornerstone of their subsistence 
livelihood and way of life, they take very seriously the changes and 
impacts the AEWC are seeing in their waters and the need for vigilant 
Federal regulatory oversight of potential impacts. The AEWC hope that 
NMFS and NOAA will take seriously the lessons being learned at the 
Department of the Interior regarding the costs of lax regulatory 
oversight, in the wake of the Deep Water Horizon disaster. Similarly, 
the AEWC hopes that these agencies will take seriously the legal risk 
their communities face in the context of an increasingly irrational 
process at the International Whaling Commission.
    Response: USGS and NMFS conducted a thorough analysis of the 
potential impacts of this proposed activity (with a focus on sound from 
geophysical surveys and icebreaking) on marine mammals; a cumulative 
impact analysis was also done under NEPA. Multiple studies and research 
have been cited that support NMFS' MMPA and NEPA determinations that 
the localized and short-term disturbance from seismic surveys, with 
strict mitigation and monitoring measures implemented, is likely to 
result in negligible impacts to marine mammals and no significant 
impact to the human environment, respectively. NMFS does not have any 
direct role in issuing permits for offshore drilling other than 
evaluating impacts of leasing and other activities under the MMPA and 
ESA. NOAA has been in communication with the BOEMRE regarding 
activities on the outer continental shelf.
    Comment 19: The AEWC states that they are forced to write comments 
to NMFS expressing their concerns about impacts to their marine mammal 
species from operations that are supposedly regulated by NMFS that are 
already occurring out in the water. Rather than consult with the 
directly affected communities, as it has agreed to do, NMFS ignores the 
AEWC, allowing applicants to commence operations before reviewing their 
public comments submitted as part of the general public process, before 
responding to their comments, or even before the IHA has been issued. 
AEWC states that this is no more than a simple exercise in paper 
shuffling without any substantive and meaningful opportunity for input 
from the local community.
    Response: NMFS does not authorize operations in Arctic waters; NMFS 
authorizes the take of marine mammals incidental to an otherwise legal 
specific activity in a specified geographic area. NMFS disagrees with 
the AEWC's statement regarding ignoring the review of their public 
comments submitted as part of the general public process. The AEWC 
submitted comments on the USGS IHA application and proposed IHA to NMFS 
OPR via email after the close of business on August 11, 2010 and were 
reviewed by NMFS OPR on August 12, 2010. The public comment period for 
the USGS proposed IHA closed on August 9, 2010, and the IHA was issued 
to USGS on August 11, 2010, after reviewing and responding to 
substantive comments from the Commission and NSB. See other NMFS 
responses to comments in this notice regarding opportunities for 
substantive and meaningful input from the local community.
    Comment 20: AEWC states that NMFS is in plain violation of the MMPA 
by failing to provide to the public a ``proposed IHA.'' Instead of 
providing a draft of the authorization itself, NMFS publishes a Federal 
Register notice that describes the application and the basis for the 
agency's proposed statutory findings. Because the IHA is the specific 
authorization that governs the harassing activities, it is imperative 
that the AEWC be allowed input into the actual draft authorization and 
not simply be given a description of the mitigation measures and 
proposed findings. In a functional governmental system, NMFS would 
publish a draft authorization and take public comment on that document 
well in advance so that AEWC whaling captains could provide meaningful 
input. In the alternative and in the event of a timing issue, NMFS 
would consult directly with AEWC under the NMFS/NOAA-AEWC Cooperative 
Agreement. Because the ships have already been deployed, it would be 
impossible for NMFS to consult with us or review the AEWC comments and, 
for instance, require USGS to implement more rigorous monitoring 
protocols. That is now impossible or impractical because the ships have 
already left port. This is but one example of NMFS disregard of its 
regulatory responsibilities and its utter lack of concern for the local 
impacts it is charged with preventing.
    Response: The July 8, 2010, proposed IHA notice (75 FR 39336) 
contained all the relevant information needed by the public to provide 
comments on the proposed authorization itself. The notice contained the 
permissible methods of taking by harassment, means of effecting the 
least practicable impact on such species or stocks (i.e., mitigation), 
information that ensures no unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use, 
and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such 
taking. The notice provided detail on all of these points and, in NMFS 
view, allowed the public to comment on the proposed authorization and 
inform NMFS' final decision.
    Also, for many years, NMFS has conducted the Arctic Open Water 
Meeting, which brings together the Federal agencies, the oil and gas 
industry, and affected Alaska Native organizations to discuss the 
proposed activities and monitoring plans. Local knowledge is considered 
at these times, and it is not too late for that knowledge to serve a 
useful purpose. These communities are also afforded the opportunity to 
submit comments on the application and proposed IHA notice, which are 
then considered by NMFS before making a final determination on whether 
or not to issue an IHA.
    NOAA and the AEWC co-manage bowhead whales pursuant to a 
cooperative agreement. This agreement has allowed the AEWC to play a 
significant role in the management of a valuable resource by affording 
Alaska Natives the opportunity to protect bowhead whales and the Eskimo 
culture and to promote scientific investigation, among other purposes. 
NMFS works closely with Alaska Natives when considering whether to 
permit the take of marine mammals incidental to operations in the 
Arctic. NMFS has met repeatedly over the years with Alaska Native 
representatives to discuss concerns related to NMFS' MMPA program in 
the Arctic, and has also taken into account recommended monitoring and 
mitigation measures to reduce the impact of operations on marine 
mammals and to ensure the availability of marine mammals for taking for 
subsistence uses. NMFS has participated in Alaska Native community 
meetings in the past and will continue to do so.
    Comment 21: The AEWC states that NMFS has a long track record of 
publishing its response to AEWC public comments many weeks and months 
after the IHA has been issued and after the activities have commenced 
(and in

[[Page 60187]]

many times concluded). This issue again convinces us that the AEWC 
comments are not given serious consideration by the agency before its 
decision has been made. If the agency cannot articulate a rationale 
response to public comments, it should not grant the requested 
authorization. Moreover, if activities are going to commence in AEWC 
waters, potentially interfering with subsistence activities or the 
migration of the AEWC's marine mammals, the government owes us a 
reasoned response to their concerns before allowing the activities to 
proceed. Again, as the AEWC writes their comments, they know that the 
boats are already in the water, the activities will begin in a matter 
of days, and NMFS will not bother to respond to the AEWC's concerns 
until well after the harmful activities have taken place. This is 
little more than an exercise in paper shuffling with the agency already 
having made up its mind or simply turning a blind eye to activities 
that will occur without coverage from a valid IHA.
    The AEWC states that NMFS' public process is fundamentally broken 
and must be reformulated. NMFS should not allow USGS to commence 
operations until the AEWC has had the statutorily required opportunity 
to comment on the draft authorization and NMFS has published responses 
to those comments. Time and again, NMFS has requested input from the 
AEWC and other stakeholders into how the agency can better respond to 
the AEWC's concerns. At bare minimum, the AEWC asks that NMFS 
reformulate its public participation process to provide meaningful 
opportunities for the local community. As it stands now, the agency has 
given every indication that it does not give serious consideration to 
the AEWC's concerns.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with AEWC's statement that NMFS' 
failure to release its response to comments until after an IHA has been 
issued or activities have commenced casts doubt on the validity of 
NMFS' public involvement process, or the underlying analysis of impacts 
to subsistence activities and marine mammals. All substantive public 
comments received during the 30 day comment period on proposed IHAs are 
seriously considered before NMFS' decides whether to issue IHAs. The 
decision to issue an IHA to USGS for its proposed marine surveys in the 
Arctic Ocean is based in large part on NMFS' definitions of 
``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact,'' the proposed 
mitigation and monitoring measures, the scope of activities proposed to 
be conducted, including time of year, location, and presence of marine 
mammals in the project area, extensive research and studies on 
potential impacts of anthropogenic sounds to marine mammals, marine 
mammal behavior, distribution, and movements in the vicinity of USGS's 
proposed project area, USGS's Plan of Cooperation, and on public 
comments received during the commenting period. The reason that NMFS 
was not able to publish its response to comments on proposed IHA 
activities for USGS's until the end of the survey activities was 
largely due to travel and workload issues. NMFS will continue to ensure 
that all public comments are considered in full and strive to publish 
responses at the time IHAs or LOAs are issued.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Activity Area

    Regarding marine mammals, a total of nine cetacean species, 
including four odontocete species (dolphins, porpoises, and small- and 
large-toothed whales), five mysticete species (baleen whales), and five 
pinniped species (seals, sea lions, and walrus) and the polar bear are 
known to occur in the area affected by the specified activities 
associated with the proposed Arctic Ocean marine seismic survey (see 
Table 3 of USGS's application). Cetaceans and pinnipeds, which are the 
subject of this IHA application, are protected by the MMPA and managed 
by NMFS in accordance with its requirements. In the U.S., the walrus 
and polar bear are managed under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and are 
not considered further in this analysis. Information on the occurrence, 
distribution, population size, and conservation status for each of the 
14 marine mammal species that may occur in the proposed project area is 
presented in the Table 4 of USGS's application as well as here in the 
table below (Table 4). Several marine mammal species that may be 
affected by the proposed IHA are listed as Endangered or Threatened 
under Section 4 of the ESA, including the bowhead, fin and humpback 
whale, and polar bear. The bowhead whale is common in the Arctic, but 
unlikely in the survey area. Based on a small number of sightings in 
the Chukchi Sea, the fin whale is unlikely to be encountered along the 
planned trackline in the Arctic Ocean. Humpback whales are uncommon in 
the Chukchi Sea and normally do not occur in the Beaufort Sea. Several 
humpback sightings were recorded during vessel-based surveys in the 
Chukchi Sea in 2007 (three sightings) and 2008 (one sighting; Haley et 
al., 2009). The only known occurrence of humpback whale in the Beaufort 
Sea was a single sighting of a cow and calf reported and photographed 
in 2007 (Green et al., 2007). Based on the low number of sightings in 
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, humpback whales would be unlikely to 
occur in the vicinity of the proposed geophysical activities.
    The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to 
occur in the seismic survey area include two cetacean species (beluga 
and bowhead whales), and two pinniped species (ringed and bearded 
seals). These species however, will likely occur in low numbers and 
most sightings will likely occur in locations within 100 km (62 mi) of 
shore where no seismic work is planned. The marine mammal most likely 
to be encountered throughout the cruise is the ringed seal.
    Five additional cetacean species--narwhal, killer whale, harbor 
porpoise, gray whale, and minke whale--could occur in the project area. 
Gray whales occur regularly in continental shelf waters along the 
Chukchi Sea coast in summer and to a lesser extent along the Beaufort 
Sea coast. Recent evidence from monitoring activities in the Chukchi 
and Beaufort seas during industry seismic surveys suggests that harbor 
porpoise and minke whales, which have been considered uncommon or rare 
in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, may be increasing in numbers in these 
areas (Funk et al., 2009). Small numbers of killer whales have also 
been recorded during these industry surveys, along with a few sightings 
of fin and humpback whales. The narwhal occurs in Canadian waters and 
occasionally in the Beaufort Sea, but is rare there and not expected to 
be encountered. Each of these species is uncommon or rare in the 
Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and relatively few if any encounters with 
these species are expected during the seismic program.
    Additional pinniped species that could be encountered during the 
proposed seismic survey include spotted and ribbon seals, and Pacific 
walrus. Spotted seals are more abundant in the Chukchi Sea and occur in 
small numbers in the Beaufort Sea. The ribbon seal is uncommon in the 
Chukchi Sea and there are few sightings in the Beaufort Sea. The 
Pacific walrus is common in the Chukchi Sea, but uncommon in the 
Beaufort Sea and not likely to occur in the deep waters of the proposed 
survey area. None of these species would likely be encountered during 
the proposed cruise other than perhaps transit periods to and from the 
survey area.
    Table 4 below outlines the marine mammal species, their habitat and

[[Page 60188]]

abundance in the proposed project area, their conservation status, and 
density. Additional information regarding the distribution of these 
species expected to be found in the project area and how the estimated 
densities were calculated may be found in USGS's IHA application and 
was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39336, July 8, 
2010).

 Table 4--The Habitat, Regional Abundance, Conservation Status, and Best and Maximum Density Estimates of Marine Mammals That Could Occur in or Near the
                           Seismic Survey Area in the Arctic Ocean. See Table 4 and 5 in USGS's Application for Further Detail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Best \b\
                                                                                                                            density      Max \c\ density
                                                                                                                          (/      (/
              Species                        Habitat           Abundance/regional      ESA \a\          MMPA \o\          km\2\) open      km\2\) open
                                                                 population size                                          water, ice       water, ice
                                                                                                                         margin, polar    margin, polar
                                                                                                                             pack             pack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes:
    Beluga whale (Delphinapterus     Offshore, coastal, ice  3,710 \d\.............  NL          NC...................          0.0354            0.0709
     leucas).                         edges.                 39,257 \e\............              D--Cook Inlet........          0.0354            0.0709
                                                                                                                                0.0035            0.0071
    Narwhal (Monodon monocerus)....  Offshore, ice edge....  Rare \f\..............  NL          N.A..................          0.0000            0.0001
                                                                                                                                0.0000            0.0002
                                                                                                                                0.0000            0.0001
    Killer whale (Orcinus orca)....  Widely distributed....  Rare..................  NL          NC...................          0.0000            0.0001
                                                                                                 D--AT1 Transient               0.0000            0.0001
                                                                                                  Population, Southern          0.0000            0.0001
                                                                                                  Resident Population.
    Harbor porpoise (Phocoena        Coastal, inland         Common (Chukchi)......  NL          NC...................          0.0000            0.0001
     phocoena).                       waters, shallow        Uncommon (Beaufort)...                                             0.0000            0.0001
                                      offshore waters.                                                                          0.0001            0.0001
Mysticetes:
    Bowhead whale (Balaena           Pack ice and coastal..  10,545 \g\............  EN          D....................            N.A.              N.A.
     mysticetus).
    Eastern Pacific gray whale       Coastal, lagoons......  488 \h\...............  NL          NC...................          0.0000            0.0001
     (Eschrichtius robustus).                                17,500 \i\............              D--Western North               0.0000            0.0001
                                                                                                  Pacific Population.           0.0000            0.0001
    Minke whale (Balaenoptera        Shelf, coastal........  Small numbers.........  NL          NC...................          0.0000            0.0001
     acutorostrata).                                                                                                            0.0000            0.0001
                                                                                                                                0.0000            0.0001
    Fin whale (Balaenoptera          Slope, mostly pelagic.  Rare (Chukchi)........  E           D....................          0.0000            0.0001
     physalus).                                                                                                                 0.0000            0.0001
                                                                                                                                0.0000            0.0001
    Humpback whale (Megaptera        Shelf, coastal........  Rare..................  EN          D....................          0.0000            0.0001
     novaeangliae).                                                                                                             0.0000            0.0001
                                                                                                                                0.0000            0.0001
Pinnipeds:
    Bearded seal (Erignathus         Pack ice, open water..  300,000--450,000 \j\..  C           NC...................          0.0096            0.0384
     barbatus).                                                                                                                 0.0128            0.0512
                                                                                                                                0.0013            0.0051
    Spotted seal (Phoca largha)....  Pack ice, open water,   59,214 \k\............  P-T         NC...................          0.0001            0.0004
                                      coastal haul-outs.                                                                        0.0001            0.0004
                                                                                                                                0.0000            0.0000
    Ringed seal (Phoca hispida)....  Landfast and pack ice,  18,000 \l\............  C           NC...................          0.1883            0.7530
                                      open water.            208,000-252,000 \m\...                                             0.2510            1.0040
                                                                                                                                0.0251            0.1004
    Ribbon seal (Histriophoca        Pack ice, open water..  90,000-100,000 \n\....  NL          NC...................            N.A.              N.A.
     fasciata).
    Pacific walrus (Odobenus         Ice, coastal..........  N.A...................  NL          S--Pacific...........            N.A.              N.A.
     rosmarus divergens).
Carnivores: Polar bear (Ursus        Ice, coastal..........  N.A...................  T           S--Chukchi/Bearing               N.A.              N.A.
 maritimus marinus)                                                                               Sea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.A.--Data not available or species status was not assessed.
\a\ U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate, P = Proposed, NL = Not listed.
\b\ Best estimate as listed in Table 5 and Add-3 of the application.
\c\ Maximum estimate as listed in Table 5 and Add-3 of the application.
\d\ Eastern Chukchi Sea stock based on 1989 to 1991 surveys with a correction factor (Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\e\ Beaufort Sea stock based on surveys in 1992 (Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\f\ DFO (2004) states the population in Baffin Bay and the Canadian Arctic archipelago is approximately 60,000; very few of these enter the Beaufort
  Sea.
\g\ Abundance of bowhead whales surveyed near Barrow, as of 2001 (George et al., 2004). Revised to 10,545 by Zeh and Punt (2005).
\h\ Southern Chukchi Sea and northern Bering Sea (Clarks and Moore, 2002)

[[Page 60189]]

 
\i\ Eastern North Pacific gray whale population (Rugh et al., 2008)
\j\ Based on earlier estimates, no current population estimate available (Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\k\ Alaska stock based on aerial surveys in 1992 (Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\l\ Beaufort Sea minimum estimate with no correction factor based on aerial surveys in 1996 to 1999 (Frost et al., 2002 in Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\m\ Eastern Chukchi Sea population (Bengston et al., 2005)
\n\ Bering Sea population (Burns, 1981a in Angliss and Allen, 2009)
\o\ U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: NC = Not Classified, D = Depleted, S = Strategic.

    Within the latitudes of the proposed survey when the Healy will be 
breaking ice outside of U.S. waters, no cetaceans were observed by PSOs 
along approximately 21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) of effort during projects 
in 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 (Haley and Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006; 
Jackson and DesRoches, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009). The estimated 
maximum amount of icebreaking outside of U.S. waters for this project, 
i.e., 3,372 line km (2,095.3 mi), is considerably less than the 
combined trackline for the aforementioned projects. At least one PSO 
will stand watch at all times while the Healy is breaking ice for the 
St. Laurent. USGS does not expect that PSOs will observe any cetaceans 
during the proposed survey. Seals were reported by PSOs during the 
2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 effort within the latitudes of the proposed 
survey.

 Table 5--Number of Pinnipeds Reported During 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009
   Projects Within the Latitudes Where the Healy Will Be Breaking ice
 Outside of U.S. Waters for the Proposed Arctic Ocean Survey (Haley and
 Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006, GSC Unpublished Data, 2008; Mosher et al.,
                                  2009)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of       Number of
            Pinniped species                 sightings      individuals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal.............................             116             125
Bearded seal............................              24              26
Unidentified seal.......................             128             140
                                         -------------------------------
    Totals..............................             268             291
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals

Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds

    The effects of sounds from airguns might result in one or more of 
the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral 
disturbances, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-
auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al., 1995; 
Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). 
Permanent hearing impairment, in the unlikely event that it occurred, 
would constitute injury, but temporary threshold shift (TTS) is not an 
injury (Southall et al., 2007). Although the possibility cannot be 
entirely excluded, it is unlikely that the project would result in any 
cases of temporary or especially permanent hearing impairment, or any 
significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Some 
behavioral disturbance is expected, but this would be localized and 
short-term.
    The notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39336, July 8, 2010) included 
a discussion of the effects of sound from airguns on mysticetes, 
odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including tolerance, masking, behavioral 
disturbance, hearing impairment, and other non-auditory physical 
effects. Additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack 
thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found 
in USGS's application and associated EA.
    The notice of the proposed IHA also included a discussion of the 
potential effects of the multi-beam echosounders (MBES), sub-bottom 
profilers (SBP), acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP), and 
icebreaking activities. Because of the shape of the beams of these 
sources (i.e., MBES, SBP, and ADCP), NMFS believes it unlikely that 
marine mammals will be exposed to sound levels at or above those likely 
to cause Level B harassment.

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals by Incidental Harassment

    The notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39336, July 8, 2010) included 
an in-depth discussion of the methods used to calculate the densities 
of the marine mammals in the area of the seismic survey and the take 
estimates. Additional information was included in USGS's application. A 
summary is included here.
    All anticipated takes would be ``takes by Level B harassment,'' 
involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures are expected to minimize the possibility of 
injurious takes or mortality. However, as noted earlier, there is no 
specific information demonstrating that injurious ``takes'' or 
mortality would occur even in the absence of the planned monitoring and 
mitigation measures. NMFS believes, therefore, that injurious take or 
mortality to the affected species marine mammals is extremely unlikely 
to occur as a result of the specified activities within the specified 
geographic area for which USGS seeks the IHA. The sections below 
describe methods to estimate ``take by harassment,'' and present 
estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could be affected 
during the seismic study in the Arctic Ocean. The estimates of ``take 
by harassment'' are based on data obtained during marine mammal surveys 
in and near the Arctic Ocean by Stirling et al. (1982), Kingsley 
(1986), Moore et al. (2000b), Haley and Ireland (2006), Haley (2006), 
GSC unpublished data (2008), and Mosher et al. (2009), Bowhead Whale 
Aerial Survey Program (BWASP), and on estimates of the sizes of the 
areas where effects could potentially occur. In some cases these 
estimates were made from data collected from regions and habitats that 
differed from the proposed project area.
    Detectability bias, quantified in part by [fnof](0), is associated 
with diminishing sightability with increasing lateral distance from the 
trackline. Availability bias (g[0]) refers to the fact that there is 
less than 100 percent probability of sighting an animal that is present 
along the survey trackline. Some sources of densities used below 
included these correction factors in their reported densities. In other 
cases the best densities used below included these

[[Page 60190]]

correction factors in their reported densities. In other cases the best 
available correction factors were applied to reported results when they 
had not been included in the reported data (Moore et al., 2000b). 
Adjustments to reported population or density estimates were made on a 
case by case basis to take into account differences between the source 
data and the general information on the distribution and abundance of 
the species in the proposed project area.
    Although several systematic surveys of marine mammals have been 
conducted in the southern Beaufort Sea, few data (systematic or 
otherwise) are available on the distribution and numbers of marine 
mammals in the northern Beaufort Sea or offshore water of the Arctic 
Ocean. The main sources of distributional and numerical data used in 
deriving the estimates are described in the next subsection. Both 
``maximum estimates'' as well as ``best estimates'' of marine mammal 
densities (see Table 5 of the IHA application) and the numbers of 
marine mammals potentially exposed to underwater sound (see Table 6 of 
the IHA application) were calculated as described below. The best (or 
average) estimate is based on available distribution and abundance data 
and represents the most likely number of animals that may be 
encountered during the survey, assuming no avoidance of the airguns or 
vessel. The maximum estimate is either the highest estimate from 
applicable distribution and abundance data or the average estimate 
increased by a multiplier intended to produce a very conservative 
(over) estimate of the number of animals that may be present in the 
survey area. There is some uncertainty about how representative the 
available data are and the assumptions used below to estimate the 
potential ``take by harassment.'' However, the approach used here is 
accepted by NMFS as the best available at this time.
    USGS has calculated exposures to marine mammals within U.S. waters 
only. After the St. Laurent (a Canadian icebreaker) exits U.S. waters, 
their activities no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or 
the MMPA.
    The following estimates are based on a consideration of the number 
of marine mammals that might be disturbed appreciably over the 
approximately 806 line km (501 mi) of seismic surveys within U.S. 
waters across the Arctic Ocean. An assumed total of 1,007.5 km (626 mi) 
of trackline includes a 25 percent allowance over and above the planned 
approximately 806 km to allow for turns, lines that might have to be 
repeated because of poor data quality, or for minor changes to the 
survey design.
    The anticipated radii of influence of the lower energy sound 
sources including Chirp echosounder (on the St. Laurent) and 
bathymetric echosounder (on the Healy) are less than that for the 
airgun configuration. It is assumed that during simultaneous operation 
of the airgun array and echosounder, any marine mammals close enough to 
be affected by the MBES, SBP, and ADCP would already be affected by the 
airguns. However, whether or not the airguns are operating 
simultaneously with the other sound sources, marine mammals are 
expected to exhibit no more than short-term and inconsequential 
responses to the MBES, SBP, and ADCP sounder given its characteristics 
(e.g., narrow downward-directed beam) and other considerations 
described in the IHA application. Similar responses are expected from 
marine mammals exposed to the Healy's bathymetric profiler. Such 
reactions are not considered to constitute ``taking'' as defined by 
NMFS (NMFS, 2001). Therefore, no additional allowance is included for 
animals that might be exposed to sound sources other than the airguns 
and icebreaking.

Marine Mammal Density Estimates

    Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially 
disturbed are estimated based on available data about marine mammal 
distribution and densities in the Arctic Ocean study area during the 
summer. ``Take by harassment'' is calculated by multiplying expected 
densities of marine mammals likely to occur in the survey area by the 
area of water potentially ensonified to sound levels >=160 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) for the airgun operations and >=120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa 
(rms) for icebreaking activities. Estimates for icebreaking are based 
on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be 
disturbed appreciably over the approximately 3,102 to 3,372 line km 
(1,927.5 to 2,095.3 mi) of icebreaking that may occur during the 
proposed project. This section provides descriptions of the estimated 
densities of marine mammals that may occur in the proposed survey area. 
The area of water that may be ensonified to the indicated sound level 
is described further below. There is no evidence that avoidance at 
received sound levels >=160 dB would have significant effects on 
individual animals or that the subtle changes in behavior or movements 
would rise to the level of taking according to guidance by NMFS (NMFS, 
2001).
    Some surveys of marine mammals have been conducted near the 
southern end of the proposed project area, but few data are available 
on the species and abundance of marine mammals in the northern Beaufort 
Sea and the Arctic Ocean. No published densities of marine mammals are 
available for the region of the proposed survey (including between 
74[deg] and 84[deg] North where the Healy will be breaking ice outside 
U.S. waters), although vessel-based surveys through the general area in 
2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 encountered few marine mammals. A total of 
two polar bears, 36 seals, and a single beluga whale sighting(s) were 
recorded along approximately 2,299 km (1,429 mi) of monitored trackline 
between 71[deg] North and 74[deg] North (Haley and Ireland, 2006; 
Haley, 2006; GSC unpublished data, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009). PSOs 
recorded 268 sightings of 291 individual seals along approximately 
21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) of monitored trackline between 74[deg] and 
84[deg] North (Haley and Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006; GSC unpublished 
data, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009). No cetaceans were observed during the 
surveys between 74[deg] and 84[deg] North. Given the few sightings of 
marine mammals along the 21,322 km (13,248.9 mi) vessel trackline in 
previous years, USGS estimate that the densities of marine mammals 
encountered while breaking ice will be 1/10 of the estimated densities 
of marine mammals encountered within the ice margin habitat described 
in the original application.
    Given that the survey lines within U.S. waters extend from 
latitudes 71[deg] to 74[deg] North, it is likely that seismic 
operations will be conducted in both open-water and sea-ice conditions. 
Because densities of marine mammals often differ between open-water and 
pack-ice areas, the likely extent of the pack-ice at the time of the 
survey was estimated. Images of average monthly sea ice concentration 
for August from 2005 through 2009, available from the National Snow and 
Ice Data Center (NSIDC), were used to identify 74[deg] North latitude 
as a reasonable ice-edge boundary applicable to the proposed study 
period and location. Based on these satellite data, the majority of the 
survey in U.S. waters will be conducted in open water and 
unconsolidated pack ice, in the southern latitudes of the survey area. 
This region will include the ice margin where the highest densities of 
cetaceans and pinnipeds are likely to be encountered. The proposed 
survey lines within U.S. waters reach approximately 74.10[deg] North, 
extending

[[Page 60191]]

within the estimated ice-edge boundary for August, 2010 by 
approximately 19 km (10 nmi). This comprises less than 3 percent of the 
total trackline within U.S. waters. USGS has divided the survey effort 
between the two habitat zones of open water and ice margin based on the 
2005 to 2009 NSIDC satellite data described above and the planed 
location of the tracklines. NSIDC data from 2005 to 2009 suggests 
little ice will be present south of 74[deg] North, although data from 
the 2009 cruise (Mosher et al., 2009) shows that inter-annual 
variability could result in a greater amount of ice being encountered 
than expected. As a conservative measure, USGS estimated that, within 
U.S. waters, 80 percent of the survey tracklines will occur in open 
water and 20 percent of the tracklines will occur within the ice 
margin.
    The NSIDC (2009) reported that more Arctic sea ice cover in 2009 
remained after the summer than in the record-setting low years of 2007 
and 2008. USGS expects that sea ice density and extent in 2010 will be 
closer to the density and extent of sea ice in 2009 rather than the 
record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. All animals observed during 
the 2009 survey (Mosher et al., 2009) were north of the proposed 
seismic survey area, i.e., north of 74[deg] North.
    Cetaceans--Average and maximum densities for each cetacean species 
or species group reported to occur in U.S. waters of the Arctic Ocean, 
within the study area, are presented in Table 5 of the IHA application. 
Densities were calculated based on the sightings and effort data from 
available survey reports. No cetaceans were observed during surveys 
near the proposed study area in August/September, 2005 (Haley and 
Ireland, 2006), August, 2006 (Haley, 2006), August/September, 2008 (GSC 
unpublished data, 2008) or August/September, 2009 (Mosher et al., 
2009).
    Seasonal (summer and fall) differences in cetacean densities along 
the north coast of Alaska have been documented by Moore et al. (2000b). 
The proposed survey will be conducted in U.S. waters from approximately 
August 6 to 12, 2010, and is considered to occur during the summer 
season.
    The summer beluga density (see Table 5 of the IHA application) was 
based on 41 sightings along 9,022 km (5,606 mi) of on-transect effort 
that occurred over water greater than 2,000 m (6,561.7 ft) during the 
summer in the Beaufort Sea (Moore et al., 2000b; see Table 2 of the IHA 
application). A mean group size of 2.8 derived from BWASP data of 
August beluga sightings in the Beaufort Sea in water depths greater 
than 2,000 m was used in the density calculation. A [fnof](0) value of 
2.326 from Innes et al. (1996) and a g(0) value of 0.419 from Innes et 
al. (1996) and Harwood et al. (1996) were also used in the density 
computation. The CV associated with group size was used to select an 
inflation factor of 2 to estimate the maximum density that may occur in 
the proposed study area within U.S. waters. Most Moore et al. (2000b) 
sightings were south of the proposed seismic survey. However, Moore et 
al. (2000b) found that beluga whales were associated with both light (1 
to 10 percent) and heavy (70 to 100 percent) ice cover. Five of 23 
beluga whales that Suydam et al. (2005) tagged in Kaseglauk Lagoon 
(northeast Chukchi Sea) traveled to 79 to 80[deg] North into the pack 
ice and within the region of the proposed survey. These and other 
tagged whales moved into areas as far as 1,100 km (594 nmi) offshore 
between Barrow and the Mackenzie River delta, spending time in water 
with 90 percent ice coverage. Therefore, we applied the observed 
density calculated from the Moore et al. (2000b) sightings as the 
average density for both ``open water'' and ``ice margin'' habitats. 
Because no beluga whales were sighted during surveys in the proposed 
survey area (Harwood et al., 2005; Haley and Ireland, 2006; Haley, 
2006; GSC unpublished data, 2008; and Mosher et al., 2009) the 
densities in Table 5 of the IHA application are probably higher than 
densities likely to be encountered.
    By the time the survey begins in early August, most bowhead whales 
have typically traveled east of the proposed project area to summer in 
the eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf. Industry aerial surveys of 
the continental shelf near Camden Bay in 2008 recorded eastward 
migrating bowhead whales until July 12 (Lyons and Christie, 2009). No 
bowhead sightings were recorded again despite continued flights until 
August 19, 2010. A summer bowhead whale density was derived from 9,022 
km (5,606 mi) of summer (July/August) aerial survey effort reported by 
Moore et al. (2000b) in the Alaska Beaufort Sea during which six 
sightings of bowhead whales were documented in water greater than 2,000 
m (6,561.7 ft). A mean group size of bowhead whale sightings in 
September, in waters greater than 2,000 m deep, was calculated to be 
1.14 (CV = 0.4) from BWASP data. A [fnof](0) value of 2.33 and g(0) 
value of 0.073, both from Thomas et al. (2002) were used to estimate a 
summer density for bowhead whales of 0.0122 whales/km\2\. This density 
falls within the range of densities, i.e., 0.0099 to 0.0717 whales/
km\2\, reported by Lyons and Christie (2009) based on data from three 
July, 2008 surveys.
    Treacy et al. (2006) reported that in years of heavy ice 
conditions, bowhead whales occur farther offshore than in years of 
light to moderate ice. NSIDC (2009) reported that September, 2009 had 
the third lowest sea ice extent since the start of their satellite 
records in 1979. The extent of sea ice at the end of the 2009 Arctic 
summer, however, was greater than in 2007 or 2008. USGS does not expect 
2010 to be a heavy ice year during which bowhead whales might occur 
farther offshore in the area of the proposed survey. During the lowest 
ice-cover year on record (2007), BWASP reported no bowhead whale 
sightings in the greater than 2,000 m depth waters far offshore. 
Because few bowhead whales have been documented in the deep offshore 
waters of the proposed survey area, half of the bowhead whale density 
estimate from size and standard error reported in Thomas et al. (2002) 
for [fnof](0) and g(0) correction factors suggest that an inflation 
factor of two is appropriate for estimating the maximum density from 
the average density. NSIDC did not forecast that 2010 would be a heavy 
ice year and USGS anticipates that bowheads will remain relatively 
close to shore, and in areas of light ice coverage. Therefore, USGS has 
applied the same density for bowheads to the open-water and ice-margin 
categories. Bowhead whales were not sighted during recent surveys in 
the Arctic Ocean (Haley and Ireland, 2006; Haley, 2006; GSC unpublished 
data, 2008; Mosher et al., 2009), suggesting that the bowhead whale 
densities shown in Table 5 are likely higher than actual densities in 
the survey area.
    For other cetacean species that may be encountered in the Beaufort 
Sea, densities are likely to be very low in the summer when the survey 
is scheduled. Fin and humpback whales are unlikely to occur in the 
Beaufort Sea. No gray whales were observed in the Beaufort Sea by Moore 
et al. (2000b) during summer aerial surveys in water greater than 2,000 
m. Gray whales were not recorded in water greater than 2,000 m by the 
BWASP during August in 29 years of survey operation. Harbor porpoises 
are not expected to be present in large numbers in the Beaufort Sea 
during the fall although small numbers may be encountered during the 
summer. Neither gray whales nor harbor porpoises are likely to occur in 
the far-offshore waters of the proposed survey area (Table 5 of the IHA 
application). Narwhals are not expected to be encountered within the 
survey area

[[Page 60192]]

although a few individuals could be present if ice is nearby. Because 
these species occur so infrequently in the Beaufort Sea, little to no 
data are available for the calculation of densities. Minimal cetacean 
densities have therefore been assigned to these three species for 
calculation purposes and to allow for chance encounters (see Table 5 of 
the IHA application). Those densities include ``0'' for the average and 
0.0001 individuals/km\2\ for the maximum.
    Pinnipeds--Extensive surveys of ringed and bearded seals have been 
conducted in the Beaufort Sea, but most surveys were conducted over the 
landfast ice during aerial surveys, and few seal surveys have occurred 
in open water or in the pack ice. Kingsley (1986) conducted ringed seal 
surveys of the offshore pack ice in the central and eastern Beaufort 
Sea during the late spring (late June). These surveys provide the most 
relevant information on densities of ringed seals in the ice margin 
zone of the Beaufort Sea. The density estimate in Kingsley (1986) was 
used as the average density of ringed seals that may be encountered in 
the ice-margin area of the proposed survey (see Table 5 of the IHA 
application). The average density was multiplied by four to estimate 
maximum density, as was done for all seal species likely to occur 
within the survey area. Ringed seals are closely associated with sea 
ice therefore the ice-margin densities were multiplied by a factor of 
0.75 to estimate a summer open-water ringed-seal density for locations 
with water depth greater than 2,000 m (6,561.7 ft).
    Densities of bearded seals were estimated by multiplying the ringed 
seal densities by 0.051 based on the proportion of bearded seals to 
ringed seals reported in Stirling et al., (1982; see Table 6-3 of IHA 
application). Because bearded seals are associated with the pack ice 
edge and shallow water, their estimated summer ice-margin density was 
also multiplied by a factor of 0.75 for the open-water density 
estimate. Minimal values were used to estimate spotted seal densities 
because they are uncommon offshore in the Beaufort Sea and are not 
likely to be encountered.
    Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially 
disturbed are estimated below based on available data about marine 
mammal distribution and densities in the three different habitats 
during the summer as described in Table 5 of the IHA application.
    The number of individuals of each species potentially exposed to 
received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) 
(for seismic airgun operations) or 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) (for 
icebreaking) was estimated by multiplying:
     The anticipated area to be ensonified to the specified 
sound level in both open water, the ice margin, and polar pack by
     The expected species density.
    Some of the animals estimated to be exposed to sound levels greater 
than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) or 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa 
(rms), particularly migrating bowhead whales, might show avoidance 
reactions before actual exposure to this sound level (see Appendix D of 
the IHA application). Thus, these calculations actually estimate the 
number of individuals potentially exposed to greater than or equal to 
160 dB (rms) or 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) that would occur if there 
were no avoidance of the area ensonified to that level.

Estimated Area Exposed to >=160 dB (rms)

    The area of water potentially exposed to received levels greater 
than or equal to 160 dB by the proposed operations was calculated by 
multiplying the planned trackline distance within U.S. waters by the 
cross-track distance of the sound propagation. The airgun array of two 
500 in\3\ and one 150 in\3\ G-airguns that will be used for the 
proposed 2010 survey within U.S. waters was measured during a 2009 
project in the Arctic Ocean. The propagation experiment took place at 
74[deg]50.4' North; 156[deg]34.31' West, in 3,863 m (12,674 ft) of 
water. The location was near the northern end of the two proposed 
survey lines in U.S. waters. USGS expects the sound propagation by the 
airgun array in the planned 2010 survey will be the same as that 
measured in 2009, because of the similar water depths and relative 
locations of the test site and proposed survey area. The greater than 
or equal to 160 dB (rms) sound level radius was estimated to be 
approximately 2,500 m (8,202.1 ft) based on modeling of the 0 to peak 
energy of the airgun array (Roth and Schmidt, 2010). The 0 to peak 
values were corrected to rms by subtracting 10 dB.
    Closely spaced survey lines and large cross-track distances of the 
greater than or equal to 160 dB radii can result in repeated exposure 
of the same area of water. Excessive amounts of repeated exposure can 
lead to overestimation of the number of animals potentially exposed 
through double counting. The trackline for the proposed USGS survey in 
U.S. waters, however, covers a large geographic area without adjacent 
tracklines and the potential for multiple or repeated exposure is 
unlikely to be a concern.
    The USGS 2010 geophysical survey is planned to occur approximately 
108 km (67.1 mi) offshore, along approximately 806 km (501 mi) of 
survey lines in U.S. waters, during the first half of August exposing a 
total of approximately 4,109 km\2\ (1,586.5 mi\2\) of water to sound 
levels of greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms). USGS included an 
additional 25 percent allowance over and above the planned tracklines 
within U.S. waters to allow for turns, lines that might have to be 
repeated because of poor data quality, or for minor changes to the 
survey design. The resulting estimate of 5,136.5 km\2\ (1,983.2 mi\2\) 
was used to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to 
underwater sound levels greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms).
    Based on the operational plans and marine mammal densities 
described in Table 5 of the IHA application, the estimates of marine 
mammals potentially exposed to sounds greater than or equal to 160 dB 
(rms) in the proposed survey area within U.S. waters are presented in 
Table 6 of the IHA application. For the common species, the requested 
numbers are calculated as described above and based on the average 
densities from the data reported in the different studies mentioned 
above. For less common species, estimates were set to minimal values to 
allow for chance encounters. Discussion of the number of potential 
exposures is summarized by species in the following subsections.
    Cetaceans--Based on density estimates and area ensonified, one 
endangered cetacean species (bowhead whale) is expected by USGS to be 
exposed to received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB, unless 
bowheads avoid the survey vessel before the received levels reach 160 
dB. Migrating bowheads are likely to do so, though many of the bowheads 
engaged in other activities, particularly feeding and socializing may 
not. The USGS estimated the number of bowhead whales potentially 
exposed to sound levels >=160 dB (rms) in the portion of the survey 
area in U.S. waters to be between 31 and 63 (see Table 6 of the IHA 
application). NMFS subsequently did an analysis and found that bowhead 
whales are unlikely to be exposed to sound levels >=160 dB (rms). 
Although take was calculated based on density estimates in the proposed 
action area, the proposed seismic survey will be conducted during the 
fall migration for bowhead whales, but at locations starting at greater 
than 185.2 km (100 nmi) offshore, well north of the known

[[Page 60193]]

bowhead migration corridor and well beyond distances (20 to 30 km [12.4 
to 18.6], Miller et al., 1999; Richardson et al., 1999) known to 
potentially affect this species. Other endangered cetacean species that 
may be encountered in the area are fin and humpback whales; both are 
unlikely to be exposed given their minimal density in the area.
    The only other cetacean species likely to occur in the proposed 
survey area is the beluga whale. Average (best) and maximum estimates 
of the number of exposures of belugas to sound levels greater than or 
equal to 160 dB (rms) are 182 and 364, respectively. Estimates for 
other cetacean species are minimal (see Table 6 of the IHA 
application).
    Pinnipeds--The ringed seal is the most widespread and abundant 
pinniped in ice-covered arctic waters, and there is a great deal of 
annual variation in abundance and distribution of these marine mammals. 
Ringed seals account for the vast majority of marine mammals expected 
to be encountered, and hence exposed to airgun sounds with received 
levels greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) during the proposed marine 
seismic survey. The average (best and maximum number of exposures of 
ringed seals to sound levels greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) were 
estimated to be 1,031 and 4,126, respectively.
    Two additional pinniped species (other than the Pacific walrus) are 
likely to occur in the proposed project area. The average and maximum 
numbers of exposures of bearded seals to sound levels greater than or 
equal to 160 dB (rms) were estimated to be 53 and 210, respectively. 
The ribbon seal is unlikely to be encountered in the survey area, but a 
chance encounter could occur.

Estimated Area Exposed to >=120 dB (rms)

    The area potentially exposed to received levels greater than or 
equal to 120 dB (rms) due to icebreaking operations was estimated by 
multiplying the anticipated trackline distance breaking ice by the 
estimated cross-track distance to received levels of 120 dB caused by 
icebreaking.
    In 2008, acousticians from Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
Marine Physical Laboratory and University of New Hampshire Center for 
Coastal and Ocean Mapping conducted measurements of SPLs of Healy 
icebreaking under various conditions (Roth and Schmidt, 2010). The 
results indicated that the highest mean SPL (185 dB [rms]) was measured 
at survey speeds of 4 to 4.5 knots in conditions of \ 5/10\ ice and 
greater. Mean SPL under conditions where the ship was breaking heavy 
ice by backing and ramming was actually lower (180 dB). In addition, 
when backing and ramming, the vessel is essentially stationary, so the 
ensonified area is limited for a short period (on the order of minutes 
to tens of minutes) to the immediate vicinity of the boat until the 
ship breaks free and once again makes headway.
    Although the report by Roth and Schmidt has not yet been reviewed 
externally nor peer-reviewed for publication, the SPL results reported 
are consistent with previous studies (Thiele, 1981, 1988; LGL and 
Greenridge, 1986; Richardson et al., 1995).
    The existing threshold for Level B harassment for continuous sounds 
is a received sound level of 120 dB SPL. Using a spherical spreading 
model, a source level of 185 dB decays to 120 dB in about 1,750 m 
(5,741.5 ft). This model is corroborated by Roth and Schmidt (2010). 
Therefore, as the ship travels through the ice, a swath 3,500 m (11,483 
ft) wide would be subjected to sound levels greater than or equal to 
120 dB (rms). This results in the potential exposure of 11,802 km\2\ 
(4,557.8 mi\2\) to sounds greater than or equal to 120 dB (rms) from 
icebreaking.
    Based on the operational plans and marine mammal densities 
described above, the estimates of marine mammals exposed to sounds 
greater than or equal to 120 dB (rms) during the maximum estimation of 
icebreaking outside of U.S. waters (3,372 km [2,095.3 mi]) are 
presented in Table Add-4 of the IHA application. For the common marine 
mammal species, the requested numbers are calculated as described above 
and based on the average densities from the data reported in the 
different studies mentioned above. For less common species, estimates 
were set to minimal values to allow for chance encounters.
    Based on models, bowhead whales likely would respond to the sound 
of the icebreakers at distances of 2 to 25 km (1.2 to 15.5 mi) from the 
icebreakers (Miles et al., 1987). This study predicts that roughly half 
of the bowhead whales show avoidance responses to an icebreaker 
underway in open water at a range of 2 to 12 km (1.3 to 7.5 mi) when 
the sound-to-noise ratio is 30 dB (rms). The study also predicts that 
roughly half of the bowhead whales would show avoidance response to an 
icebreaker pushing ice at a range of 4.6 to 6.2 km (2.9 to 12.4 mi) 
when the sound-to-noise ratio is 30 dB.
    Richardson et al. (1995b) found that bowheads migrating in the 
nearshore lead during the spring migration often tolerated exposure to 
playbacks of recorded icebreaker sounds at received levels up to 20 dB 
or more above the natural ambient noise levels at corresponding 
frequencies. The source level of an actual icebreaker is much higher 
than that of the projectors (projecting the recorded sound) used in 
this study (median difference 34 dB over the frequency range 40 Hz to 
6.3 kHz). Over the two-season period (1991 and 1994) when icebreaker 
playbacks were attempted, an estimated 93 bowheads (80 groups) were 
seen near the ice camp when the projectors were transmitting icebreaker 
sounds into the water, and approximately 158 bowheads (116 groups) were 
seen near there during quiet periods. Some bowheads diverted from their 
course when exposed to levels of projected icebreaker sound greater 
than 20 dB above the natural ambient noise level in the \1/3\ octave 
band of the strongest icebreaker noise. However, not all bowheads 
diverted at that sound-to-noise ratio, and a minority of whales 
apparently diverted at a lower sound-to-noise ratio. The study 
concluded that exposure to a single playback of variable icebreaker 
sounds can cause statistically, but probably not biologically 
significant effects on movements and behavior of migrating whales in 
the lead system during the spring migration east of Point Barrow, 
Alaska. The study indicated the predicted response distances for 
bowheads around an actual icebreaker would be highly variable; however, 
for typical traveling bowheads, detectable effects on movements and 
behavior are predicted to extend commonly out to radii of 10 to 30 km 
(6.2 to 18.6 mi). Predicting the distance a whale would respond to an 
icebreaker like the Healy is difficult because of propagation 
conditions and because ambient noise varies with time and with 
location. However, because the closest survey activities and 
icebreaking are approximately 116 km (72.1 mi) away and are of limited 
duration (5 days), and the next closest survey activities are 397 km 
(246.7 mi) away to the north and west in the Arctic ocean, NMFS does 
not anticipate that icebreaking activities would have biologically 
significant effects on the movements and behavior of bowhead whales.
    Table 6 (see below) outlines the species, estimated stock 
population (minimum and best), and estimated percentage of the regional 
population or stock exposed to seismic pulses and icebreaking 
activities in the project area. Additional information regarding the 
status, abundance, and distribution of the marine mammals in the action 
area and how densities were calculated was included in Table 4 (see 
above), the

[[Page 60194]]

notice of the proposed IHA (75 FR 39337, July 8, 2010) and may be found 
in USGS's application.

 Table 6--The Estimates of the Possible Numbers of Marine Mammals Exposed to Sound Levels Greater Than or Equal
to 120 dB (rms) (For Icebreaking) or 160 dB (rms) (For Seismic Airgun Operations) During USGS's Proposed Seismic
    Survey in U.S. Waters in the Northern Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean, in August 2010. Received Levels Are
Expressed in dB Re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) (Averaged Over Pulse Duration), Consistent With NMFS' Practice. Not All Marine
  Mammals Will Change Their Behavior When Exposed to These Sound Levels, But Some May Alter Their Behavior When
  Levels Are Lower (See Text). See Tables 4 to 5 and Add-3 and Add-4 in USGS's Application for Further Detail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   
                                                                   of           of
                                                              individuals  individuals                 Approx.
                                                                exposed      exposed       Total      percent of
                           Species                             (best) \1\   (max) \2\      (best)      regional
                                                              open water,  open water,                population
                                                              ice margin,  ice margin,                (best) \2\
                                                               polar pack   polar pack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes:
    Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas)....................          146          291          224         0.57
                                                                       36           73  ...........  ...........
                                                                       42           84  ...........  ...........
    Narwhal (Monodon monocerus).............................            0            1            0            0
                                                                        0            1  ...........  ...........
                                                                        0            1  ...........  ...........
    Killer whale (Orcinus orca).............................            0            0            0            0
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
                                                                        0            1  ...........  ...........
    Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).....................            0            0            0            0
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
                                                                        0            1  ...........  ...........
Mysticetes:
    Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)......................         N.A.         N.A.         N.A.         N.A.
    Eastern Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)......            0            0            0            0
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
                                                                        0            1  ...........  ...........
    Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)................            0            0            0            0
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
                                                                        0            1  ...........  ...........
    1Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)......................            0            0            0            0
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
                                                                        0            1  ...........  ...........
    Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).................            0            0            0            0
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
Pinnipeds:
    Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus)......................           39          158           67         0.02
                                                                       13           53  ...........  ...........
                                                                       15           60  ...........  ...........
    Spotted seal (Phoca largha).............................            0            2            0            0
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
                                                                        0            0  ...........  ...........
    Ringed seal (Phoca hispida).............................          774        3,094        1,328         7.38
                                                                      258        1,031  ...........  ...........
                                                                      296        1,185  ...........  ...........
    Ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata).....................         N.A.         N.A.         N.A.         N.A.
    Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)............         N.A.         N.A.         N.A.         N.A.
Carnivores:
    Polar bear (Ursus maritimus marinus)....................         N.A.         N.A.         N.A.         N.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.A.--Data not available or species status was not assessed.
\1\ Best estimate and maximum density estimates are from Table 5 and Table Add-3 of USGS's application.
\2\ Regional population size estimates are from Table 4.

    Conclusions--Bowhead whales are considered by NMFS to be disturbed 
after exposure to underwater sound levels greater than or equal to 160 
dB (rms) for impulse sources and 120 dB (rms) for continuous sources. 
The relatively small airgun array proposed for use in this survey 
limits the size of the 160 dB (rms) EZ around the vessel and is not 
expected to result in any bowhead whale exposures to underwater sound 
levels sufficient to reach the disturbance criterion as defined by 
NMFS.
    Odontocete reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually assumed 
to be limited to lesser distances from the airgun(s) than are those of 
mysticetes, probably in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing 
is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. However, at 
least when in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be 
fairly responsive to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10 
to 20 km (6.2 to 12.4 mi) of seismic vessels during aerial surveys 
(Miller et al.,

[[Page 60195]]

2005). Belugas will likely occur in small numbers in the project area 
within U.S. waters during the survey period. Most belugas will likely 
avoid the vicinity of the survey activities and few will likely be 
affected.
    Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, 
effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to 
avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term 
changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B 
harassment.'' Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially 
exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause appreciable disturbance are 
very low percentages of the population sizes in the Bering-Chukchi-
Beaufort Seas.
    Based on the >=160 dB disturbance criterion, the best estimates of 
the numbers of cetacean exposures to sounds >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
represent less than one percent of the populations of each species in 
the Chukchi Sea and adjacent waters. For species listed as Endangered 
under the ESA, USGS estimates suggest it is unlikely that fin whales, 
or humpback whales will be exposed to received levels >=160 dB and/or 
>=120 dB, but that approximately 38 bowheads (0.36 percent of the 
regional population) may be exposed at this level. The latter is less 
than one percent of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population of greater 
than 14,247 animals assuming 3.4 percent population growth from the 
2001 estimate of greater than 10,545 animals (Zeh and Punt, 2005). NMFS 
subsequently did an analysis, and found that bowheads are unlikely to 
be exposed to sound levels >=160 dB (rms) from airgun operations and/or 
>=120 dB (rms) from icebreaking activities. NMFS does not anticipate 
bowhead whales to be potentially affected by the proposed survey 
activities due to its location far offshore of the bowhead fall 
migration pathway.
    Some monodontids may be exposed to sounds produced by the airgun 
arrays during the proposed survey, and the numbers potentially affected 
are small relative to the population sizes (see Table 6 of the IHA 
application). The best estimate of the number of belugas (224 animals) 
that might be exposed to >=160 dB and/or >=120 dB represents less than 
one percent (0.57 percent) of their regional population.
    The many reported cases of apparent tolerance by cetaceans of 
seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and some other human activities 
show that co-existence is possible. Monitoring and mitigation measures 
such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated PSOs, non-pursuit, shut-
downs or power-downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges 
will further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on 
hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be 
short-term, with no lasting biological consequence.
    Several pinniped species may be encountered in the study area, but 
the ringed seal is by far the most abundant marine mammal species in 
the survey area. The best (average) estimates of the numbers of 
individual seals exposed to airgun sounds at received levels >=160 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) and/or >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for icebreaking 
during the marine survey are as follows: Ringed seals (1,328 animals; 
7.4 percent of the regional population), bearded seals (67 animals; 
0.02 percent of the regional population), and spotted seals (0 animals, 
0 percent of the regional population), representing less than a few 
percent of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort populations for each species. It 
is probable that only a small percentage of the pinnipeds exposed to 
sound level >=160 dB (rms) or 120 dB (rms) would actually be disturbed. 
The short-term exposures of pinnipeds to airgun sounds are not expected 
to result in any long-term negative consequences for the individuals or 
their populations.

Potential Effects on Habitat

    The proposed USGS seismic survey will not result in any permanent 
impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including the food sources 
they use. The proposed activities will be of short duration in any 
particular area at any given time; thus any effects would be localized 
and short-term. The main impact associated with the proposed activity 
will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct 
effects on marine mammals, as described above.
    Icebreaking could alter ice conditions in the immediate area around 
the vessels. However, ice conditions at this time of year are typically 
highly variable and relatively unstable in most locations the survey 
will take place. Although there is the potential for the destruction of 
ringed seal lairs or polar bear dens due to icebreaking, these animals 
will not be using lairs or dens at the time of the planned survey.
    One of the reasons for the adoption of airguns as the standard 
energy source for marine seismic surveys was that, unlike explosives, 
they do not result in any appreciable fish kill. However, the existing 
body of information relating to the impacts of seismic on marine fish 
and invertebrate species, the primary food sources of pinnipeds and 
belugas, is very limited.
    In water, acute injury and death of organisms exposed to seismic 
energy depends primarily on two features of the sound source: (1) The 
received peak pressure, and (2) the time required for the pressure to 
rise and decay (Hubbs and Rechnitzer, 1952; Wardle et al., 2001). 
Generally, the higher the received pressure and less time required for 
the pressure to rise and decay, the greater the chance of acute 
pathological effects. Considering the peak pressure and rise/decay time 
characteristics of seismic airgun arrays used today, the pathological 
zone for fish and invertebrates would be expected to be within a few 
meters of the seismic source (Buchanan et al., 2004). For the proposed 
survey, any injurious effects on fish would be limited to very short 
distances from the sound source and well away from the nearshore waters 
where most subsistence fishing activities occur.
    The survey off of northern Alaska will occur in an area designated 
as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Arctic cod (Arctogadus glacialis) 
(NPFMC, 2009). The approximately 806 km (435 nmi) of seismic survey 
lines that will be conducted in U.S. waters represents the maximum 
possible extent of potential EFH that would be ensonified during the 
project; the border of the U.S. EEZ defines the potential Arctic cod 
EFH boundary for Arctic cod. Effects on managed EFH species (Arctic 
cod) by the seismic operations assessed here would be temporary and 
minor. The main effect would be short-term disturbance that might lead 
to temporary and localized relocation of the EFH species or their food. 
The actual physical and chemical properties of the EFH will not be 
impacted. The only other designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 
species that may occur in the area of the project during the seismic 
survey are salmon (adult), and their occurrence in waters north of the 
Alaska coast is limited. Adult fish near seismic operations are likely 
to avoid the immediate vicinity of the source, thereby avoiding injury 
(see Appendix E of the IHA application). No EFH species will be present 
as very early life stages when they would be unable to avoid seismic 
exposure that could otherwise result in minimal mortality.
    Studies have been conducted on the effects of seismic activities on 
fish larvae and a few other invertebrate animals. Generally, seismic 
was found to only have potential harmful effects to larvae and 
invertebrates that are in direct proximity (a few meters) of an active 
airgun array (see Appendix E and F of the IHA application). The 
proposed Arctic Sea seismic program for 2010 is

[[Page 60196]]

predicted to have negligible to low physical effects on the various 
life stages of fish and invertebrates. Therefore, physical effects of 
the proposed program on fish and invertebrates would not be 
significant.
    The Healy is designed for continuous passage at 5.6 km (3 knots) 
through ice 1.4 m (4.6 ft) thick. During this project the Healy will 
typically encounter first- or second-year ice while avoiding thick ice 
floes, particularly large intact multi-year ice, whenever possible. In 
addition, the icebreaker will follow leads when possible while 
following the survey route. As the icebreaker passes through the ice, 
the ship causes the ice to part and travel alongside the hull. This ice 
typically returns to fill the wake as the ship passes. The effects are 
transitory, i.e., hours at most, and localized, i.e., constrained to a 
relatively narrow swath perhaps 10 m (32.8 ft) to each side of the 
vessel.
    The Healy's maximum beam is 25 m (82 ft). Applying the maximum 
estimated amount of icebreaking, i.e., 3,372 km (2,095.3 mi), to the 
corridor opened by the ship, USGS anticipates that a maximum of 
approximately 152 km\2\ (58.7 mi\2\) of ice may be disturbed. This 
encompasses an insignificant amount (less than 0.005 percent) of the 
total Arctic ice extent in August and September of 2008 and 2009 which 
ranged from 3.24 million to 4.1 million km\2\ (1,235,527 to 1,583,019 
mi\2\).

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    A detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on 
marine mammal habitat, including physiological and behavioral effects 
on marine fish and invertebrates was included in the proposed IHA (75 
FR 39336, July 8, 2010). Based on the discussion in the proposed IHA 
notice and the nature of the activities (limited duration), the 
authorized operations are not expected to have any habitat-related 
effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for 
individual marine mammals or their populations or stocks. Similarly, 
any effects to food sources are expected to be negligible.
    The airgun operations will not result in any permanent impact on 
habitats used by marine mammals, or to the food sources they use. The 
main impact issue associated with the activities will be temporarily 
elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine 
mammals, as well as the potential effects of icebreaking, as described 
above. The potential effects of icebreaking include locally altered ice 
conditions which may temporarily alter the haul-out pattern of seals in 
the immediate vicinity of the vessel. The destruction of ringed seal 
lairs or polar bear dens is not expected to be a concern at this time 
of year.
Mitigation
    In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) for small 
numbers of marine mammals under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS 
must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for 
taking for certain subsistence uses. For the proposed seismic survey in 
the Arctic Ocean, USGS will deploy an airgun array of three G-airguns. 
The source will be relatively small in size and source level, relative 
to airgun arrays typically used for industry seismic surveys. Important 
mitigation factors built into the design of the survey include the 
following:
     In deep offshore waters (where the survey will occur), 
sound from the airguns is expected to attenuate relatively rapidly as 
compared with attenuation in shallower waters;
     The airguns comprising the array will be clustered with 
only limited horizontal separation (see Appendix B of the IHA 
application), so the arrays will be less directional than is typically 
the case with larger airgun arrays. This will result in less downward 
directivity than is often present during seismic surveys, and more 
horizontal propagation of sound; and
     Airgun operations will be limited to offshore waters, far 
from areas where there is subsistence hunting or fishing, and in waters 
where marine mammal densities are generally low.
    In addition to the mitigation measures that are built into the 
general project design, several specific mitigation measures will be 
implemented to avoid or minimize effects on marine mammals encountered 
along the tracklines. These include ramping-up the airguns at the 
beginning of operations, and power-downs or shut-downs when marine 
mammals are detected within specified distances from the source. The 
GSC has written a Categorical Declaration (see Appendix C of the IHA 
application) stating that: ``While in U.S. waters (i.e., the U.S. 200 
mile EEZ), the GSC operators will comply with any and all environmental 
mitigation measures required by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).''
    Received sound fields were measured for the airgun configuration, 
in relation to distance and direction from the airgun(s). The proposed 
radii around the airgun(s) where received levels would be 180 and 190 
dB (rms) are shown in Table 2 of the IHA application. The 180 and 190 
dB (rms) levels are used to initiate a power-down or, if necessary, 
shut-down criteria applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, 
as specified by NMFS (2000).
    Vessel-based PSOs will watch for marine mammals near the airgun(s) 
when they are in use. Mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be 
implemented for the seismic survey have been developed and refined in 
cooperation with NMFS during previous seismic studies in the Arctic and 
described in associated EAs, IHA applications, and IHAs. The mitigation 
and monitoring measures described herein represent a combination of the 
procedures required by past IHAs for Arctic projects.
    Some cetacean species (such as bowhead whales) may be feeding or 
migrating in the Beaufort Sea during August and September. However, 
most of the proposed geophysical activities will occur north of the 
main migration corridor and the number of individual animals expected 
to closely approach the vicinity of the proposed activity will be small 
in relation to regional population sizes. With the monitoring, ramp-up, 
power-down, and shut-down provisions (see below), any effects on 
individuals are expected to be limited to behavioral disturbance. The 
following subsections provide more detailed information about the 
mitigation measures that are an integral part of the planned activity.

Exclusion Zones (EZ)

    Mosher et al. (2009) collected received sound level data for the 
airgun configuration that will be used in the proposed survey in 
similar water depths, i.e., greater than 2,000 m (6,561.7 ft). The 
empirical data were plotted in relation to distance and direction from 
the three airguns by Roth and Schmidt (2010; see Figure B-3). Based on 
model fit to the measured received levels and source modeling estimates 
from Gundalf, the 180 and 190 dB (rms) EZ are estimated to be 216 m 
(708.7 ft) and 68 m (223.1 ft), respectively. As a conservative measure 
for the proposed EZ, the sound-level EZ indicated by the empirical data 
have been increased to 500 m (1,640.4 ft) for the 180 dB isopleths and 
to 100 m (328 ft) for the 190 dB isopleths (see Table 2

[[Page 60197]]

of the IHA application). The 180 and 190 dB levels are shut-down 
criteria applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, as 
specified by NMFS (2000); these levels were used to establish the EZs. 
If the PSO detects marine mammal(s) within or about to enter the 
appropriate EZ, the airguns will be powered-down (or shut-down if 
necessary) immediately (see below).
    Detailed recommendations for new science-based noise exposure 
criteria were published in early 2008 (Southall et al., 2007). USGS 
will be prepared to revise its procedures for estimating numbers of 
mammals ``taken,'' EZs, etc., as may be required by any new guidelines 
that result. As yet, NMFS has not specified a new procedure for 
determining EZs. Such procedures, if applicable would be implemented 
through a modification to the IHA if issued.
    In addition to monitoring, mitigation measures that will be adopted 
during the Arctic Ocean survey include:
    (1) Speed or course alteration, provided that doing so will not 
comprise operational safety requirements;
    (2) Power-down procedures;
    (3) Shut-down procedures; and
    (4) Ramp-up procedures.
    No start-up of airgun operations would be permitted unless the full 
180 dB (rms) EZ is visible for at least 30 min during day or night. 
Other proposed provisions associated with operations at night or in 
periods of poor visibility include the following:
     During foggy conditions or darkness (which may be 
encountered starting in late August), the full 180 dB (rms) EZ may not 
be visible. In that case, the airguns could not start-up after a full 
shut-down until the entire 180 dB (rms) radius was visible.
     During any nighttime operations, if the entire 180 dB 
(rms) EZ is visible using vessel lights, then start-up of the airgun 
array may occur following a 30 min period of observation without 
sighting marine mammals in the EZ.
     If one or more airguns have been operational before 
nightfall, they can remain operational throughout the night, even 
though the entire EZ may not be visible.
    Speed or Course Alteration--If a marine mammal (in water) is 
detected outside the EZ and, based on its position and relative motion, 
is likely to enter the EZ, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, 
when practical and safe, be changed in a manner that also minimizes the 
effect on the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities 
and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored 
to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the EZ. If 
the mammal appears likely to enter the EZ, further mitigative actions 
will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or power-down or 
shut-down of the airgun(s).
    Power-down Procedures--A power-down involves reducing the number of 
airguns in use such that the radius of the 180 dB or 190 dB (rms) EZ 
are decreased to the extent that marine mammals are no longer in or 
about to enter the EZ. A power-down of the airgun array can also occur 
when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. During a 
power-down for mitigation, one airgun (or some other number of airguns 
less than the full airgun array) will be operated. The continued 
operation of one airgun is intended to alert (1) marine mammals to the 
presence of the seismic vessel in the area, and (2) retain the option 
of initiating a ramp-up to full operations under poor visibility 
conditions. In contrast, a shut-down occurs when all airgun activity is 
suspended.
    If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ but is likely to 
enter the EZ, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed 
to avoid having the marine mammal enter the EZ, the airguns (as an 
alternative to a complete shut-down) will be powered-down to a single 
airgun before the animal is within the EZ. Likewise, if a mammal is 
already within the EZ when first detected, the airguns will be powered-
down immediately if this is a reasonable alternative to a complete 
shut-down. During a power-down of the airgun array, the number of 
operating airguns will be reduced to a single 150 in\3\ G-airgun. The 
180 dB (rms) EZ for the power-down sound source has been estimated to 
be 62 m (203 ft); the proposed distance for use by PSOs is 75 m (246 
ft). If a marine mammal is detected within or near the smaller EZ 
around that single 150 in\3\ airgun (see Table 2 of USGS's application 
and Table 2 above), all airguns will be shut-down (see next 
subsection).
    Following a power-down, operation of the full airgun array will not 
resume until the marine mammal is outside the EZ for the full array. 
The animal will be considered to have cleared the EZ if it:
    (1) Is visually observed to have left the EZ, or
    (2) Has not been seen within the EZ for 15 minutes in the case for 
species with shorter dive durations (e.g., small odontocetes and 
pinnipeds); or
    (3) Has not been seen within the EZ for 30 minutes in the case for 
species with longer dive durations (e.g., mysticetes and large 
odontocetes, including killer whales).
    During airgun operations following a power-down (or shut-down) 
whose duration has exceeded the limits specified above and subsequent 
animal departures, the airgun array will be ramped-up gradually. Ramp-
up procedures are described below.
    Shut-down Procedures--The operating airguns(s) will be shut-down if 
a marine mammal is detected within or approaching the EZ for a single 
airgun source (i.e., a power-down is not practical or adequate to 
reduce exposure to less than 190 or 180 dB (rms), as appropriate). 
Shut-downs will be implemented (1) if an animal approaches or enters 
the EZ of the single airgun after a power-down has been initiated, or 
(2) if an animal is initially seen within the EZ of a single airgun 
when more than one airgun (typically the full array) is operating. 
Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the 
EZ, or until the PSO is confident that the animal has left the vicinity 
of the vessel (or the PSO not observing the animal[s] within the EZ for 
15 or 30 min depending upon the species). Criteria for judging that the 
animal has cleared the EZ will be as described in the preceding 
subsection. Ramp-up procedures will be followed during resumption of 
full seismic operations after a shut-down of the airgun array.
    Ramp-up Procedures--A ramp-up procedure will be followed when the 
airgun array begins operating after a specified period without airgun 
operations or when a power-down (or reduced airgun operations) has 
exceeded that specified duration period. The specified period depends 
on the speed of the source vessel, the size of the airgun array that is 
being used, and the size of the EZ, but is often about 10 min. NMFS 
normally requires that, once ramp-up commences, the rate of ramp-up be 
no more than 6 dB per 5 min period. Ramp-up will begin with a single 
airgun (the smallest airgun in the array). Airguns will be added in a 
sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps 
not exceeding 6 dB per 5 min period over a total duration of 
approximately 10 minutes. During ramp-up, the PSOs will monitor the EZ, 
and if marine mammals are sighted, a power-down or shut-down will be 
implemented as though the full array were operational.
    If the complete 180 dB (rms) EZ has not been visible for at least 
30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight or 
nighttime, ramp-up will not commence unless at least one airgun (150 
in\3\ or similar) has been operating

[[Page 60198]]

during the interruption of seismic survey operations. Given these 
provisions, it is likely that the three G-airgun array will not be 
ramped-up from a complete shut-down at night or in thick fog, because 
the outer part of the EZ for that array will not be visible during 
those conditions. If the entire EZ is visible using vessel lights, then 
start-up of the airguns from a complete shut-down may occur at night. 
If one airgun has operated during a power-down period, ramp-up to full 
power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the 
assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching 
seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away 
if they choose. Given the responsiveness of bowhead and beluga whales 
to airgun sounds, it can be assumed that those species in particular 
will move away during a ramp-up. Ramp-up of the airguns will not be 
initiated during the day or at night if a marine mammal is sighted 
within or near the applicable EZ during the previous 15 or 30 min, as 
applicable.
    Helicopter Flights--The use of a helicopter to conduct ice 
reconnaissance flights and vessel-to-vessel personnel transfers is 
likely to occur during survey activities in U.S. waters. However, 
collection of spot bathymetry data or on-ice landings, both of which 
required low altitude flight patterns, will not occur in U.S. waters.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) require that requests for IHAs 
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary 
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the 
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine 
mammals that are expected to be present.
    USGS will sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the proposed 
project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require 
real-time monitoring, to satisfy the anticipated monitoring 
requirements of the IHA, and to meet any monitoring requirements agreed 
to as part of the Plan of Cooperation. USGS's Monitoring Plan is 
described below as well as in their IHA application.
    The monitoring work described here has been planned as a self-
contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects 
that may be occurring simultaneously in the same regions. USGS is 
prepared to discuss coordination of its monitoring program with any 
related work that might be done by other groups insofar as this is 
practical and desirable.

Vessel-based Visual Monitoring

    Vessel-based Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will monitor for 
marine mammals near the seismic source vessel during all daytime airgun 
operations and during any nighttime start-ups of the airguns. The 
survey area within U.S. waters is located within high latitudes 
(approximately 72[deg] to 74[deg] North) and the project will take 
place during the summer when little darkness will be encountered (see 
Table 9 of the IHA application). Some periods of darkness will be 
encountered towards the end of the survey when there will be several 
hours between sunset and sunrise.
    The PSO's observations will provide the real-time data needed to 
implement the key mitigation measures. Airgun operations will be 
powered-down or (if necessary) shut-down when marine mammals are 
observed within, or about to enter, a designated EZ where there is a 
possibility of effects on hearing or other physical effects. Vessel-
based PSOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel 
for at least 30 min prior to the planned start of airgun operations 
after an extended shut-down of the airgun. When feasible, observations 
will also be made during daytime periods without seismic operations 
(e.g., during transits).

 Table 7--The Daylight Times and Periods Within the Proposed Project Area From Beginning (August 7, 2010) to End
 (September 3, 2010) of the Planned Survey Activities Within Latitudes of the Planned Survey Within U.S. Waters.
                                     Time is in Alaska Daylight Time (AKDT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           72[deg] North
                                                           74[deg] North
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date............................................        August 7     September 3        August 7     September 3
Sunrise.........................................           09:29           12:14              --           12:00
Sunset..........................................           06:42           03:45              --           03:59
Period of daylight (hours)......................           21:13           15:31           24:00           15:59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     During daylight, vessel-based PSOs will watch for marine 
mammals near the seismic vessel during all periods of airgun activity 
and for a minimum of 30 min prior to the planned start of airgun 
operations after an extended shut-down.
     Although there will be only a brief period during the 
survey when darkness will be encountered in U.S. waters, USGS proposes 
to conduct nighttime as well as daytime operations. PSOs dedicated to 
protected species observations are proposed not to be on duty during 
ongoing seismic operations at night, given the very limited 
effectiveness of visual observation at night. At night, bridge 
personnel will watch for marine mammals (insofar as practical at night) 
and will call for the airguns to be shut-down if marine mammals are 
observed in or about to enter the EZ.
    PSOs will be stationed aboard both the seismic source vessel (St. 
Laurent) and Healy during the proposed survey. The vessels will 
typically work together in tandem while making way through heavy ice 
with the Healy in the lead breaking ice and collecting multi-beam data. 
The St. Laurent will follow collecting seismic reflection and 
refraction data. In light ice conditions, the vessels will separate to 
maximize data collection. ``Real-time'' communication between the two 
vessels regarding marine mammal detections will be available through 
VHF radio.
    During operations in U.S. EEZ waters, a complement of five PSOs 
will work on the source vessel, the St. Laurent, and two will be 
stationed on the Healy. Three trained PSOs will board the St. Laurent 
in Kagluktuk, Nunavut, Canada. Three experienced PSOs and one Alaska 
Native community observer will be aboard the Healy at the outset of the 
project. Before survey operations begin in U.S. waters, two of the PSOs 
on the Healy will transfer to the St. Laurent to provide additional 
observers during airgun operations. When not surveying in U.S. waters, 
the distribution of PSOs

[[Page 60199]]

will return to three on the St. Laurent and four on the Healy.
    PSOs on the St. Laurent will monitor for marine mammals during all 
daylight airgun operations. Airgun operations will be shut-down when 
marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, a designated EZ 
(see below) where there may be a possibility of significant effects on 
hearing or other physical effects. PSOs on both the source vessel and 
the Healy will also watch for marine mammals within or near the EZ for 
at least 30 min prior to the planned start of airgun operations after 
an extended shut-down of the airgun array. When feasible, observations 
will also be made during periods without seismic operations (e.g., 
during transits). Environmental conditions will be recorded every half 
hour during PSO watch.
    The PSOs aboard the Healy will also watch for marine mammals during 
daylight seismic activities conducted in both U.S. and international 
waters. They will maximize their time on watch but will not watch 
continuously, as will those on the St. Laurent, because they will not 
have mitigation duties and there will be only two PSOs aboard the 
Healy. The Healy PSOs will report sightings to the PSOs on the St. 
Laurent to alert them of possible needs for mitigation.
    In U.S. waters, at least one observer, and when practical two 
observers, will monitor for marine mammals from the St. Laurent during 
ongoing daytime operations and nighttime start-ups (when darkness is 
encountered). Use of two simultaneous observers will increase the 
proportion of the animals present near the source vessel that are 
detected. PSOs will normally be on duty in shifts of no longer than 
four hours duration although more than one hour shift may be worked per 
day with a maximum of 12 hours of daily watch time. During seismic 
operations in international waters, PSOs aboard the St. Laurent will 
conduct eight hour watches. This schedule accommodates 24 hour/day 
monitoring by three PSOs which will be necessary during most of the 
survey when daylight will be continuous. Healy PSOs will limit watches 
to four hours in U.S. waters.
    The St. Laurent crew will be instructed to assist in detecting 
marine mammals and implementing required mitigation (if practical). The 
crew will be given instruction on mitigation requirements and 
procedures for implementation of mitigation prior to the start of the 
seismic survey. Members of the Healy crew will be trained to monitor 
for marine mammals and asked to contact the Healy observers for 
sightings that occur while the PSOs are off-watch.
    The St. Laurent and Healy are suitable platforms for observations 
for marine mammals. When stationed on the flying bridge, eye level will 
be approximately 15.4 m (51 ft) above sea level on the St. Laurent and 
approximately 24 m (78.7 ft) above sea level on the Healy. On both 
vessels the PSO will have an unobstructed view around the entire vessel 
from the flying bridge. If surveying from the bridge of the St. Laurent 
or the Healy the PSO's eye level will be approximately 12.1 m (40 ft) 
above sea level or 21.2 m (69 ft) above sea level, respectively. The 
PSO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with laser 
range finding binoculars and with the unaided eye.
    The survey will be conducted at high latitudes and continuous 
daylight will persist through much of the proposed survey area through 
the month of August. Day length will decrease to approximately 18 hours 
in the northern portion of the survey area by about early September. 
Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or 
equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation; this 
equipment is useful in training observers to estimate distances 
visually, but is generally not useful in measuring distances to animals 
directly.
    When marine mammals are detected within or about to enter the 
designated EZ, the airgun(s) will be powered-down or shut-down 
immediately. The distinction between power-downs and shut-downs is 
described above and in the IHA application. Channels of communication 
between the PSOs and the airgun technicians will be established to 
assure prompt implementation of shut-downs when necessary as has been 
done in other recent seismic survey operations in the Arctic (e.g., 
Haley, 2006). During power-downs and shut-downs, PSOs will continue to 
maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the EZ. 
Airgun operations will not resume until the animal is outside the EZ. 
The animal will be considered to have cleared the EZ if it is visually 
observed to have left the EZ. Alternatively, in U.S. waters the EZ will 
be considered clear if the animal has not been seen within the EZ for 
15 min for small odontocetes and pinnipeds or 30 min for mysticetes. 
Within international waters the PSOs will apply a 30 min period for all 
species.

PSO Data and Documentation

    PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals 
exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent 
disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate 
numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the 
MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a power-down 
or shut-down of the seismic source when a marine mammal is within or 
near the EZ.
    When a sighting is made, the following information about the 
sighting will be recorded:
    (1) Species, group size, and age/size/sex categories (if 
determinable); behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting; 
heading (if consistent), bearing, and distance from seismic vessel; 
sighting cue; apparent reaction to the seismic source or vessel (e.g., 
none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.); and behavioral pace.
    (2) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea 
state, visibility, and sun glare.
    The data listed under (2) above will also be recorded at the start 
and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is 
a change in one or more of the variables.
    All observations, as well as information regarding seismic source 
power-downs and shut-downs, will be recorded in a standardized format. 
Data will be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. 
The accuracy of data entry will be verified by computerized data 
validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual 
checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries 
of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and 
will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, and 
other programs for further processing and archiving.
    Results for the vessel-based observations will provide:
    (1) The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power-down or shut-
down).
    (2) Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals 
potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS per 
terms of MMPA authorizations or regulations.
    (3) Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine 
mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.
    (4) Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine 
mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic 
activity.
    (5) Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals 
seen at times with and without seismic activity.
    A report on USGS activities and on the relevant monitoring and 
mitigation

[[Page 60200]]

results will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the 
cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and 
sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will be 
submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, 
and interpretation pertaining to all acoustic characterization work and 
vessel-based monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and 
locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings 
(dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey 
activities). The number and circumstances of ramp-ups, power-downs, 
shut-downs, and other mitigation measures will be reported. Sample size 
permitting, the report will also include estimates of the amount and 
nature of potential ``take'' of marine mammals.
    All injured or dead marine mammals (regardless of cause) will be 
reported to NMFS as soon as practicable. The report will include 
species or description of animal, condition of animal, location, time 
first found, observed behaviors (if alive) and photo or video, if 
available.
Encouraging and Coordinating Research
    USGS will coordinate the planned marine mammal monitoring program 
associated with the seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean with other 
parties that may have an interest in this area and/or be conducting 
marine mammal studies in the same region during operations. No other 
marine mammal studies are expected to occur in the main (northern) 
parts of the study area at the proposed time. However, other industry-
funded seismic surveys may be occurring in the northeast Chukchi and/or 
western Beaufort Sea closer to shore, and those projects are likely to 
involve marine mammal monitoring. USGS has coordinated, and will 
continue to coordinate, with other applicable Federal, State and 
Borough agencies, and will comply with their requirements.

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers of Marine Mammals Analysis and 
Determination

    The Secretary, in accordance with paragraph 101(a)(5)(D) of the 
MMPA, shall authorize the take of small numbers of marine mammals 
incidental to specified activities other than commercial fishing within 
a specific geographic region if, among other things, he determines that 
the authorized incidental take will have a ``negligible impact'' on 
species or stocks affected by the authorization. NMFS implementing 
regulations codified at 50 CFR 216.103 states that a ``negligible 
impact is an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot 
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    Based on the analysis contained herein, of the likely effects of 
the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat within the 
specific area of study for the Arctic Ocean marine geophysical survey, 
and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and 
monitoring measures NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, found that USGS's 
proposed activities would result in the incidental take of small 
numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the 
total taking from the proposed seismic survey would have a negligible 
impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. As a basis 
for its small numbers determination, NMFS evaluated the number of 
individuals taken by Level B harassment relative to the size of the 
stock or population.
    While the number of marine mammals potentially incidentally 
harassed will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine 
mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential 
Level B incidental harassment takings (see Table 6 above) is estimated 
to be small, less than a few percent of any of the estimated population 
sizes based on the data disclosed in Tables 4 and 6 of this notice, and 
has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the 
incorporation of the monitoring and mitigation measures mentioned 
previously in this document. Tables 4 and 6 in this notice disclose the 
habitat regional abundance, conservation status, density, and the 
number of individuals exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to 
120 dB (rms) (for icebreaking) or 160 dB (rms) (for seismic airgun 
operations). Also, there are no known important reproductive or feeding 
areas in the proposed action area.
    For reasons stated previously in this document, the specified 
activities associated with the proposed survey are not likely to cause 
TTS, PTS or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death to 
affected marine mammals because:
    (1) The likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively 
slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise 
source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
    (2) The fact that cetaceans and pinnipeds would have to be closer 
than 500 m (1,640.4 ft) and 30 m (98.4 ft), in deep water when the full 
array is in use at tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of 
sound (180 dB and 190 dB, respectively) believed to have even a minimal 
chance of causing PTS;
    (3) The fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 2,500 
m (8,202.1 ft) in deep water when the full array is in use at tow depth 
from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (160 dB) believed to 
have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; and
    (4) The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained 
observers is high at that short distance from the vessel.
    As a result, no take by injury, serious injury, or death is 
anticipated or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent 
hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the 
incorporation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures.
    In making a negligible impact determination NMFS evaluated factors 
such as: no anticipated injury, serious injury or mortality; the 
number, nature, intensity and duration of harassment (all relatively 
limited); the low probability that take will likely result in effects 
to annual rates of recruitment of survival; the context in which it 
occurs (i.e., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local 
populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account 
successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data); the 
status of stock or species of marine mammal (i.e., depleted, not 
depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size 
of the population); impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/
survival; and the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There is subsistence hunting for marine mammals in the waters off 
of the coast of Alaska, in the Arctic Ocean, that implicates MMPA 
Section 101(a)(5)(D). Subsistence hunting and fishing continue to be 
prominent in the household economies and social welfare of some Alaska 
residents, particularly among those living in small, rural villages 
(Wolfe and Walker, 1987; Braund and Kruse, 2009). Subsistence remains 
the basis for Alaska Native culture and community. In rural Alaska, 
subsistence activities are often central to many aspects of human 
existence, including patterns of family life, artistic expression, and 
community religious and celebratory activities.

[[Page 60201]]

Subsistence Hunting

    Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by coastal 
Alaska Natives; species hunted include bowhead and beluga whales; 
ringed, spotted, and bearded seals; walruses, and polar bears. The 
importance of each of the various species varies among the communities 
based largely on availability. Bowhead whales, belugas, and walruses 
are the marine mammal species primarily harvested during the time of 
the proposed seismic survey. Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska 
Native culture and community, and subsistence activities are often 
central to many aspects of human existence, including patterns of 
family life, artistic expression, and community religious and 
celebratory activities.
    Bowhead whale hunting is a key activity in the subsistence 
economies of Barrow and other Native communities along the Beaufort Sea 
coast. The whale harvests have a great influence on social relations by 
strengthening the sense of Inupiat culture and heritage in addition to 
reinforcing family and community ties.
    An overall quota system for the hunting of bowhead whales was 
established by the International Whaling Commission in 1977. The quota 
is now regulated through an agreement between NMFS and the Alaska 
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) which extends to 2012 (NMFS, 2008b). 
The AEWC allocates the number of bowhead whales that each whaling 
community may harvest annually during five-year periods (USDI/BLM, 
2005; NMFS, 2008).
    The community of Barrow hunts bowhead whales in both the spring and 
fall during the whales' seasonal migration along the coast (see Figure 
2 of the IHA application). Often the bulk of the Barrow bowhead harvest 
is taken during the spring hunt. However, with larger quotas in recent 
years, it is common for a substantial fraction of the annual Barrow 
quota to remain available for the fall hunt (see Table 7 of the IHA 
application). The communities of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik participate only 
in the fall bowhead harvest. The fall migration of bowhead whales that 
summer in the eastern Beaufort Sea typically begins in late August or 
September. Fall migration into Alaskan waters is primarily during 
September and October. However, in recent years a small number of 
bowheads have been seen or heard offshore from the Prudhoe Bay region 
during the last week of August (Treacy, 1993; LGL and Greenridge, 1996; 
Greene, 1997; Greene et al., 1999; Blackwell et al., 2004).

 Table 8--Number of Bowhead Whale Landing by Year at Barrow, Cross Island (Nuiqsut), and Kaktovik, 1993 to 2008.
 Barrow Numbers Include the Total Number of Whales Landed for the Year Followed by the Numbers Landed During the
              Fall Hunt in Parentheses. Cross Island (Nuiqsut) and Kaktovik Landings are in Autumn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Year                     Point Hope      Wainwright        Barrow       Cross Island   Kaktovik
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993..................................               2               5          23 (7)               3     3
1994..................................               5               4          16 (1)               0     3
1995..................................               1               5         19 (11)               4     4
1996..................................               3               3         24 (19)               2     1
1997..................................               4               3         30 (21)               3     4
1998..................................               3               3         25 (16)               4     3
1999..................................               2               5          24 (6)               3     3
2000..................................               3               5         18 (13)               4     3
2001..................................               4               6          27 (7)               3     4
2002..................................               0               1         22 (17)               4     3
2003..................................               4               5          16 (6)               4     3
2004..................................               3               4         21 (14)               3     3
2005..................................               7               4         29 (13)               1     3
2006..................................               0               2         22 (19)               4     3
2007..................................               3               4          20 (7)               3     3
2008..................................               2               2         21 (12)               4     3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: USDI/BLM and references therein; Burns et al., 1993; Koski et al., 2005; Suydam et al., 2004, 2005,
  2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

    The spring hunt at Barrow occurs after leads open due to the 
deterioration of pack ice; the spring hunt typically occurs from early 
April until the first week of June. The location of the fall 
subsistence hunt depends on ice conditions and (in some years) 
industrial activities that influence the bowheads as they move west 
(Brower, 1996). In the fall, subsistence hunters use aluminum or 
fiberglass boats with outboards. Hunters prefer to take bowheads close 
to shore to avoid a long tow during which the meat can spoil, but 
Braund and Moorehead (1995) report that crews may (rarely) pursue 
whales as far as 80 km (49.7 mi). The fall hunts begin in late August 
or early September in Kaktovik and at Cross Island. At Barrow the fall 
hunt usually begins in mid-September, and mainly occurs in the waters 
east and northeast of Point Barrow in the Chukchi Sea (Suydam et al., 
2008). The whales have usually left the Beaufort Sea by late October 
(Treacey, 2002a, b).
    The scheduling of this seismic survey has been discussed with 
representatives of those concerned with the subsistence bowhead hunt, 
most notably the AEWC, the Barrow Whaling Captains' Association, and 
the North Slope Borough (NSB) Department of Wildlife Management. The 
timing of the proposed seismic survey in early to mid-August will 
affect neither the spring nor the fall bowhead hunt. The Healy is 
planning to change crew after the completion of the seismic survey 
through Barrow via helicopter or boat. That crew change is scheduled 
for approximately September 4 to 5, 2010, well before the fall bowhead 
whaling which typically begins late September or early October. All of 
the proposed geophysical activities will occur offshore between 71[deg] 
and 84[deg] North latitude well north of Beaufort Sea whaling 
activities.
    Beluga whales are available to subsistence hunters at Barrow in the 
spring when pack-ice conditions deteriorate and leads open up. Belugas 
may remain in the area through June and sometimes into July and August 
in ice-free waters. Hunters usually wait until after the spring bowhead 
whale

[[Page 60202]]

hunt is finished before turning their attention to hunting belugas. The 
average annual harvest of beluga whales taken by Barrow for 1962 to 
1982 was five (MMS, 1996). The Alaska Beluga Whale Committee recorded 
that 23 beluga whales had been harvested by Barrow hunters from 1987 to 
2002, ranging from zero in 1987, 1988 and 1995 to the high of eight in 
1997 (Fuller and George, 1997; Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, 2002 in 
USDI/BLM, 2005). The proposed seismic survey is unlikely to overlap 
with the beluga harvest, and the survey initiates well outside the area 
where impacts to beluga hunting by Barrow villagers could occur.
    Ringed seals are hunted mainly from October through June. Hunting 
for these smaller mammals is concentrated during winter because bowhead 
whales, bearded seals, and caribou are available through other seasons. 
In winter, leads and cracks in the ice off points of land and along 
barrier islands are used for hunting ringed seals. The average annual 
ringed seal harvest by the community of Barrow from the 1960s through 
much of the 1980s has been estimated as 394 (see Table 8 of the IHA 
application). More recently Bacon et al. (2009) estimated that 586, 
287, and 413 ringed seals were harvest by villagers at Barrow in 2000, 
2001, and 2003, respectively. Although ringed seals are available year-
round, the seismic survey will not occur during the primary period when 
these seals are typically harvested. Also, the seismic survey will be 
largely in offshore waters where the activities will not influence 
ringed seals in the nearshore areas where they are hunted.
    The spotted seal subsistence hunt peaks in July and August, as 
indicated by data from 1987 to 1990, but involves few animals. Spotted 
seals typically migrate south by October to overwinter in the Bering 
Sea, Admiralty Bay, less than 60 km (37.3 mi) to the east of Barrow, is 
a location where spotted seals are harvested. Spotted seals are also 
occasionally hunted in the area off Point Barrow and along the barrier 
islands of Elson Lagoon to the east (USDI/BLM, 2005). The average 
annual spotted seal harvest by the community of Barrow from 1987 to 
1990 was one animal (Braund et al., 1993; see Table 7 of the IHA 
application). More recently however, Bacon et al. (2009) estimated that 
32, 7, and 12 spotted seals were harvested by villagers at Barrow in 
2000, 2001, and 2003, respectively. Spotted seals become less abundant 
at Nuiqsut and Kaktovik and few if any spotted seal are harvested at 
these villages. The seismic survey will commence at least 115 km (71.5 
mi) offshore from the preferred nearshore harvest area of these seals.
    Bearded seals, although not favored for their meat, are important 
to subsistence activities in Barrow because of their skins. Six to nine 
bearded seal hides are used by whalers to cover each of the skin-
covered boats traditionally used for spring whaling. Because of their 
valuable hides and large size, bearded seals are specifically sought. 
Bearded seals are harvested during the summer months in the Beaufort 
Sea (USDI/BLM, 2005). The animals inhabit the environment around the 
ice floes in the drifting ice pack, so hunting usually occurs from 
boats in the drift ice. Braund et al. (1993) estimated that 174 bearded 
seals were harvested annually at Barrow from 1987 to 1990 (see Table 8 
of the IHA application). More recently Bacon et al. (2009) estimated 
that 728, 327, and 776 bearded seals were harvested by villagers at 
Barrow in 2000, 2001, and 2003, respectively. Braund et al. (1993) 
mapped the majority of bearded seal harvest sites from 1987 to 1990 as 
being within approximately 24 km (14.9 mi) of Point Barrow, well 
inshore of the proposed survey which is to start approximately 115 km 
(71.5 mi) offshore and terminate greater than 200 km (124.3 mi) 
offshore. The average annual take of bearded seals by the Barrow 
community from 1987 to 1990 was 174 (see Table 8 of the IHA 
application).

Table 9--Average Annual Take of Marine Mammals Other Than Bowhead Whales
   Harvest by the Community of Barrow (Compiled By LGL Alaska Research
                            Associates, 2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Ringed    Bearded    Spotted
              Beluga whales                 seals     seals      seals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** 5                                        * 394      * 174        * 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Average annual harvest for years 1987 to 1990 (Braund et al., 1993).
** Average annual harvest for years 1962 to 1982 (MMS, 1996).

Plan of Cooperation

    The USGS has communicated with community authorities and residents 
of Barrow to foster understanding of the proposed survey. There are 
elements of the proposed survey, intrinsic to the project that 
significantly limit the potential conflict with subsistence users. 
Operations will be conducted during early August before bowhead whale 
hunting typically occurs off Barrow and approximately 108 km (67.1 mi) 
offshore, farther offshore than traditional subsistence hunting 
grounds. USGS continues to work with the people of Barrow to identify 
and avoid areas of potential conflict.
     The USGS initiated contact with NSB scientists and the 
chair of the AEWC in mid-December, 2010 via an emailed description of 
the proposed survey that included components intended to minimize 
potential subsistence conflict.
     Invitations were extended December 31, 2009 to members of 
the NSB, AEWC, and North Slope Communities to attend a teleconference 
arranged for January 11, 2010. The teleconference served as a venue to 
promote understanding of the project and discuss shareholder concerns. 
Participants in the teleconference included Harry Brower, chair of the 
AEWC, and NSB wildlife biologist Dr. Robert Suydam.
     To further promote cooperation between the project 
researchers and the community, Dr. Deborah Hutchinson with USGS 
presented the proposed survey at a meeting of the AEWC in Barrow on 
February 11, 2010. Survey plans were explained to local hunters and 
whaling captains, including NSB Department of Wildlife Management 
biologists, Craig George and Dr. Robert Suydam. Dr. Hutchinson 
consulted with stakeholders about their concerns and discussed the 
aspects of the survey designed to mitigate impacts.
     Dr. Deborah Hutchinson of the USGS emailed a summary of 
the topics discussed during the teleconference and the AEWC meeting in 
Barrow to representatives of the NSB, AEWC, and North Slope 
communities. These included:
    [cir] Surveying within U.S. waters is scheduled early 
(approximately August 11 to 19) to avoid conflict with hunters.
    [cir] The EA and IHA application have been distributed as early as 
possible to NSB and AEWC.
    [cir] A community observer will be present aboard the Healy during 
the project.
    [cir] Mitigation of the one crew transfer near Barrow in early 
September will be arranged--probably through Barrow Volunteer Search 
and Rescue.
     Representatives of the USGS attended the Arctic Open-water 
Meeting in Anchorage, March 22 to 24, 2010.
    [cir] Dr. Deborah Hutchinson presented information regarding the 
proposed survey to the public during the Open-water meeting.
    [cir] Dr. Jonathan Childs and Dr. Deborah Hutchinson also met with 
stakeholders and agency representatives while at the meeting.
    Subsequent meetings with whaling captains, other community 
representatives, the AEWC, NSB, and

[[Page 60203]]

any other parties to the plan will be held if necessary to coordinate 
the planned seismic survey operation with subsistence hunting activity. 
The USGS has informed the chairman of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 
Committee (AEWC), Harry Brower, Jr., of its survey plan.
    As noted above and in the IHA application, in the unlikely event 
that subsistence hunting or fishing is occurring within 5 km (3 mi) of 
the project vessel tracklines, or where potential impacts could occur, 
the airgun operations will be suspended until the vessel is greater 
than 5 km away and otherwise not interfering with subsistence 
activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    On May 21, 2010, USGS initiated informal consultation, under 
Section 7 of the ESA, with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 
Endangered Species Division, on this seismic survey. Based on the 
information provided by USGS, NMFS concurred with their determination 
that the activities conducted during the proposed seismic survey are 
not likely to adversely affect endangered whales in the study area. No 
designated critical habitat occurs within the action area for this 
experiment, therefore, no critical habitat will be affected by the 
proposed bathymetric and seismic surveys and other associated 
activities.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    USGS provided NMFS an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the 
direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed 
specified activities on marine mammals including those listed as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA. The EA, prepared by LGL 
Environmental Research Associated (LGL) on behalf of USGS, is titled 
``Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey of Parts of 
the Arctic Ocean, August--September 2010 (EA)''. NMFS has adopted the 
USGS's EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 
issuance of the IHA.

Determinations

    NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the specific 
marine seismic survey activities described in this notice and the IHA 
request in the specific geographic region within the U.S. EEZ and 
within the Arctic Ocean may result, at worst, in a temporary 
modification in behavior (Level B harassment) of small numbers of 
marine mammals. No take by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, 
or mortality is anticipated, and take by harassment will be at the 
lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation and 
monitoring measures mentioned previously in this document. Further, 
this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the 
affected species or stocks of marine mammals. NMFS has determined that 
this proposed activity will not have an unmitigable impact on the 
availability of the affected species or stock of marine mammals for 
subsistence uses. USGS will coordinate with local communities on 
implementation of the Plan of Cooperation.
    As a result of these determinations, NMFS issued an IHA to USGS for 
conducting a marine seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean from August to 
September 2010, including the previously mentioned mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements. The duration of the IHA does 
not exceed one year from the date of its issuance.

    Dated: September 22, 2010.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-24335 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P