[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54433-54451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA568


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the 
Arctic Ocean, September-October 2011

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the University of Alaska 
Geophysics Institute (UAGI) to take marine mammals, by harassment, 
incidental to conducting a marine geophysical seismic survey in the 
Arctic Ocean during September-October 2011.

DATES: Effective September 5, 2011, through October 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and application may be obtained 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, telephoning 
the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 
visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.
    The National Science Foundation (NSF), which is providing funding 
to UAGI to conduct the survey, prepared an ``Environmental Assessment 
of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the 
Arctic Ocean, September-October 2011,'' prepared by LGL Ltd., 
Environmental Research Associates (LGL), on behalf of UAGI and NSF, 
which is also available at the same internet address. NMFS prepared its 
own Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which is available at the 
same internet address. Documents cited in this notice may also be 
viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the 
aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Nachman, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of

[[Page 54434]]

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 U.S. can apply for an authorization to 
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of 
an application followed by a 30 day public notice and comment period on 
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine 
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must 
either issue or deny the authorization.
    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''].

Summary of Request

    NMFS received an application on March 4, 2011, from UAGI for the 
taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to conducting a 
marine geophysical seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean. NMFS reviewed 
UAGI's application and identified a number of issues requiring further 
clarification. After addressing comments from NMFS, UAGI modified its 
application and submitted a revised application on May 10, 2011. The 
May 10, 2011, application was the one made available for public comment 
(see ADDRESSES) and considered by NMFS for this IHA.
    UAGI proposes to conduct a 2D seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean, 
Chukchi Sea, in both international waters and within the U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ) in water depths ranging from 30-3,800 m (98-12,467 
ft). UAGI plans to conduct the seismic survey from September 5 through 
October 9, 2011, which includes vessel transit time from Dutch Harbor.
    UAGI plans to use one source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. Langseth 
(Langseth) and a seismic airgun array to collect seismic reflection 
data across the transition from the Chukchi Shelf to the Chukchi 
Borderland to define the apparent change in structure between two large 
continental blocks. In addition to the operation of the seismic airgun 
array, UAGI intends to operate a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a 
sub-bottom profiler (SBP) continuously throughout the survey. A 75-
kilohertz (kHz) acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) may also be 
used.
    Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated 
during the operation of the seismic airgun array may have the potential 
to cause a short-term behavioral disturbance for marine mammals in the 
survey area. This is the principal means of marine mammal taking 
associated with these activities, and UAGI requested and NMFS 
authorized the take of 11 species of marine mammals by Level B 
harassment in this IHA. These species are: Bowhead whale; gray whale; 
humpback whale; minke whale; fin whale; beluga whale; killer whale; 
bearded seal; spotted seal; ringed seal; and ribbon seal. Take is not 
expected to result from the use of the MBES or SBP; nor is take 
expected to result from collision with the vessel because it is a 
single vessel moving at a relatively slow speed during seismic 
acquisition within the survey, for a relatively short period of time 
(approximately 35 days). It is likely that any marine mammal would be 
able to avoid the vessel.

Description of the Specified Activity

    UAGI's survey is proposed to occur in the area 72.5-77[deg] N. and 
160-175[deg] W. in international waters and within the U.S. EEZ (see 
Figure 1 in UAGI's application). The project is scheduled to occur from 
September 5-October 9, 2011. Some minor deviation from these dates is 
possible, depending on logistics and weather. Therefore, the period of 
validity of the IHA is from September 5-October 23, 2011. The vessel 
will not be able to remain in the area once ice begins to form, as the 
Langseth is not an icebreaker. The Langseth would depart from Dutch 
Harbor on September 5, 2011, and sail northeast to arrive at 
approximately 72.5[deg] N., 162[deg] W., where the seismic survey will 
begin, more than 200 km (124 mi) from Barrow. The entire cruise would 
last for approximately 35 days, and it is estimated that the total 
seismic survey time will be approximately 25 days, depending on ice 
conditions. Seismic survey work is scheduled to terminate near the 
starting point at approximately 72.4[deg] N., 164[deg] W. on October 6; 
the vessel would then sail south to Dutch Harbor for arrival on October 
9. There could be extra days of seismic shooting, if the collected data 
are of substandard quality.
    The survey will include collection of seismic reflection data 
across the transition from the Chukchi Shelf to the Chukchi Borderland 
to define the apparent change in structure between two large 
continental blocks. This study will test existing tectonic models and 
develop new constraints on the development of the Amerasian Basin and 
will substantially advance our understanding of the Mesozoic history of 
this basin. In addition, these data will enable the formulation of new 
tectonic models for the history of this region, which will improve our 
understanding of the surrounding continents.
    The survey will involve one source vessel, the Langseth, which is 
operated by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO), a part of 
Columbia University, under a cooperative agreement with NSF. The 
Langseth will deploy an array of 10 airguns (1,830 in\3\) as an energy 
source at a tow depth of 6 m (19.7 ft). The receiving system will 
consist of a 2-km (1.2-mi) long hydrophone streamer. As the airgun 
array is towed along the survey lines, the hydrophone streamer will 
receive the returning acoustic signals and transfer the data to the on-
board processing system. In addition, at least 72 sonobuoys will be 
deployed in order to record seismic refraction data. The Langseth will 
be avoiding the ice edge, and an ice expert will be available to 
provide daily guidance and to predict ice movements.
    The program will consist of a total of approximately 5,502 km 
(3,419 mi) of survey lines, not including transits to and from the 
survey area when airguns will not be in use (see Figure 1 in UAGI's 
application). Water depths within the study area range from 
approximately 30-3,800 m (98-12,467). Just over half of the survey 
effort (55%) will occur in water 100-1,000 m (328-3,281 ft) deep, 32% 
will take place in water >1,000 m (3,281 ft) deep, and 13% will occur 
in water depths <100 m (328 ft). There will be additional seismic 
operations in the survey area associated with turns, airgun testing, 
and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-
standard. In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a 
Kongsberg EM 122 MBES and a Knudsen 320B SBP will also be operated from 
the Langseth continuously throughout the cruise. A 75-kHz ADCP may also 
be used.
    All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be 
conducted by L-DEO with on-board assistance by the scientists who have 
proposed the study. The Principal Investigator (PI) is Dr. Bernard 
Coakley of UAGI. The

[[Page 54435]]

vessel will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel 
for the entire cruise.
    Table 1 in this document and Table 1 in UAGI's application show the 
distances at which three rms sound levels are expected to be received 
from the 10-airgun array and a single airgun. For the 10-airgun array, 
distances were modeled at seven sites; the distances in Table 1 are the 
averages from the sites in each depth range.

  Table 1--Maximum Predicted Distances To Which Sound Levels =190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
       Could Be Received in Various Water-Depth Categories During the Proposed Survey in the Arctic Ocean
[The distances for the 10-airgun array are the averages of modeled 95% percentile distances at modeling sites in
                                                each depth range]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Predicted RMS Radii (m)
          Source and volume            Tow depth           Water depth          --------------------------------
                                           (m)                                     190 dB     180 dB     160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bolt airgun 40 in\3\..........          6  Deep (>1000 m)...............         12         40        385
                                                  Intermediate (100-1000 m)....         18         60        578
                                                  Shallow (<100)...............        150        296       1050
1 string 10 airguns 1830 in\3\.......          6  Deep (>1000 m)...............        130        425     14,070
                                                  Intermediate (200-1000 m)....        130       1400     13,980
                                                  Shallow (<200)...............        190       1870     14,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The tow depth has minimal effect on the maximum near-field output and the shape of the frequency spectrum for
  the single 40 in\3\ airgun; thus, the predicted safety radii are essentially the same at any tow depth.

    NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli resulting from operation of the 
single airgun or the 10 airgun array has the potential to harass marine 
mammals, incidental to the conduct of the proposed seismic survey. NMFS 
expects these disturbances to be temporary and result, at worst, in a 
temporary modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological 
effects (Level B harassment) of small numbers of certain species of 
marine mammals. NMFS does not expect that the movement of the Langseth, 
during the conduct of the seismic survey, has the potential to harass 
marine mammals because of the relatively slow operation speed of the 
vessel (4-5 kts [7.4 to 9.3 km/hr]) during seismic data acquisition.
    Additional details on the purpose of the survey program and details 
of the vessel, acoustic equipment to be deployed and predicted sound 
radii are contained in NMFS' Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 
14, 2011). The activities to be conducted have not changed between the 
proposed notice and this final issuance notice. The reader should refer 
to the proposed notice and documents referenced earlier in this notice 
for further details (see ADDRESSES).

Comments and Responses

    A Notice of Proposed IHA published in the Federal Register on July 
14, 2011 (76 FR 41463) for public comment. During the 30-day public 
comment period, NMFS received two comment letters from the following: 
The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and the North Slope Borough (NSB). 
All of the public comment letters are available on the Internet at: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Following are the 
public comments and NMFS' responses.
    Comment 1: The NSB recommends modifying the timing of the survey 
tracklines so that all of the proposed survey area closest to the 
Chukchi Sea coast is surveyed in mid-September and the farthest points 
or areas are sampled at the end of the survey period in October. This 
approach will help to mitigate possible impacts to the availability of 
marine mammals, most notably bowhead whales, to subsistence communities 
by moving the airgun array as far away from the communities as possible 
just before and during hunts.
    Response: Both UAGI and L-DEO considered this request and reviewed 
the constraints of operating the Langseth in the survey region during 
the proposed time frame. The Langseth is not an ice strengthened 
vessel, and, therefore, it must avoid working in areas with ice. In 
addition, for safety reasons, the vessel must prevent towed seismic 
equipment from becoming entangled with ice. The safety of both the 
vessel and its crew is foremost when planning surveys, especially in 
the proposed challenging operational area. In the past few years, the 
freshly formed sea ice crowds in from the west, thus the Langseth will 
need to begin the survey during the low ice period in the far 
northwestern quadrant and work in a southeastern direction to avoid ice 
possibly being in the survey area. Further various ice-dependent 
mammals like walrus, polar bears and several species of seal will be 
avoided by avoiding encroaching ice flows.
    The closest survey lines in the lower southeastern portion of the 
survey area are approximately 250 km (155 mi) from the Chukchi Sea 
coast. Subsistence whaling typically occurs nearshore. In the Chukchi 
Sea region, the fall hunt is generally conducted in an area that 
extends 16 km (10 mi) west of Barrow to 48 km (30 mi) north of Barrow. 
This information is confirmed by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 
(AEWC) in a recent letter to NMFS on a separate action, which states 
that ``[s]ubsistence hunters have a limited hunting range and prefer to 
take whales close to shore so as to avoid hauling a harvested whale a 
long distance over which the whale could spoil. During the fall, 
however, subsistence hunters in the Chukchi Sea will pursue bowhead 
whales as far as 50 miles (80 km) from the coast in small, fiberglass 
boats.'' Even if whaling crews venture out 80 km (50 mi), the Langseth 
would still be a minimum of 170 km (105.6 mi) from the hunting grounds 
at its closest point. Additionally, a local Barrow resident with 
knowledge about the marine mammals and fish of the area is expected to 
be included as an observer aboard the Langseth. This person will be 
able to act as a liaison with hunters if they are encountered at sea. 
In its 2011 Conflict Avoidance Agreement, the AEWC noted that 
geophysical activity should not occur within 48 km (30 mi) of the 
Chukchi Sea coast during the fall hunting season and any vessel 
operating within 96.5 km (60 mi) of the Chukchi Sea coast should 
participate in the Communication Centers. Neither of these triggers 
will be met during the UAGI survey; however, UAGI and L-DEO have agreed 
to communicate with Chukchi Sea hunters via the radio onboard the 
vessel. Based on this considerable distance from the traditional whale 
hunting grounds and the fact that the vessel will not come into any of 
the Chukchi Sea villages during the hunting season for resupply

[[Page 54436]]

or crew changes, NMFS has determined that there will not be an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for 
subsistence uses, even if the southeastern portion of the project area 
is surveyed in late September/early October. NMFS must also weigh the 
practicability of applicant implementation when requiring mitigation 
measures. Because changing the survey design could potentially make it 
impossible to survey the area or compromise the vessel or its crew, 
NMFS has determined that it is not feasible to change the survey 
design.
    Comment 2: The MMC recommends that NMFS require UAGI to re-estimate 
the proposed exclusion and buffer zones for the mitigation airgun using 
operational and site-specific environmental parameters and the modeled 
developed by Marine Acoustics, Inc. (MAI). If NMFS does not follow this 
recommendation, then the MMC recommends that NMFS provide a detailed 
justification for basing the exclusion and buffer zones for the 
proposed survey in the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean on modeling that 
relies on measurements from the Gulf of Mexico and that is inconsistent 
with the modeling approach used for the 10-airgun array.
    Response: NMFS is satisfied that the data supplied are sufficient 
for NMFS to conduct its analysis and make any determinations and 
therefore no further effort is needed by the applicant. While exposures 
of marine mammals to acoustic stimuli are difficult to estimate, NMFS 
is confident that the levels of take provided by L-DEO in their IHA 
application and EA, and authorized herein are estimated based upon the 
best available scientific information and estimation methodology.
    Although L-DEO has modeled a variety of source configurations 
typically used on the Langseth, for this survey, the PI requested a 
small energy source and unique source configuration to conduct the 
proposed research (i.e., 10-airgun array with a discharge volume of 
1,830 in\3\). L-DEO did not have a model result for this source/
configuration available for use or the capability within L-DEO at the 
time to prepare one. As a result, MAI was contracted by L-DEO to model 
the unique source and configuration for this survey. For that reason, a 
model capable of accounting for site-specific environmental parameters 
was used to estimate the various sound isopleths for the 10-gun array.
    The proposed mitigation gun is considered a low-energy source, a 
single bolt 40 in\3\ airgun. While the model for the mitigation gun 
does not account for site-specific environmental conditions in the 
Arctic, given the small source, it was viewed as unnecessary to run an 
additional model incorporating environmental context for this survey. 
Model results for the mitigation gun do not appear inconsistent with 
results produced by MAI for the larger array. Additionally, sound 
source verification (SSV) tests have been conducted for several small 
airgun sources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in recent years. 
Although tests have not been conducted on a single bolt 40 in\3\ 
airgun, SSV tests were conducted in 2008 on a 4 x 10 in\3\ airgun array 
(total discharge volume of 40 in\3\) and in 2009 on two 2 x 10 in\3\ 
airgun array (total discharge volume of 40 in\3\). These tests were 
conducted in shallow to intermediate water depths (as defined by the 
ranges provided in the UAGI IHA application). The 2008 test results 
indicate that sounds attenuated to 160-dB (rms) 1,400 m (4,593 ft) from 
the source, to 180-dB (rms) 160 m (525 ft) from the source, and to 190-
dB (rms) 50 m (164 ft) from the source. The 2009 test results indicate 
that sounds attenuated to 160-dB (rms) 546 m (1,791 ft) from the 
source, to 180-dB (rms) 83 m (272 ft) from the source, and to 190-dB 
(rms) 33 m (108 ft) from the source. The results of these two tests are 
fairly consistent with the modeling for the single bolt gun to be used 
in this survey (see Table 1 earlier in this document). L-DEO intends to 
investigate new acoustic modeling programs in the future which 
incorporate environmental context. NMFS has considered the models and 
model results and has concluded that the proposed exclusions zones for 
the single mitigation gun are appropriate for the survey.
    The IHA issued to UAGI, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 
provides monitoring and mitigation requirements to protect marine 
mammals from injury, serious injury, or mortality. UAGI is required to 
comply with the IHA's requirements. These analyses are supported by 
extensive scientific research and data. NMFS is confident in the peer-
reviewed results of the L-DEO seismic calibration studies which, 
although viewed as conservative, were used to determine the sound radii 
for the mitigation airgun for this cruise and which factor into 
exposure estimates. NMFS has determined that these reviews are the best 
scientific data available for review of the IHA application and to 
support the necessary analyses and determinations under the MMPA, 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA.
    Comment 3: The NSB states that NMFS should require applicants to 
assess impacts of surveys to bowhead whales to the 120 dB level, 
especially in this case because the survey will overlap in time with 
migrating bowheads and the hunts in Barrow and Wainwright.
    Response: As noted by the NSB in its letter, UAGI did consider the 
impacts to bowhead whales from sound levels lower than 160 dB in its 
application. Additionally, NMFS also noted reactions of bowhead whales 
to sounds below 160 dB in its Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 
14, 2011). The best information available to date for reactions by 
bowhead whales to noise, such as seismic, is based on the results from 
the 1998 aerial survey (as supplemented by data from earlier years) as 
reported in Miller et al. (1999). In 1998, bowhead whales below the 
water surface at a distance of 20 km (12.4 mi) from an airgun array 
received pulses of about 117-135 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms, depending upon 
propagation. Corresponding levels at 30 km (18.6 mi) were about 107-126 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms. Miller et al. (1999) surmise that deflection may 
have begun about 35 km (21.7 mi) to the east of the seismic operations, 
but did not provide sound pressure level (SPL) measurements to that 
distance and noted that sound propagation has not been studied as 
extensively eastward in the alongshore direction, as it has northward, 
in the offshore direction. Therefore, while this single year of data 
analysis indicates that bowhead whales may make minor deflections in 
swimming direction at a distance of 30-35 km (18.6-21.7 mi), there is 
no indication that the SPL where deflection first begins is at 120 dB; 
it could be at another SPL lower or higher than 120 dB. Miller et al. 
(1999) also note that the received levels at 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) 
were considerably lower in 1998 than have previously been shown to 
elicit avoidance in bowheads exposed to seismic pulses. However, the 
seismic airgun array used in 1998 was larger than the ones used in 1996 
and 1997. Therefore, while NMFS considers impacts to bowhead whales 
from sound levels below 160 dB, NMFS believes that it cannot 
scientifically support adopting any single SPL value below 160 dB and 
apply it across the board for all species and in all circumstances.
    As stated in the past, NMFS does not believe that minor course 
corrections during a migration rise to a level of being a significant 
behavioral response. To show the contextual nature of this minor 
behavioral modification, recent monitoring studies of Canadian seismic 
operations indicate that when, not migrating, but involved in feeding,

[[Page 54437]]

bowhead whales do not move away from a noise source at an SPL of 160 
dB. Therefore, while bowheads may avoid an area of 20 km (12.4 mi) 
around a noise source, when that determination requires a post-survey 
computer analysis to find that bowheads have made a 1 or 2 degree 
course change, NMFS believes that does not rise to a level of a 
``take.'' NMFS therefore continues to estimate ``takings'' under the 
MMPA from impulse noises, such as seismic, as being at a distance of 
160 dB (re 1 [mu]Pa).
    Although it is possible that marine mammals could react to any 
sound levels detectable above the ambient noise level within the 
animals' respective frequency response range, this does not mean that 
such animals would react in a biologically significant way. According 
to experts on marine mammal behavior, the degree of reaction which 
constitutes a ``take,'' i.e., a reaction deemed to be biologically 
significant that could potentially disrupt the migration, breathing, 
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, etc., of a marine mammal is 
complex and context specific, and it depends on several variables in 
addition to the received level of the sound by the animals. These 
additional variables include, but are not limited to, other source 
characteristics (such as frequency range, duty cycle, continuous vs. 
impulse vs. intermittent sounds, duration, moving vs. stationary 
sources, etc.); specific species, populations, and/or stocks; prior 
experience of the animals (na[iuml]ve vs. previously exposed); 
habituation or sensitization of the sound by the animals; and behavior 
context (whether the animal perceives the sound as predatory or simply 
annoyance), etc. (Southall et al., 2007). Therefore, unless and until 
an improved approach is developed and peer-reviewed, NMFS will continue 
to use the 160-dB threshold for determining the level of take of marine 
mammals by Level B harassment for impulse noise (such as from airguns). 
While NMFS does not consider exposures to sounds below 160-dB (rms) as 
likely to result in take of marine mammals by Level B harassment, NMFS 
acknowledges that some behaviors that might result from exposures at 
these lower levels do have the potential to impact a subsistence hunt.
    MAI did not model the 120-dB isopleths for the 10-airgun array for 
the 120-dB radius. Using back-of-the-envelope calculations, which do 
not take into consideration the site-specific environmental parameters 
as was done for calculating the 160-, 180-, and 190-dB radii, the 120-
dB radius is anticipated to extend approximately 115 km (71.5 mi) in 
deep water (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]), 177 km (110 mi) in intermediate water 
(100-1,000 m [328-3,281 ft]), and 204 km (126.8 mi) in shallow water 
(<100 m [328 ft]). The planned survey tracklines lie between 250 and 
800 km (155 and 497 mi) offshore of the Chukchi Sea coast. Therefore, 
when surveying in the project area closest to Barrow and Wainwright, 
the sound will attenuate to 120-dB approximately 50 km (31 mi) from the 
coast. Typical bowhead hunting grounds in Barrow are to the east of 
Point Barrow, therefore making this distance even greater. Although 
Wainwright has not landed a fall bowhead whale in many years, the 
village did land a whale on October 7, 2010. If Wainwright conducts its 
hunt around this same time in 2011, it will be just after the 
conclusion of the UAGI survey. UAGI intends to cease seismic operations 
(barring weather or operational delays) on October 5, 2011. The vessel 
will then spend approximately 4 days transiting to Dutch Harbor. The 
Langseth will remain approximately 80 km (50 mi) or more offshore while 
transiting through the Chukchi Sea, and no airguns will be operating at 
this time. Based on the information provided here and later in this 
document, it is not anticipated that the UAGI survey will have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the bowhead whale hunts at Barrow or 
Wainwright.
    Comment 4: The NSB recommends that NMFS request the applicant to 
revise the proposal (and take request, if needed) and evaluate the 
potential impacts from the MBES, SBP, and ADCP.
    Response: The applicant provided an evaluation of the potential 
impacts to marine mammals from the use of these equipment sources in 
the IHA application and the associated Environmental Assessment (EA). 
Additionally, NMFS evaluated the potential use of these devices and the 
potential impact that the sources may have on marine mammals in the 
Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011).
    NMFS has determined that it is not necessary to calculate take, 
beyond what has already been calculated, from the use of these higher-
frequency sound sources. The acoustic footprints of these sources are 
anticipated to fall within that of the airgun array. The likelihood of 
a marine mammal swimming within the narrow beams of these sources is 
small. If the animal were to swim within the area under the vessel 
where it could potentially be exposed to these sounds, it would likely 
only be subjected to a single pulse because of the narrow beams. 
Therefore, no additional take has been calculated for these sources.
    Comment 5: The Commission recommends that if NMFS is planning to 
allow the applicant to resume full power after 8 minutes (min) under 
certain circumstances, specify in the authorization in all conditions 
under which an 8 min period could be followed by a full-power 
resumption of the airguns.
    Response: NMFS has specified in the IHA all conditions when UAGI 
may resume full power after 8 min. During periods of active seismic 
operations, there are occasions when the airguns need to be temporarily 
shut-down (for example due to equipment failure, maintenance, or shut-
down) or a power-down is necessary (for example when a marine mammal is 
seen to either enter or about to enter the exclusion zone [EZ]). In 
these instances, should the airguns be inactive or powered-down for 
more than 8 min, then L-DEO would follow the ramp-up procedures 
identified in the ``Mitigation'' section found later in this document 
where airguns will be re-started beginning with the smallest airgun in 
the array and increase in steps not to exceed 6 dB per 5 min over a 
total duration of approximately 30 min. NMFS and NSF believe that the 8 
min period in question is an appropriate minimum amount of time to pass 
after which a ramp-up process should be followed. In these instances, 
should it be possible for the airguns to be re-activated without 
exceeding the 8 min period (for example equipment is fixed or a marine 
mammal is visually observed to have left the EZ for the full source 
level), then the airguns would be reactivated to the full operating 
source level identified for the survey (in this case, 1,830 in\3\) 
without need for initiating ramp-up procedures. In the event a marine 
mammal enters the EZ and a power-down is initiated, and the marine 
mammal is not visually observed to have left the EZ, then UAGI and L-
DEO must wait 15 min (for species with shorter dive durations--small 
odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min (for species with longer dive 
durations--mysticetes) after the last sighting before ramp-up 
procedures can be initiated, or as otherwise directed by requirements 
in an IHA. However, ramp-up will not occur as long as a marine mammal 
is detected within the EZ, which provides more time for animals to 
leave the EZ, and accounts for the position, swim speed, and heading of 
marine mammals within the EZ.

[[Page 54438]]

    Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS condition the 
authorization to require UAGI to monitor, document, and report 
observations during all ramp-up procedures.
    Response: The IHA requires that observers on the Langseth 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 of the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 
approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and 
behavioral pace; and
    (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.
    Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS work with NSF to 
analyze these monitoring data to help determine the effectiveness of 
ramp-up procedures as a mitigation measure for geophysical surveys 
after the data are compiled and quality control measures have been 
completed.
    Response: One of the primary purposes of monitoring is to result in 
``increased knowledge of the species'' and the effectiveness of 
monitoring and mitigation measures; the effectiveness of ramp-up as a 
mitigation measure and marine mammal reaction to ramp-up would be 
useful information in this regard. NMFS has asked NSF and L-DEO 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 numbers 
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.
    Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS, prior to granting 
the requested authorization, provide additional justification for its 
preliminary determination that the proposed monitoring program will be 
sufficient to detect, with a high level of confidence, all marine 
mammals within or entering the identified EZs and buffer zones, 
including:
    (1) Identifying those species that it believes can be detected with 
a high degree of confidence using visual monitoring only,
    (2) Describing detection probability as a function of distance from 
the vessel,
    (3) Describing changes in detection probability under various sea 
state and weather conditions and light levels, and
    (4) Explaining how close to the vessel marine mammals must be for 
Protected Species Observers (PSOs) to achieve high nighttime detection 
rates.
    Response: NMFS determined that the planned monitoring program will 
be sufficient to detect (using visual monitoring and passive acoustic 
monitoring [PAM]), with reasonable certainty, marine mammals within or 
entering identified EZs. This monitoring, along with the required 
mitigation measures, will result in the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks, will result in a negligible impact on the 
affected species or stocks of marine mammals, and will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for 
taking for subsistence uses. Also, NMFS expects some animals to avoid 
areas around the airgun array ensonified at the level of the EZ.
    NMFS acknowledges that the detection probability for certain 
species of marine mammals varies depending on animal's size and 
behavior, as well as sea state, weather conditions, and light levels. 
The detectability of marine mammals likely decreases in low light 
(i.e., darkness), higher Beaufort sea states and wind conditions, and 
poor weather (e.g., fog and/or rain). However, at present, NMFS views 
the combination of visual monitoring and PAM as the most effective 
monitoring and mitigation techniques available for detecting marine 
mammals within or entering the EZ. The final monitoring and mitigation 
measures are the most effective feasible measures, and NMFS is not 
aware of any additional measures which could meaningfully increase the 
likelihood of detecting marine mammals in and around the EZ. Further, 
public comment has not revealed any additional monitoring or mitigation 
measures that could be feasibly implemented to increase the 
effectiveness of detection.
    NSF, UAGI, and L-DEO are receptive to incorporating proven 
technologies and techniques to enhance the current monitoring and 
mitigation program. Until proven technological advances are made, 
nighttime mitigation measures during operations include combinations of 
the use of visual PSOs for ramp-ups, PAM, night vision devices (NVDs), 
and continuous shooting of a mitigation airgun. L-DEO has conducted two 
tests regarding the effectiveness of NVDs and nighttime sightings. 
Results of those tests indicated that NVDs are effective to at least 
150-200 m (492-656 ft) from the vessel, and observing with the naked 
eye at night (i.e., darkness) is effective to about 30 m (98 ft) from 
the vessel. Should the airgun array be powered-down, the operation of a 
single airgun would continue to serve as a sound source deterrent to 
marine mammals. In the event of a complete shut-down of the airgun 
array at night for mitigation or repairs, L-DEO suspends the data 
collection until one-half hour after nautical twilight-dawn (when PSOs 
are able to clear the EZ). L-DEO will not activate the airguns until 
the entire EZ is visible for at least 30 min.
    In cooperation with NMFS, L-DEO will be conducting efficacy 
experiments of NVDs during a future Langseth cruise. In addition, in 
response to a recommendation from NMFS, L-DEO is evaluating the use of 
handheld forward-looking thermal imaging cameras to supplement 
nighttime monitoring and mitigation practices. During other low power 
seismic and seafloor mapping surveys, L-DEO successfully used these 
devices while conducting nighttime seismic operations.
    Comment 9: The NSB states that if PAM is intended to be used to 
help monitor the EZs, they recommend that NMFS require a different 
acoustic monitoring tool because the applicant did not provide details 
about the efficacy of their proposed approach for PAM and previous 
efforts to use PAM in the Chukchi Sea have had limited success. NMFS 
could require the deployment of sonobuoys as a means to detect marine 
mammals within or about to enter the EZs. The NSB fully supports the 
continued testing and development of PAM as a monitoring tool.
    Response: NMFS has determined that the PAM system proposed to be 
used during the UAGI survey is sufficient. The use of sonobuoys to 
detect marine mammals is unlikely to provide additional detection or 
monitoring benefits over the PAM system aboard the Langseth. Single 
sonobuoys cannot be used to localize animals within the EZ, and NMFS is 
unaware of an effective method for deploying and using multiple 
sonobuoys together while on the move or the software to integrate the 
data in a timely fashion, whereas the PAM system is capable of 
determining rough approximates of animal locations, thus making the 
detections more meaningful in the augmentation of mitigation. Second,

[[Page 54439]]

vocalizing low-frequency baleen whales are unlikely to be detected 
through sonobuoys because these sounds are below the human auditory 
threshold, whereas the PAM system is set up to display sound 
spectrograms that would allow the detection of marine mammal 
vocalizations outside of the human auditory range. Additionally, the 
location of sonobuoys after they are deployed are unknown, but they are 
designed to operate in line of sight distance from the vessel which 
would only provide limited detection improvement to visual detections 
during the day, and little improvement in the detection range compared 
to the current PAM system. The use of sonobuoys to detect marine 
mammals in the Arctic has also been done in the past during a similar 
survey, but no detections were made, and it is unlikely that sonobuoys 
would provide any improvement to detections beyond the visual and 
passive acoustic monitoring plan described in the IHA application.
    Comment 10: The Commission recommends that NMFS require the 
applicant to:
    (1) Report on the number of marine mammals that were detected 
acoustically and for which a power-down or shut-down of the airguns was 
initiated;
    (2) Specify if such animals also were detected visually; and
    (3) Compare the results from the two monitoring methods (visual 
versus acoustic) to help identify their respective strengths and 
weaknesses.
    Response: The IHA requires that acoustic PSOs on the Langseth do 
and record the following when a marine mammal is detected by the PAM:
    (i) Notify the on-duty visual PSO(s) immediately of a vocalizing 
marine mammal so a power-down or shut-down can be initiated, if 
required;
    (ii) Enter the information regarding the vocalization into a 
database. The data to be entered include an acoustic encounter 
identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, 
date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional 
information was recorded, position, and water depth when first 
detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., 
unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard 
(e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, 
strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information.
    L-DEO reports on the number of acoustic detections made by the PAM 
system within the post-cruise monitoring reports as required by the 
IHA. The report also includes a description of any acoustic detections 
that were concurrent with visual sightings, which allows for a 
comparison of acoustic and visual detection methods for each cruise.
    The post-cruise monitoring reports also include the following 
information: the total operational effort in daylight (hrs), the total 
operational effort at night (hrs), the total number of hours of visual 
observations conducted, the total number of sightings, and the total 
number of hours of acoustic detections conducted.
    LGL, a contractor for L-DEO, has processed sighting and density 
data, and their publications can be viewed online at: http://www.lgl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=162⟨=en. Post-cruise monitoring 
reports are currently available on the NMFS' MMPA Incidental Take 
Program website and on the NSF Web site (http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/index.jsp) should there be interest in further analysis of this 
data by the public.
    Comment 11: The NSB recommends that NMFS require that all seismic 
surveys, regardless of their location or timing in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas, undergo the independent peer review process.
    Response: 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 incidental take authorization 
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. UAGI provided NMFS with a 
draft IHA application in early March, 2011, which included information 
on the timing and location of its proposed seismic lines. For reasons 
stated in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011) and 
later in this document, NMFS determined it was not necessary to have 
UAGI's monitoring plan peer reviewed. The survey will occur in an area 
that is between 250 and 800 km (155 and 497 mi) northwest of Barrow and 
Wainwright. Sound levels in the closest portion of the survey area will 
attenuate to 120 dB at approximately 50 km (31 mi) from the coast. The 
bowhead whales will be traveling from the east in a westward direction, 
and will reach Barrow prior to entering the sound field of the survey. 
The survey will occur after the conclusion of the spring and summer 
beluga hunts in the Chukchi Sea. If any beluga hunting continues into 
early September, it will be when the vessel is transiting to the site, 
approximately 80 km (50 mi) offshore. Seal hunting occurs closer to 
shore and typically does not occur beyond 40 km (25 mi) from the coast. 
Additionally, a Barrow resident will be aboard the Langseth in order to 
communicate with hunters.
    Since NMFS preliminarily determined (based on the information 
contained in the draft IHA application) that UAGI'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. Anyone is able to make recommendations on a 
proposed monitoring plan during the 30-day public comment period that 
is afforded during the proposed IHA process. NMFS will continue to make 
determinations on which activities require an independent peer review 
of the monitoring plans on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the 
implementing regulations.
    Comment 12: The NSB states that NMFS should require each IHA 
applicant to contribute funding or support to gather additional 
scientific information about the long-term impacts of anthropogenic 
sounds on bowhead and beluga whales. This could occur through satellite 
tracking, more extensive aerial or acoustic surveys, or physiological 
studies related to stress or impacts to hearing.
    Response: NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(14) 
indicate that NMFS encourages additional research and that applicants 
should coordinate with others conducting research on marine mammals in 
the same area. However, NMFS is unable to require that an applicant 
provide funding to those already conducting research on marine mammals.
    The research scientist involved with this survey plans to use 
seismic equipment to investigate the tectonic structure in the 
Amerasian basin. While the study of long term impacts to marine mammals 
that deflect away from anthropogenic sound is outside of the proposed 
scope of this project, UAGI does support a variety of scientists and 
research at its institution, including

[[Page 54440]]

marine mammal research. Data collected by PSOs on the Langseth during 
the survey will be made publicly available for further analysis by 
interested parties. This research project received funding from NSF. 
NSF has provided support and funding for workshops, conferences, and 
meetings related to the issue of anthropogenic sound in the marine 
environment and research proposals to enhance monitoring and mitigation 
measures for marine species, with a particular focus on marine mammals. 
NSF is receptive to receiving science proposals for funding 
consideration, including those to investigate anthropogenic sound in 
the marine environment and potential long-term effects. Proposals 
received would be reviewed and considered for funding through the 
standard NSF merit review process.
    Comment 13: The NSB states that NMFS should request UAGI to revise 
their IHA application and take estimates to account for the migration 
of marine mammals through the proposed survey area.
    Response: NMFS does not agree that the take estimates need to be 
revised for bowhead and beluga whales to account for migration. First, 
evidence has shown that the bowhead whale fall migratory route through 
the Chukchi Sea is more spread out than in the Beaufort Sea, where 
whales tend to have a more confined migratory corridor due to ice 
conditions. In a recent satellite tagging study, Quakenbush et al. 
(2010) concluded from GPS data that bowhead whales do not spend much 
time in the northern Chukchi Sea or the Arctic Ocean north of the 
Chukchi Sea, near UAGI's 2011 seismic survey. Quakenbush et al. (2010) 
note that most of the whales moved west through the Chukchi Sea between 
71[deg] and 74[deg] N. UAGI's study area occurs between 72.5-77[deg] N. 
Based on that data, only part of the survey area occurs in the 
migratory corridor. Kernel densities from the study showed that areas 
with the highest probability of bowhead use from September to December 
were near Point Barrow and the northeast Chukotka coast; the area along 
the east coast of Wrangel Island also had a moderate probability of use 
(Quakenbush et al., 2010). In addition, movements and behavior of 
tagged bowhead whales in this study indicated that the greatest 
potential for disturbance from industrial activities is near Point 
Barrow in September and October and in the lease area in September. 
These locations are a considerable distance from UAGI's survey area.
    UAGI used data collected during recent aerial surveys in the 
Chukchi Sea to determine likely densities of cetaceans in the fall. 
These data are considered the best available. Therefore, NMFS has 
determined that the authorized levels of take are appropriate. 
Reasoning for this determination was provided in the Notice of Proposed 
IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). Additionally, UAGI included an 
additional 25 percent of survey tracklines into the calculations to 
account for lines associated with turns, airgun testing, and repeat 
coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. 
Because UAGI multiplied the expected species density times the 
anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during airgun 
operations in each depth stratum, excluding overlap, this 25 percent 
contingency is included in the take calculations. Based on the 
reasoning provided here, NMFS has determined that it is unnecessary to 
recalculate the take estimates for bowhead and beluga whales or any 
other marine mammals that may occur in the seismic survey project area.
    Comment 14: The Commission recommends that NMFS consult with the 
funding agency (i.e., NSF) and individual applicants (e.g., UAGI, L-DEO 
and U.S. Geological Survey) to develop, validate, and implement a 
monitoring program that provides a scientifically sound, reasonably 
accurate assessment of the types of marine mammal taking and number of 
marine mammals taken.
    Response: Studies have reported on the abundance and distribution 
of marine mammals inhabiting the Arctic Ocean in the Chukchi Sea, which 
overlaps with the seismic survey area, and UAGI has incorporated this 
data into their analyses used to predict marine mammal take in their 
application. NMFS believes that UAGI's current approach for estimating 
abundance in the survey area (prior to the survey) is the best 
available approach.
    There will be significant amounts of transit time during the 
cruise, and PSOs will be on watch prior to and after the seismic 
portions of the survey, in addition to during the survey. The 
collection of this visual observational data by PSOs may contribute to 
baseline data on marine mammals (presence/absence) and provide some 
generalized support for estimated take numbers, but it is unlikely that 
the information gathered from this single cruise would result in any 
statistically robust conclusions for any particular species because of 
the small number of animals typically observed.
    NMFS acknowledges the MMC's recommendations and is open to further 
coordination with the MMC, NSF (the vessel owner), and L-DEO (the ship 
operator on behalf of NSF), to develop, validate, and implement a 
monitoring program that will provide or contribute towards a more 
accurate assessment of the types of marine mammal taking and the number 
of marine mammals taken. However, the cruise's primary focus is marine 
geophysical research, and the survey may be operationally limited due 
to considerations such as location, time, fuel, services, and other 
resources.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The Chukchi Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, 
including: bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, minke, humpback, and fin 
whales; harbor porpoise; ringed, ribbon, spotted, and bearded seals; 
narwhals; polar bears; and walruses. The bowhead, humpback, and fin 
whales are listed as endangered, and the polar bear is listed as 
threatened under the U.S. ESA. All of these species are also considered 
depleted under the MMPA. On December 10, 2010, NMFS published a 
notification of proposed threatened status for subspecies of the ringed 
seal (75 FR 77476) and a notification of proposed threatened and not 
warranted status for subspecies and distinct population segments of the 
bearded seal (75 FR 77496) in the Federal Register. Neither species is 
considered depleted under the MMPA.
    The bowhead and beluga whales and the ringed and bearded seals are 
the marine mammal species most likely to be encountered during this 
survey, with the ringed seal being the most likely marine mammal 
species to occur throughout the survey area. Although humpback and 
minke whales are uncommon in the Arctic Ocean, sightings of both 
species have occurred in the Chukchi Sea in recent years (Brueggeman, 
2009; Haley et al., 2010; Clarke et al., 2011).
    There are scattered records of narwhal in Alaskan waters, where the 
species is considered extralimital (Reeves et al., 2002). Harbor 
porpoises occur mainly in shelf areas where they can dive to depths of 
at least 220 m (722 ft) and stay submerged for more than 5 min (Harwood 
and Wilson, 2001). This species prefers shallower waters, making it 
unlikely that harbor porpoises would be encountered during the proposed 
seismic survey. Because of the rarity of these two species in the 
survey area, they are not considered further in this document. The 
polar bear and walrus are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) and are

[[Page 54441]]

not considered further in this IHA notice.
    Refer to Sections III and IV of UAGI's application for detailed 
information regarding the abundance and distribution, seasonal 
distribution, population status, and life history and behavior of these 
species and their occurrence in the project area. When reviewing the 
application, NMFS determined that the species descriptions provided by 
UAGI correctly characterized the abundance and distribution, seasonal 
distribution, population status, and life history and behavior of each 
species. Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock 
Assessment Reports (SAR). The 2010 Alaska Marine Mammal SAR is 
available on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2010.pdf.
    The application also presents how UAGI calculated the estimated 
densities for the marine mammals in the survey area (see ADDRESSES). 
NMFS reviewed these data and determined them to be the best available 
scientific information for the purposes of the IHA.

Brief Background on Marine Mammal Hearing

    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based 
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using 
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, 
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of 
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and 
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range 
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
22 kHz (however, a study by Au et al. (2006) of humpback whale songs 
indicate that the range may extend to at least 24 kHz);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to 
occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest 
sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, 11 marine mammal species 
(seven cetacean and four pinniped species) are likely to occur in the 
survey area. Of the seven cetacean species likely to occur in UAGI's 
survey area, five are classified as low frequency cetaceans (i.e., 
bowhead, gray, humpback, minke, and fin whales) and two are classified 
as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and killer whales) (Southall 
et al., 2007).

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    Acoustic stimuli generated by the operation of the airguns, which 
introduce sound into the marine environment, may have the potential to 
cause Level B harassment of marine mammals in the survey area. The 
effects of sounds from airgun operations might include one or more of 
the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral 
disturbance, 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). Takes by 
serious injury or mortality are not anticipated to occur as a result of 
the proposed activities and none are authorized in the IHA.
    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 permanent hearing impairment or any 
significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Based on 
available data and studies, some behavioral disturbance is expected, 
but NMFS expects the disturbance to be localized and short-term.
    In the ``Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 
Mammals'' section of the Notice of Proposed IHA, NMFS included a 
qualitative discussion of the different ways that the seismic survey 
activities may potentially affect marine mammals. The discussion 
included potential effects from the airguns, as well as the other 
instrumentation that may be deployed during the survey (i.e., MBES, 
SBP, and ADCP). Marine mammals may experience masking and behavioral 
disturbance. The information contained in the ``Potential Effects of 
Specified Activities on Marine Mammals'' section from the proposed IHA 
has not changed. Please refer to the Notice of Proposed IHA for the 
full discussion (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). Additional information 
can also be found in UAGI's application and the NSF EA (see ADDRESSES). 
The inclusion of mitigation and monitoring measures described later in 
this document (see the ``Mitigation'' and ``Monitoring and Reporting'' 
sections) are anticipated to reduce impacts even further.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The seismic survey is not anticipated to have any permanent impact 
on habitats used by the marine mammals in the survey area, including 
the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). Additionally, 
no physical damage to any habitat is anticipated as a result of 
conducting the seismic survey. While it is anticipated that the 
specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas 
due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat is temporary 
and reversible and was considered as behavioral modification. The main 
impact associated with the activity will be temporarily elevated noise 
levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals.
    The Notice of Proposed IHA contained a full discussion of the 
potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and prey species in the 
project area. No changes have been made to that discussion. Please 
refer to the Notice of Proposed IHA for the full discussion of 
potential impacts to marine mammal habitat (76 FR 41463, July 14, 
2011). NMFS has determined that UAGI's marine seismic survey is not 
expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
on the food sources that they utilize.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set 
forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and 
other means of effecting the least practicable 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

[[Page 54442]]

such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant).
    UAGI and L-DEO have based the mitigation measures described herein, 
to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey, on the following:
    (1) Protocols used during previous L-DEO seismic research cruises 
as approved by NMFS; and
    (2) Recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson 
et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman (2007).
    To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli 
associated with the proposed activities, UAGI and/or its designees will 
implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
    (1) Exclusion zones;
    (2) Power-down procedures;
    (3) Shut-down procedures; and
    (4) Ramp-up procedures.

Planning Phase

    Prior to submitting a final MMPA ITA request to NMFS, NSF works 
with the scientists that propose studies to determine when to conduct 
the research study. Dr. Coakley worked with L-DEO and NSF to identify 
potential time periods to carry out the survey, taking into 
consideration key factors such as environmental conditions (i.e., ice 
conditions, the seasonal presence of marine mammals and sea birds), 
weather conditions, and equipment. The project's timeframe avoids the 
eastward (spring) bowhead migration but overlaps with that of the 
westward fall migration and the subsistence bowhead hunt along the 
north shore of Alaska near Barrow. To avoid disturbance, the seismic 
survey has been scheduled to depart from Dutch Harbor in early 
September and remain at least 200 km (124 mi) from Barrow during 
transit to and from the survey area, which is approximately 250-800 km 
(155-497 mi) northwest of Barrow. Also, to reduce potential effects, 
the size of the energy source was reduced from the Langseth's 36-
airgun, 6600-in\3\ array to a 10-airgun, 1830-in\3\ array.

Exclusion Zones

    Received sound levels for the 10-airgun array have been predicted 
by Marine Acoustics Inc. in relation to distance and direction from the 
airguns, and received sound levels for a single 40-in\3\ mitigation 
airgun have been predicted by L-DEO. Table 1 shows the distances at 
which three rms sound levels are expected to be received from the 10-
airgun array and a single airgun at shallow, intermediate, and deep 
water depths. 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. For the 10-
airgun array, the 180-dB radius for each of the three water depth 
categories is as follows: 425 m (0.26 mi) in deep water; 1,400 m (0.87 
mi) in intermediate water; and 1,870 m (1.16 mi) in shallow water. For 
the 10-airgun array, the 190-dB radius for each of the three water 
depth categories is as follows: 130 m (426.5 ft) in deep water; 130 m 
(426.5 ft) in intermediate water; and 190 m (623.4 ft) in shallow 
water. If the protected species visual observer (PSVO) detects marine 
mammal(s) within or about to enter the appropriate EZ, the airguns will 
be powered down (or shut down if necessary) immediately.

Power-Down Procedures

    A power-down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such 
that the radius of the 180 dB (or 190 dB) zone is 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, 
UAGI and L-DEO will operate one airgun. The continued operation of one 
airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the 
seismic vessel in the area. In contrast, a shut-down occurs when the 
Langseth suspends all airgun activity.
    If the PSVO detects a marine mammal outside the EZ, but it is 
likely to enter the EZ, the airguns will be powered-down before the 
animal is within the applicable EZ (dependent upon species). Likewise, 
if a marine mammal is already within the EZ when first detected, UAGI 
and L-DEO will power-down the airguns immediately. During a power-down 
of the airgun array, UAGI will also operate the 40 in\3\ airgun. If a 
marine mammal is detected within or near the smaller EZ around that 
single airgun (Table 1), UAGI and L-DEO will shut-down the airgun (see 
next section).
    Following a power-down, airgun activity will not resume until the 
marine mammal has cleared the EZ. UAGI and L-DEO will consider the 
animal to have cleared the EZ if:
     A PSVO has visually observed the animal leave the EZ, or
     A PSVO has not sighted the animal within the EZ for 15 min 
for species with shorter dive durations (i.e., small odontocetes or 
pinnipeds), or 30 min for species with longer dive durations (i.e., 
mysticetes; no large odontocetes, such as sperm whales, or beaked 
whales occur in the survey area).
    The airgun array will be ramped up gradually after the marine 
mammal has cleared the EZ (see Ramp-up Procedures).

Shut-Down Procedures

    UAGI and L-DEO will shut down the operating airgun(s) if a marine 
mammal is seen within or approaching the EZ for the single airgun. A 
shut-down shall be implemented:
    (1) If an animal 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 the single 
airgun when more than one airgun (typically the full airgun array) is 
operating.
    UAGI and L-DEO shall not resume airgun activity until the marine 
mammal has cleared the EZ or until the PSVO is confident that the 
animal has left the vicinity of the vessel. Criteria for judging that 
the animal has cleared the EZ will be as described in the preceding 
section regarding a power-down.

Ramp-Up Procedures

    UAGI and L-DEO shall follow a ramp-up procedure when the airgun 
array begins operating after a specified period without airgun 
operations or when a power-down has exceeded that period. For the 
present cruise, this period would be approximately 8 min. L-DEO has 
used similar periods (approximately 8 to 10 min) during previous L-DEO 
surveys.
    Ramp-up will begin with the smallest airgun in the array (40 
in\3\). 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 15-20 min. During ramp-up, the 
PSVOs will monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, UAGI and 
L-DEO will implement a power-down or shut-down as though the full 
airgun array were operational.
    If the complete EZ has not been visible for at least 30 min prior 
to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, ramp-up 
shall not commence unless at least one airgun (40 in\3\ or similar) has 
been operating during the interruption of seismic survey operations. 
Given these provisions, it is likely that the airgun array will not be 
ramped-up from a complete shut-down at night or in thick fog, because 
the outer part of the safety zone for that array will not be visible 
during those conditions. 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. UAGI and

[[Page 54443]]

L-DEO shall not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if a marine mammal is 
sighted within or near the applicable EZs during the day or night.

Speed and Course Alterations

    UAGI and L-DEO are required to alter the speed or course of the 
vessel during seismic operations if a marine mammal, based on its 
position and relative motion, appears likely to enter the relevant EZ. 
If speed or course alteration is not safe or practicable, or if after 
alteration the marine mammal still appears likely to enter the EZ, 
further mitigation measures, such as a power-down or shut-down (as 
described in the previous sections), shall be taken.

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures 
and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring 
that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable 
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their 
habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of 
the following factors in relation to one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures and a range of 
other measures, NMFS has determined that the required mitigation 
measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular 
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance. Measures to ensure availability of such species or stock 
for taking for certain subsistence uses is discussed later in this 
document (see ``Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for 
Taking for Subsistence Uses'' section).

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, set forth 
``requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such 
taking''. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 
indicate that requests for ITAs 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 in the action area.
    UAGI will sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the project, in 
order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time 
monitoring and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the IHA. 
UAGI's Monitoring Plan is described next. 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. UAGI 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

    PSVOs will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will watch 
for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and 
during any ramp-ups at night. PSVOs will also watch for marine mammals 
near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of 
airgun operations after an extended shut-down (as described in the 
``Mitigation'' section earlier in this document). PSVOs will conduct 
observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not 
operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and 
without airgun operations and between acquisition periods. Based on 
PSVO observations, the airguns will be powered-down or shut-down when 
marine mammals are observed within or about to enter a designated EZ.
    During seismic operations in the Arctic Ocean, at least five PSOs 
will be based aboard the Langseth. L-DEO will appoint the PSOs with 
NMFS' concurrence. Observations will take place during ongoing daytime 
operations and nighttime ramp-ups of the airguns. During the majority 
of seismic operations, two PSVOs will be on duty from the observation 
tower to monitor marine mammals near the seismic vessel. Use of two 
simultaneous PSVOs will increase the effectiveness of detecting animals 
near the source vessel. However, during meal times and bathroom breaks, 
it is sometimes difficult to have two PSVOs on effort, but at least one 
PSVO will be on duty. PSVO(s) will be on duty in shifts of duration no 
longer than 4 hr.
    Two PSVOs will also be on visual watch during all nighttime ramp-
ups of the seismic airguns. A third PSO will monitor the passive 
acoustic monitoring (PAM) equipment 24 hours a day to detect vocalizing 
marine mammals present in the action area. In summary, a typical 
daytime cruise would have scheduled two PSVOs on duty from the 
observation tower, and a third PSO on PAM. Other crew will also be 
instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing 
mitigation requirements (if practical). Before the start of the seismic 
survey, the crew will be given additional instruction on how to do so.
    The Langseth is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. 
When stationed on the observation platform, the eye level will be 
approximately 21.5 m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the PSVO will have 
a good view around the entire vessel. During daytime, the PSVOs will 
scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars 
(e.g., 7 x 50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 x 150), and with the 
naked eye. During darkness, night vision devices (NVDs) will be 
available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or 
equivalent), when required. Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica LRF 
1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with 
distance estimation. Those are useful in training observers to estimate 
distances visually but are generally not useful in measuring distances 
to animals directly; that is done primarily with the reticles in the 
binoculars.
    When marine mammals are detected within or about to enter the 
designated EZ, the airguns will immediately be powered-down or shut-
down if necessary. The PSO(s) will continue to maintain watch to 
determine when the animal(s) are outside the EZ by visual confirmation. 
Airgun operations will not resume until the animal is confirmed to have 
left the EZ, or if not observed after 15 min for species with shorter 
dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min for species 
with longer dive durations (mysticetes).

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)

    PAM will complement the visual monitoring program, when 
practicable. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during 
periods of poor visibility or at night, and even with good visibility, 
is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or 
beyond visual range.
    Besides the three PSVOs, an additional Protected Species Acoustic 
Observer (PSAO) with primary responsibility for PAM will also be aboard 
the vessel. UAGI and L-DEO can use acoustic monitoring in addition to

[[Page 54444]]

visual observations to improve detection, identification, and 
localization of marine mammals. The acoustic monitoring will serve to 
alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing marine mammals are 
detected. It is only useful when marine mammals call, but it can be 
effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good 
visibility. It will be monitored in real time so that the PSVOs can be 
advised when animals are detected acoustically. When bearings (primary 
and mirror-image) to calling animal(s) are determined, the bearings 
will be relayed to the visual observer to help him/her sight the 
calling animal(s).
    The PAM system consists of hardware (i.e., hydrophones) and 
software. The ``wet end'' of the system consists of a towed hydrophone 
array that is connected to the vessel by a tow cable. The array will be 
deployed from a winch located on the back deck. A deck cable will 
connect from the winch to the main computer laboratory where the 
acoustic station and signal conditioning and processing system will be 
located. The digitized signal and PAM system is monitored by PSAOs at a 
station in the main laboratory. The hydrophone array is typically towed 
at depths of less than 20 m (66 ft).
    Ideally, the PSAO will monitor the towed hydrophones 24 hr per day 
at the seismic survey area during airgun operations and during most 
periods when the Langseth is underway while the airguns are not 
operating. However, PAM may not be possible if damage occurs to both 
the primary and back-up hydrophone arrays during operations. The 
primary PAM streamer on the Langseth is a digital hydrophone streamer. 
Should the digital streamer fail, back-up systems should include an 
analog spare streamer and a hull-mounted hydrophone. Every effort would 
be made to have a working PAM system during the cruise. In the unlikely 
event that all three of these systems were to fail, UAGI would continue 
science acquisition with the visual-based observer program. The PAM 
system is a supplementary enhancement to the visual monitoring program. 
If weather conditions were to prevent the use of PAM, then conditions 
would also likely prevent the use of the airgun array.
    One PSAO will monitor the acoustic detection system at any one 
time, by listening to the signals from two channels via headphones and/
or speakers and watching the real-time spectrographic display for 
frequency ranges produced by marine mammals. PSAOs monitoring the 
acoustical data will be on shift for 1-6 hours at a time. Besides the 
PSVO, an additional PSAO with primary responsibility for PAM will also 
be aboard the source vessel. All PSVOs are expected to rotate through 
the PAM position, although the most experienced with acoustics will be 
on PAM duty more frequently.
    When a vocalization is detected while visual observations are in 
progress, the PSAO will contact the PSVO immediately, to alert him/her 
to the presence of marine mammals (if they have not already been seen), 
and to allow a power-down or shut-down to be initiated, if required. 
The information regarding the call will be entered into a database. 
Data entry will include an acoustic encounter identification number, 
whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and 
last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, 
position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, 
species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), 
types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, 
whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any 
other notable information. The acoustic detection can also be recorded 
for further analysis.

PSVO Data and Documentation

    PSVOs 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 airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the 
EZ. Observations will also be made during daytime periods when the 
Langseth is underway without seismic operations.
    When a sighting is made, the following information about the 
sighting will be recorded:
    1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
apparent reaction to the airguns 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) 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 and power-downs or shut-downs will be recorded in 
a standardized format. Data will be entered into an electronic 
database. The accuracy of the 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 from 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.
    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.
    UAGI will submit a report to NMFS and NSF 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 provide full documentation of methods, results, and 
interpretation pertaining to all 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 report will also include estimates of 
the number and nature of exposures that could result in ``takes'' of 
marine mammals by harassment or in other ways.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, 
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality 
(e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), UAGI and L-
DEO will immediately cease the specified activities and immediately 
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits, Conservation and 
Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following 
information:

[[Page 54445]]

     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with UAGI to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. UAGI may not resume their 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
    In the event that UAGI discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, 
and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is 
unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a 
moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), 
UAGI will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits, 
Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the 
Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the 
same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities may 
continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS 
will work with UAGI to determine whether modifications in the 
activities are appropriate.
    In the event that UAGI discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, 
and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated 
with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), UAGI will report the incident to 
the Chief of the Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office 
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline 
and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 
24 hours of the discovery. UAGI will provide photographs or video 
footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal 
sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Activities 
may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

Estimated Take by Incidental 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].'' Only take by Level B harassment is 
anticipated and authorized as a result of the marine seismic survey in 
the Arctic Ocean. Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) 
generated during the operation of the seismic airgun array may have the 
potential to cause marine mammals in the survey area to be exposed to 
sounds at or greater than 160 dB or cause temporary, short-term changes 
in behavior. NMFS also assumes that marine mammals exposed to levels 
exceeding 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) may experience Level B harassment. 
The use of the ADCP is not anticipated to result in the take of low-
frequency cetaceans or pinnipeds, as the frequency for this device is 
outside of or at the extreme upper end of the hearing ranges of these 
species. There is no evidence that the planned activities could result 
in injury, serious injury, or mortality within the specified geographic 
area. The required mitigation and monitoring measures will minimize any 
potential risk for injury, serious injury, or mortality.
    The Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011) described 
UAGI's methods to estimate take by incidental harassment and presented 
the applicant's estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could 
be affected during the seismic program. The estimates are based on a 
consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be disturbed 
appreciably by operations with the 10-airgun array to be used during 
approximately 5,500 km (3,417.5 mi) of survey lines in the Arctic 
Ocean. A summary of that information is provided here. However, the 
reader should refer to the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 
14, 2011) for the full discussion.
    The anticipated radii of influence of the MBES, SBP, and ADCP are 
less than those for the airgun array. UAGI assumes that, during 
simultaneous operations of the airgun array and the other sources 
(which will be the case the majority of the time), 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 sources, marine mammals are 
expected to exhibit no more than short-term and inconsequential 
responses to the MBES, SBP, and ADCP given their characteristics (e.g., 
narrow, downward-directed beam) and other considerations described 
previously. Therefore, UAGI provides no additional allowance for 
animals that could be affected by sound sources other than airguns.
    UAGI calculated densities using data from the Chukchi Sea for the 
fall in depth strata 35-50 m (115-164 ft), 51-200 m (167-656 ft), and 
greater than 200 m (656 ft), mean group sizes from the Beaufort Whale 
Aerial Survey Project (BWASP) database, and values for trackline 
detection probability bias and availability bias, f(0) and g(0), from 
Harwood et al. (1996) for belugas, Thomas et al. (2002) for bowhead 
whales, and Forney and Barlow (1998) for gray whales. Based on the lack 
of any beluga whale sightings and very low densities of bowheads 
(0.0003-0.0044/km\2\) and gray whales (0.0026-0.0042/km\2\) during non-
seismic periods of industry vessel operations in the Chukchi Sea in 
September-October 2006-2008 (Haley et al., 2010), and the lack of 
beluga, bowhead, or gray whale sightings during arctic cruises by the 
Healy in August-September 2005 or July-August 2006 (Haley 2006; Haley 
and Ireland 2006), the calculated densities are possibly overestimates. 
Accordingly, they were reduced by an order of magnitude. Densities were 
calculated for depths greater than 200 m (656 ft) and less than 200 m 
(656 ft); in the latter case, the densities were effort-weighted 
averages of the 35-50 m (115-164 ft) and 51-200 m (167-656 ft) 
densities.
    There is evidence of the occasional occurrence of humpback, minke, 
fin, and killer whales in the northern Chukchi Sea, but because they 
occur so infrequently in the Chukchi Sea, little to no data are 
available for the calculation of densities. Minimal densities were 
therefore assigned to these species to allow for chance encounters.
    Four species of pinnipeds under NMFS jurisdiction could be 
encountered in the seismic survey area: ringed seal, bearded seal, 
ribbon seal, and spotted seal. Bengtson et al. (2005) reported ringed 
and bearded seal densities in nearshore fast ice and pack

[[Page 54446]]

ice and offshore pack ice based on aerial surveys in May-June 1999 and 
May 2000; ringed seal but not bearded seal densities were corrected for 
haulout behavior. UAGI used densities from the offshore stratum (12P). 
Bearded seal densities were used for water depths less than 200 m (656 
ft) and were assumed to be zero in water depths greater than 200 m (656 
ft) because they are predominantly benthic feeders. The fall densities 
of ringed seals in the open water of the offshore survey area have been 
estimated as \1/10\ of the spring pack ice densities because ringed 
seals are strongly associated with sea ice and begin to reoccupy 
nearshore fast ice areas as it forms in the fall. The resulting 
densities (.081/km\2\ in 1999 and .023/km\2\ in 2000) are similar to 
ringed seal density estimates (0.016/km\2\ to 0.069/km\2\) from 
industry vessel operations during summer 2006-2008 (Haley et al., 
2010).
    Little information is available on spotted seal or ribbon seal 
densities in offshore areas of the Chukchi Sea. Spotted seal density in 
the summer was estimated by multiplying the ringed seal density by 
0.02. This calculation was based on the ratio of the estimated Chukchi 
populations of the two species: 8% of the Alaskan population of spotted 
seals is present in the Chukchi Sea during the summer and fall (Rugh et 
al., 1997); the Alaskan population of spotted seals is 59,214 (Allen 
and Angliss, 2010); and the population of ringed seals in the Alaskan 
Chukchi Sea is greater than 208,000 (Bengtson et al., 2005). The ribbon 
seal density used is based on two ribbon seal sightings reported during 
industry vessel operations in the Chukchi Sea in 2006-2008 (Haley et 
al., 2010).
    Table 2 in this document (and Table 3 in UAGI's application) 
provides the estimated densities of marine mammals expected to occur in 
the survey area. As noted previously, there is some uncertainty about 
the representativeness of the data and assumptions used in the 
calculations. It is not known how closely the densities that were used 
reflect the actual densities that will be encountered; however, the 
approach used here is believed to be the best available at this time.
    The estimated numbers of individuals potentially exposed are 
presented below based on the 160-dB re 1 [mu]Parms criterion for all 
marine mammals.

  Table 2--Expected Densities of Marine Mammals in the Offshore Survey
 Area of the Arctic Ocean North of the Chukchi Sea in September-October
2011. Cetacean Densities Are Corrected for f(0) and g(0) Biases. Species
                  Listed as Endangered Are in Italics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Density (/ Density (/
             Species                1000 km\2\) in      1000 km\2\) in
                                     depths <200 m       depths >200 m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes
    Bowhead Whale...............                1.87                   0
    Gray Whale..................                1.48                   0
    Fin Whale...................                0.01                0.01
    Humpback Whale..............                0.01                0.01
    Minke Whale.................                0.01                0.01
Odontocetes
    Beluga......................                1.65                6.78
    Killer whale................                0.01                0.01
Pinnipeds
    Bearded Seal................               14.18                   0
    Spotted Seal................                0.98                0.98
    Ringed Seal.................               48.92               48.92
    Ribbon Seal.................                0.27                0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UAGI's estimates of exposures to various sound levels assume that 
the survey will be fully completed; in fact, the ensonified areas 
calculated using the planned number of line-kilometers have been 
increased by 25% to accommodate turns, lines that may need to be 
repeated, equipment testing, etc. As is typical during offshore ship 
surveys, inclement weather and equipment malfunctions are likely to 
cause delays and may limit the number of useful line-kilometers of 
seismic operations that can be undertaken. The Langseth is not ice-
strengthened and will completely avoid ice, so it is very likely that 
the survey will not be completed because ice likely will be present. 
Furthermore, any marine mammal sightings within or near the designated 
EZ will result in the shut-down of seismic operations as a mitigation 
measure. Thus, the following estimates of the numbers of marine mammals 
potentially exposed to 160-dB (rms) sounds are precautionary, and 
probably overestimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that might 
be involved. These estimates assume that there will be no ice, weather, 
equipment, or mitigation delays, which is highly unlikely.
    UAGI estimated the number of different individuals that may be 
exposed to airgun sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 
160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) on one or more occasions by considering the 
total marine area that would be within the 160 dB radius around the 
operating airgun array on at least one occasion and the expected 
density of marine mammals. The number of possible exposures (including 
repeated exposures of the same individuals) can be estimated by 
considering the total marine area that would be within the 160 dB 
radius around the operating airguns, including areas of overlap. In the 
survey, the seismic lines are widely spaced in the survey area, so few 
individual marine mammals would be exposed more than once during the 
survey. The area including overlap is only 1.3 times the area excluding 
overlap. Moreover, it is unlikely that a particular animal would stay 
in the area during the entire survey. The number of different 
individuals potentially exposed to received levels greater than or 
equal to 160 re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) was calculated by multiplying:
    (1) The expected species density, times
    (2) The anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during 
airgun operations in each depth stratum, excluding overlap.
    Table 4 in UAGI's application shows the estimates of the number of 
different individual marine mammals that potentially could be exposed 
to sounds greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) during the 
proposed seismic

[[Page 54447]]

survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. Table 3 in this 
document presents the abundance of the different species or stocks, 
authorized take, and the percentage of the regional population or 
stock. The take estimates presented in this section of the document do 
not take into consideration the mitigation and monitoring measures that 
are required by the IHA.

Table 3--Population Abundance Estimates, Total Proposed Take, and the Percentage of the Population or Stock That
  May Be Exposed to Sounds >160 db re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) During the Proposed Seismic Survey in the Arctic Ocean,
                                             September-October 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Percentage of
                    Species                         Abundance \1\        Authorized take     population or stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead Whale.................................            \2\ 14,731                    89                   0.6
Gray Whale....................................                19,126                    71                   0.4
Humpback Whale................................            \3\ 20,800                     2                  0.01
Minke Whale...................................                   810                     2                   0.2
Fin Whale.....................................                 5,700                     2                  0.04
Beluga Whale..................................            \4\ 42,968                   794                   1.8
Killer Whale..................................               \5\ 768                     2                   0.3
Bearded Seal..................................       250,000-300,000                   677               0.2-0.3
Spotted Seal..................................                59,214                   150                   0.3
Ringed Seal...................................               249,000                 7,492                     3
Ribbon Seal...................................                49,000                    42                  0.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless stated otherwise, abundance estimates are from Allen and Angliss (2011).
\2\ Based on estimate of 10,545 individuals in 2001 with a 3.4% annual growth rate (George et al., 2004 and
  revised by Zeh and Punt, 2005).
\3\ North Pacific Ocean (Barlow et al., 2009).
\4\ Based on estimates for the eastern Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea stocks (Allen and Angliss, 2011).
\5\ Based on estimates for the Northern resident and transient stocks (Allen and Angliss, 2011).

Encouraging and Coordinating Research

    UAGI and NSF 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 the area and/or be 
conducting marine mammal studies in the same region during the seismic 
survey. No other marine mammal studies are expected to occur in 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. UAGI and NSF have 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 Analysis and Determination

    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.'' In making a negligible impact determination, 
NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) 
The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of 
anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration 
of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the takes occur.
    For reasons stated previously in this document, no injuries or 
mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of UAGI's seismic 
survey, and none are authorized by NMFS. Additionally, for reasons 
presented earlier in this document, temporary hearing impairment (and 
especially permanent hearing impairment) is not anticipated to occur 
during the specified activity. Impacts to marine mammals are 
anticipated to be in the form of Level B behavioral harassment only, 
due to the brief duration and sporadic nature of the survey. Certain 
species may have a behavioral reaction (e.g., increased swim speed, 
avoidance of the area, etc.) to the sound emitted during the marine 
seismic survey. Table 3 in this document outlines the number of Level B 
harassment takes that are anticipated as a result of the activities. No 
mortality or injury is expected to occur, and due to the nature, 
degree, and context of behavioral harassment anticipated, the activity 
is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival. The survey 
would not occur in any areas designated as critical habitat for ESA-
listed species. Additionally, the seismic survey will not adversely 
impact marine mammal habitat.
    While some of the species could potentially occur in the survey 
area year-round, some species only occur at certain times of the year. 
In the fall, bowhead whales begin their westward migration through the 
Beaufort Sea in late August/early September. The whales usually reach 
Barrow around mid-September. It is likely that most bowhead whales will 
not enter the survey area until about the second half of the survey 
time period. Additionally, humpback and fin whales have only started to 
be sighted in the Chukchi Sea in the last 5-6 years. As the extent of 
Arctic sea ice begins to change, these species may be expanding their 
normal range further north. However, this is still considered the 
extreme northern edge of the range of these species, so it is unlikely 
that they will be present throughout the entire survey time period.
    Of the 11 marine mammal species likely to occur in the survey area, 
three are listed as endangered under the ESA: bowhead, humpback, and 
fin whale. All of these species are also considered depleted under the 
MMPA. The affected bowhead whale stock has been increasing at a rate of 
3.4% per year since 2001. On December 10, 2010, NMFS published a 
notification of proposed threatened status for subspecies of the ringed 
seal (75 FR 77476) and a notification of proposed threatened and not 
warranted status for subspecies and distinct population segments of the 
bearded seal (75 FR 77496) in the Federal Register. Neither species is 
considered depleted under the MMPA. The listing for these species is 
not anticipated to be completed prior to the end of this seismic 
survey. Certain stocks of beluga whale and spotted seal are listed or 
proposed for

[[Page 54448]]

listing under the ESA. However, those stocks do not occur in the 
project area.
    As was noted in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 
2011), many cetacean species, especially mysticetes, may display 
avoidance reactions and not enter into areas close to the active airgun 
array. However, alternate areas are available to these species. The 
location of the survey is not a known feeding ground for these species. 
It is not used for breeding or nursing. Although ice seals breed and 
nurse in the Chukchi Sea, the survey occurs outside of the time for ice 
seal breeding or nursing in the Chukchi Sea.
    The population estimates for the species that may potentially be 
taken as a result of UAGI's seismic survey were presented earlier in 
this document. For reasons described earlier in this document, the 
maximum calculated number of individual marine mammals for each species 
that could potentially be taken by harassment is small relative to the 
overall population sizes (3% for ringed seals, 1.8% for beluga whales, 
and less than 1% of each of the other 9 marine mammal populations or 
stocks).
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the required mitigation and 
monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the seismic survey will result in 
the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals and that the 
total taking from UAGI's activities will have a negligible impact on 
the affected species or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for 
Subsistence Uses

Relevant Subsistence Uses

    Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska Native culture and 
community. Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by 
coastal Alaska Natives. In rural Alaska, subsistence activities are 
often central to many aspects of human existence, including patterns of 
family life, artistic expression, and community religious and 
celebratory activities. Additionally, the animals taken for subsistence 
provide a significant portion of the food that will last the community 
throughout the year. The main species that are hunted include bowhead 
and beluga whales, ringed, spotted, and bearded seals, walruses, and 
polar bears. (As mentioned previously in this document, both the walrus 
and the polar bear are under the USFWS' jurisdiction.) The importance 
of each of these species varies among the communities and is largely 
based on availability.
    Barrow and Wainwright, which is in the Chukchi Sea, are the two 
villages that are closest to the survey area, which will be initiated 
more than 200 km (124 mi) offshore. Marine mammals are also hunted in 
the Beaufort Sea villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut (mostly from Cross 
Island). Other villages in the Chukchi Sea that hunt for marine mammals 
include Point Lay, Point Hope, Kivalina, and Kotzebue. The villages of 
Kivalina and Kotzebue are many hundreds of miles south of the project 
area.
(1) Bowhead Whale
    Bowhead whale hunting is the key activity in the subsistence 
economies of Barrow and two smaller communities to the east, Nuiqsut 
and Kaktovik. Bowhead whales are also hunted by communities along the 
Chukchi Sea. The community of Barrow hunts bowhead whales in both the 
spring and fall during the whales' seasonal migrations along the coast. 
The communities of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik participate only in the fall 
bowhead harvest. The spring hunt at Barrow occurs after leads open 
because of the deterioration of pack ice; the spring hunt typically 
occurs from early April until the first week of June. The fall 
migration of bowhead whales that summer in the eastern Beaufort Sea 
typically begins in late August or September. The location of the fall 
subsistence hunt depends on ice conditions and (in some years) 
industrial activities that influence the bowheads' movements 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 (50 mi) offshore. The autumn hunt at Barrow 
usually begins in mid-September, and mainly occurs in the waters east 
and northeast of Point Barrow. The whales have usually left the 
Beaufort Sea by late October (Treacy, 2002a,b). Along the Chukchi Sea 
coast, bowhead whales have recently primarily been hunted during the 
spring, between March and June. However, with changing ice patterns, 
there is a possibility that Chukchi Sea villages could begin 
participating in fall bowhead whale hunts. Table 4 in this document 
(Table 5 in UAGI's application) presents harvest data for the years 
1993-2008 for bowhead whale hunts in five North Slope communities.
    The survey will not have any impacts on the spring bowhead whale 
hunt by communities along the Chukchi Sea and Barrow, as those hunts 
are completed many months prior to the beginning of this survey. The 
villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut are several hundred miles to the east 
of the survey location. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated on the 
fall hunts at Kaktovik or Nuiqsut (Cross Island). The closest 
tracklines to Barrow are more than 200 km (124 mi) and in most cases 
between 250 and 800 km (155-497 mi) to the northwest of Barrow. The 
whales will reach Barrow before they enter into the survey area and 
even before entering into the area where sound attenuates to 120 dB for 
the 10-airgun array.
(2) Beluga Whale
    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 hunt is finished before turning their attention to hunting 
belugas. Few, if any, belugas are taken by Kaktovik and Nuiqsut hunters 
and only during the fall whale harvest. Along the Chukchi Sea, belugas 
are hunted during the spring and in the summer (between July and 
August) by residents of Wainwright and Point Hope. Near Point Lay, 
belugas are taken in June and July. During 2002-2006, Alaska Native 
subsistence hunters took a mean annual number of 25.4 beluga whales 
from the Beaufort Sea stock and 59 from the eastern Chukchi Sea stock. 
The average annual harvest of beluga whales taken by Barrow for 1962-
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 0 in 1987, 1988, and 1995 to the high of 8 in 1997 
(Fuller and George, 1999; Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, 2002 cited in 
USDI/BLM, 2005).
    UAGI's seismic survey is not anticipated to impact beluga hunts 
conducted by villages of the North Slope. The timing of the survey is 
after the spring and summer beluga harvests in the Chukchi Sea. 
Although hunting of beluga from Point Hope may extend into September, 
off Point Hope, the vessel will remain approximately 80 km (50 mi) from 
the coast, in transit northward to the study area.

[[Page 54449]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01SE11.010

 (3) Ice Seals
    Ringed seals are hunted by villagers along the Beaufort Sea coast 
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. Winter leads in the area 
off Point Barrow and along the barrier islands of Elson Lagoon to the 
east 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. Along the Chukchi Sea coast, ringed 
seals are mainly taken between May and September near Wainwright and 
throughout the year by Point Lay and Point Hope hunters. As the seismic 
survey will occur far offshore, the survey will not affect ringed seals 
in the nearshore areas where they are hunted. It is unlikely that 
accessibility to ringed seals during the subsistence hunt could be 
impaired during the Langseth's transit to and from the study area when 
the airguns are not operating. Although some hunting in the Chukchi Sea 
does occur as far as 32 km (20 mi) from shore, the area affected during 
transit would be in close proximity to the ship, which will be 
transiting approximately 80 km (50 mi) offshore.
    The spotted seal subsistence hunt on the Beaufort Sea coast peaks 
in July and August, at least in 1987-1990, but involves few animals. 
Spotted seals typically migrate south by October to overwinter in the 
Bering Sea. Admiralty Bay, less than 60 km (37 mi) to the east of 
Barrow (and more than 260 km [162 mi] from the survey area), 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 1987-1990 
was one (Braund et al., 1993). Along the Chukchi Sea coast, seals are 
mainly taken between May and September near Wainwright and throughout 
the year by Point Lay and Point Hope hunters.
    The seismic survey will take place at least 200 km offshore from 
the preferred nearshore harvest area of these seals. It is unlikely 
that accessibility to spotted seals during the subsistence hunt could 
be impaired during the Langseth's transit to and from the study area 
when the airguns are not operating. Although some hunting in the 
Chukchi Sea does occur as far as 40 km (25 mi) from shore, the area 
affected during transit would be in close proximity to the ship.
    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 summer hunt typically occurs near Thetis 
Island in July through August (prior to initiation of UAGI's survey). 
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. The majority of bearded 
seal harvest sites from 1987 to 1990 was within approximately 24 km (15 
mi) of Point Barrow (Braund et al., 1993), well inshore of the survey. 
Along the Chukchi Sea coast, bearded seals are mainly taken between May 
and September near Wainwright, during the spring and summer by Point 
Hope hunters, and throughout the year by Point Lay hunters. These hunts 
occur closer into shore than the survey area or the proposed transit 
route.

Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses

    NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as:

    * * * an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That 
is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level 
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing 
the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly

[[Page 54450]]

displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers 
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the 
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.

    Noise emitted during the seismic survey from the acoustic sources 
has the potential to impact marine mammals hunted by Native Alaskans. 
In the case of cetaceans, the most common reaction to anthropogenic 
sounds is avoidance of the ensonified area. In the case of bowhead 
whales, this often means that the animals divert from their normal 
migratory path by several kilometers. However, because the survey 
occurs so far from any of the traditional hunting grounds and to the 
west of the fall bowhead hunting areas (meaning the whales would reach 
the hunting grounds before entering the survey area), it is not 
anticipated that there will be impacts to subsistence uses.

Plan of Cooperation (POC)

    Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require MMPA authorization 
applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a 
POC or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or 
will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence purposes. UAGI has worked with the people of 
the NSB to identify and avoid areas of potential conflict. The 
project's principal investigator (PI) contacted Dr. Glenn Sheehan of 
the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium and NSB biologist, Dr. Robert 
Suydam, on January 7, 2010, to inform them of the proposed study and 
the elements intended to minimize potential subsistence conflict. The 
PI presented the proposed UAGI survey at a meeting of the AEWC in 
Barrow on February 11, 2010. He explained the survey plans to the local 
residents, including NSB Department of Wildlife Management biologists, 
consulted with stakeholders about their concerns, and discussed the 
aspects of the survey designed to mitigate impacts. No major concerns 
were expressed. The PI also attended the 2011 AEWC meeting on February 
17-18; representatives from all NSB communities attended. The only 
concern expressed was that AEWC would like a good communication link 
with the Langseth during the survey. As requested by AEWC, 
communication lines between the NSB and the Langseth during the survey 
will be kept open in order to minimize potential conflicts. The study 
was also presented to government agencies, affected stakeholders, and 
the general public at the annual Arctic Open-water Meeting in 
Anchorage, Alaska, on March 7-8, 2011.
    As part of its MMPA IHA application, UAGI submitted a POC to NMFS. 
As noted in the POC, a Barrow resident knowledgeable about the mammals 
and fish of the area is expected to be included as a PSO aboard the 
Langseth. Although the primary duty of this individual will be as a 
member of the PSO team responsible for implementing the monitoring and 
mitigation requirements, this person will also be able to act as a 
liaison with hunters if they are encountered at sea. However, the 
activity has been timed so as to avoid overlap with the main harvests 
of marine mammals (especially bowhead whales). Meetings with whaling 
captains, other community representatives, the AEWC, NSB, and any other 
parties to the POC have been and will continue to be held, as 
necessary, to negotiate the terms of the POC and to coordinate the 
planned seismic survey operations with subsistence activity.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has determined that UAGI's marine seismic survey in the Arctic 
Ocean will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability 
of marine mammal species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. 
This determination is supported by the fact that UAGI and NSF have 
worked closely with the AEWC and NSB to ensure that the activities are 
not co-located with annual subsistence activities. Additionally, the 
seismic survey will occur more than 200 km (124 mi) offshore of the 
North Slope and to the west of the communities that conduct fall 
bowhead whale subsistence hunts. This means that the whales will reach 
the communities prior to entering into the survey area. The Chukchi Sea 
beluga hunts are typically completed prior to the time the Langseth 
would be transiting through the Chukchi Sea to the survey site. Should 
late summer or early fall hunts of certain species be occurring at the 
time of transit of the vessel, the hunts occur closer into shore than 
the proposed transit route of the Langseth.
    Based on the measures described in UAGI's POC, the required 
mitigation and monitoring measures (described earlier in this 
document), and the project design itself, NMFS has determined that 
there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses 
from UAGI's marine seismic survey.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Three of the marine mammal species that could occur in the seismic 
survey area are listed under the ESA: Bowhead whale; humpback whale; 
and fin whale. Under section 7 of the ESA, NSF initiated formal 
consultation with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered 
Species Division, on this proposed seismic survey. NMFS' Office of 
Protected Resources, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, also 
initiated formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS' 
Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division, to obtain a 
Biological Opinion evaluating the effects of issuing the IHA on ESA-
listed marine mammals and, if appropriate, authorizing incidental take. 
In August 2011, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion and concluded that the 
action and issuance of the IHA are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of fin, bowhead, and humpback whales. NSF, UAGI, 
and L-DEO must comply with the Relevant Terms and Conditions of the 
Incidental Take Statement (ITS) corresponding to NMFS' Biological 
Opinion issued to NSF and NMFS' Office of Protected Resources. L-DEO 
must also comply with the mitigation and monitoring requirements 
included in the IHA in order to be exempt under the ITS in the 
Biological Opinion from the prohibition on take of listed endangered 
marine mammal species otherwise prohibited by section 9 of the ESA. 
Although the ringed seal and bearded seal have been proposed for 
listing under the ESA, this activity is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of these species, and neither of the listings will 
be finalized prior to conclusion of the proposed seismic survey. 
Therefore, consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA is not needed 
for these species.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    With its complete application, UAGI and NSF provided NMFS an 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 on behalf of NSF is entitled ``Environmental Assessment of a Marine 
Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the Arctic Ocean, 
September-October 2011.'' NMFS conducted an independent review and 
evaluation of the document for sufficiency and compliance with the 
Council on Environmental Quality regulations and NOAA Administrative

[[Page 54451]]

Order 216-6 5.09(d) and determined that issuance of the IHA is not 
likely to result in significant impacts on the human environment. 
Consequently, NMFS has adopted NSF's EA and prepared a FONSI for the 
issuance of the IHA. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required 
and will not be prepared for the action.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to UAGI 
for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to 
conducting a marine seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean, September-
October 2011, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, 
and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: August 26, 2011.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-22434 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P