[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49922-49961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20173]



[[Page 49921]]

Vol. 77

Friday,

No. 160

August 17, 2012

Part IV





Department of Commerce





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





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking 
Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Seismic Survey in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas, Alaska; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / 
Notices  

[[Page 49922]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XC091


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Seismic Survey in the 
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS received an application from ION Geophysical (ION) for an 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by 
harassment only, incidental to a proposed marine seismic survey in the 
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska, between October and December 2012. 
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting 
comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to ION to take, by harassment, 
nine species of marine mammals during the specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than 
September 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael 
Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email 
comments is [email protected]. NMFS is not responsible for email 
comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments 
sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-
megabyte file size.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    An electronic copy of the application used in this document may be 
obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the 
contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting 
the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. The following associated document is also 
available at the same internet address: Draft Plan of Cooperation. 
Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, 
during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, 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.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot 
be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to 
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, 
provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to 
result from the activity. 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 1, 2012, from ION for the 
taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to a marine seismic 
survey in ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska, during October 
through December 2012. After addressing comments from NMFS, ION 
modified its application and submitted a revised application on June 
11, 2012. The June 11, 2012, application is the one available for 
public comment (see ADDRESSES) and considered by NMFS for this proposed 
IHA. ION also submitted IHA applications for essentially the same in-
ice seismic survey activity in 2010 and 2011. However, in both years 
ION withdrew its applications due to logistical issues in carrying out 
such activities before NMFS published a notice of proposed IHA and 
request for public comments. Take by Level B harassment only of nine 
species of marine mammals is anticipated to result from the specified 
activity. ION has also requested authorization for Level A harassment 
of a few individuals of bowhead whale, beluga whale, and ringed seal.

Description of the Specified Activity

    ION's proposed activities consist of a geophysical in-ice (seismic 
reflection/refraction) survey and related vessel operations to be 
conducted primarily in the Alaskan Beaufort and Chukchi seas from 
October to December 2012. The primary survey area extends from the 
U.S.-Canadian border in the east to Point Barrow in the west. Two 
survey lines extend west of Point Barrow into the northern Chukchi Sea, 
and three short tie lines are proposed near the U.S.-Russian border 
(see Figure 1 of ION's IHA application). The bathymetry of the proposed 
survey area ranges from shallow (<20 m [66 ft]) to relatively deep 
(>3,500 m [11,483 ft]) water over the continental shelf, the 
continental slope, and the abyssal plain.
    The survey would be conducted from the seismic vessel Geo Arctic 
escorted by the Polar Prince, a medium class (100A) icebreaker. The 
survey grid consists of ~7,175 km (4,458 mi) of transect line, not 
including transits

[[Page 49923]]

when the airguns are not operating. There may be small amounts of 
additional seismic operations associated with airgun testing, start up, 
and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-
standard. The seismic source towed by the Geo Arctic would be an airgun 
array consisting of 26 active Sercel G-gun airguns with a total volume 
of 4,450 in\3\. A single hydrophone streamer 4.5-9 km (2.8-5.6 mi) in 
length, depending on ice conditions, would be towed by the Geo Arctic 
to record the returning seismic signals.
    The survey vessels would access the survey area from Canadian 
waters in late September to begin data collection on or after October 
1, 2012. After completion of the survey, or when ice and weather 
conditions dictate, the vessels would exit to the south, transiting 
through the Chukchi and Bering Seas. The Polar Prince may be used to 
perform an at-sea refueling (bunkering) operation to supply as much as 
500 metric tons of Arctic diesel to the Geo Arctic. The Polar Prince 
would carry that fuel onboard at the start of the operation, and it 
would be transferred to the Geo Arctic if/when necessary. Depending on 
its own fuel consumption, the Polar Prince may then transit to 
Tuktoyuktuk, Canada to take on additional fuel for itself. Once the 
Polar Prince returns to the Geo Arctic the survey would continue. The 
entire refueling operation would therefore involve one fuel transfer 
and potentially one transit to and from Tuktoyuktuk. The refueling 
operation would likely take place in late October, at which time the 
Geo Arctic would likely be in the eastern or east-central Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea.
    ION's geophysical survey has been designed and scheduled to 
minimize potential effects to marine mammals, bowhead whales in 
particular, and subsistence users. For mitigation and operational 
reasons, the survey area has been bisected by a line that runs from 
70.5[deg] N. 150.5[deg] W. to 73[deg] N. 148[deg] W. (see Figure 1 of 
ION's IHA application). Weather and ice permitting, ION plans to begin 
survey operations east of the line described above (eastern survey 
area) and in offshore waters (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]) where bowheads are 
expected to be least abundant in early October. This operational plan 
is based on the fact that only ~2% of bowhead whales observed by Bureau 
of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) aerial surveys from 1979-2007 
occurred in areas of water depth >1,000 m (3,281 ft) (MMS, 2010), and 
on average ~97% of bowheads have passed through the eastern U.S. 
Beaufort Sea by October 15 (Miller et al., 2002). The survey would then 
progress to shallower waters in the eastern survey area before moving 
to the western survey area in late October or early November 2012.
    Ice conditions are expected to range from open water to 10/10 ice 
cover. However, the survey cannot take place in thick multi-year ice as 
both the icebreaker and seismic vessel must make continuous forward 
progress at 3-4 kts. In order for the survey to proceed, areas of high 
ice concentration can only consist of mostly newly forming juvenile 
first year ice or young first year ice less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) thick. 
Sounds generated by the icebreaker and seismic vessel moving through 
these relatively light ice conditions are expected to be far below the 
high sound levels often attributed to icebreaking. These high sound 
levels (>200 dB re 1 [micro]Pa [rms]) have been recorded from 
icebreakers during backing and ramming operations in very heavy ice 
conditions and are created by cavitation of the propellers as the 
vessel is slowed by the ice or reverses direction (Erbe and Farmer, 
1998; Roth and Schmidt, 2010).

Acoustic Sources

(1) Seismic Airgun Array
    The seismic source used during the project would be an airgun array 
consisting of 28 Sercel G-gun airguns, of which 26 would be active and 
have a total discharge volume of 4,450 in\3\. The 28 airguns would be 
distributed in two sub-arrays with 14 airguns per sub-array. Individual 
airgun sizes range from 70 to 380 in\3\. Airguns would be operated at 
2,000 psi. The seismic array and a single hydrophone streamer 4.5-9 km 
(2.8-5.6 mi) in length would be towed behind the Geo Arctic. Additional 
specifications of the airgun array are provided in Appendix B of ION's 
IHA application.
(2) Echo Sounders
    Both vessels would operate industry standard echo sounder/
fathometer instruments for continuous measurements of water depth while 
underway. These instruments are used by all large vessels to provide 
routine water depth information to the vessel crew. Navigation echo 
sounders send a single, narrowly focused, high frequency acoustic 
signal directly downward to the sea floor. The sound energy reflected 
off the sea floor returns to the vessel where it is detected by the 
instrument, and the depth is calculated and displayed to the user. 
Source levels of navigational echo sounders of this type are typically 
in the 180-200 dB re 1 [micro]PA-m (Richardson et al., 1995a).
    The Geo Arctic would use one navigational echo sounder during the 
project. The downward facing single-beam Simrad EA600 operates at 
frequencies ranging from 38 to 200 kHz with an output power of 100-2000 
Watts. Pulse durations are between 0.064 and 4.096 milliseconds, and 
the pulse repetition frequency (PRF or ping rate) depends on the depth 
range. The highest PRF at shallow depths is about 40 pings per second. 
It can be used for water depths up to 4,000 m (13,123 ft) and provides 
up to 1 cm (0.4 in) resolution.
    The Polar Prince would use one echo sounder, an ELAC LAZ-72. The 
LAZ-72 has an operating frequency of 30 kHz. The ping rate depends on 
the water depth and the fastest rate, which occurs in shallow depths, 
is about 5 pings per second.

Dates, Duration, and Region of Activity

    The proposed geophysical survey would be conducted for ~76 days 
from approximately October 1 to December 15, 2012. Both the Geo Arctic 
and the Polar Prince would leave from Tuktoyaktuk, Canada, during late 
September and enter the Alaskan Beaufort Sea from Canadian waters. The 
survey area would be bounded approximately by 138[deg] to 169[deg] W. 
longitude and 70[deg] to 73[deg] N. latitude in water depths ranging 
from <20 to >3,500 m (66 to 11,483 ft) (see Figure 1 of ION's IHA 
application). For mitigation and operational reasons the survey area 
has been bisected by a line that runs from 70.5[deg] N, 150.5[deg] W to 
73[deg] N, 148[deg] W. Weather and ice permitting, ION plans to begin 
survey operations east of the line (eastern survey area) in offshore 
waters (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]) where bowheads are expected to be least 
abundant in early October. The survey would then progress to shallower 
waters in the eastern survey area before moving to the west survey area 
in late October or early November. The vessels would depart the region 
to the south via the Chukchi and Bering Seas and arrive in Dutch Harbor 
in mid- to late December.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to 
occur in the seismic survey area include two cetacean species, beluga 
(Delphinapterus leucas) and bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), and 
two pinniped species, ringed (Phoca hispida) and bearded (Erignathus 
barbatus) seals. It is possible that some bowhead whales may be 
encountered as they migrate out of the area, particularly in the 
portion of the survey area where

[[Page 49924]]

water depths are <200 m (656 ft). Beluga whales are most likely to be 
encountered farther offshore than bowheads.
    The ringed seal is the most abundant marine mammal in the proposed 
survey area. Although bearded seals typically migrate south in the 
fall, it is possible that small numbers of them may be present in the 
survey area. Most other marine mammal species have typically migrated 
south into the Chukchi and Bering Seas by the time this survey will 
take place. The polar bear is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) and is not considered further in this proposed IHA 
notice.
    Seven additional cetacean species have known occurrences within the 
proposed project area and some may occur in the area during the time of 
the proposed in-ice seismic survey: harbor porpoise (Phocoena 
phocoena); gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); humpback whale 
(Megaptera novaeangliae); fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus); minke 
whale (B. acutorostrata); killer whale (Orcinus orca); and narwhal 
(Monodon monoceros). The gray whale occurs regularly in continental 
shelf waters along the Chukchi Sea coast in summer and to a lesser 
extent along the Beaufort Sea coast. Recent evidence from monitoring 
activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during industry seismic 
surveys suggests that the harbor porpoise and minke whale, which have 
been considered uncommon or rare in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, may 
be increasing in numbers in these areas (Funk et al., 2010). Additional 
pinniped species under NMFS jurisdiction that could be encountered 
during the proposed geophysical in-ice survey include spotted (P. 
largha) and ribbon seals (Histriophoca fasciata). Spotted seals are 
more abundant in the Chukchi Sea and occur in small numbers in the 
Beaufort Sea. The ribbon seal is uncommon in the Chukchi Sea, and there 
are few reported sightings in the Beaufort Sea.
    Small numbers of killer whales have also been recorded during 
recent industry surveys, along with a few sightings of fin and humpback 
whales. The narwhal occurs in Canadian waters and occasionally in the 
Beaufort Sea but is rare there and not expected to be encountered. Each 
of these species (killer, fin, and humpback whales and narwhal) is 
uncommon or rare in the Beaufort Sea, particularly during early winter, 
and relatively few if any encounters with these species are expected 
during the time period of the proposed seismic program.
    The bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as ``endangered'' 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and as depleted under the MMPA. 
Certain stocks or populations of gray and beluga whales and spotted 
seals are listed as endangered or proposed for listing under the ESA; 
however, none of those stocks or populations occur in the proposed 
activity area. Additionally, the ribbon seal is considered a ``species 
of concern'', meaning that NMFS has some concerns regarding status and 
threats of this species, but for which insufficient information is 
available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. On 
December 10, 2010, NMFS published a notice of proposed threatened 
status for subspecies of the ringed seal (75 FR 77476) and a notice 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 of these two ice seal species is considered 
depleted under the MMPA.
    Based on the occurrence of marine mammal species in the proposed 
project area and the time of year in which the survey is proposed to be 
conducted, NMFS is proposing to authorize take by harassment for the 
following species: Beluga, bowhead, gray, and minke whales; harbor 
porpoise; and ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals.
    ION's application contains information on the status, distribution, 
seasonal distribution, and abundance of each of the species under NMFS 
jurisdiction mentioned in this document. Please refer to the 
application for that information (see ADDRESSES). Additional 
information can also be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports 
(SAR). The Alaska 2011 SAR is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2011.pdf.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    Operating active acoustic sources such as an airgun array, echo 
sounders, and icebreaking activities could potentially affect marine 
mammals.

Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals

    The effects of sounds from airgun pulses might include one or more 
of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral 
disturbance, and, at least in theory, temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment or non-auditory effects (Richardson et al., 1995). As 
outlined in previous NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine 
mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (based 
on Richardson et al., 1995):
(1) Behavioral Disturbance
    Marine mammals may behaviorally react when exposed to anthropogenic 
sound. These behavioral reactions are often shown as: changing 
durations of surfacing and dives; changing number of blows per 
surfacing; moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal 
activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such 
as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive 
behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 
areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., 
pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).
    The biological significance of many behavioral disturbances is 
difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear 
minor. While many behavioral responses would not be expected to likely 
affect the fitness of an individual, other more severe behavioral 
modifications, especially in certain circumstances, could potentially 
have adverse affects on growth, survival, and/or reproduction. Some 
more potentially significant behavioral modifications include: drastic 
change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be 
potentially associated with beaked whale stranding due to exposure to 
military mid-frequency tactical sonar) or longer-term habitat 
abandonment.
    For example, at the Guerreo Negro Lagoon in Baja California, 
Mexico, which is one of the important breeding grounds for Pacific gray 
whales, shipping and dredging associated with a salt works may have 
induced gray whales to abandon the area through most of the 1960s 
(Bryant et al., 1984). After these activities stopped, the lagoon was 
reoccupied, first by single whales and later by cow-calf pairs.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound, which 
is difficult to predict, depends on both external factors (e.g., 
characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the receiving 
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) (Southall et al. 
2007).
    Currently NMFS uses 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) received level for 
impulse noises (such as airgun pulses) as the threshold for the onset 
of Level B (behavioral) harassment.
    In addition, behavioral disturbance is also expressed as the change 
in vocal activities of animals. For example, there is one recent 
summary report indicating that calling fin whales distributed in one 
part of the North Atlantic went

[[Page 49925]]

silent for an extended period starting soon after the onset of a 
seismic survey in the area (Clark and Gagnon, 2006). It is not clear 
from that preliminary paper whether the whales ceased calling because 
of masking, or whether this was a behavioral response not directly 
involving masking (i.e., important biological signals for marine 
mammals being ``masked'' by anthropogenic sound; see below). Also, 
bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea may decrease their call rates in 
response to seismic operations, although movement out of the area might 
also have contributed to the lower call detection rate (Blackwell et 
al., 2009a; 2009b). Some of the changes in marine mammal vocal 
communication are thought to be used to compensate for acoustic masking 
resulting from increased anthropogenic noise (see below). For example, 
blue whales are found to increase call rates when exposed to seismic 
survey noise in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark, 2009). 
Researchers have noted North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 
glacialis) exposed to high shipping noise increase call frequency 
(Parks et al., 2007) and intensity (Parks et al., 2010), while some 
humpback whales respond to low-frequency active sonar playbacks by 
increasing song length (Miller el al., 2000). These behavioral 
responses could also have adverse effects on marine mammals.
    Mysticete: Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, 
but avoidance radii are quite variable. Whales are often reported to 
show no overt reactions to airgun pulses at distances beyond a few 
kilometers, even though the airgun pulses remain well above ambient 
noise levels out to much longer distances (reviewed in Richardson et 
al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004). However, studies done since the late 
1990s of migrating humpback and migrating bowhead whales show 
reactions, including avoidance, that sometimes extend to greater 
distances than documented earlier. Therefore, it appears that 
behavioral disturbance can vary greatly depending on context and not 
just received levels alone. Avoidance distances often exceed the 
distances at which boat-based observers can see whales, so observations 
from the source vessel can be biased. Observations over broader areas 
may be needed to determine the range of potential effects of some 
large-source seismic surveys where effects on cetaceans may extend to 
considerable distances (Richardson et al., 1999; Moore and Angliss, 
2006). Longer-range observations, when required, can sometimes be 
obtained via systematic aerial surveys or aircraft-based observations 
of behavior (e.g., Richardson et al., 1986, 1999; Miller et al., 1999, 
2005; Yazvenko et al., 2007a, 2007b) or by use of observers on one or 
more support vessels operating in coordination with the seismic vessel 
(e.g., Smultea et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2007). However, the 
presence of other vessels near the source vessel can, at least at 
times, reduce sightability of cetaceans from the source vessel (Beland 
et al., 2009), thus complicating interpretation of sighting data.
    Some baleen whales show considerable tolerance of seismic pulses. 
However, when the pulses are strong enough, avoidance or other 
behavioral changes become evident. Because the responses become less 
obvious with diminishing received sound level, it has been difficult to 
determine the maximum distance (or minimum received sound level) at 
which reactions to seismic activity become evident and, hence, how many 
whales are affected.
    Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have determined that 
received levels of pulses in the 160-170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) range 
seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial fraction of 
the animals exposed (McCauley et al., 1998, 1999, 2000). In many areas, 
seismic pulses diminish to these levels at distances ranging from 4-15 
km (2.5-9.3 mi) from the source. A substantial proportion of the baleen 
whales within such distances may show avoidance or other strong 
disturbance reactions to the operating airgun array. Some extreme 
examples include migrating bowhead whales avoiding considerably larger 
distances (20-30 km [12.4-18.6 mi]) at lower received sound levels 
(120-130 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)) when exposed to airguns from seismic 
surveys. Also, even in cases where there is no conspicuous avoidance or 
change in activity upon exposure to sound pulses from distant seismic 
operations, there are sometimes subtle changes in behavior (e.g., 
surfacing-respiration-dive cycles) that are only evident through 
detailed statistical analysis (e.g., Richardson et al., 1986; Gailey et 
al., 2007).
    Data on short-term reactions by cetaceans to impulsive noises are 
not necessarily indicative of long-term or biologically significant 
effects. It is not known whether impulsive sounds affect reproductive 
rates or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. 
However, gray whales have continued to migrate annually along the west 
coast of North America despite intermittent seismic exploration (and 
much ship traffic) in that area for decades (Appendix A in Malme et 
al., 1984; Richardson et al., 1995), and there has been a substantial 
increase in the population over recent decades (Allen and Angliss, 
2010). The western Pacific gray whale population did not seem affected 
by a seismic survey in its feeding ground during a prior year (Johnson 
et al., 2007). Similarly, bowhead whales have continued to travel to 
the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer despite seismic exploration in 
their summer and autumn range for many years (Richardson et al., 1987), 
and their numbers have increased notably during that same time period 
(Allen and Angliss, 2010). Bowheads also have been observed over 
periods of days or weeks in areas ensonified repeatedly by seismic 
pulses (Richardson et al., 1987; Harris et al., 2007). However, it is 
generally not known whether the same individual bowheads were involved 
in these repeated observations (within and between years) in strongly 
ensonified areas.
    Odontocete: Little systematic information is available about 
reactions of toothed whales to airgun pulses. Few studies similar to 
the more extensive baleen whale/seismic pulse work summarized above 
have been reported for toothed whales. However, there are recent 
systematic data on sperm whales (e.g., Gordon et al., 2006; Madsen et 
al., 2006; Winsor and Mate, 2006; Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et al., 
2009). There is also an increasing amount of information about 
responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys based on monitoring 
studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton and Miller, 
2005; Holst et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Potter et al., 2007; 
Hauser et al., 2008; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Weir, 2008; Barkaszi et 
al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2009).
    Dolphins and porpoises are often seen by observers on active 
seismic vessels, occasionally at close distances (e.g., bow riding). 
Marine mammal monitoring data during seismic surveys often show that 
animal detection rates drop during the firing of seismic airguns, 
indicating that animals may be avoiding the vicinity of the seismic 
area (Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2006; Hauser et al., 2008; 
Holst and Smultea, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009). Also, belugas 
summering in the Canadian Beaufort Sea showed larger-scale avoidance, 
tending to avoid waters out to 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) from operating 
seismic vessels. In contrast, recent studies show little evidence of 
conspicuous reactions by sperm whales to airgun pulses, contrary to 
earlier indications (e.g., Gordon et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker,

[[Page 49926]]

2006; Winsor and Mate, 2006; Jochens et al., 2008), except the lower 
buzz (echolocation signals) rates that were detected during exposure of 
airgun pulses (Miller et al., 2009).
    There are almost no specific data on responses of beaked whales to 
seismic surveys, but it is likely that most if not all species show 
strong avoidance. There is increasing evidence that some beaked whales 
may strand after exposure to strong noise from tactical military mid-
frequency sonars. Whether they ever do so in response to seismic survey 
noise is unknown. Northern bottlenose whales seem to continue to call 
when exposed to pulses from distant seismic vessels.
    For delphinids, and possibly the Dall's porpoise, available data 
suggest that individuals may not react until sounds are >=170 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms). With a medium-to-large airgun array, received levels 
typically diminish to 170 dB within 1-4 km (0.62-2.5 mi), whereas 
levels typically remain above 160 dB out to 4-15 km (e.g., Tolstoy et 
al., 2009). Reaction distances for delphinids are more consistent at 
the typical 170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) distances. Stone (2003) and Stone 
and Tasker (2006) reported that all small odontocetes (including killer 
whales) observed during seismic surveys in UK waters remained 
significantly further from the source during periods of shooting on 
surveys with large volume airgun arrays than during periods without 
airgun shooting.
    Due to their relatively higher frequency hearing ranges when 
compared to mysticetes, odontocetes may have stronger responses to mid- 
and high-frequency sources such as sub-bottom profilers, side scan 
sonar, and echo sounders than mysticetes (Richardson et al., 1995; 
Southall et al., 2007).
    Pinnipeds: Few studies of the reactions of pinnipeds to noise from 
open-water seismic exploration have been published (for review of the 
early literature, see Richardson et al., 1995). However, pinnipeds have 
been observed during a number of seismic monitoring studies. Monitoring 
in the Beaufort Sea during 1996-2002 provided a substantial amount of 
information on avoidance responses (or lack thereof) and associated 
behavior. Additional monitoring of that type has been done in the 
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in 2006-2009. Pinnipeds exposed to seismic 
surveys have also been observed during seismic surveys along the U.S. 
west coast. Also, there are data on the reactions of pinnipeds to 
various other related types of impulsive sounds.
    Early observations provided considerable evidence that pinnipeds 
are often quite tolerant of strong pulsed sounds. During seismic 
exploration off Nova Scotia, gray seals exposed to noise from airguns 
and linear explosive charges reportedly did not react strongly (J. 
Parsons in Greene et al., 1985). An airgun caused an initial startle 
reaction among South African fur seals but was ineffective in scaring 
them away from fishing gear. Pinnipeds in both water and air sometimes 
tolerate strong noise pulses from non-explosive and explosive scaring 
devices, especially if attracted to the area for feeding or 
reproduction (Mate and Harvey, 1987; Reeves et al., 1996). Thus, 
pinnipeds are expected to be tolerant of, or to habituate to, repeated 
underwater sounds from distant seismic sources, at least when the 
animals are strongly attracted to the area.
    In summary, visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown only 
slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if 
any) changes in behavior. These studies show that many pinnipeds do not 
avoid the area within a few hundred meters of an operating airgun 
array. However, based on the studies with large sample size, or 
observations from a separate monitoring vessel, or radio telemetry, it 
is apparent that some phocid seals do show localized avoidance of 
operating airguns. The limited nature of this tendency for avoidance is 
a concern. It suggests that pinnipeds may not move away, or move very 
far away, before received levels of sound from an approaching seismic 
survey vessel approach those that may cause hearing impairment.
(2) Masking
    Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other sounds, 
often at similar frequencies. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not 
high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for 
marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions. 
Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as 
communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds 
important to marine mammals. Since marine mammals depend on acoustic 
cues for vital biological functions, such as orientation, 
communication, finding prey, and avoiding predators, marine mammals 
that experience severe (intensity and duration) acoustic masking could 
potentially suffer some adverse effects.
    Masking occurs when noise and signals (that animal utilizes) 
overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the airgun noise 
generated from the proposed in-ice marine seismic survey, these are low 
frequency (under 1 kHz) pulses with extremely short durations (in the 
scale of milliseconds). Lower frequency man-made noises are more likely 
to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially 
important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There is little 
concern regarding masking due to the brief duration of these pulses and 
relatively longer silence between airgun shots (9-12 seconds) near the 
sound source. However, at long distances (over tens of kilometers away) 
in deep water, due to multipath propagation and reverberation, the 
durations of airgun pulses can be ``stretched'' to seconds with long 
decays (Madsen et al., 2006; Clark and Gagnon, 2006). Therefore it 
could affect communication signals used by low frequency mysticetes 
(e.g., bowhead and gray whales) when they occur near the noise band and 
thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 
2009a, 2009b) and affect their vocal behavior (e.g., Foote et al., 
2004; Holt et al., 2009). Further, in areas of shallow water, multipath 
propagation of airgun pulses could be more profound, thus affecting 
communication signals from marine mammals even at close distances. 
Average ambient noise in areas where received seismic noises are heard 
can be elevated. At long distances, however, the intensity of the noise 
is greatly reduced. Nevertheless, partial informational and energetic 
masking of different degrees could affect signal receiving in some 
marine mammals within the ensonified areas. Additional research is 
needed to further address these effects.
    Although masking effects of pulsed sounds on marine mammal calls 
and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, there are few 
specific studies on this. Some whales continue calling in the presence 
of seismic pulses, and whale calls often can be heard between the 
seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al., 1986; McDonald et al., 1995; 
Greene et al., 1999a, 1999b; Nieukirk et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 
2004; Holst et al., 2005a, 2005b, 2006; Dunn and Hernandez, 2009).
    Among the odontocetes, there has been one report that sperm whales 
ceased calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship 
(Bowles et al., 1994). However, more recent studies of sperm whales 
found that they continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses 
(Madsen et al., 2002; Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst 
et al., 2006; Jochens et al., 2008). Madsen et al. (2006) noted that 
airgun

[[Page 49927]]

sounds would not be expected to mask sperm whale calls given the 
intermittent nature of airgun pulses. Dolphins and porpoises are also 
commonly heard calling while airguns are operating (Gordon et al., 
2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, 2005b; Potter et al., 
2007). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be 
inconsequential in the case of the smaller odontocetes, given the 
intermittent nature of seismic pulses plus the fact that sounds 
important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are 
the dominant components of airgun sounds.
    Pinnipeds have best hearing sensitivity and/or produce most of 
their sounds at frequencies higher than the dominant components of 
airgun sound, but there is some overlap in the frequencies of the 
airgun pulses and the calls. However, the intermittent nature of airgun 
pulses presumably reduces the potential for masking.
    Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for masking by 
adjusting their acoustic behavior, such as shifting call frequencies 
and increasing call volume and vocalization rates, as discussed earlier 
(e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 
2009; Parks et al., 2010); the biological significance of these 
modifications is still unknown and would certainly depend on the 
duration of the masking event, the behavioral state of the animal, and 
the overall context of the exposure.
(3) Hearing Impairment
    Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for 
prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is 
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et 
al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002; 2005). TS can 
be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is 
unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing 
threshold will recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Marine 
mammals that experience TTS or PTS will have reduced sensitivity at the 
frequency band of the TS, which may affect their capability of 
communication, orientation, or prey detection. The degree of TS depends 
on the intensity of the received levels the animal is exposed to, and 
the frequency at which TS occurs depends on the frequency of the 
received sound. It has been shown that in most cases, TS occurs at the 
frequencies approximately one-octave above that of the received sound. 
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. For 
transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely 
related to the duration of the sound.

TTS

    TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during 
exposure to a strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the 
hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be stronger in order to be 
heard. It is a temporary phenomenon, and (especially when mild) is not 
considered to represent physical damage or ``injury'' (Southall et al., 
2007). Rather, the onset of TTS is an indicator that, if the animal is 
exposed to higher levels of that sound, physical damage is ultimately a 
possibility.
    The magnitude of TTS depends on the level and duration of noise 
exposure, and to some degree on frequency, among other considerations 
(Kryter, 1985; Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007). For 
sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing 
sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. In 
terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of 
strong TTS) days. Only a few data have been obtained on sound levels 
and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS in marine mammals (none in 
mysticetes), and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by 
exposure to multiple pulses of sound during operational seismic surveys 
(Southall et al., 2007).
    For toothed whales, experiments on a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 
truncatus) and beluga whale showed that exposure to a single watergun 
impulse at a received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi) peak-to-peak (p-p), 
which is equivalent to 228 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (p-p), resulted in a 7 and 6 
dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds 
returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within 4 minutes of 
the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). No TTS was observed in the 
bottlenose dolphin.
    Finneran et al. (2005) further examined the effects of tone 
duration on TTS in bottlenose dolphins. Bottlenose dolphins were 
exposed to 3 kHz tones (non-impulsive) for periods of 1, 2, 4 or 8 
seconds (s), with hearing tested at 4.5 kHz. For 1-s exposures, TTS 
occurred with sound exposure levels (SELs) of 197 dB, and for exposures 
>1 s, SEL >195 dB resulted in TTS (SEL is equivalent to energy flux, in 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s). At an SEL of 195 dB, the mean TTS (4 min after 
exposure) was 2.8 dB. Finneran et al. (2005) suggested that an SEL of 
195 dB is the likely threshold for the onset of TTS in dolphins and 
belugas exposed to tones of durations 1-8 s (i.e., TTS onset occurs at 
a near-constant SEL, independent of exposure duration). That implies 
that, at least for non-impulsive tones, a doubling of exposure time 
results in a 3 dB lower TTS threshold.
    However, the assumption that, in marine mammals, the occurrence and 
magnitude of TTS is a function of cumulative acoustic energy (SEL) is 
probably an oversimplification. Kastak et al. (2005) reported 
preliminary evidence from pinnipeds that, for prolonged non-impulse 
noise, higher SELs were required to elicit a given TTS if exposure 
duration was short than if it was longer, i.e., the results were not 
fully consistent with an equal-energy model to predict TTS onset. 
Mooney et al. (2009a) showed this in a bottlenose dolphin exposed to 
octave-band non-impulse noise ranging from 4 to 8 kHz at SPLs of 130 to 
178 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for periods of 1.88 to 30 minutes (min). Higher SELs 
were required to induce a given TTS if exposure duration was short than 
if it was longer. Exposure of the aforementioned bottlenose dolphin to 
a sequence of brief sonar signals showed that, with those brief (but 
non-impulse) sounds, the received energy (SEL) necessary to elicit TTS 
was higher than was the case with exposure to the more prolonged 
octave-band noise (Mooney et al., 2009b). Those authors concluded that, 
when using (non-impulse) acoustic signals of duration ~0.5 s, SEL must 
be at least 210-214 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s to induce TTS in the bottlenose 
dolphin. The most recent studies conducted by Finneran et al. (2010a, 
2010b) also support the notion that exposure duration has a more 
significant influence compared to sound pressure level (SPL) as the 
duration increases, and that TTS growth data are better represented as 
functions of SPL and duration rather than SEL alone (Finneran et al., 
2010a, 2010b). In addition, Finneran et al. (2010b) conclude that when 
animals are exposed to intermittent noises, there is recovery of 
hearing during the quiet intervals between exposures through the 
accumulation of TTS across multiple exposures. Such findings suggest 
that when exposed to multiple seismic pulses, partial hearing recovery 
also occurs during the seismic pulse intervals.
    For baleen whales, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels 
or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS. The frequencies 
to which baleen whales are most sensitive are lower than those to which 
odontocetes are most sensitive, and natural ambient noise levels at 
those low frequencies tend to be higher (Urick, 1983). As a result,

[[Page 49928]]

auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their frequency band of 
best hearing are believed to be higher (less sensitive) than are those 
of odontocetes at their best frequencies (Clark and Ellison, 2004). 
From this, it is suspected that received levels causing TTS onset may 
also be higher in baleen whales. However, no cases of TTS are expected 
given the size of the airguns proposed to be used and the strong 
likelihood that baleen whales (especially migrating bowheads) would 
avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to 
levels high enough for there to be any possibility of TTS.
    In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief 
pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been measured. 
Initial evidence from prolonged exposures suggested that some pinnipeds 
may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small 
odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al., 1999; 2005). 
However, more recent indications are that TTS onset in the most 
sensitive pinniped species studied (harbor seal, which is closely 
related to the ringed seal) may occur at a similar SEL as in 
odontocetes (Kastak et al., 2004).
    Most cetaceans show some degree of avoidance of seismic vessels 
operating an airgun array (see above). It is unlikely that these 
cetaceans would be exposed to airgun pulses at a sufficiently high 
enough level for a sufficiently long enough period to cause more than 
mild TTS, given the relative movement of the vessel and the marine 
mammal. TTS would be more likely in any odontocetes that bow- or wake-
ride or otherwise linger near the airguns. However, while bow- or wake-
riding, odontocetes would be at the surface and thus not exposed to 
strong sound pulses given the pressure release and Lloyd Mirror effects 
at the surface. But if bow- or wake-riding animals were to dive 
intermittently near airguns, they could be exposed to strong sound 
pulses, possibly repeatedly.
    If some cetaceans did incur mild or moderate TTS (a Level B 
harassment) through exposure to airgun sounds in this manner, this 
would very likely be a temporary and reversible phenomenon. However, 
even a temporary reduction in hearing sensitivity could be deleterious 
in the event that, during that period of reduced sensitivity, a marine 
mammal needed its full hearing sensitivity to detect approaching 
predators, or for some other reason.
    Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but their 
avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent as those 
of cetaceans. Pinnipeds occasionally seem to be attracted to operating 
seismic vessels. There are no specific data on TTS thresholds of 
pinnipeds exposed to single or multiple low-frequency pulses. However, 
given the indirect indications of a lower TTS threshold for the harbor 
seal than for odontocetes exposed to impulse sound (see above), it is 
possible that some pinnipeds close to a large airgun array could incur 
TTS.
    NMFS typically includes mitigation requirements to ensure that 
cetaceans and pinnipeds are not exposed to pulsed underwater noise at 
received levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms). The 180/190 dB acoustic criteria were taken from recommendations 
by an expert panel of the High Energy Seismic Survey (HESS) Team that 
performed an assessment on noise impacts by seismic airguns to marine 
mammals in 1997, although the HESS Team recommended a 180-dB limit for 
pinnipeds in California (HESS, 1999). The 180 and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) levels have not been considered to be the levels above which TTS 
might occur. Rather, they were the received levels above which, in the 
view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists convened by NMFS before TTS 
measurements for marine mammals started to become available, one could 
not be certain that there would be no injurious effects, auditory or 
otherwise, to marine mammals. As summarized above, data that are now 
available imply that TTS is unlikely to occur in various odontocetes 
(and probably mysticetes as well) unless they are exposed to a sequence 
of several airgun pulses stronger than 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). On the 
other hand, for the harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and perhaps some 
other species, TTS may occur upon exposure to one or more airgun pulses 
whose received level equals the NMFS ``do not exceed'' value of 180 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). That criterion corresponds to a single-pulse SEL of 
175-180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s in typical conditions, whereas TTS is 
suspected to be possible in harbor seals and harbor porpoises with a 
cumulative SEL of ~171 and ~164 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s, respectively.
    It has been shown that most large whales and many smaller 
odontocetes (especially the harbor porpoise) show at least localized 
avoidance of ships and/or seismic operations. Even when avoidance is 
limited to the area within a few hundred meters of an airgun array, 
that should usually be sufficient to avoid TTS based on what is 
currently known about thresholds for TTS onset in cetaceans. In 
addition, ramping up airgun arrays, which is standard operational 
protocol for many seismic operators, may allow cetaceans near the 
airguns at the time of startup (if the sounds are aversive) to move 
away from the seismic source and to avoid being exposed to the full 
acoustic output of the airgun array. Thus, most baleen whales likely 
will not be exposed to high levels of airgun sounds provided the ramp-
up procedure is applied. Likewise, many odontocetes close to the 
trackline are likely to move away before the sounds from an approaching 
seismic vessel become sufficiently strong for there to be any potential 
for TTS or other hearing impairment. Hence, there is little potential 
for baleen whales or odontocetes that show avoidance of ships or 
airguns to be close enough to an airgun array to experience TTS. 
Nevertheless, even if marine mammals were to experience TTS, the 
magnitude of the TTS is expected to be mild and brief, only in a few 
decibels for minutes.

PTS

    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in 
the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, whereas 
in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in 
specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). Physical damage to a mammal's 
hearing apparatus can occur if it is exposed to sound impulses that 
have very high peak pressures, especially if they have very short rise 
times. (Rise time is the interval required for sound pressure to 
increase from the baseline pressure to peak pressure.)
    There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun 
sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of 
airguns. However, given the likelihood that some mammals close to an 
airgun array might incur at least mild TTS (see above), there has been 
further speculation about the possibility that some individuals 
occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Gedamke et al., 2008). Single or occasional occurrences of 
mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated 
or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing 
TTS onset might elicit PTS.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and 
other terrestrial mammals (Southall et al., 2007). Based on data from 
terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS 
threshold for impulse sounds (such as airgun pulses as received close 
to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a 
peak-pressure basis and probably >6

[[Page 49929]]

dB higher (Southall et al., 2007). The low-to-moderate levels of TTS 
that have been induced in captive odontocetes and pinnipeds during 
controlled studies of TTS have been confirmed to be temporary, with no 
measurable residual PTS (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; 
Finneran et al., 2002; 2005; Nachtigall et al., 2003; 2004). However, 
very prolonged exposure to sound strong enough to elicit TTS, or 
shorter-term exposure to sound levels well above the TTS threshold, can 
cause PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals (Kryter 1985). In 
terrestrial mammals, the received sound level from a single non-
impulsive sound exposure must be far above the TTS threshold for any 
risk of permanent hearing damage (Kryter, 1994; Richardson et al., 
1995; Southall et al., 2007). However, there is special concern about 
strong sounds whose pulses have very rapid rise times. In terrestrial 
mammals, there are situations when pulses with rapid rise times (e.g., 
from explosions) can result in PTS even though their peak levels are 
only a few dB higher than the level causing slight TTS. The rise time 
of airgun pulses is fast but not as fast as that of an explosion.
    Some factors that contribute to onset of PTS, at least in 
terrestrial mammals, are as follows:
     Exposure to a single very intense sound,
     Fast rise time from baseline to peak pressure,
     Repetitive exposure to intense sounds that individually 
cause TTS but not PTS, and
     Recurrent ear infections or (in captive animals) exposure 
to certain drugs.
    Cavanagh (2000) reviewed the thresholds used to define TTS and PTS. 
Based on this review and SACLANT (1998), it is reasonable to assume 
that PTS might occur at a received sound level 20 dB or more above that 
inducing mild TTS. However, for PTS to occur at a received level only 
20 dB above the TTS threshold, the animal probably would have to be 
exposed to a strong sound for an extended period or to a strong sound 
with a rather rapid rise time.
    More recently, Southall et al. (2007) estimated that received 
levels would need to exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB, on an 
SEL basis, for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for cetaceans exposed to 
a sequence of sound pulses, they estimate that the PTS threshold might 
be an M-weighted SEL (for the sequence of received pulses) of ~198 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s. Additional assumptions had to be made to derive a 
corresponding estimate for pinnipeds, as the only available data on 
TTS-thresholds in pinnipeds pertained to non-impulse sound (see above). 
Southall et al. (2007) estimated that the PTS threshold could be a 
cumulative SEL of ~186 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s in the case of a harbor seal 
exposed to impulse sound. The PTS threshold for the California sea lion 
and northern elephant seal would probably be higher given the higher 
TTS thresholds in those species. Southall et al. (2007) also note that, 
regardless of the SEL, there is concern about the possibility of PTS if 
a cetacean or pinniped received one or more pulses with peak pressure 
exceeding 230 or 218 dB re 1 [mu]Pa, respectively. Thus, PTS might be 
expected upon exposure of cetaceans to either SEL >=198 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa\2\-s or peak pressure >=230 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. Corresponding 
proposed dual criteria for pinnipeds (at least harbor seals) are >=186 
dB SEL and >= 218 dB peak pressure (Southall et al., 2007). These 
estimates are all first approximations, given the limited underlying 
data, assumptions, species differences, and evidence that the ``equal 
energy'' model may not be entirely correct.
    Sound impulse duration, peak amplitude, rise time, number of 
pulses, and inter-pulse interval are the main factors thought to 
determine the onset and extent of PTS. Ketten (1994) has noted that the 
criteria for differentiating the sound pressure levels that result in 
PTS (or TTS) are location and species specific. PTS effects may also be 
influenced strongly by the health of the receiver's ear.
    As described above for TTS, in estimating the amount of sound 
energy required to elicit the onset of TTS (and PTS), it is assumed 
that the auditory effect of a given cumulative SEL from a series of 
pulses is the same as if that amount of sound energy were received as a 
single strong sound. There are no data from marine mammals concerning 
the occurrence or magnitude of a potential partial recovery effect 
between pulses. In deriving the estimates of PTS (and TTS) thresholds 
quoted here, Southall et al. (2007) made the precautionary assumption 
that no recovery would occur between pulses.
    It is unlikely that an odontocete would remain close enough to a 
large airgun array for a sufficiently long enough period to incur PTS. 
There is some concern about bow-riding odontocetes, but for animals at 
or near the surface, auditory effects are reduced by Lloyd's mirror and 
surface release effects. The presence of the vessel between the airgun 
array and bow-riding odontocetes could also, in some but probably not 
all cases, reduce the levels received by bow-riding animals (e.g., 
Gabriele and Kipple, 2009). The TTS (and thus PTS) thresholds of baleen 
whales are unknown but, as an interim measure, assumed to be no lower 
than those of odontocetes. Also, baleen whales generally avoid the 
immediate area around operating seismic vessels, so it is unlikely that 
a baleen whale could incur PTS from exposure to airgun pulses. The TTS 
(and thus PTS) thresholds of some pinnipeds (e.g., harbor seal) as well 
as the harbor porpoise may be lower (Kastak et al., 2005; Southall et 
al., 2007; Lucke et al., 2009). If so, TTS and potentially PTS may 
extend to a somewhat greater distance for those animals. Again, Lloyd's 
mirror and surface release effects will ameliorate the effects for 
animals at or near the surface. NMFS considers PTS to be a Level A 
harassment.
(4) Non-Auditory Physical Effects
    Non-auditory physical effects might occur in marine mammals exposed 
to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory 
physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in 
mammals close to a strong sound source include neurological effects, 
bubble formation, and other types of organ or tissue damage. Some 
marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially 
susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to intense sounds. 
However, there is no definitive evidence that any of these effects 
occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large arrays of 
airguns, and beaked whales do not occur in the proposed project area. 
In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of seismic 
vessels, including most baleen whales, some odontocetes (including 
belugas), and some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur non-
auditory impairment or other physical effects.
    Therefore, it is unlikely that such effects would occur during 
ION's proposed in-ice seismic surveys given the brief duration of 
exposure and the planned monitoring and mitigation measures described 
later in this document.
    Additional non-auditory effects include elevated levels of stress 
response (Wright et al., 2007; Wright and Highfill, 2007). Although not 
many studies have been done on noise-induced stress in marine mammals, 
extrapolation of information regarding stress responses in other 
species seems applicable because the responses are highly consistent 
among all species in which they have been examined to date

[[Page 49930]]

(Wright et al., 2007). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 
noise acts as a stressor to marine mammals. Furthermore, given that 
marine mammals will likely respond in a manner consistent with other 
species studied, repeated and prolonged exposures to stressors 
(including or induced by noise) could potentially be problematic for 
marine mammals of all ages. Wright et al. (2007) state that a range of 
issues may arise from an extended stress response including, but not 
limited to, suppression of reproduction (physiologically and 
behaviorally), accelerated aging and sickness-like symptoms. However, 
as mentioned above, ION's proposed activity is not expected to result 
in these severe effects due to the nature of the potential sound 
exposure.
(5) Stranding and Mortality
    Marine mammals close to underwater detonations can be killed or 
severely injured, and the auditory organs are especially susceptible to 
injury (Ketten et al., 1993; Ketten, 1995). Airgun pulses are less 
energetic, and their peak amplitudes have slower rise times, while 
stranding and mortality events would include other energy sources 
(acoustical or shock wave) far beyond just seismic airguns. To date, 
there is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding by marine 
mammals can occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of 
large airgun arrays.
    However, in past IHA notices for seismic surveys, commenters have 
referenced two stranding events allegedly associated with seismic 
activities, one off Baja California and a second off Brazil. NMFS has 
addressed this concern several times, and, without new information, 
does not deem the issue to warrant further discussion. For information 
relevant to strandings of marine mammals, readers are encouraged to 
review NMFS' response to comments on this matter found in 69 FR 74906 
(December 14, 2004), 71 FR 43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 (August 
24, 2006), and 71 FR 49418 (August 23, 2006).
    It should be noted that strandings related to sound exposure have 
not been recorded for marine mammal species in the Beaufort Sea. NMFS 
notes that in the Beaufort Sea, aerial surveys have been conducted by 
the Minerals Management Service (now BOEM) and industry during periods 
of industrial activity (and by BOEM during times with no activity). No 
strandings or marine mammals in distress have been observed during 
these surveys, and none have been reported by North Slope Borough 
inhabitants. In addition, there are very few instances that seismic 
surveys in general have been linked to marine mammal strandings, other 
than those mentioned above. As a result, NMFS does not expect any 
marine mammals will incur serious injury or mortality in the Arctic 
Ocean or strand as a result of the proposed seismic survey.

Potential Effects From Echo Sounders on Marine Mammals

    Three types of echo sounders have been proposed for ION's 2012 in-
ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. In general, the 
potential effects of this equipment on marine mammals can be expected 
to be similar to those from the airgun, except that the sounds from 
these sources are at much higher frequencies than those from airguns, 
and thus may have more potential to affect mid- and high-frequency 
hearing odontocetes and pinnipeds than mysticetes, who are thought to 
be more sensitive to low-frequency sounds. Therefore, it is possible 
that the onset of hearing impairment to odontocetes and pinnipeds that 
are exposed to mid- or high-frequency sources could be lower, or the 
growth of TTS and/or PTS could be faster than the earlier empirical 
measurements using the watergun source (Finneran et al., 2002) or 3 kHz 
tones (Finneran et al., 2005). However, the magnitude of the impacts is 
expected to be less due to the lower intensity of the sound from echo 
sounders when compared to seismic airguns. Because of the higher 
frequencies of the echo sounder signals, the propagation ranges of 
acoustic signals are also much shorter than those from the airgun 
array. Since these echo sounders will be operating during the seismic 
survey, no additional takes of marine mammals would be considered as 
take estimates would be calculated from ensonified zones from seismic 
airguns. In addition, due to the fact that the operating frequencies of 
some of this equipment (e.g., Skipper GDS102 that operates at 
frequencies above 200 kHz) are above the hearing ranges of marine 
mammals, use of the equipment is not expected to cause any take of 
marine mammals. Furthermore, the beam patterns of the echo sounders are 
directed downward and are narrow, so any marine mammals that encounter 
the echo sounders at close range are unlikely to be subjected to 
repeated pulses.

Potential Effects From Icebreaking on Marine Mammals

(1) Noise Source Levels From Icebreaking
    Most sounds generated by icebreaking activities are caused by 
cavitation of the propellers. Propeller cavitation and resulting sounds 
tend to be greatest when a vessel is moving astern or when its forward 
progress has been stopped by heavy ice during ramming. When making 
continuous forward progress through ice, more power is required than 
when traveling through open water. The greater the resistance, the 
greater the propeller cavitation and resulting sounds, although they 
are typically less strong during continuous forward progress than 
during backing and ramming in heavy ice.
    Measurements of the Robert Lemur pushing and breaking ice in the 
Beaufort Sea in 1986 resulted in an estimated broadband source level of 
193 dB re 1 [mu]Pa @ 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995). Ice conditions were 
not described in detail, but at that time of year (in September), ice 
is not typically forming, so the ice pans that were encountered were 
likely composed of second year ice or multi-year ice.
    The broadband source levels of three different vessels pushing on 
or breaking ice during drilling activities in the U.S. Beaufort Sea in 
1993 were 181-183, 184, and 174 dB re 1 [mu]Pa @ 1 m (Hall et al., 
1994). Similar to the above, ice conditions in mid-August when these 
recordings were made were likely to have been thick first year (sea ice 
does not reach ``second year'' status until September 1), second year, 
or multi-year ice.
    The strongest sounds produced by an icebreaker backing and ramming 
an ice ridge were measured at 203 dB re 1 [mu]Pa @ 1 m at the point 
when the propellers were still turning at full speed ahead, but the 
vessel had come to a stop when it failed to break the ice ridge (Erbe 
and Farmer, 1998). A similar maximum source level (200 dB re 1 [mu]Pa @ 
1m) was reported during backing and ramming activities by the U.S. 
Coast Guard Cutter Healy as measured by a sonobuoy deployed from that 
vessel in 2009 (Roth and Schmidt, 2010).
    Roth and Schmidt (2010) describe three very recent ``case studies'' 
of Healy breaking ice in the high Arctic. Ice type is not described, 
but given the date, location, and pictures provided the ice is clearly 
not first year ice and instead likely second year or multi-year ice. 
The first case study provides an example of the Healy traveling through 
7-9/10ths ice and then entering open-water. Average source levels in 
ice were

[[Page 49931]]

estimated to be ~185 dB while average source levels in open-water were 
estimated between 175-180 dB. The second case study is an example of 
backing and ramming in 8/10ths ice. Maximum source levels reached 191-
195 dB. The third case study is another example of backing and ramming, 
this time in 9/10ths ice, where maximum source levels reached 200 dB.
    None of these examples apply very well to ice conditions likely to 
be encountered during ION's proposed October-December survey. The ice 
regimes to be encountered along the Alaskan Coast in the proposed 
survey area during the proposed survey period will vary considerably 
from predominantly or entirely open water in early October to being 
predominantly new, first year ice in November. The survey work will 
take advantage of such variations to complete the more difficult lines 
when the ice conditions are favorable for that work.
    This project will involve two ships working as one when in or near 
sea ice. In this mode, the icebreaker (Polar Prince) would escort the 
geophysical survey ship (Geo Arctic). As both ships must move 
continuously at near survey speed throughout this escort, it is 
essential that this work is carried out in ice conditions where the 
icebreaker is not obliged to undertake ramming operations.
    ION used the Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS) to aid in 
their determination concerning suitable conditions for the survey. This 
system allows the Arctic Mariner/Ice Master to calculate the 
``toughness'' of a particular ice regime. As a ``rule of thumb,'' 
seismic is normally considered achievable in ice where the calculation 
indicates navigation can safely be undertaken by the ice strengthened 
(Ice Class A1A, type A) geophysical ship, operating independently. ION 
states that it will take a conservative approach by using a heavy 
escort icebreaker. This means the icebreaker is normally working well 
below maximum power but does have a huge propulsive power capacity held 
in reserve in case ridges or other such ice features are encountered. 
Thus the icebreaker is breaking ice at a fraction of its maximum or 
rated capacity.
    Compared to the aggressive icebreaking involved in the examples 
above, the icebreaking for in-ice seismic surveys is of a much 
different and considerably lower order. In most ice regimes expected to 
be encountered during ION's proposed survey, the Polar Prince will have 
about 5,123 HP available for propulsion, which is far less than the 
power of the heavy icebreaker Healy reported in Roth and Schmidt 
(2010). There would still be a direct correlation between icebreaking 
effort and icebreaking noise, although there are likely also many other 
variables such as thermal gradient, stage of ice development, speed of 
impact, propulsion system characteristics, hull and bow form, etc., 
that may differentiate the sounds produced during the proposed survey. 
In the examples provided in Roth and Schmidt (2010), the Healy appears 
to be backing and ramming in heavy multiyear ice (based on our 
interpretation of the pictures). Such conditions are beyond the 
allowable operational conditions of this project, and, if such 
conditions were encountered, the Type A geophysical ship could not 
follow such an ice-encumbered track of multiyear ice.
    It should also be noted that the Healy was operating at maximum 
capacity during the measurements reported in Roth and Schmidt (2010), 
while during ice-seismic the escorting icebreaker rarely operates in 
excess of 50% capacity. Thus, accounting for the disparity in the 
horsepower ratings of the Polar Prince vs. the Healy, the Polar Prince 
is rendering an output, in terms of horsepower expended, of <25% each 
of that of the Healy during the reported measurements.
    Based on available information regarding sounds produced by 
icebreaking in various ice regimes and the expected ice conditions 
during the proposed survey, NMFS determined that vessel sounds 
generated during ice breaking are likely to have source levels between 
175 and 185 dB re 1 [micro]Pa-m.
(2) Impacts of Icebreaking Noise on Marine Mammals
    Limited information is available about the effects of icebreaking 
ships on most species of marine mammals. Concerns have arisen in the 
past due to proposals (which were never realized) to conduct shipping 
of oil and gas in the Arctic via large icebreakers (Peterson, 1981). In 
the past, smaller icebreaking ships were used by the oil and gas 
industry in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas to extend the offshore 
drilling period in support of offshore drilling, and several 
icebreakers or strengthened cargo ships have been used in the Russian 
northern sea route, as well as elsewhere in the Arctic and Antarctic 
(Armstrong, 1984; Barr and Wilson, 1985; Brigham, 1985).
    The primary concern regarding icebreaking activities involves the 
production of intense underwater sound (Richardson et al., 1995). 
Estimated source levels of the ice-breaking cargo vessel MV Arctic may 
be detectable by seals under fast ice at distances up to 20-35 km 
(12.4-21.8 mi) (Davis and Malme, 1997). However, icebreaking activities 
may also have non-acoustic effects, such as the potential for causing 
injury, ice entrapment of animals that follow the ship, and disruption 
of ice habitat (reviewed in Richardson et al., 1989), though, as 
described below, these impacts are not anticipated during this action. 
The species of marine mammals that may be present and the nature of 
icebreaker activities are strongly influenced by ice type. Some species 
are more common in loose ice near the margins of heavy pack ice while 
others appear to prefer heavy pack ice. Propeller cavitation noise of 
icebreaking ships in loose ice is expected to be much lower than in 
areas of heavier pack ice or thick landfast ice where ship speed will 
be reduced, power levels will be higher, and there will be greater 
propeller cavitation and back-ramming (Richardson et al., 1995).
    Beluga Whales--Erbe and Farmer (1998) measured masked hearing 
thresholds of a captive beluga whale. They reported that the recording 
of a Canadian Coast Guard ship, Henry Larsen, ramming ice in the 
Beaufort Sea, masked recordings of beluga vocalizations at a noise-to-
signal pressure ratio of 18 dB. That occurred when the noise pressure 
level was eight times as high as the call. In linear units, the ramming 
noise was 8 times as strong as the call (Erbe and Farmer, 1998). A 
similar study using a software model to estimate the zones of impact 
around icebreakers affecting beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea 
predicted that masking of beluga communication signals by ramming noise 
from an icebreaker could occur within 40-71 km (25-44 mi), depending on 
the location. However, Arctic beluga whales have shown avoidance of 
icebreakers when first detected (Erbe and Farmer, 2000), so individuals 
are unlikely to get close enough for effects such as masking to occur. 
In addition, vocal behavior of beluga whales in the St. Lawrence River 
in the presence of a ferry and a small motorboat have shown that 
belugas can change the types of calls they use, as well as shift the 
mean call frequency up during noise exposure (Lesage et al., 1999). 
Therefore, it is possible that beluga whales in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas may also have some mechanism that would allow them to 
adapt to ambient noise due to icebreaking activities.
    In 1991 and 1994 in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, Richardson et al. 
(1995b) recorded reactions of beluga and bowhead whales to playbacks of 
underwater propeller cavitation noise

[[Page 49932]]

from the icebreaker Robert Lemeur operating in heavy ice. Migrating 
belugas were observed close to the playback projectors on three dates, 
but interpretable data were only collected on 17 groups for two of 
these occasions. A minimum of six groups apparently altered their path 
in response to the playback, but whales approached within a few hundred 
(and occasionally tens of) meters before exhibiting a response. 
Icebreaker sounds were estimated at 78-84 dB re 1[mu]Pa in the 1/3-
octave band centered at 5,000 Hz, or 8-14 dB above ambient sound levels 
in that band, for the six groups that reacted. The authors estimated 
that reactions at this level would be estimated to occur at distances 
of approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) from an operating icebreaker.
    Beluga whales are expected to avoid icebreaking vessels at 
distances of approximately 10 km (6.2 mi). The impacts of icebreaking 
associated with the seismic program on the behavior of belugas are 
expected to be temporary, lasting only as long as the activity is on-
going, and would have a negligible impact on the species or stock.
    Bowhead Whales--In 1991 and 1994 in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 
Richardson et al. (1995b) recorded reactions of beluga and bowhead 
whales to playbacks of underwater propeller cavitation noise from the 
icebreaker Robert Lemeur operating in heavy ice. Bowhead whales 
migrating in the nearshore appeared to tolerate exposure to projected 
icebreaker sounds at received levels up to 20 dB or more above ambient 
noise levels. However, some bowheads appeared to divert their paths to 
remain further away from the projected sounds, particularly when 
exposed to levels >20 dB above ambient. Turning frequency, surface 
duration, number of blows per surfacing, and two multivariate indices 
of behavior were significantly correlated with the signal-to-noise 
ratio >20 dB (and as low as 10 dB for turning frequency). The authors 
suggested that bowheads may commonly react to icebreakers at distances 
up to 10-50 km (6.2-31 mi), but note that reactions were highly 
dependent on several variables not controlled in the study.
    There are few other studies on the reactions of baleen whales to 
icebreaking activities. During fall 1992, migrating bowhead whales 
apparently avoided (by at least 25 km [15.5 mi]) a drill site that was 
supported almost daily by intensive icebreaking activity in the Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea (Brewer et al., 1993). However, bowheads also avoided a 
nearby drill site in the fall of another year that had little 
icebreaking support (LGL and Greenridge, 1987). Thus, level of 
contribution from icebreaking, ice concentration, and drilling noise 
resulting in bowhead responses is unknown.
    Bowhead whales are expected to avoid vessels that are underway, 
including icebreakers. The impacts of icebreaking on the behavior of 
bowheads are likely to occur only if bowheads are still in the western 
portion of the proposed study area, although most bowheads will likely 
have passed through the survey area prior to the start of survey 
activities. The effects of icebreaking activities on bowhead whales are 
expected to be minor and short-term.
    Pinnipeds-- Reactions of walruses to icebreakers are described more 
thoroughly in the available literature than are reactions by other 
pinnipeds. When comparing the reaction distances of walrus to 
icebreaking ships vs. other ships traveling in open water, Fay et al. 
(1984) found that walrus reacted at longer distances to icebreakers. 
They were aware of the icebreaker when it was >2 km (1.2 mi) away, and 
females with pups entered the water and swam away when the ship was ~1 
km (0.62 mi) away while adult males did so at distances of 0.1 to 0.3 
km (0.1 to 0.2 mi). However, it was also noted that some walruses, 
ringed seals, and bearded seals also scrambled onto ice when an 
icebreaker was oriented toward them.
    In another study of 202 walrus groups observed on ice floes during 
icebreaking activities, 32% dove into the water, and 6% became alert 
while on the ice (Brueggeman et al., 1990, 1991, 1992). Concurrent 
aerial surveys indicated that walruses hauling out on ice floes may 
have avoided icebreaking activities within 10--15 km (6.2--9.3 mi) 
(Brueggeman et al., 1990).
    Ringed and bearded seals on pack ice approached by an icebreaker 
typically dove into the water within 0.93 km (0.58 mi) of the vessel 
but tended to be less responsive when the same ship was underway in 
open water (Brueggeman et al., 1992). In another study, ringed and harp 
seals remained on the ice when an icebreaker was 1-2 km (0.62--1.2 mi) 
away, but seals often dove into the water when closer to the icebreaker 
(Kanik et al., 1980 in Richardson et al., 1995a). Ringed seals have 
also been seen feeding among overturned ice floes in the wake of 
icebreakers (Brewer et al., 1993).
    Seals swimming are likely to avoid approaching vessels by a few 
meters to a few tens of meters, while some ``curious'' seals are likely 
to swim toward vessels. Seals hauled out on ice also show mixed 
reaction to approaching vessels/icebreakers. Seals are likely to dive 
into the water if the icebreaker comes within 1 km (0.62 mi). The 
impact of vessel traffic on seals is expected to be negligible.
    One potential impact from icebreaking activities is ice entrapment 
of pinnipeds that are following the vessels. However, NMFS does not 
consider this likely because ice formation at the time of the proposed 
survey consists mostly of loose annual ice floes that will not freeze 
into extensive pack ice. In addition, the time chosen for the 
icebreaking seismic survey would occur before ringed seals start 
constructing lairs in ice around early March.
    Finally, the breaking of heavy pack ice or thick landfast ice could 
also indirectly increase the level of ambient noise due to broken ice 
floes cracking against each other, and effectively change the area's 
soundscape.

Vessel Sounds

    In addition to the noise generated from seismic airguns and active 
sonar systems, various types of vessels will be used in the operations, 
including source vessels and support vessels. Sounds from boats and 
vessels have been reported extensively (Greene and Moore, 1995; 
Blackwell and Greene, 2002; 2005; 2006). Numerous measurements of 
underwater vessel sound have been performed in support of recent 
industry activity in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Results of these 
measurements have been reported in various 90-day and comprehensive 
reports since 2007 (e.g., Aerts et al., 2008; Hauser et al., 2008; 
Brueggeman, 2009; Ireland et al., 2009). For example, Garner and Hannay 
(2009) estimated sound pressure levels of 100 dB at distances ranging 
from approximately 2.4 to 3.7 km (1.5 to 2.3 mi) from various types of 
barges. MacDonald et al. (2008) estimated higher underwater SPLs from 
the seismic vessel Gilavar of 120 dB at approximately 21 km (13 mi) 
from the source, although the sound level was only 150 dB at 26 m (85 
ft) from the vessel. Compared to airgun pulses, underwater sound from 
vessels is generally at relatively low levels.
    The primary sources of sounds from all vessel classes are propeller 
cavitation, propeller singing, and propulsion or other machinery. 
Propeller cavitation is usually the dominant noise source for vessels 
(Ross, 1976). Propeller cavitation and singing are produced outside the 
hull, whereas propulsion or other machinery noise originates inside the 
hull. There are additional sounds produced by vessel activity, such as 
pumps, generators, flow noise from water passing over the

[[Page 49933]]

hull, and bubbles breaking in the wake. Icebreakers contribute greater 
sound levels during ice-breaking activities than ships of similar size 
during normal operation in open water (Richardson et al., 1995). This 
higher sound production results from the greater amount of power and 
propeller cavitation required when operating in thick ice. Source 
levels from various vessels would be empirically measured before the 
start of marine surveys.
    For this project, the majority of any vessel noise would occur 
concurrently with sounds generated by seismic airguns or icebreaking 
and any potential impacts would be expected to be subsumed by the 
impacts of those louder sources.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The primary potential impacts to marine mammals and other marine 
species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by airguns 
and other active acoustic sources, noise generated from icebreaking, 
and breaking of ice during the seismic survey. However, other potential 
impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also 
possible.

Potential Impacts on Prey Species

    With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 
fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to 
communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson 
and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the 
strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors 
determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially 
react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the 
signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
    The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior 
is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to 
react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the 
detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold 
can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition 
(Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of 
sound rather than a continuous signal (such as noise from a vessel or 
icebreaking) (Blaxter et al., 1981), and a quicker alarm response is 
elicited when the sound signal intensity rises rapidly compared to 
sound rising more slowly to the same level.
    Investigations of fish behavior in relation to vessel noise (Olsen 
et al., 1983; Ona, 1988; Ona and Godo, 1990) have shown that fish react 
when the sound from the engines and propeller exceeds a certain level. 
Avoidance reactions have been observed in fish, such as cod and 
herring, when vessels approached close enough that received sound 
levels are 110 dB to 130 dB (Nakken, 1992; Olsen, 1979; Ona and Godo, 
1990; Ona and Toresen, 1988). However, other researchers have found 
that fish such as polar cod, herring, and capeline are often attracted 
to vessels (apparently by the noise) and swim toward the vessel (Rostad 
et al., 2006). Typical sound source levels of vessel noise in the 
audible range for fish are 150 dB to 170 dB (Richardson et al., 1995).
    Further, during the proposed in-ice seismic survey, only a small 
fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given 
time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term, and fish would 
return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the seismic activity 
ceases (McCauley et al., 2000a, 2000b; Santulli et al., 1999; Pearson 
et al., 1992). Thus, the proposed survey would have little, if any, 
impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where 
seismic work is planned.
    Some mysticetes, including bowhead whales, feed on concentrations 
of zooplankton. Some feeding bowhead whales may occur in the Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea in July and August, and others feed intermittently during 
their westward migration in September and October (Richardson and 
Thomson [eds.] 2002; Lowry et al., 2004). However, by the time most 
bowhead whales reach the Chukchi Sea (October), they will likely no 
longer be feeding, or if feeding occurs it will be very limited. A 
reaction by zooplankton to a seismic impulse would only be relevant to 
whales if it caused concentrations of zooplankton to scatter. Pressure 
changes of sufficient magnitude to cause that type of reaction would 
probably occur only very close to the source. Impacts on zooplankton 
behavior are predicted to be inconsequential, and that would translate 
into negligible impacts on feeding mysticetes. Because ION will not 
start operations until early October, a substantial portion of the 
bowhead population that feeds in the Beaufort Sea during the fall 
westward migration will have already completed feeding and migrated out 
of the area before the proposed survey begins. Thus, the proposed 
activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects on prey 
species or feeding marine mammals that could cause significant or long-
term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

Potential Impacts on Physical Environment

    The proposed airgun operations will not result in any permanent 
impact on habitats used by marine mammals or to their food sources. The 
main impact issue associated with the proposed activities would be 
temporarily elevated noise levels and their associated direct effects 
on marine mammals, as discussed above, as well as the potential effects 
of icebreaking. The potential effects of icebreaking include locally 
altered ice conditions and the potential for the destruction of ringed 
seal lairs. However, ringed seals are not expected to enter these 
structures until later in the season, after the completion of ION's 
activities. Ice conditions at this time of year are typically quite 
variable with new leads opening and pressure ridges forming as wind and 
waves move the newly forming ice. This dynamic environment may be 
responsible for the mean date of permanent den entry on sea ice in the 
Beaufort Sea being later than on land (Amstrup and Gardner, 1994). The 
icebreaker and seismic vessel transit is not expected to significantly 
alter the formation of sea ice during this period.
    Icebreaking would open leads in the sea ice along the vessel 
tracklines and could potentially destroy ringed seal lairs. However, 
ringed seals will not need lairs for pupping until the late winter or 
spring (after ION completes operations), so the impacts are not 
expected to impact pup survival. Ringed seals excavate lairs in snow 
that accumulates on sea ice near their breathing holes, and an 
individual seal maintains several breathing holes (Smith and Stirling, 
1975). Ringed seal lairs are found in snow depths of 20-150 cm (8-59 
in) (Smith and Stirling, 1975), and seals are not expected to enter 
lairs before the proposed seismic survey takes place. Damage to lairs 
caused by survey activities is not expected to exceed that which occurs 
naturally, and lair destruction in the early winter would likely not 
impact ringed seal survival. Lanugal pups born in the spring can become 
hypothermic if wetted, but by early winter they are robust to 
submersion having spent the entire summer at sea (Smith et al., 1991). 
The highest density of ringed seals reported from aerial surveys 
conducted during spring when seals were emerging from lairs was in 
areas with water depth ranging from 5-35 m (16.4-115 ft) (Frost et al., 
2004). A relatively small proportion (5%; 364 km [226 mi]) of the 
proposed survey trackline is planned in that area.

[[Page 49934]]

    During the seismic survey only a small fraction of the available 
habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish 
species would be short-term, and fish are expected to return to their 
pre-disturbance behavior once the seismic activity ceases (McCauley et 
al., 2000a, b; Santulli et al., 1999; Pearson et al., 1992). Thus, the 
proposed survey would have little, if any, impact on the abilities of 
marine mammals to feed in the area where seismic work is planned.
    Refueling at sea has the potential to impact the marine environment 
if a spill were to occur. However, there are multiple procedures and 
safeguards in place to avoid such an accident. Prior to conducting a 
fuel transfer, the area around the vessels would be checked for the 
presence of marine mammals and operations delayed until the area is 
clear. A leak during refueling would be detected and the system shut 
down within a maximum of 30 seconds. The diesel oil transfer pump is 
rated at 50 IGPM @ 60 ft pressure head. Therefore, the maximum amount 
of oil that could be spilled during a transfer is 25 imperial gallons. 
This risk is reduced further with the standard use of `dry-break' 
fittings for fuel transfers.
    Based on the information provided in this section, the proposed 
activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could 
cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine 
mammals or their populations.

Potential Impacts on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for 
Taking for Subsistence Uses

Relevant Subsistence Uses

    Subsistence hunting and fishing continue to be prominent in the 
household economies and social welfare of some Alaskan residents, 
particularly among those living in small, rural villages (Wolfe and 
Walker, 1987). The disturbance and potential displacement of marine 
mammals by sounds from the proposed marine surveys are the principal 
concerns related to subsistence use of the area. Subsistence remains 
the basis for Alaska Native culture and community. Marine mammals are 
legally hunted in Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska Natives. In rural 
Alaska, subsistence activities are often central to many aspects of 
human existence, including patterns of family life, artistic 
expression, and community religious and celebratory activities. 
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. (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.
(1) Bowhead Whales
    Bowhead whale hunting is a key activity in the subsistence 
economies of Barrow and other Native communities along the Beaufort Sea 
and Chukchi Sea coast. The whale harvests have a great influence on 
social relations by strengthening the sense of Inupiat culture and 
heritage in addition to reinforcing family and community ties.
    An overall quota system for the hunting of bowhead whales was 
established by the International Whaling Commission in 1977. The quota 
is now regulated through an agreement between NMFS and the Alaska 
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). The AEWC allots the number of bowhead 
whales that each whaling community may harvest annually during five-
year periods (USDI/BLM, 2005). NMFS proposed continuation of the 
bowhead hunt for the five-year period 2008-2012 (NMFS, 2008b), and in 
June 2012, NMFS released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
proposing to continue the bowhead hunt for the period 2013-2017/2018 
(NMFS, 2012).
    The community of Barrow hunts bowhead whales in both the spring and 
fall during the whales' seasonal migrations along the coast. Often the 
bulk of the Barrow bowhead harvest is taken during the spring hunt. 
However, with larger quotas in recent years, it is common for a 
substantial fraction of the annual Barrow quota to remain available for 
the fall hunt. The communities of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik participate only 
in the fall bowhead harvest. The fall migration of bowhead whales that 
summer in the eastern Beaufort Sea typically begins in late August or 
September. Fall migration into Alaskan waters is primarily during 
September and October. However, in recent years a small number of 
bowheads have been seen or heard offshore from the Prudhoe Bay region 
during the last week of August (Treacy, 1993; LGL and Greeneridge, 
1996; Greene, 1997; Greene et al., 1999; Blackwell et al., 2004).
    In autumn, westward-migrating bowhead whales typically reach the 
Kaktovik and Cross Island (Nuiqsut hunters) areas by early September, 
at which points the hunts begin (Kaleak, 1996; Long, 1996; Galginaitis 
and Koski, 2002; Galginaitis and Funk, 2004, 2005; Koski et al., 2005). 
Around late August, the hunters from Nuiqsut establish camps on Cross 
Island from where they undertake the fall bowhead whale hunt. The 
hunting period starts normally in early September and may last as late 
as mid-October, depending mainly on ice and weather conditions and the 
success of the hunt. Most of the hunt occurs offshore in waters east, 
north, and northwest of Cross Island where bowheads migrate and not 
inside the barrier islands (Galginaitis, 2007). 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. Whaling crews use 
Kaktovik as their home base, leaving the village and returning on a 
daily basis. The core whaling area is within 19.3 km (12 mi) of the 
village with a periphery ranging about 13 km (8 mi) farther, if 
necessary. The extreme limits of the Kaktovik whaling limit would be 
the middle of Camden Bay to the west. The timing of the Kaktovik 
bowhead whale hunt roughly parallels the Cross Island whale hunt 
(Impact Assessment Inc, 1990b; SRB&A, 2009:Map 64). In recent years, 
the hunts at Kaktovik and Cross Island have usually ended by mid- to 
late September (prior to the proposed start date for ION's seismic 
survey).
    The spring hunts at Wainwright and Barrow occur after leads open 
due to the deterioration of pack ice; the spring hunt typically occurs 
from early April until the first week of June. The location of the fall 
subsistence hunt depends on ice conditions and (in some years) 
industrial activities that influence the bowheads as they move west 
(Brower, 1996). In the fall, subsistence hunters use aluminum or 
fiberglass boats with outboards. At Barrow the fall hunt usually begins 
in mid-September, and mainly occurs in the waters east and northeast of 
Point Barrow. In 2007 however, all bowheads taken in fall at Barrow 
were harvested west of Pt. Barrow in the Chukchi Sea (Suydam et al., 
2008). The whales have usually left the Beaufort Sea by late October 
(Treacy, 2002a; 2002b).
    The scheduling of this seismic survey was introduced to 
representatives of those concerned with the subsistence bowhead hunt 
including the AEWC and the North Slope Borough (NSB) Department of 
Wildlife Management during a meeting in Barrow on December 15, 2009. 
Additional meetings occurred in 2010, 2011, and 2012 with more planned 
later in 2012 to share information regarding the survey with other 
members of the subsistence hunting community. The timing of the 
proposed geophysical survey in October-December will not affect the

[[Page 49935]]

spring bowhead hunt. The fall bowhead hunt may be occurring near Barrow 
during October, and operations will be coordinated with the AEWC. ION 
will operate at the eastern end of the survey area until fall whaling 
in the Beaufort Sea near Barrow is finished. Fall bowhead whale hunts 
by members of the communities of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut will likely be 
completed prior to October.
    Whaling communities of the Bering Strait area, such as Gambell and 
Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island, hunt bowheads in the late fall 
(typically around Thanksgiving). Because ION intends to conduct 
operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas until early to mid-
December, ION's vessel transits through the Bering Strait should not 
interfere with these late fall hunts.
(2) Beluga Whales
    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 some-times 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. 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 
in USDI/BLM, 2005). The timing of the proposed survey will not overlap 
with the beluga harvest.
(3) Ice Seals
    Ringed seals are hunted mainly from October through June. Hunting 
for these smaller mammals is concentrated during winter because bowhead 
whales, bearded seals and caribou are available through other seasons. 
In winter, leads and cracks in the ice off points of land and along the 
barrier islands are used for hunting ringed seals. The seismic survey 
would be largely in offshore waters where the activities would not 
influence ringed seals in the nearshore areas where they are hunted.
    The spotted seal subsistence hunt peaks in July and August, at 
least in 1987 to 1990, but involves few animals. Spotted seals 
typically migrate south by October to overwinter in the Bering Sea, and 
therefore the proposed October-December survey will not affect hunting 
of this species. Admiralty Bay, less than 60 km (37 mi) to the east of 
Barrow, is a location where spotted seals are harvested. Spotted seals 
are also occasionally hunted in the area off Point Barrow and along the 
barrier islands of Elson Lagoon to the east (USDI/BLM, 2005). The 
average annual spotted seal harvest by the community of Barrow from 
1987-1990 was one (Braund et al., 1993)
    Bearded seals, although not favored for their meat, are important 
to subsistence activities in Barrow because of their skins. Six to nine 
bearded seal hides are used by whalers to cover each of the skin-
covered boats traditionally used for spring whaling. Because of their 
valuable hides and large size, bearded seals are specifically sought. 
Bearded seals are harvested during the summer months in the Beaufort 
Sea (USDI/BLM, 2005). The animals inhabit the environment around the 
ice floes in the drifting ice pack, so hunting usually occurs from 
boats in the drift ice. Braund et al. (1993) mapped the majority of 
bearded seal harvest sites from 1987 to 1990 as being within ~24 km 
(~15 mi) of Point Barrow. The average annual take of bearded seals by 
the Barrow community from 1987 to 1990 was 174. Because bearded seal 
hunting typically occurs during the summer months, the proposed 
October-December survey is not expected to affect bearded seal 
harvests.

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 
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.''
    Seismic surveys and associated icebreaking operations have the 
potential to impact marine mammals hunted by Native Alaskans. In the 
case of cetaceans, the most common reaction to anthropogenic sounds (as 
noted previously in this document) is avoidance of the ensonified area. 
In the case of bowhead whales, this often means that the animals could 
divert from their normal migratory path by up to several kilometers. 
Additionally, general vessel presence in the vicinity of traditional 
hunting areas could negatively impact a hunt.
    In the case of subsistence hunts for bowhead whales in the Beaufort 
and Chukchi Seas, there could be an adverse impact on the hunt if the 
whales were deflected seaward (further from shore) in traditional 
hunting areas. The impact would be that whaling crews would have to 
travel greater distances to intercept westward migrating whales, 
thereby creating a safety hazard for whaling crews and/or limiting 
chances of successfully striking and landing bowheads. Native knowledge 
indicates that bowhead whales become increasingly ``skittish'' in the 
presence of seismic noise. Whales are more wary around the hunters and 
tend to expose a much smaller portion of their back when surfacing 
(which makes harvesting more difficult). Additionally, natives report 
that bowheads exhibit angry behaviors in the presence of seismic, such 
as tail-slapping, which translate to danger for nearby subsistence 
harvesters.
    However, due to its proposed time and location, ION's proposed in-
ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas would be unlikely 
to result in the aforementioned impacts. As discussed earlier in 
detail, the only potential impacts on subsistence use of marine mammals 
from ION's proposed icebreaking seismic survey during October-December 
period are the fall bowhead hunt and ringed seal harvest. Nevertheless, 
the proposed seismic survey is expected to occur in waters far offshore 
from the regular seal hunting areas, and ION indicates it would elect 
to operate at the eastern end of the survey area until fall whaling in 
the Beaufort Sea near Barrow is finished, thus reducing the likelihood 
of interfering with subsistence use of marine mammals in the vicinity 
of the project area.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under 
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible 
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
    For the proposed ION in-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas, ION worked with NMFS and proposed the following 
mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals 
in the project vicinity as a result of the marine seismic survey 
activities.

[[Page 49936]]

    As part of the application, ION submitted to NMFS a Marine Mammal 
Monitoring and Mitigation Program (4MP) for its in-ice seismic survey 
in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during the 2012 fall season. The 
objectives of the 4MP are:
     To ensure that disturbance to marine mammals and 
subsistence hunts is minimized and all permit stipulations are 
followed,
     To document the effects of the proposed survey activities 
on marine mammals, and
     To collect baseline data on the occurrence and 
distribution of marine mammals in the study area.
    The 4MP may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new 
information received from the public during the public comment period 
or from the peer review panel (see the ``Monitoring Plan Peer Review'' 
section later in this document).

Mitigation Measures Proposed in ION's IHA Application

    ION listed the following protocols to be implemented during its 
marine seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
(1) Exclusion Zones
    Under current NMFS guidelines, ``exclusion zones'' for marine 
mammals around industrial sound sources are customarily defined as the 
distances within which received sound levels are >=180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms) for cetaceans and >=190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for pinnipeds. These 
criteria are based on an assumption that sound energy at lower received 
levels will not injure these animals or impair their hearing abilities 
but that higher received levels might have some such effects. 
Disturbance or behavioral effects to marine mammals from underwater 
sound may occur after exposure to sound at distances greater than the 
exclusion zone (Richardson et al., 1995; see above).
    Received sound levels were modeled for the full 26 airgun, 4,450 
in\3\ array in relation to distance and direction from the source 
(Zykov et al., 2010). Based on the model results, Table 1 in this 
document shows the distances from the airguns where ION predicts that 
received sound levels will drop below 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms). A single 70-in\3\ airgun would be used during turns or if a 
power down of the full array (see below) is necessary due to the 
presence of a marine mammal within or about to enter the applicable 
exclusion zone of the full airgun array. To model the source level of 
the 70-in\3\ airgun, ION used the measurements of a 30-in\3\ airgun. 
Underwater sound propagation of a 30-in\3\ airgun was measured in <100 
m (328 ft) of water near Harrison Bay in 2007, and results were 
reported in Funk et al. (2008). The constant term of the resulting 
equation was increased by 2.45 dB based on the difference between the 
volume of the two airguns [2.45 = 20Log(70/30)[caret](\1/3\)]. The 190 
and 180 dB (rms) distances for the 70-in\3\ airgun from the adjusted 
equation, 19 m (62 ft) and 86 m (282 ft) respectively, would be used as 
the exclusion zones around the single 70 in\3\ airgun in all water 
depths until results from field measurements are available.
    An acoustics contractor would perform the direct measurements of 
the received levels of underwater sound versus distance and direction 
from the energy source arrays using calibrated hydrophones (see below 
``Sound Source Verification'' in the ``Proposed Monitoring'' section). 
The acoustic data would be analyzed as quickly as reasonably 
practicable in the field and used to verify (and if necessary adjust) 
the size of the exclusion zones. The field report will be made 
available to NMFS and the Protected Species Observers (PSOs) within 120 
hrs of completing the measurements. The mitigation measures to be 
implemented at the 190 and 180 dB (rms) sound levels would include 
power downs and shut downs as described below.

 Table 1--Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones From the 26 Airgun, 4,450-in\3\ Array, for Specific Categories Based on
                                                 the Water Depth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Exclusion and disturbance zones (meters)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                      rms (dB re. 1 [mu]Pa)                       less than  100                     more than
                                                                         m        100 m- 1,000 m      1,000 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
190.............................................................             600             180             180
180.............................................................           2,850             660             580
160.............................................................          27,800          42,200          31,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Speed or Course Alteration
    If a marine mammal (in water) is detected outside the exclusion 
zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to 
enter the exclusion zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course shall 
be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect on the planned 
objectives when such a maneuver is safe.
    Another measure proposes to avoid concentrations or groups of 
whales by all vessels in transit under the direction of ION. Operators 
of vessels should, at all times, conduct their activities at the 
maximum distance possible from such concentrations of whales.
    All vessels during transit shall be operated at speeds necessary to 
ensure no physical contact with whales occurs. If any barge or transit 
vessel approaches within 1.6 km (1 mi) of observed bowhead whales, the 
vessel operator shall take reasonable precautions to avoid potential 
interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the 
following actions, as appropriate:
    (A) Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 300 yards 
(900 feet or 274 m) of the whale(s);
    (B) Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
    (C) Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating 
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
    (D) Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make 
multiple changes in direction; and
    (E) Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to 
ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
    When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, 
adjust vessel speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to 
whales.
    In the event that any aircraft (such as helicopters) are used to 
support the planned survey, the proposed mitigation measures below 
would apply:
    (A) Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, shall aircraft 
be operated at an altitude lower than 1,000 feet above sea level (ASL) 
when within 0.3 mile (0.5 km) of groups of whales.
    (B) Helicopters shall not hover or circle above or within 0.3 mile 
(0.5 km) of groups of whales.

[[Page 49937]]

 (3) Ramp Ups
    A ramp up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound 
levels and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total volume 
of airguns firing until the full volume is achieved. The purpose of a 
ramp up is to ``warn'' marine mammals in the vicinity of the airguns 
and to provide the time for them to leave the area and thus avoid any 
potential injury or impairment of their hearing abilities.
    During the proposed seismic survey program, the seismic operator 
will ramp up the airgun arrays slowly. Full ramp ups (i.e., from a cold 
start after a shut down or when no airguns have been firing) will begin 
by firing a single airgun in the array. A full ramp up, following a 
cold start, can be applied if the exclusion zone has been free of 
marine mammals for a consecutive 30-minute period. The entire exclusion 
zone must have been visible during these 30 minutes. If the entire 
exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp up from a cold start cannot 
begin.
    Ramp up procedures from a cold start shall be delayed if a marine 
mammal is sighted within the exclusion zone during the 30-minute period 
prior to the ramp up. The delay shall last until the marine mammal(s) 
has been observed to leave the exclusion zone or until the animal(s) is 
not sighted for at least 15 or 30 minutes. The 15 minutes applies to 
small odontocetes and pinnipeds, while a 30 minute observation period 
applies to baleen whales and large toothed whales.
    A ramp up, following a shutdown, can be applied if the marine 
mammal(s) for which the shutdown occurred has been observed to leave 
the exclusion zone or until the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 
15 minutes (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (baleen 
whales and large toothed whales).
    If, for any reason, electrical power to the airgun array has been 
discontinued for a period of 10 minutes or more, ramp-up procedures 
shall be implemented. Only if the PSO watch has been suspended, a 30-
minute clearance of the exclusion zone is required prior to commencing 
ramp-up. Discontinuation of airgun activity for less than 10 minutes 
does not require a ramp-up.
    The seismic operator and PSOs shall maintain records of the times 
when ramp-ups start and when the airgun arrays reach full power.
    During turns and transit between seismic transects, the 70 in\3\ 
mitigation gun will remain operational. The ramp up procedure will 
still be followed when increasing the source levels from one airgun to 
the full array. PSOs will be on duty whenever the airguns are firing 
during daylight and during the 30 minute periods prior to full ramp 
ups. Daylight will occur for ~11 hours/day at the start of the survey 
in early October diminishing to ~3 hours/day in mid-November.
(4) Power Down Procedures
    A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such 
that the radii of the 190 and 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) zones are 
decreased to the extent that observed marine mammals are not in the 
applicable exclusion zone. A power down may also occur when the vessel 
is moving from one seismic line to another. During a power down, only 
one airgun is operated. The continued operation of one airgun is 
intended to (a) alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic 
vessel in the area, and (b) retain the option of initiating a ramp up 
to full array under poor visibility conditions. In contrast, a shutdown 
is when all airgun activity is suspended (see next section).
    If a marine mammal is detected outside the exclusion zone but is 
likely to enter the exclusion zone, and if the vessel's speed and/or 
course cannot be changed to avoid having the mammal enter the exclusion 
zone, the airguns may (as an alternative to a complete shutdown) be 
powered down before the mammal is within the exclusion zone. Likewise, 
if a mammal is already within the exclusion zone when first detected, 
the airguns will be powered down immediately if this is a reasonable 
alternative to a complete shutdown. During a power down of the array, 
the number of guns operating will be reduced to a single 70 in\3\ 
airgun. The pre-season estimates of the 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) and 
180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) exclusion zones around the power down source 
are 19 m (62 ft) and 86 m (282 ft), respectively. The 70 in\3\ airgun 
power down source will be measured during acoustic sound source 
measurements conducted at the start of seismic operations. If a marine 
mammal is detected within or near the applicable exclusion zone around 
the single 70 in\3\ airgun, it too will be deactivated, resulting in a 
complete shutdown (see next subsection).
    Marine mammals hauled out on ice may enter the water when 
approached closely by a vessel. If a marine mammal on ice is detected 
by PSOs within the exclusion zones, it will be watched carefully in 
case it enters the water. In the event the animal does enter the water 
and is within an applicable exclusion zone of the airguns during 
seismic operations, a power down or other necessary mitigation measures 
will immediately be implemented. If the animal does not enter the 
water, it will not be exposed to sounds at received levels for which 
mitigation is required; therefore, no mitigation measures will be 
taken.
    Following a power down, operation of the full airgun array will not 
resume until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone. The 
animal will be considered to have cleared the exclusion zone if it:
     Is visually observed to have left the exclusion zone, or
     Has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case 
of pinnipeds (excluding walruses) or small odontocetes, or
     Has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case 
of mysticetes or large odontocetes.
(5) Shutdown Procedures
    The operating airgun(s) will be shut down completely if a marine 
mammal approaches or enters the then-applicable exclusion zone and a 
power down is not practical or adequate to reduce exposure to less than 
190 or 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). The operating airgun(s) will also be 
shut down completely if a marine mammal approaches or enters the 
estimated exclusion zone around the reduced source (one 70 in\3\ 
airgun) that will be used during a power down.
    Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared 
the exclusion zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the 
exclusion zone if it is visually observed to have left the exclusion 
zone, or if it has not been seen within the zone for 15 min (pinnipeds 
and small odontocetes) or 30 min (mysticetes and large odontocetes). 
Ramp up procedures will be followed during resumption of full seismic 
operations after a shutdown of the airgun array.

Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by NMFS

    In addition to ION's proposed mitigation measures discussed above, 
NMFS proposes the following additional measures during the long periods 
of darkness when the seismic survey is proposed. Specifically in this 
case, With the exception of turns when starting a new trackline, or 
short transits or maintenance with a duration of less than one hour, 
NMFS does not recommend keeping one airgun (also referred to as the 
``mitigation gun'' in past IHAs) firing for long periods of time during 
darkness or other periods of poor visibility, as it would only 
introduce more noise into the water with no

[[Page 49938]]

potential near-term avoidance benefits for marine mammals.
    Furthermore, NMFS proposes that the airgun array be shut down if a 
pinniped is sighted hauled out on ice within the underwater exclusion 
zone (received level 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)). Even though the 
pinniped may not be exposed to in-air noise levels that could be 
considered a take, the presence of the seismic vessel could prompt the 
animal to slip into the water, and thus be exposed to a high intensity 
sound field as a result.

Mitigation Measures for Subsistence Activities

(1) Subsistence Mitigation Measures
    Since ION's proposed October-December in-ice seismic survey in the 
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is not expected to affect subsistence use of 
marine mammals by Alaskan Natives due to its proposed time and 
location, no specific mitigation measures are proposed other than those 
general mitigation measures discussed above.
(2) Plan of Cooperation (POC)
    Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for 
activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a POC or 
information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will 
be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence purposes.
    ION has developed a ``Plan of Cooperation'' (POC) for the proposed 
2012 seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in consultation 
with representatives of Barrow, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Wainwright and 
subsistence users within these communities. NMFS received a final draft 
of the POC on May 22, 2012. The final draft POC is posted on NMFS Web 
site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
    ION will continue to engage with the communities of Barrow, 
Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Wainwright to identify and avoid areas of 
potential conflict. The meetings with stakeholders that took place in 
2010 and 2011 are listed in Table 16 and Table 17, respectively, of 
ION's IHA application. The meetings that have taken place in 2012, as 
well as additional proposed meetings, are listed in Table 18 of ION's 
IHA application. Members of marine mammal co-management groups and 
groups that address subsistence activities were specifically notified 
of the public meetings so that they could provide input. A record of 
all consultation with subsistence users will be included in the 2012 
Final POC document.

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed 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 proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed 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.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 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 proposed action area.

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    The monitoring plan proposed by ION can be found in the 4MP. The 
plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new 
information received from the public during the public comment period. 
A summary of the primary components of the plan follows.
(1) Protected Species Observers
    Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals will be performed by 
trained PSOs throughout the period of survey activities, supplemented 
by the officers on duty, to comply with expected provisions in the IHA 
(if issued). The observers will monitor the occurrence and behavior of 
marine mammals near the survey vessels during all daylight periods. PSO 
duties will include watching for and identifying marine mammals; 
recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey 
operations; and documenting ``take by harassment'' as defined by NMFS.
A. Number of Observers
    A sufficient number of PSOs will be required onboard the survey 
vessel to meet the following criteria:
     100% monitoring coverage during all periods of survey 
operations in daylight;
     Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
     Maximum of ~12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
    An experienced field crew leader will supervise the PSO team 
onboard the survey vessels. ION's proposed survey will occur in 
October-December when the number of hours of daylight is significantly 
reduced, and thus will require fewer PSOs to be aboard the survey 
vessel than required for surveys conducted during the open water season 
with nearly 24 hrs of daylight. PSOs aboard the icebreaker operating 
0.5-1 km (0.31-0.62 mi) ahead of the survey vessel will provide early 
detection of marine mammals along the survey track. Three PSOs will be 
stationed aboard the icebreaker Polar Prince to take advantage of this 
forward operating platform and provide advance notice of marine mammals 
to the PSO on the survey vessel. Three PSOs will be stationed aboard 
the survey vessel Geo Arctic to monitor the exclusion zones centered on 
the airguns and to request mitigation actions when necessary.
B. Observer Qualifications and Training
    Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers will be 
individuals with recent experience as observers during one or more 
seismic monitoring projects in Alaska, the Canadian Beaufort Sea, or 
other offshore areas.
    Biologist-observers will have previous marine mammal observation 
experience, and field crew leaders will be highly experienced with 
previous vessel-based marine mammal monitoring and mitigation projects. 
R[eacute]sum[eacute]s for all individuals will be provided to NMFS for 
review and acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers will 
be experienced in the region, familiar with the marine mammals of the 
area, and complete an approved observer training

[[Page 49939]]

course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data 
collection procedures. A PSO handbook, adapted for the specifics of the 
planned survey program, will be prepared and distributed beforehand to 
all PSOs (see summary below).
    Biologist-observers and Inupiat observers will also complete a two 
or three-day training and refresher session together on marine mammal 
monitoring, to be conducted shortly before the anticipated start of the 
seismic survey. When possible, experienced observers will be paired 
with inexperienced observers. The training session(s) will be conducted 
by qualified marine mammalogists with extensive crew-leader experience 
during previous vessel-based seismic monitoring programs.
    Primary objectives of the training include:
     Review of the marine mammal monitoring plan for this 
project, including any amendments specified by NMFS in the IHA (if 
issued);
     Review of marine mammal sighting, identification, and 
distance estimation methods using visual aids;
     Review of operation of specialized equipment (reticle 
binoculars, night vision devices (NVDs), and GPS system);
     Review of, and classroom practice with, data recording and 
data entry systems, including procedures for recording data on marine 
mammal sightings, monitoring operations, environmental conditions, and 
entry error control. These procedures will be implemented through use 
of a customized computer database and laptop computers;
     Review of the specific tasks of the Inupiat Communicator; 
and
     Exam to ensure all observers can correctly identify marine 
mammals and record sightings.
C. PSO Handbook
    A PSOs' Handbook will be prepared for ION's monitoring program. 
Handbooks contain maps, illustrations, and photographs, as well as 
text, and are intended to provide guidance and reference information to 
trained individuals who will participate as PSOs. The following topics 
will be covered in the PSO Handbook for the ION project:
     Summary overview descriptions of the project, marine 
mammals and underwater noise, the marine mammal monitoring program 
(vessel-based, aerial, acoustic measurements), the NMFS' IHA (if 
issued) and other regulations/permits/agencies, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act;
     Monitoring and mitigation objectives and procedures, 
initial exclusion zones;
     Responsibilities of staff and crew regarding the marine 
mammal monitoring plan;
     Instructions for ship crew regarding the marine mammal 
monitoring plan;
     Data recording procedures: codes and coding instructions, 
common coding mistakes, electronic database; navigational, marine 
physical, field data sheet;
     List of species that might be encountered: identification 
cues, natural history information;
     Use of specialized field equipment (reticle binoculars, 
NVDs, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system);
     Reticle binocular distance scale;
     Table of wind speed, Beaufort wind force, and sea state 
codes;
     Data storage and backup procedures;
     Safety precautions while onboard;
     Crew and/or personnel discord; conflict resolution among 
PSOs and crew;
     Drug and alcohol policy and testing;
     Scheduling of cruises and watches;
     Communication availability and procedures;
     List of field gear that will be provided;
     Suggested list of personal items to pack;
     Suggested literature, or literature cited; and
     Copies of the NMFS IHA and USFWS LOA when available.
(2) Monitoring Methodology
A. General Monitoring Methodology
    The observer(s) will watch for marine mammals from the best 
available vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge. 
The observer(s) will scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7x50 
reticle binoculars, supplemented during good visibility conditions with 
20x60 image-stabilized Zeiss Binoculars or Fujinon 25x150 ``Big-eye'' 
binoculars, a thermal imaging (FLIR) camera, and night-vision equipment 
when needed (see below). Personnel on the bridge will assist the marine 
mammal observer(s) in watching for marine mammals.
    Information to be recorded by observers will include the same types 
of information that were recorded during recent monitoring programs 
associated with Industry activity in the Arctic (e.g., Ireland et al., 
2009). When a mammal sighting is made, the following information about 
the sighting will be recorded:
     Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if 
determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, 
heading (if determinable), bearing and distance from observer, apparent 
reaction to activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, etc.), closest 
point of approach, and pace;
     Additional details for any unidentified marine mammal or 
unknown observed;
     Time, location, speed, and activity of the vessel, sea 
state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
     The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the 
observer location.
    The ship's position, speed of the vessel, water depth, sea state, 
ice cover, visibility, airgun status (ramp up, mitigation gun, or full 
array), and sun glare will also be recorded at the start and end of 
each observation watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever 
there is a change in any of those variables.
    Distances to nearby marine mammals will be estimated with 
binoculars containing a reticle to measure the vertical angle of the 
line of sight to the animal relative to the horizon. Observers may use 
a laser rangefinder to test and improve their abilities for visually 
estimating distances to objects in the water. However, previous 
experience has shown that a Class 1 eye-safe device was not able to 
measure distances to seals more than about 70 m (230 ft) away. The 
device was very useful in improving the distance estimation abilities 
of the observers at distances up to about 600 m (1,968 ft), the maximum 
range at which the device could measure distances to highly reflective 
objects such as other vessels. Humans observing objects of more-or-less 
known size via a standard observation protocol, in this case from a 
standard height above water, quickly become able to estimate distances 
within about 20% when given immediate feedback about actual 
distances during training.
    When a marine mammal is seen within the exclusion zone applicable 
to that species, the geophysical crew will be notified immediately so 
that mitigation measures required by the IHA (if issued) can be 
implemented. It is expected that the airgun array will be shut down 
within several seconds, often before the next shot would be fired, and 
almost always before more than one additional shot is fired. The 
protected species observer will then maintain a watch to determine when 
the mammal(s) appear to be outside the exclusion zone such that airgun 
operations can resume.
    ION will provide or arrange for the following specialized field 
equipment for use by the onboard PSOs: 7 x 50

[[Page 49940]]

reticle binoculars, Big-eye binoculars or high power image-stabilized 
binoculars, GPS unit, laptop computers, night vision binoculars, 
digital still and possibly digital video cameras in addition to the 
above mentioned FLIR camera system (see below).
B. Monitoring At Night and In Poor Visibility
    Night-vision equipment (Generation 3 binocular image intensifiers, 
or equivalent units) will be available for use when/if needed. Past 
experience with NVDs in the Beaufort Sea and elsewhere has indicated 
that NVDs are not nearly as effective as visual observation during 
daylight hours (e.g., Harris et al., 1997, 1998; Moulton and Lawson, 
2002). A FLIR camera system mounted on a high point near the bow of the 
icebreaker will also be available to assist with detecting the presence 
of seals and polar bears on ice and, perhaps also in the water, ahead 
of the airgun array. The FLIR system detects thermal contrasts and its 
ability to sense these differences is not dependent on daylight.
    Additional details regarding the monitoring protocol during NVD and 
FLIR system use has been developed in order to collect data in a 
standardized manner such that the effectiveness of the two devices can 
be analyzed and compared.
B. (1) FLIR and NVD Monitoring
    The infrared system is able to detect differences in the surface 
temperature of objects making it potentially useful during both 
daylight and darkness periods. NVDs, or light intensifiers, amplify low 
levels of ambient light from moonlight or sky glow light in order to 
provide an image to the user. Both technologies have the potential to 
improve monitoring and mitigation efforts in darkness. However, they 
remain relatively unproven in regards to their effectiveness under the 
conditions and it the manner of use planned for this survey. The 
protocols for FLIR and NVD use and data collection described below are 
intended to collect the necessary data in order to evaluate the ability 
of these technologies to aid in the detection of marine mammals from a 
vessel.

 All PSOs will monitor for marine mammals according to the 
procedures outlined in the PSO handbook.
 One PSO will be responsible for monitoring the FLIR system 
(IR-PSO) during most darkness and twilight periods. The on-duty IR-PSO 
will monitor the IR display and alternate between the two search 
methods described below. If a second PSO is on watch, they will scan 
the same area as the FLIR using the NVDs for comparison. The two PSOs 
will coordinate what area is currently being scanned.
 The IR-PSO should rotate between the search methods (see 
below) every 30 minutes in the suggested routine (see below):
    [cir] 00:00-00:30: Method I
    [cir] 00:30-01:00: Method II, Port side
    [cir] 01:00-01:30: Method I
    [cir] 01:30-02:00: Method II, Starboard side
B. (2) FLIR Search Methods
    The FLIR system consists of a camera that will be mounted on high 
point in front of the vessel. The camera is connected to a joystick 
control unit (JCU) and a display monitor that will be located on the 
bridge of the vessel. The IR-PSO will manually control the view that is 
displayed by adjusting the pan (360[deg] continuous pan) and tilt (+/-
90[deg] tilt) settings using the JCU. The FLIR manufacturer has 
indicated that they have tested the FLIR unit (model M626L) to -25 
[deg]C (-13[emsp14][deg]F), but expect that it will operate at colder 
temperatures. During the time of the proposed seismic survey, the 
average minimum temperatures at Prudhoe Bay in October and November are 
+10[emsp14][deg]F and -10[emsp14][deg]F, respectively. Colder 
temperatures are certainly likely at times, but overall the 
temperatures should generally be within the operational range of the 
equipment.
    As noted above, two different search methods will be implemented 
for FLIR monitoring and results from the two will be compared. The 
first method involves a back-and-forth panning motion and the second 
utilizes the FLIR unit focused on a fixed swath ahead and to one side 
of the vessel track:
    Method I: Set the horizontal tilt of the camera to an angle that 
provides an adequate view out in front of the vessel and also provides 
good resolution to potential targets (this will likely mean that the 
lower portion of the view displayed on the monitor is of an area 
relatively close to the vessel (<100 m [328 ft]) while the middle and 
upper portions of the view are at greater distances (500-2,000 m 
[1,640-6,562 ft]). Pan back and forth across the forward 180[deg] of 
the vessels heading at a slow-scanning rate of approximately 1-2[deg]/
sec, as one would with binoculars. This method is intended to replicate 
the type of observations conducted using binoculars and cover a 
relatively wider swatch compared to Method II. It should produce 
sightings data that can be analyzed using line-transect methodologies 
to estimate marine mammal densities in the survey area.
    Method II: Set the horizontal tilt of the camera to an angle that 
provides an adequate view out in front of the vessel (similar or 
identical to the above), and then set the camera at a fixed position 
that creates a swath of view off the bow and to one side of the vessel 
(see Figure 1 of ION's monitoring plan). This method essentially 
establishes a fixed-strip width that is intended to produce sightings 
data that can be analyzed using strip-transect methodologies to 
estimate marine mammal densities.
B. (3) NVD Methods
    The NVDs are goggles worn by the observer and are to be used in a 
similar fashion as binoculars. When observing in conjunction with the 
FLIR system, the objective will be to replicate the monitoring 
methodology being employed by the FLIR system. Method I requires a full 
180[deg] scan (or as large of a range as possible from the observer's 
location) with the NVDs, and Method II requires a focused scan of the 
~60[deg] swath being monitored by the FLIR system.
C. Field Data-Recording, Verification, Handling, and Security
    The observers will record their observations onto datasheets or 
directly into handheld computers. During periods between watches and 
periods when operations are suspended, those data will be entered into 
a laptop computer running a custom computer database. The accuracy of 
the data entry will be verified in the field by computerized validity 
checks as the data are entered, and by subsequent manual checking of 
the database printouts. These procedures will allow initial summaries 
of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field season, and 
will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical or other 
programs for further processing. Quality control of the data will be 
facilitated by (1) the start-of-season training session, (2) subsequent 
supervision by the onboard field crew leader, and (3) ongoing data 
checks during the field season.
    The data will be backed up regularly onto CDs and/or USB disks, and 
stored at separate locations on the vessel. If possible, data sheets 
will be photocopied daily during the field season. Data will be secured 
further by having data sheets and backup data CDs carried back to the 
Anchorage office during crew rotations.
    In addition to routine PSO duties, observers will use Traditional 
Knowledge and Natural History datasheets to record observations that

[[Page 49941]]

are not captured by the sighting or effort data. Copies of these 
records will be available to observers for reference if they wish to 
prepare a statement about their observations. If prepared, this 
statement would be included in the 90-day and final reports documenting 
the monitoring work.
D. Effort and Sightings Data Collection Methods
    Observation effort data will be designed to capture the amount of 
PSO effort itself, environmental conditions that impact an observer's 
ability to detect marine mammals, and the equipment and method of 
monitoring being employed. These data will be collected every 30 
minutes or when an effort variable changes (e.g., change in the 
equipment or method being used to monitor, on/off-signing PSO, etc.), 
and will be linked to sightings data. Effort and sightings data forms 
are the same forms used during other marine mammal monitoring in the 
open water season, but additional fields have been included to capture 
information specific to monitoring in darkness and to more accurately 
describe the observation conditions. The additional fields include the 
following.
     Observation Method: FLIR, NVD, spotlight, eye (naked eye 
or regular binoculars), or multiple methods. This data is collected 
every 30 minutes with the Observer Effort form and with every sighting.
     Cloud Cover: Percentage. This can impact lighting 
conditions and reflectivity.
     Precipitation Type: Fog, rain, snow, or none.
     Precipitation Reduced Visibility: Confirms whether or not 
visibility is reduced due to precipitation. This will be compared to 
the visibility distance ( km) to determine when visibility is 
reduced due to lighting conditions versus precipitation.
     Daylight Amount: Daylight, twilight, dark. The addition of 
the twilight field has been included to record observation periods 
where the sun has set and observation distances may be reduced due to 
lack of light.
     Light Intensity: Recorded in footcandles (fc) using an 
incident light meter. This procedure was added to quantify the 
available light during twilight and darkness periods and may allow for 
light-intensity bins to be used during analysis.
    Analysis of the sightings data will include comparisons of 
nighttime (FLIR and NVD) sighting rates to daylight sighting rates. 
FLIR and NVD analysis will be independent of each other and according 
to method (I or II) used. Comparison of NVD and FLIR sighting rates 
will allow for a comparison of marine mammal detection ability of the 
two methods. However, results and analyses could be limited if 
relatively few sightings are recorded during the survey.
(3) Acoustic Monitoring Plan
A. Sound Source Measurements
    As described above, received sound levels were modeled for the full 
26 airgun, 4,450 in\3\ array in relation to distance and direction from 
the source (Zykov et al., 2010). These modeled distances will be used 
as temporary exclusion zones until measurements of the airgun sound 
source are conducted. The measurements will be made at the beginning of 
the field season, and the measured radii will be used for the remainder 
of the survey period. An acoustics contractor with experience in the 
Arctic conducting similar measurements in recent years will use their 
equipment to record and analyze the underwater sounds and write the 
summary reports as described below.
    The objectives of the sound source measurements planned for 2012 in 
the Beaufort Sea will be (1) to measure the distances in potentially 
ice covered waters in the broadside and endfire directions at which 
broadband received levels reach 190, 180, 170, 160, and 120 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms) for the energy source array combinations that may be used 
during the survey activities, and (2) measure the sounds produced by 
the icebreaker and seismic vessel as they travel through sea ice. 
Conducting the sound source and vessel measurements in ice-covered 
waters using bottom founded recorders creates a risk of not being able 
to retrieve the recorders and analyze the data until the following 
year. If the acoustic recorders are not deployed or are unable to be 
recovered because of too much sea ice, ION will use measurements of the 
same airgun source taken in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in 2010, along 
with sound velocity measurements taken in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea at 
the start of the 2012 survey to update the propagation model and 
estimate new exclusion zones. These modeled results will then be used 
for mitigation purposes during the remainder of the survey.
    The airgun configurations measured will include at least the full 
26 airgun array and the single 70 in\3\ mitigation airgun that will be 
used during power downs. The measurements of airgun array sounds will 
be made by an acoustics contractor at the beginning of the survey and 
the distances to the various radii will be reported as soon as possible 
after recovery of the equipment. The primary area of concern will be 
the 190 and 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) exclusion zones for pinnipeds and 
cetaceans, respectively, and the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa Level B harassment 
(for impulsive sources) radii. In addition to reporting the radii of 
specific regulatory concern, nominal distances to other sound isopleths 
down to 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) will be reported in increments of 10 
dB.
    Data will be previewed in the field immediately after download from 
the hydrophone instruments. An initial sound source analysis will be 
supplied to NMFS and the airgun operators within 120 hours of 
completion of the measurements. The report will indicate the distances 
to sound levels based on fits of empirical transmission loss formulae 
to data in the endfire and broadside directions. A more detailed report 
will be issued to NMFS as part of the 90-day report following 
completion of the acoustic program.
B. Seismic Hydrophone Streamer Recordings of Vessel Sounds
    Although some measurements of icebreaking sounds have previously 
been reported, acoustic data on vessels traveling through relatively 
light ice conditions, as will be the case during the proposed survey, 
are not available. In order to gather additional information on the 
sounds produced by this type of icebreaking, ION proposes to use the 
hydrophones in the seismic streamer on a routine basis throughout the 
survey. Once every hour the airguns would not be fired at 2 consecutive 
intervals (one seismic pulse interval is typically ~18 seconds, so 
there will be ~54 seconds between seismic pulses at this time) and 
instead a period of background sounds would be recorded, including the 
sounds generated by the vessels. Over the course of the survey this 
should generate as many as 750 records of vessel sounds traveling 
through various ice conditions (from open water to 100% cover juvenile 
first year ice or lighter multi-year ice). The acoustic data during 
each sampling period from each hydrophone along the 9 km (5.6 mi) 
streamer would be analyzed and used to estimate the propagation loss of 
the vessel sounds. The acoustic data received from the hydrophone 
streamer would be recorded at an effective bandwidth of 0-400 Hz. In 
order to estimate sound energy over a larger range of frequencies 
(broadband), results from previous measurements of icebreakers could be 
generalized and added to the data collected during this project.

[[Page 49942]]

C. Over-winter Acoustic Recorders
    In order to collect additional data on the propagation of sounds 
produced by icebreaking and seismic airguns in ice-covered waters, as 
well as on vocalizing marine mammals, ION intends to collaborate with 
other Industry operators to deploy acoustic recorders in the Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea in fall 2012, to be retrieved during the 2013 open-water 
season.
    During winter 2011-2012, AURAL acoustic recorders were deployed at 
or near each of the 5 acoustic array sites established by Shell for 
monitoring the fall bowhead whale migration through the Beaufort Sea, 
as well as one site near the shelf break in the central Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea. These recorders will be retrieved in July 2012, when 
Shell deploys Directional Autonomous Seafloor Acoustic Recorders 
(DASARs) at 5 array locations. When the DASAR arrays are retrieved in 
early October, ION intends to coordinate with Shell to re-deploy the 6 
AURAL recorders to the same locations used during the 2011-2012 winter. 
Redeploying the recorders in the same locations will provide comparable 
data from a year with little to no offshore industrial activity (2011) 
to a year with more offshore industrial activity (2012). Acoustic data 
from the over-winter recorders will be analyzed to address the 
following objectives:
     Characterize the sounds and propagation distances produced 
by ION's source vessel, icebreaker, and airguns on and to the edge of 
the U.S. Beaufort Sea shelf,
     Characterize ambient sounds and marine mammal calls during 
October and November to assess the relative effect of ION's seismic 
survey on the background conditions, and to characterize marine mammal 
calling behavior, and
     Characterize ambient sound and enumerate marine mammal 
calls through acoustic sampling of the environment form December 2012 
through July 2013, when little or no anthropogenic sounds are expected.

Monitoring Plan Peer Review

    The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer 
reviewed ``where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a 
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses'' (16 U.S.C. 
1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this requirement, NMFS' implementing 
regulations state, ``Upon receipt of a complete monitoring plan, and at 
its discretion, [NMFS] will either submit the plan to members of a peer 
review panel for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed 
monitoring plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan'' (50 CFR 
216.108(d)).
    NMFS convened independent peer review panels to review ION's 
mitigation and monitoring plan in its IHA applications submitted in 
2010 and 2011 for taking marine mammals incidental to the proposed 
seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, during 2010 and 2011. 
The panels met on March 25 and 26, 2010, and on March 9, 2011, and 
provided their final report to NMFS on April 22, 2010 and on April 27, 
2011, respectively. The full panel reports can be viewed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
    ION's proposed 2012 action is essentially the same as described in 
its 2010 and 2011 IHA applications. NMFS worked with ION in 2010 and 
2011 to address the peer review panels' recommendations on its 2010 and 
2011 4MPs. Since ION's 2012 4MP addressed all issues raised during the 
2010 and 2011 peer reviews and incorporated all of NMFS' requested 
changes, no peer-review of ION's 2012 4MP was conducted.
    In 2010, NMFS provided the panel with ION's 4MP and asked the panel 
to address the following questions and issues for ION's plan:
    (1) The monitoring program should document the effects (including 
acoustic) on marine mammals and document or estimate the actual level 
of take as a result of the activity. Does the monitoring plan meet this 
goal?
    (2) Ensure that the monitoring activities and methods described in 
the plan will enable the applicant to meet the requirements listed in 
(1) above;
    (3) Are the applicant's objectives achievable based on the methods 
described in the plan?
    (4) Are the applicant's objectives the most useful for 
understanding impacts on marine mammals?
    (5) Should the applicant consider additional monitoring methods or 
modifications of proposed monitoring methods for the proposed activity? 
and
    (6) What is the best way for an applicant to report their data and 
results to NMFS?
    In 2011, NMFS revised its guidance to the peer review panel and 
asked the panel to focus on more specific questions:
    (1) Are the applicant's stated objectives the most useful for 
understanding impacts on marine mammals and otherwise accomplishing the 
goals stated in the paragraph above?
    (2) Are the applicant's stated objectives able to be achieved based 
on the methods described in the plan?
    (3) Are there techniques not proposed by the applicant, or 
modifications to the techniques proposed by the applicant, that should 
be considered for inclusion in the applicant's monitoring program to 
better accomplish the goals stated above?
    (4) What is the best way for an applicant to present their data and 
results (formatting, metrics, graphics, etc.) in the required reports 
that are to be submitted to NMFS?
    In 2010, the panel members provided general recommendations that 
were applicable to all monitoring plans from all seismic activities 
during that year in section 3 of the report and recommendations that 
were specific to ION's in-ice seismic survey 4MP in section 4.1.
    In 2011, the panel members provided general recommendations that 
were applicable to all monitoring plans from all seismic activities 
during that year in section 4 of the report and recommendations that 
were specific to ION's in-ice seismic survey 4MP in section 5.2.
    NMFS reviewed the reports and evaluated all recommendations made by 
the panel. NMFS determined that there were several measures that ION 
could incorporate into its 2012 in-ice seismic survey monitoring plan. 
Additionally, there were other recommendations that NMFS has determined 
would also result in better data collection, and could potentially be 
implemented by oil and gas industry applicants, but which likely could 
not be implemented for the 2012 in-ice season due to technical issues 
(see below). While it may not be possible to implement those changes 
this year, NMFS believes that they are worthwhile and appropriate 
suggestions that may require additional technology advancement for them 
to be implemented, and ION should consider incorporating them into 
future monitoring plans should ION decide to apply for IHAs in the 
future.
    The following subsections lay out measures from the panel reports 
that NMFS recommended for implementation as part of the 2012 in-ice 
seismic survey by ION and those that are recommended for future 
programs.

Recommendations for Inclusion in the 2012 4MP and IHA

    Section 3.3 of the 2010 panel report contains several 
recommendations regarding PSOs, which were also included in a general 
list in the 2011 panel report. NMFS agreed that ION should incorporate 
these measures:
     Observers should be trained using visual aids (e.g., 
videos, photos), to help

[[Page 49943]]

them identify the species that they are likely to encounter in the 
conditions under which the animals will likely be seen.
     Observers should understand the importance of classifying 
marine mammals as ``unknown'' or ``unidentified'' if they cannot 
identify the animals to species with confidence. In those cases, they 
should note any information that might aid in the identification of the 
marine mammal sighted. For example, for an unidentified mysticete 
whale, the observers should record whether the animal had a dorsal fin.
     Observers should attempt to maximize the time spent 
looking at the water and guarding the exclusion zones. They should 
avoid the tendency to spend too much time evaluating animal behavior or 
entering data on forms, both of which detract from their primary 
purpose of monitoring the exclusion zone.
     `Big eye' binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150 power) should be used 
from high perches on large, stable platforms. They are most useful for 
monitoring impact zones that extend beyond the effective line of sight. 
With two or three observers on watch, the use of big eyes should be 
paired with searching by naked eye, the latter allowing visual coverage 
of nearby areas to detect marine mammals. When a single observer is on 
duty, the observer should follow a regular schedule of shifting between 
searching by naked-eye, low-power binoculars, and big-eye binoculars 
based on the activity, the environmental conditions, and the marine 
mammals of concern.
     Observers should use the best possible positions for 
observing (e.g., outside and as high on the vessel as possible), taking 
into account weather and other working conditions.
     Whenever possible, new observers should be paired with 
experienced observers to avoid situations where lack of experience 
impairs the quality of observations. If there are Alaska Native MMOs, 
the MMO training that is conducted prior to the start of the survey 
activities should be conducted with both Alaska Native MMOs and 
biologist MMOs being trained at the same time in the same room. There 
should not be separate training courses for the different MMOs.
    In Section 3.4 of the 2010 panel report, panelists recommend 
collecting some additional data to help verify the utility of the 
``ramp-up'' requirement commonly contained in IHAs. To help evaluate 
the utility of ramp-up procedures, NMFS recommends that observers be 
required to record, analyze, and report their observations during any 
ramp-up period. NMFS also supports the inclusion of specific studies 
using multiple types of monitoring (visual, acoustic, tagging) to 
evaluate how marine mammals respond to increasing received sound 
levels. Such information should provide useful evidence as to whether 
ramp-up procedures are an effective form of mitigation.
    In the same section of the 2010 report, panelists recommend 
collecting data to evaluate the efficacy of using FLIR vs. night-vision 
binoculars. The panelists note that while both of these devices may 
increase detection capabilities by PSOs of marine mammals, the 
reliability of these technologies should be tested under appropriate 
conditions and their efficacy evaluated. NMFS recommends that ION 
design a study using both FLIR and night-vision binoculars and collect 
data on levels of detection of marine mammals using each type of 
device.
    Among other things, Section 3.5 of the 2010 panel report recommends 
recording visibility data because of the concern that the line-of-sight 
distance for observing marine mammals is reduced under certain 
conditions. PSOs should ``carefully document visibility during 
observation periods so that total estimates of take can be corrected 
accordingly''.
    Section 4.1 of the 2010 panel report contained recommendations 
specific to ION's 2010 2D marine seismic survey monitoring plan, which 
were also relevant to ION's 2012 4MP. NMFS worked with ION and decided 
that some of the measures presented in this section of the report, such 
as supporting overwintering buoy studies and coordinating in conducting 
tagging studies using satellite linked telemetry, were not ready for 
ION's to implement for its 2010 season operations, but are feasible for 
its 2012 season as ION has worked to make the necessary preparations 
over the past two years. In addition, the following recommendations 
will also be implemented for the 2012 season:
     Conduct sound source verification measurements to verify 
calculated exclusion zones to account for possible sound channels in 
deeper water.
     Summarize observation effort and conditions, the number of 
animals seen by species, the location and time of each sighting, 
position relative to the survey vessel, the company's activity at the 
time, each animal's response, and any adjustments made to operating 
procedures. Provide all spatial data on charts (always including vessel 
location).
     Make all data available in the report or (preferably) 
electronically for integration with data from other companies.
     Accommodate specific requests for raw data, including 
tracks of all vessels and aircraft associated with the operation and 
activity logs documenting when and what types of sounds are introduced 
into the environment by the operation.
    NMFS spoke with ION about the inclusion of these recommendations 
into the 2012 4MP and IHA. ION indicated to NMFS that they will 
incorporate these recommendations into the 4MP, and NMFS will make 
several of these recommendations requirements in any issued IHA.
    Section 4.3 of the 2011 report contains several recommendations 
regarding PSOs. NMFS agreed that the following measures should be 
incorporated into the 2012 4MP.
     PSOs record additional details about unidentified marine 
mammal sightings, such as ``blow only'', mysticete with (or without) a 
dorsal fin, ``seal splash'', etc. That information should also be 
included in 90-day and final reports.
    In Section 4.7 of the 2011 panel report, panelists included a 
section regarding the need for a more robust and comprehensive means of 
assessing the collective or cumulative impact of many of the varied 
human activities that contribute noise into the Arctic environment. 
Specifically, for data analysis and integration, the panelists 
recommended, and NMFS agrees, that the following recommendations be 
incorporated into the 2012 program:
     To better assess impacts to marine mammals, data analysis 
should be separated into periods when a seismic airgun array (or a 
single mitigation airgun) is operating and when it is not. Final and 
comprehensive reports to NMFS should summarize and plot:
    [cir] Data for periods when a seismic array is active and when it 
is not; and
    [cir] The respective predicted received sound conditions over 
fairly large areas (tens of km) around operations.
     To help evaluate the effectiveness of PSOs and more 
effectively estimate take, reports should include sightability curves 
(detection functions) for distance-based analyses.
     To better understand the potential effects of oil and gas 
activities on marine mammals and to facilitate integration among 
companies and other researchers, the following data should be obtained 
and provided electronically in the final and comprehensive reports:
    [cir] The location and time of each aerial or vessel-based sighting 
or acoustic detection;

[[Page 49944]]

    [cir] Position of the sighting or acoustic detection relative to 
ongoing operations (i.e., distance from sightings to seismic operation, 
drilling ship, support ship, etc.), if known;
    [cir] The nature of activities at the time (e.g., seismic on/off);
    [cir] Any identifiable marine mammal behavioral response (sighting 
data should be collected in a manner that will not detract from the 
PSO's ability to detect marine mammals); and
    [cir] Any adjustments made to operating procedures.
    In Section 4.9 of the 2011 panel report, the panelists discussed 
improving take estimates and statistical inference into effects of the 
activities. NMFS agreed that the following measures should be 
incorporated into the 2012 4MP:
     Reported results from all hypothesis tests should include 
estimates of the associated statistical power.
     Estimate and report uncertainty in all take estimates. 
Uncertainty could be expressed by the presentation of confidence 
limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, etc.; 
the exact approach would be selected based on the sampling method and 
data available.
    Section 5.2 of the 2011 report contained recommendations specific 
to ION's 2011 2D seismic survey monitoring plan. Of the recommendations 
presented in this section, NMFS determined that the following should be 
implemented for the 2012 season:
     ION should test thermal imaging technologies during the 
proposed activities.
     Airguns should be turned off for two shots (i.e., 60 
seconds) to provide sufficient time to record the background noise 
associated with the vessels.
     ION should deploy overwintering acoustic recorders within 
their survey area during their eastward transit across the Alaskan 
Beaufort to the Canadian Beaufort Sea early in the summer. The 
recorders would monitor sounds during the summer, the seismic shoot, 
and over the winter. ION should contract someone to return in 2012 
(2013 in the case that the seismic survey is delayed to 2012) to 
retrieve the instruments and analyze the data. These acoustic data 
would provide some true baseline information to compare the occurrence, 
distribution, and behavior of marine mammals at times when ION's 
activities are occurring and when they are absent. To accomplish this, 
ION should present a plan for an acoustic monitoring program to a NMFS-
approved expert for review. The plan should consider the best placement 
of the instruments relative to ION's proposed activities, the expected 
distribution and gradients in marine mammal distribution, and other 
existing overwintering recorders. There are relatively few data on the 
distribution and relative abundance of marine mammals in the Beaufort 
Sea during ION's planned seismic survey.
     The report should clearly compare authorized takes to the 
level of actual estimated takes.
     Sightability curves (detection functions) for PSOs should 
be provided.
    In addition, the panelists included a list of general 
recommendations from the 2010 Peer-review Panel Report to be 
implemented by operators in their 2011 open-water season activities. 
NMFS agreed that the following recommendations should be implemented in 
ION's 2012 monitoring plan (only those not mentioned previously in this 
document are noted here):
     Sightings should be entered and archived in a way that 
enables immediate geospatial depiction to facilitate operational 
awareness and analysis of risks to marine mammals. Real-time monitoring 
is especially important in areas of seasonal migration or influx of 
marine mammals. Various software packages for real-time data entry, 
mapping, and analysis are available for this purpose.
     Whenever possible, new observers should be paired with 
experienced observers to avoid situations where lack of experience 
impairs the quality of observations.

Recommendations for Inclusion in Future Monitoring Plans

    Section 3.5 of the 2010 report recommends methods for conducting 
comprehensive monitoring of a large-scale seismic operation. One method 
for conducting this monitoring recommended by panel members is the use 
of passive acoustic devices. Additionally, Section 3.2 of the 2010 
report encourages the use of such systems if aerial surveys will not be 
used for real-time mitigation monitoring. NMFS acknowledges that there 
are challenges involved in using this technology in conjunction with 
seismic airguns in this environment, especially in real time. However, 
NMFS recommends that ION work to help develop and improve this type of 
technology for use in the Arctic (and use it once it is available and 
effective), as it could be valuable both for real-time mitigation 
implementation, as well as for archival data collection.
    The panelists also recommend adding a tagging component to 
monitoring plans. ``Tagging of animals expected to be in the area where 
the survey is planned also may provide valuable information on the 
location of potentially affected animals and their behavioral responses 
to industrial activities. Although the panel recognized that such 
comprehensive monitoring might be difficult and expensive, such an 
effort (or set of efforts) reflects the complex nature of the challenge 
of conducting reliable, comprehensive monitoring for seismic or other 
relatively-intense industrial operations that ensonify large areas of 
ocean.'' While this particular recommendation is not feasible for 
implementation in 2012, NMFS recommends that ION consider adding a 
tagging component to future seismic survey monitoring plans should ION 
decide to conduct such activities in future years.
    To the extent possible, NMFS recommends implementing the 
recommendation contained in Section 4.1.6 of the 2010 report: 
``Integrate all observer data with information from tagging and 
acoustic studies to provide a more comprehensive description of the 
acoustic environment during its survey.'' However, NMFS recognizes that 
this integration process may take time to implement. Therefore, ION 
should begin considering methods for the integration of the observer 
data now if ION intends to apply for IHAs in the future.
    In Section 4.7 of the 2011 report, the panelists stated that 
advances in integrating data from multiple platforms through the use of 
standardized data formats are needed to increase the statistical power 
to assess potential effects. Therefore, the panelists recommended that 
industry examine this issue and jointly propose one or several data 
integration methods to NMFS at the Open Water Meeting in 2012 (in this 
case, at the Open Water Meeting in 2013, since ION cancelled its 
proposed 2011 operation). NMFS concurs with the recommendation and 
encourages ION to collaborate with other companies to discuss data 
integration methods to achieve these efforts and to present the results 
of those discussions at the 2013 Open Water Meeting.

Other Recommendations in the Report

    The panel also made several recommendations in 2010, which were not 
discussed in the two preceding subsections. NMFS determined that many 
of the recommendations were made beyond the bounds of what the panel 
members were tasked to do. For example, the panel recommended that NMFS 
begin a transition away from

[[Page 49945]]

using a single metric of acoustic exposure to estimate the potential 
effects of anthropogenic sound on marine living resources. This is not 
a recommendation about monitoring but rather addresses a NMFS policy 
issue. NMFS is currently in the process of revising its acoustic 
guidelines on a national scale. Section 3.7 of the 2010 report contains 
several recommendations regarding comprehensive ecosystem assessments 
and cumulative impacts. These are good, broad recommendations, however, 
the implementation of these recommendations would not be the 
responsibility solely of oil and gas industry applicants. The 
recommendations require the cooperation and input of several groups, 
including Federal, state, and local government agencies, members of 
other industries, and members of the scientific research community. 
NMFS will encourage the industry and others to build the relationships 
and infrastructure necessary to pursue these goals, and incorporate 
these recommendations into future MMPA authorizations, as appropriate. 
Section 3.8 of the 2010 report makes a recommendation regarding data 
sharing and reducing the duplication of seismic survey effort. While 
this is a valid recommendation, it does not relate to monitoring or 
address any of the six questions which the panel members were tasked to 
answer.
    For some of the recommendations, NMFS determined that additional 
clarification was required by the panel members before NMFS could 
determine whether or not applicants should incorporate them into the 
monitoring plans. NMFS asked for additional clarification on some of 
the recommendations regarding data collection and take estimate 
calculations. In addition, NMFS asked the panel members for 
clarification on the recommendation contained in Section 3.6 of the 
2010 report regarding baseline studies.

Reporting Measures

Reporting

(1) SSV Report
    A report on the preliminary results of the acoustic verification 
measurements, including as a minimum the measured 190-, 180-, 160-, and 
120-dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) radii of the airgun arrays will be submitted 
within 120 hr after collection and analysis of those measurements at 
the start of the field season. This report will specify the distances 
of the exclusion zones that were adopted for the marine survey 
activities.
(2) Field Reports
    Throughout the survey program, the observers will prepare a report 
each day or at such other intervals as the IHA may specify (if issued), 
or ION may require summarizing the recent results of the monitoring 
program. The field reports will summarize the species and numbers of 
marine mammals sighted. These reports will be provided to NMFS and to 
the survey operators.
(3) Technical Reports
    The results of the vessel-based monitoring, including estimates of 
``take by harassment'', will be presented in the 90-day and final 
technical reports. Reporting will address the requirements established 
by NMFS in the IHA (if issued). The technical report will include:
    (a) Summaries of monitoring effort: total hours, total distances, 
and distribution of marine mammals through the study period accounting 
for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability 
of marine mammals;
    (b) Methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all acoustic 
characterization work and vessel-based monitoring;
    (c) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals including sea state, number of 
observers, and fog/glare;
    (d) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine 
mammal sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender 
categories, group sizes, and ice cover; and
    (e) Analyses of the effects of survey operations:
     Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect 
detectability);
     Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state;
     Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state;
     Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun 
activity state;
     Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun 
activity state;
     Distribution around the survey vessel versus airgun 
activity state; and
     Estimates of ``take by harassment''.
(4) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
    In addition to the reporting measures proposed by ION, NMFS will 
require that ION notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' 
Stranding Network of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the 
vicinity of marine survey operations. Depending on the circumstance of 
the incident, ION shall take one of the following reporting protocols 
when an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered in the vicinity of 
the action area.
    (a) In the unanticipated event that survey operations clearly cause 
the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this 
Authorization, such as an injury, serious injury or mortality (e.g., 
ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), ION shall 
immediately cease survey operations and immediately report the incident 
to the Supervisor of Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following 
information:
    (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    (ii) The name and type of vessel involved;
    (iii) The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
    (iv) Description of the incident;
    (v) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    (vi) Water depth;
    (vii) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    (viii) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (ix) Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (x) The fate of the animal(s); and
    (xi) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is 
available).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with ION to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ION may not resume their 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
    (b) In the event that ION 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), 
ION will immediately report the incident to the Supervisor of the 
Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding 
Coordinators. The report must include the same information identified 
above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of 
the incident. NMFS will work with ION to

[[Page 49946]]

determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
    (c) In the event that ION 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 (if 
issued) (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to 
advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), ION shall report the 
incident to the Supervisor of the Incidental Take Program, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 
Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the 
discovery. ION shall provide photographs or video footage (if 
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. ION can continue its 
operations under such a case.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here 
(military readiness activities), 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]. For the most 
part, only take by Level B behavioral harassment is anticipated as a 
result of the proposed marine seismic survey. However, due to the 
limited effectiveness of marine mammal monitoring during ice cover and 
in darkness, NMFS has preliminarily determined that Level A takes of a 
few individuals of marine mammals could occur if the animals remain 
undetected within the exclusion zones for a prolonged period of time. 
Although NMFS believes this is not very likely, NMFS is proposing to 
authorize limited takes from Level A harassment in order to address the 
uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the proposed monitoring 
measures in these conditions. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals are 
associated with noise propagation from the seismic airgun(s) and the 
icebreaking used during the seismic survey.
    The full suite of potential impacts to marine mammals was described 
in detail in the ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on 
Marine Mammals'' section found earlier in this document. The potential 
effects of sound from the proposed marine survey programs might include 
one or more of the following: tolerance; masking of natural sounds; 
behavioral disturbance; non-auditory physical effects; and, at least in 
theory, temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson et al. 
1995). As discussed earlier in this document, the most common impact 
will likely be from behavioral disturbance, including avoidance of the 
ensonified area or changes in speed, direction, and/or diving profile 
of the animal.
    NMFS uses the 160 dB and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) isopleths to 
indicate the onset of Level B harassment by seismic airgun impulses and 
by icebreaking noises, respectively. ION provided calculations for the 
160-dB and 120-dB isopleths produced by these active acoustic sources 
and then used those isopleths to estimate takes by harassment. NMFS 
used the calculations to make preliminary findings under the MMPA. ION 
provided a full description of the methodology used to estimate takes 
by harassment in its IHA application (see ADDRESSES), which is also 
described in the following sections.
    ION has requested an authorization to take ten marine mammal 
species by Level B harassment. These ten marine mammal species are: 
beluga whale, harbor porpoise, bowhead whale, gray whale, humpback 
whale, minke whale, bearded seal, ringed seal, spotted seal, and ribbon 
seal. However, NMFS does not anticipate that humpback whales are likely 
to be encountered during the season of ION's icebreaking seismic 
survey. Therefore, NMFS determined that only nine of the species could 
be affected and potentially taken by harassment. In addition, although 
unlikely, NMFS determined that Level A takes of beluga whales, bowhead 
whales, and ringed seals could also occur, as the proposed monitoring 
and mitigation measures may not be 100% effective due to ice coverage 
and long periods of darkness.

Basis for Estimating ``Take by Harassment''

    As stated previously, it is current NMFS practice to estimate take 
by Level A harassment for received levels above 180 dB re 1[mu]Pa (rms) 
for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1[mu]Pa (rms) for pinnipeds, and take by 
Level B harassment for all marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction by 
impulse sounds at a received level above 160 dB re 1[mu]Pa (rms) and by 
non-impulse sounds at a received level above 120 dB re 1[mu]Pa (rms). 
However, not all animals are equally affected by the same received 
noise levels and, as described earlier, in most cases marine mammals 
are not likely to be taken by Level A harassment (injury) when exposed 
to received levels higher than 180 dB for a brief period of time.
    For behavioral harassment, marine mammals will likely not show 
strong reactions (and in some cases any reaction) until sounds are much 
stronger than 160 or 120 dB (for impulse and continuous sounds, 
respectively). Southall et al. (2007) provide a severity scale for 
ranking observed behavioral responses of both free-ranging marine 
mammals and laboratory subjects to various types of anthropogenic sound 
(see Table 4 in Southall et al. (2007)). Tables 7, 9, and 11 in 
Southall et al. (2007) outline the numbers of low-frequency cetaceans, 
mid-frequency cetaceans, and pinnipeds in water, respectively, reported 
as having behavioral responses to multi-pulses in 10-dB received level 
increments. These tables illustrate that the more severe reactions did 
not occur until sounds were much higher than 160 dB re 1[mu]Pa (rms).
    Anticipated takes would include ``takes by harassment'' involving 
temporary changes in behavior (Level B harassment) and TTS (Level B 
harassment). NMFS does not consider injury (Level A harassment) to be 
likely, however, due to the limited effectiveness of monitoring and 
mitigation measures for animals undetected under the ice and/or during 
the long periods of darkness, a small amount of Level A harassment 
takes are also proposed to be authorized. The sections below describe 
methods used to estimate ``take by harassment'' and present estimates 
of the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected during the 
proposed seismic survey in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The estimates are 
based on data obtained during marine mammal surveys in the Beaufort Sea 
and on estimates of the sizes of the areas where effects could 
potentially occur. In some cases, these estimates were made from data 
collected from regions and habitats that differed from the proposed 
project area. Adjustments to reported population or density estimates 
were made on a case by case basis to account for differences between 
the source data and the available information on the distribution and 
abundance of the species in the project area. This section provides 
estimates of the number of potential ``exposures'' to impulsive sound 
levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms), non-pulse sound levels >=120 dB 
(rms) from icebreaking, and also includes estimates of exposures to 
>=180 dB (rms) for cetaceans and >=190 dB (rms) for seals.

[[Page 49947]]

    Although several systematic surveys of marine mammals have been 
conducted in the southern Beaufort Sea during spring and summer, few 
data (systematic or otherwise) are available on the distribution and 
numbers of marine mammals during the early winter period of this 
survey, particularly in the northern Beaufort Sea. The main sources of 
distributional and numerical data used in deriving the estimates are 
described in the next subsection. There is some uncertainty about how 
representative those data are and the assumptions used below to 
estimate the potential ``take by harassment''. However, the approach 
used here is accepted by NMFS as the best available at this time. The 
following estimates are based on a consideration of the number of 
marine mammals that might be disturbed appreciably by ~7,250 line 
kilometers (4,505 line miles) of seismic surveys across the Beaufort 
Sea and, to a lesser extent, the northern Chukchi Sea.

Marine Mammal Density Estimates

    This section describes the estimated densities of marine mammals 
that may occur in the survey area. The area of water that may be 
ensonified to various levels is described below in the section 
Potential Number of ``Takes by Harassment.'' Although a marine mammal 
may be exposed to icebreaking sounds 120 dB (rms) or airgun 
sounds 160 dB (rms), this does not mean that it will 
actually exhibit a disruption of behavioral patterns in response to the 
sound source. Rather, the estimates provided here are simply the best 
estimates of the number of animals that potentially could have a 
behavioral modification due to the noise. However, not all animals 
react to sounds at this low level, and many will not show strong 
reactions (and in some cases any reaction) until sounds are much 
stronger. There are several variables that determine whether or not an 
individual animal will exhibit a response to the sound, such as the age 
of the animal, previous exposure to this type of anthropogenic sound, 
habituation, etc.
    The survey has been designed to minimize interactions with marine 
mammals by planning to conduct the work at times and in areas where the 
relative density of marine mammals is expected to be quite low. The 
survey will begin in offshore waters (>1,000 m [3,281 ft] deep) of the 
eastern U.S. Beaufort Sea (east survey area) in early October. Weather 
and ice permitting, the waters <1,000 m (3,281 ft) deep will not be 
surveyed until mid-October and thereafter, in order to avoid migrating 
bowhead whales. The western U.S. Beaufort Sea and north-eastern Chukchi 
Sea (west survey area) is not expected to be surveyed until late 
October through December.
    Separate densities were calculated for habitats specific to 
cetaceans and pinnipeds. For cetaceans, densities were estimated for 
areas of water depth <200 m (656 ft), 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 ft), and 
>1,000 m (3,281 ft), which approximately correspond to the continental 
shelf, the continental slope, and the abyssal plain, respectively. 
Separate densities of both cetacean and pinnipeds were also estimated 
for the east and west survey areas within each water depth category. 
However, pinniped densities in the west survey area and <200 m (656 ft) 
water depth category were further sub-divided into <35 m (115 ft) and 
35-200 m (115-656 ft) depth categories. This was done because the west 
survey area is not expected to be surveyed until November-December, and 
based on historic sea ice data (NOAA National Ice Center, available 
online at www.natice.noaa.gov), it is expected that substantial amounts 
of sea ice, including shorefast ice, will be present in the west survey 
area at that time. Past studies have found that seal densities in ice-
covered areas of the Beaufort Sea are different where water depths are 
<35 m (115 ft) and >35 m (Moulton et al., 2002; Frost et al., 2004); 
therefore, densities were calculated separately for these water depths. 
The north-eastern Chukchi Sea is composed of mostly continental shelf 
waters between 30 m (98 ft) and 200 m (656 ft) in depth, so only a 
single density estimate for each marine mammal species was used in that 
area. Since most marine mammals will be continuing their southerly 
migration in November and early December, the same density estimates 
for continental shelf waters in the west survey area of the Beaufort 
Sea were used in the Chukchi Sea. When the seismic survey area is on 
the edge of the range of a species at this time of year, it is assumed 
that the average density along the seismic trackline will be 10% 
(0.10x) the density determined from available survey data within the 
main range. Density estimates for the Chukchi Sea during the period of 
November-December were taken from the west survey density estimates at 
the appropriate depth.
    Detectability bias, quantified in part by f(0), is associated with 
diminishing sightability with increasing lateral distance from the 
survey trackline. Availability bias, g(0), refers to the fact that 
there is <100% probability of sighting an animal that is present along 
the survey trackline. Some sources used below took account of one or 
both of these correction factors in reporting densities. When these 
factors had not been accounted for, the best available correction 
factors from similar studies and/or species were applied to reported 
results. Details regarding the application of correction factors are 
provided below for each species.
(1) Cetaceans
    Beluga Whales: Beluga density estimates were calculated based on 
aerial survey data collected in October in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort 
Sea by the NMML (as part of the Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project 
(BWASP) program funded by BOEM) in 2007-2010. They reported 31 
sightings of 66 individual whales during 1,597 km (992 mi) of on-
transect effort over waters 200-2,000 m (656-6,562 ft) deep. An f(0) 
value of 2.326 was applied and it was calculated using beluga whale 
sightings data collected in the Canadian Beaufort Sea (Innes et al. 
2002). A g(0) value of 0.419 was used that represents a combination of 
ga(0) = 0.55 (Innes et al., 2002) and gd(0) = 0.762 (Harwood et al., 
1996). The resulting density estimate (0.1169 individuals/km\2\; Table 
2 in this document) was applied to areas of 200-1,000 m (656 -3,281 
ft). There were 3 sightings of 4 individual beluga whales during 7,482 
km (4,649 mi) of on-transect effort over waters 0-200 m (0-656 ft) deep 
during this same time period. Using the same f(0) and g(0) values from 
above, the resulting density estimate for continental shelf waters (0-
200 m deep) is 0.0015 individuals/km\2\ (Table 2 in this document). The 
density estimate for waters >1000 m (3,281 ft) deep was estimated as 
40% of the 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 ft) density based on the relative 
number of sightings in the two water depth categories. For all water 
depth and survey area categories, the maximum beluga density estimates 
represent the mean estimates multiplied by four to allow for chance 
encounters with unexpected large groups of animals or overall higher 
densities than expected.
    Beluga density estimates for the west survey area, which is planned 
to be surveyed beginning in November, represent the east survey area 
estimates multiplied by 0.1 because the Beaufort Sea and north-eastern 
Chukchi Sea is believed to be at the edge of the species' range in 
November-December. Belugas typically migrate into the Bering Sea for 
the winter (Allen and Angliss, 2011) and are not expected to be present 
in the study area in high numbers in November-December. Satellite 
tagging data support this and indicate belugas migrate out of the 
Beaufort Sea in the

[[Page 49948]]

October-November period (Suydam et al., 2005).
    Bowhead Whales: Bowhead whale density estimates were calculated 
based on aerial survey data collected in the Beaufort Sea as part of 
the BWASP program funded by BOEM. The average density estimate was 
based on surveys in October 2007-2010 and the maximum density estimate 
was based on surveys conducted in October 1997-2004. The earlier data 
were used to calculate the maximum estimate because they include some 
years of unusually high numbers of bowhead sightings in the western 
Alaskan Beaufort Sea at that time of year. The 2007-2010 data included 
25 on-transect sightings collected during 7,482 km (4,649 mi) of effort 
over waters 0-200 m (0-656 ft) deep in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort 
Sea. The 1997-2004 data included 147 on-transect sightings of 472 
individual whales collected during 20,340 km (12,639 mi) of effort over 
waters 0-200 m (0-656 ft) deep in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea. An 
f(0) correction factor of 2.33 used in the density calculation was the 
result of a weighted average of the f(0) values applied to each of the 
flights (Richardson and Thomson, 2002). The multiplication of ga(0) = 
0.144 and gd(0) = 0.505 correction factors reported in Richardson and 
Thomson (2002) gave the g(0) value of 0.0727 used in the density 
calculation. The resulting density estimates (0.0942 whales/km\2\ and 
0.3719 whales/km\2\) represent the average and maximum densities, 
respectively for October for areas of <200 m (656 ft) water depth, and 
are referred to below as the reference density for bowhead whales.
    Because bowhead whale density is typically higher in continental 
shelf waters of the Beaufort Sea in early October, the survey has been 
planned to start in the eastern U.S. Beaufort Sea in waters deeper than 
1,000 m (3,281 ft; ice conditions permitting), where bowhead density is 
expected to be much lower. Survey activity in shallower waters will 
proceed from east to west starting later in October as bowhead whales 
migrate west out of the Beaufort Sea. The nearshore lines in the east 
survey area will be surveyed during late October. Bowhead density in 
the east survey area in waters <200 m (656 ft) deep was estimated by 
taking ten percent of the reference density above (Table 2 in this 
document). This adjustment was based on data from Miller et al. (2002) 
that showed a ~90% decrease in bowhead whale abundance in the eastern 
Alaskan Beaufort Sea from early to late October.
    Bowhead whale densities in intermediate (200-1,000 m [656-3,281 
ft]) and deep (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]) water depths in the east survey 
area are expected to be quite low. Ninety-seven percent of sightings 
recorded by MMS aerial surveys 1997-2004 occurred in areas of water 
depth <200 m (656 ft) (Treacy, 1998, 2000, 2002a, 2000b; Monnett and 
Treacy, 2005). Therefore, density estimates for areas of water depth 
200-1,000 m (656-3,281 ft) were estimated to be ~3% of the values for 
areas with depth <200 m (656 ft). This is further supported by Mate et 
al. (2000), who found that 87% of locations from satellite-tagged 
bowhead whales occurred in areas of water depth <100 m (328 ft). In 
areas with water depth >1,000 m (3,281 ft), ~4,225 km (2,625 mi) of 
aerial survey effort occurred during October 1997-2004; however no 
bowhead sightings were recorded. The effort occurred over eight years, 
so it is unlikely that this result would have been influenced by ice 
cover or another single environmental variable that might have affected 
whale distribution in a given year. Therefore, a minimal density 
estimate (0.0001 whales/km\2\) was used for areas with water depth 
>1,000 m (3,281 ft).
    Several sources were used to estimate bowhead whale density in the 
west survey area, including the north-eastern Chukchi Sea, which is 
expected to be surveyed beginning in late October or early November. 
Mate et al. (2000) found that satellite-tagged bowhead whales in the 
Beaufort Sea travelled at an average rate of 88 km (55 mi) per day. At 
that rate, an individual whale could travel across the extent of the 
east survey area in four days and across the entire east-west extent of 
the survey area in ten days, if it did not stop to feed during its 
migration, as bowhead whales have been observed to do earlier in the 
year (Christie et al., 2010). Also, Miller et al. (2002) presented a 
10-day moving average of bowhead whale abundance in the eastern 
Beaufort Sea using data from 1979-2000 that showed a decrease of ~90% 
from early to late October. Based on these data, it is expected that 
almost all whales that had been in the east survey area during early 
October would likely have migrated beyond the survey areas by November-
December. In addition, kernel density estimates and animal tracklines 
generated from satellite-tagged bowhead whales, along with acoustic 
monitoring data, suggest that few bowhead whales are present in the 
proposed survey area in November (near Point Barrow), and no whales 
were present in December (ADFG, 2010; Moore et al., 2010). Therefore, 
density estimates for the <200 m (656 ft) and 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 
ft) water depth categories in the west survey area were estimated to be 
one tenth of those estimates for the east survey area. Minimal density 
estimates (0.0001 whales/km\2\) were used for areas of water depth 
>1,000 m (3,281 ft).
    Other Cetaceans: Other cetacean species are not expected to be 
present in the area at the time of the planned survey. These species, 
including humpback and fin whales, typically migrate during autumn and 
are expected to be south of the proposed survey area by the October-
December period. Gray whales have been detected near Point Barrow 
during the period of the proposed project, and even throughout the 
winter (Moore et al., 2006; Stafford et al., 2007). Authorization for 
minimal takes of other cetacean species that are known to occur in the 
Beaufort Sea during the summer have been requested in case of a chance 
encounter of a few remaining individuals.

 Table 2--Expected densities of cetaceans in the Arctic Ocean in October-December by water depth and survey area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Species                                  <200 m        200-1,000 m      >1,000 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaufort East Survey Area:
    Beluga whale................................................          0.0015          0.1169          0.0468
    Harbor porpoise.............................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
    Bowhead whale...............................................          0.0094          0.0028          0.0001
    Gray whale..................................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
    Minke whale.................................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
Beaufort West Survey Area:
    Beluga whale................................................          0.0002          0.0117          0.0047
    Harbor porpoise.............................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
    Bowhead whale...............................................          0.0009          0.0003          0.0001

[[Page 49949]]

 
    Gray whale..................................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
    Minke whale.................................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
Chukchi Survey Area:
    Beluga whale................................................          0.0002  ..............  ..............
    Harbor porpoise.............................................          0.0001  ..............  ..............
    Bowhead whale...............................................          0.0009  ..............  ..............
    Gray whale..................................................          0.0001  ..............  ..............
    Minke whale.................................................          0.0001  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Pinnipeds
    In polar regions, most pinnipeds are associated with sea ice, and 
typical census methods involve counting pinnipeds when they are hauled 
out on ice. In the Beaufort Sea, surveys typically occur in spring when 
ringed seals emerge from their lairs (Frost et al., 2004). Depending on 
the species and study, a correction factor for the proportion of 
animals hauled out at any one time may or may not have been applied 
(depending on whether an appropriate correction factor was available 
for the particular species and area). By applying a correction factor, 
the total density of the pinniped species in an area can be estimated. 
Only the animals in water would be exposed to the pulsed sounds from 
the airguns; however, densities that are presented generally represent 
either only the animals on the ice or all animals in the area. 
Therefore, only a fraction of the pinnipeds present in areas where ice 
is present (and of sufficient thickness to support hauled-out animals) 
would be exposed to seismic sounds during the proposed seismic survey. 
Individuals hauled out on ice in close proximity to the vessels are 
likely to enter the water as a reaction to the passing vessels, and the 
proportion that remain on the ice will likely increase with distance 
from the vessels.
    Ringed Seals: Ringed seal density for the east survey area for 
waters <1,000 m (3,281 ft) deep was estimated using vessel-based data 
collected in the Beaufort Sea during autumn (Sep-Oct) 2006-2008 and 
reported by Savarese et al. (2010; Table 3 in this document). 
Correction factors for sightability and availability were used when the 
authors calculated the estimates, so no further adjustments were 
required. For the east survey area for waters >1,000 m (3,281 ft) deep, 
few data on seal distribution are available. Harwood et al. (2005) 
recorded a ringed seal sighting in the Beaufort Sea in an area where 
water depth was >1,000 m (3,281 ft) in September-October 2002 during an 
oceanographic cruise. It is therefore possible that ringed seals would 
occur in those areas, and their presence would likely be associated 
with ephemeral prey resources. If a relatively warm surface eddy formed 
that concentrated prey in offshore areas at depths that would be 
possible for ringed seals to access, it is possible that seals would be 
attracted to it. A warm eddy was found in the northern Beaufort Sea in 
October 2002 in an area where water depth was >1,000 m (3,281 ft) 
(Crawford, 2010), so it is possible that such an oceanographic feature 
might develop again and attract seals offshore. However, it is unclear 
whether such a feature would attract many seals, especially since the 
marine mammal observers present on the ship in 2002 did not observe 
very many seals associated with the offshore eddy. In the absence of 
standardized survey data from deep-water areas, but with available data 
suggesting densities are likely to be quite low, minimal density 
estimates (0.0001 seals/km\2\) were used in areas where water depth is 
>1,000 m (3,281 ft). For all water depth categories in the east survey 
area, the maximum ringed seal density was assumed to be the mean 
estimate multiplied by four to allow for chance encounters with 
unexpected large groups of animals or overall higher densities than 
expected.
    Habitat zones and associated densities were defined differently in 
the west survey area, which will be surveyed in November-December, 
because more ice is expected to be encountered at that time than in 
October (NOAA National Ice Center: www.natice.noaa.gov). The density 
estimates for the west survey area were calculated using aerial survey 
data collected by Frost et al. (2004) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 
during the spring. A g(0) correction factor of 0.60 from tagging data 
reported by Bengtson et al. (2005) was used to adjust all density 
estimates from Frost et al. (2004) described below. Seal distribution 
and density in spring, prior to breakup, are thought to reflect 
distribution patterns established earlier in the year (i.e., during the 
winter months; Frost et al., 2004). Density estimates were highest 
(1.00-1.33 seals/km\2\) in areas of water depth 3-35 m (10-115 ft), and 
decreased (0-0.77 seals/km\2\) in water >35 m (115 ft) deep. The mean 
density estimate used for areas with water depth <35 m (Table 4 in this 
document) was estimated using an average of the pack ice estimates 
modeled by Frost et al. (2004). The maximum estimate for the same area 
is the maximum observed density for areas of water depth 3-35 m (10-115 
ft) in Frost et al. (2004). The mean density estimate used for areas 
with 35-200 m (115-656 ft) water depth is the modeled value for water 
depth >35 m (115 ft) from Frost et al. (2004). The maximum estimate is 
the maximum observed density for areas with >35 m (115 ft) water depth 
in Frost et al. (2004). Because ringed seal density tends to decrease 
with increasing water depth (Moulton et al., 2002; Frost et al., 2004), 
ringed seal density was estimated to be minimal in areas of >200 m (656 
ft) water depth.
    In the Chukchi Sea, ringed seal densities were taken from offshore 
aerial surveys of the pack ice zone conducted in spring 1999 and 2000 
(Bengtson et al., 2005). The average density from those two years 
(weighted by survey effort) was 0.4892 seals/km\2\. This value served 
as the average density while the highest density from the two years 
(0.8100 seals/km\2\ in 1999) was used as the maximum density.
    Other Seal Species: Other seal species are expected to be less 
frequent in the study area during the period of this survey. Bearded 
and spotted seals would be present in the area during summer, and 
possibly ribbon seals as well, but they generally migrate into the 
southern Chukchi and Bering seas during fall (Allen and Angliss, 2011). 
Few satellite-tagging studies have been conducted on these species in 
the Beaufort Sea, winter surveys have not been conducted, and a few 
bearded seals have been reported over the continental shelf in spring 
prior to general breakup. However, three bearded seals tracked in 2009 
moved

[[Page 49950]]

south into the Bering Sea along the continental shelf by November 
(Cameron and Boveng, 2009). It is possible that some individuals, 
bearded seals in particular, may be present in the survey area. In the 
absence of better information from the published literature or other 
sources that would indicate significant numbers of any of these species 
might be present, minimal density estimates were used for all areas and 
water depth categories for these species, with the estimates for 
bearded seals assumed to be slightly higher than those for spotted and 
ribbon seals (Tables 3 and 4 in this document).

 Table 3--Expected Densities (/km\2\) of Pinnipeds in the East Survey Area of the U.S. Beaufort Sea in
                                                     October
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Species                                  <200 m        200-1,000 m      >1,000 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal.....................................................          0.0840          0.0840          0.0004
Bearded seal....................................................          0.0004          0.0004          0.0004
Spotted seal....................................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
Ribbon seal.....................................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 4--Expected Densities (/km\2\) of Pinnipeds in the Beaufort West and Chukchi Survey Areas of the
                                        Arctic Ocean in November-December
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Species                                   <35 m         35-200 m         >200 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaufort West:
    Ringed seal.................................................          1.9375          1.0000          0.0004
    Bearded seal................................................          0.0004          0.0004          0.0004
    Spotted seal................................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
    Ribbon seal.................................................          0.0001          0.0001          0.0001
Chukchi Sea:
    Ringed seal.................................................  ..............          0.4892  ..............
    Bearded seal................................................  ..............          0.0004  ..............
    Spotted seal................................................  ..............          0.0001  ..............
    Ribbon seal.................................................  ..............          0.0001  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potential Number of Takes by Level B Behavioral Harassment

    Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially 
taken are estimated below based on available data about mammal 
distribution and densities at different locations and times of the year 
as described above.
    The number of individuals of each species potentially exposed to 
received levels >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) or >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms), depending on the type of activity occurring, within each portion 
of the survey area (east and west) and water depth category was 
estimated by multiplying:
     The anticipated area to be ensonified to >=120 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms) or >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) in each portion of the 
survey area (east and west) and water depth category, by
     the expected species density in that time and location.
    Some of the animals estimated to be exposed, particularly migrating 
bowhead whales, might show avoidance reactions before being exposed to 
>=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). Thus, these calculations actually estimate 
the number of individuals potentially exposed to >=160 dB (rms) that 
would occur if there were no avoidance of the area ensonified to that 
level.
(1) Potential Number of Takes by Seismic Airguns at Received Levels 
>=160 dB
    The area of water potentially exposed to received levels of airgun 
sounds >=160 dB (rms) was calculated by using a GIS to buffer the 
planned survey tracklines within each water depth category by the 
associated modeled >=160 dB (rms) distances. The expected sound 
propagation from the airgun array was modeled by JASCO Applied Research 
(Zykov et al., 2010) and is expected to vary with water depth. Survey 
tracklines falling within the <100 m (328 ft), 100-1,000 m (328-3,281 
ft), and >1,000 m (3,281 ft) water depth categories were buffered by 
distances of 27.8 km (17.3 mi), 42.2 km (26.2 mi), and 31.6 km (19.6 
mi), respectively. The total area of water that would be exposed to 
sound >160 dB (rms) on one or more occasions is estimated to be 209,752 
km\2\. A breakdown by water depth classes used in association with 
density estimates is presented in Table 5 in this document and Figure 2 
of the IHA application.
    Based on the operational plans and marine mammal densities 
described above, the estimates of marine mammals potentially exposed to 
sounds >=160 dB (rms) are presented in Table 5 in this document. For 
species likely to be present, the requested numbers are calculated as 
described above. For less common species, estimates were set to minimal 
numbers to allow for chance encounters. Discussion of the number of 
potential exposures is summarized by species in the following 
subsections.
    It is likely that some members of one endangered cetacean species 
(bowhead whale) will be exposed to received sound levels >=160 dB (rms) 
unless bowheads avoid the survey vessel before the received levels 
reach 160 dB (rms). However, the late autumn timing and the design of 
the proposed survey will minimize the number of bowheads and other 
cetaceans that may be exposed to seismic sounds generated by this 
survey. The best estimates of the number of whales potentially exposed 
to >=160 dB (rms) are 282 and 4,315 for bowheads and belugas, 
respectively (Table 5).
    The ringed seal is the most widespread and abundant pinniped 
species in ice-covered arctic waters, and there is a great deal of 
variation in estimates of population size and distribution of these 
marine mammals. Ringed seals account for the vast majority of marine 
mammals expected to be encountered, and hence exposed to airgun sounds 
with received levels >160 dB (rms) during the proposed marine survey. 
It was estimated that ~60,293 ringed seals may be exposed to

[[Page 49951]]

marine survey sounds with received levels >160 dB (rms) if they do not 
avoid the sound source. Other pinniped species are not expected to be 
present in the proposed survey area in more than minimal numbers in 
October-December; however, ION is requesting authorization for a small 
number of harassment ``takes'' of species that occur in the area during 
the summer months in case a few individuals are encountered (Table 5 in 
this document).
    It should be noted that there is no evidence that most seals 
exposed to airgun pulses with received levels 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
are disturbed appreciably, and even at a received level of 180 dB (rms) 
disturbance is not conspicuous (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and 
Lawson, 2002). Therefore, for seals, the estimates of numbers exposed 
to >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) greatly exceed the numbers of seals that 
will actually be disturbed in any major or (presumably) biologically 
significant manner.

 Table 5--Estimates of the Possible Numbers of Marine Mammals Exposed to >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) During ION's
                Proposed Seismic Program in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, October-December 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Water depth
                                                 ------------------------------------------------      Total
                                                      <200 m        200-1,000 m      >1,000 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale....................................              43           1,195           3,077           4,215
Harbor porpoise.................................               9               2              10              21
Bowhead whale...................................             269               3              10             282
Gray whale......................................               9               2              10              21
Minke whale.....................................               9               2              10              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Pinnipeds (Beaufort East)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           <35 m        35-200 m          >200 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal.....................................           1,794             805              25           2,624
Bearded seal....................................               9               4              25              38
Spotted seal....................................               2               1               6               9
Ribbon seal.....................................               2               1               6               9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Pinnipeds (Beaufort West & Chukchi Sea)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal.....................................          16,969          40,682              18          57,669
Bearded seal....................................               4              25              18              47
Spotted seal....................................               1               6               5              12
Ribbon seal.....................................               1               6               5              12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Potential Number of Takes by Icebreaking at Received Levels >=120 
dB
    As discussed above, based on available information regarding sounds 
produced by icebreaking in various ice regimes and the expected ice 
conditions during the proposed survey, vessel sounds generated during 
ice breaking are likely to have source levels between 175 and 185 dB re 
1 [mu]Pa-m. As described above, we have assumed that seismic survey 
activity will occur along all of the planned tracklines shown in Figure 
1 of ION's IHA application. Therefore, received levels >=160 dB radius 
of 26.7-42.2 km (16.6-26.2 mi; depending on water depth) to each side 
of all of the survey lines was applied for the calculation. Assuming a 
source level of 185 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m and using the 15logR for 
calculating spreading loss of acoustic intensity, icebreaking sounds 
may be >=120 dB out to a maximum distance of ~21.6 km (13.4 mi). Thus, 
all sounds produced by icebreaking are expected to diminish below 120 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa within the zone where we assume mammals will be exposed 
to >=160 dB (rms) from seismic sounds. Exposures of marine mammals to 
icebreaking sounds with received levels >=120 dB would effectively 
duplicate or ``double-count'' animals already included in the estimates 
of exposure to strong (>=160 dB) airgun sounds. The planned survey 
lines cover a large extent of the U.S. Beaufort Sea, and seismic survey 
activity along all those lines has been assumed in the estimation of 
takes. Any non-seismic periods, when only icebreaking might occur, 
would therefore result in fewer exposures than estimated from seismic 
activities.
    If refueling of the Geo Arctic is required during the survey and 
the Polar Prince transits to and from Canadian waters to acquire 
additional fuel for itself, an additional ~200 km (124 mi) of transit 
may occur. Most of this transit would likely occur through ice in 
offshore waters >200 m (656 ft) in depth. For estimation purposes we 
have assumed 25% of the transit will occur in 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 
ft) of water and the remaining 75% will occur in >1,000 m (3,281 ft) of 
water. This results in an estimated ~2,160 km\2\ of water in areas 200-
1,000 m (656-3,281 ft) deep and 6,487 km\2\ in waters >1,000 m (3,281 
ft) deep being ensonified to >=120 dB by icebreaking sounds. Using the 
density estimates for the east survey area shown in Tables 2 and 3, the 
estimated exposures of cetaceans and pinnipeds are shown in Table 6 
here.

[[Page 49952]]



    Table 6--Estimates of the Possible Numbers of Marine Mammals Exposed to >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) During
  Icebreaking Activities Associated With the Preferred Alternative for Refueling During ION's Proposed Seismic
                               Program in the Beaufort Sea, October-December 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Water depth
                             Species                             --------------------------------      Total
                                                                    200-1,000 m      >1,000 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale....................................................             253             320             573
Harbor porpoise.................................................               0               1               1
Bowhead whale...................................................               1               1               2
Gray whale......................................................               0               1               1
Minke whale.....................................................               0               1               1
Ringed seal.....................................................             181               3             184
Bearded seal....................................................               1               3               4
Spotted seal....................................................               0               1               1
Ribbon seal.....................................................               0               1               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Polar Prince cannot return to port via Canadian waters, then 
a transit of ~600 km (373 mi) from east to west across the U.S. 
Beaufort would be necessary. Again, it is expected that most of this 
transit would likely occur in offshore waters >200 m (656 ft) in depth. 
For estimation purposes we have assumed 25% of the transit will occur 
in 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 ft) of water and the remaining 75% will occur 
in >1,000 m (3,281 ft) of water. This results in an estimated ~3,240 
km\2\ of water in areas 200-1,000 m (656-3,281 ft) deep and 9,720 km\2\ 
in waters >1,000 m (3,281 ft) deep being ensonified to >=120 dB by 
icebreaking sounds within each half of the U.S. Beaufort Sea, for a 
total of 25,920 km\2\ ensonified across the entire U.S. Beaufort Sea. 
Using the density estimates in Tables 2-3, estimated exposures of 
cetaceans and pinnipeds are shown in Table 7 here.

    Table 7--Estimates of the Possible Numbers of Marine Mammals Exposed to >=120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) During
  Icebreaking Activities Associated With the Secondary Alternative for Refueling During ION's Proposed Seismic
                         Program in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, October-December 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Water depth
                             Species                             --------------------------------      Total
                                                                    200-1,000 m      >1,000 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale....................................................             417             500             917
Harbor porpoise.................................................               0               2               2
Bowhead whale...................................................               1               2               3
Gray whale......................................................               0               2               2
Minke whale.....................................................               0               2               2
Ringed seal.....................................................             273               8             281
Bearded seal....................................................               2               8              10
Spotted seal....................................................               0               2               2
Ribbon seal.....................................................               0               2               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potential Number of Takes by Level B TTS and Level A Harassment

    As noted previously, due to the limited effectiveness of monitoring 
and mitigation measures for animals under ice cover and during long 
lowlight hours, NMFS is proposing to authorize takes of marine mammals 
by TTS (Level B harassment) and PTS (Level A harassment or injury) when 
exposed to received noise levels above 180 and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for prolonged period, although this is unlikely to occur. Therefore, 
the result of the analysis is conservative in which animals are 
estimated to be affected by receiving TTS or even PTS.
    The methods used below for estimating the number of individuals 
potentially exposed to sounds >180 or >190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) 
should therefore include an additional reduction to estimate the number 
that may incur PTS, which is presumably a Level A take. For reasons 
described here and further below, NMFS and ION do not anticipate that 
marine mammals will be injured or harmed by the proposed project.
    Only two cetacean species, beluga and bowhead, are likely to be 
present in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea late in the survey period or where 
extensive ice cover is present. Gray whale vocalizations have been 
recorded throughout one winter (2003-2004) in the western Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea near Pt. Barrow (Moore et al., 2006). However, the 
presence of gray whales in October and November in the Alaskan Beaufort 
Sea does not appear to be a regular occurrence or involve a significant 
number of animals when it does occur. NMFS therefore does not 
anticipate exposures of cetacean species, other than belugas or 
bowheads, to received sound levels >=180 dB during periods of darkness 
or in areas with extensive ice cover to occur.
    Beluga whales have shown avoidance of icebreaking sounds at 
relatively low received levels. In the Canadian Arctic, belugas showed 
initial avoidance of icebreaking sounds at received levels from 94-105 
dB in the 20-1,000 Hz band, although some animals returned to the same 
location within 1-2 days and tolerated noise levels as high as 120 dB 
in that band (Finley et al., 1990). Playback experiments of icebreaker 
sounds resulted in 35% of beluga groups showing avoidance at received 
levels between 78-84 dB in the \1/3\-octave band centered at 5,000 Hz, 
or 8-14 dB above ambient levels (Richardson et al., 1995b). Based on 
these results, it was estimated that reactions by belugas to an actual 
icebreaker would likely occur at ~10 km (6.2 mi) under similar

[[Page 49953]]

conditions. Erbe and Farmer (2000) estimated that zones of disturbance 
from icebreaking sounds could extend 19-46 km (12-28.6 mi) depending on 
various factors. Erbe and Farmer (2000) also estimated that a beluga 
whale would have to remain within 2 km (1.2 mi) of an icebreaker 
backing and ramming for over 20 min to incur small TTS (4.8 dB), and 
within 120 m for over 30 min to incur more significant TTS (12-18 dB).
    Aerial and vessel based monitoring of seismic surveys in the 
central Beaufort Sea showed significant avoidance of active airguns by 
belugas. Results of the aerial monitoring suggested an area of 
avoidance out to 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) around an active seismic source 
with higher than expected sighting rates observed at distances 20-30 km 
(12.4-18.6 mi) from the source. The nearest aerial ``transect'' beluga 
sighting during seismic activity was at a distance of 7.8 km (4.8 mi). 
Only seven beluga sightings were recorded from the survey vessel during 
the entire study, three of which occurred during airgun activity. Two 
of the seismic period sightings were made at the beginning of active 
airgun periods and the other was during seismic testing of a limited 
number of guns. These sightings occurred at distances between 1.54 km 
and 2.51 km from the vessel. Similarly, few beluga whales were observed 
near seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in 1996-1998 
(Richardson 1999), although the beluga migration corridor is typically 
well offshore of where most of the seismic survey occurred. Observers 
on seismic and associated support vessels operating in the Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea during 2006-2008 seasons reported no beluga sightings 
during seismic or non-seismic periods, suggesting avoidance of both 
seismic and vessel sounds (Savarese et al., 2010). No mitigation 
measures during seismic operations (power down or shut down of airgun 
arrays) have been required as a result of beluga sightings during 
surveys in the Chukchi or Beaufort seas in 2006-2009 (Ireland et al., 
2007a, 2007b; Patterson et al., 2007, Funk et al., 2008, Ireland et 
al., 2009b, Reiser et al., 2010).
    Based on the reported avoidance of vessel, icebreaking, and seismic 
sounds by beluga whales, and the low and seasonally decreasing density 
during the time of the proposed survey, the likelihood of beluga whales 
occurring within the >=180 dB zone during the proposed project is 
extremely low. A cautionary estimate that assumes 10% of belugas will 
show no avoidance of the 180 dB zone results in an estimate of 23 
beluga whales exposed to sounds >=180 dB (based on the densities 
described above and the area of water that may be ensonified to >=180 
dB) during the proposed project.
    Bowhead whales have shown similar avoidance of vessel and seismic 
sounds. Less information is available regarding avoidance of 
icebreaking sounds; however, avoidance of the overall activity was 
noted during intensive icebreaking around drill sites in the Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea in 1992. Migrating bowhead whales appeared to avoid the 
area of drilling and icebreaking by ~25 km (15.5 mi) (Brewer et al., 
1993). Also, monitoring of drilling activities in a previous year, 
during which much less icebreaking occurred, showed avoidance by 
migrating bowheads out to ~20 km (12.4 mi). Therefore, the relative 
influence of icebreaking versus drilling sounds is difficult to 
determine.
    Similarly, migrating bowheads strongly avoided the area within ~20 
km (12.4 mi) of nearshore seismic surveys, and less complete avoidance 
extended to ~30 km (18.6 mi) (Miller et al., 1999). Only 1 bowhead was 
observed from the survey vessel during the three seasons (1996-1998) 
when seismic surveys continued into September. Bowheads not actively 
engaged in migration have shown less avoidance of seismic operations. 
During seismic surveys in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in late August and 
early September bowhead whales appeared to avoid an area within ~2 km 
(1.2 mi) of airgun activity (Miller and Davis, 2002) and sightings from 
the survey vessel itself were common (Miller et al., 2005). Vessel-
based sightings showed a statistically significant difference of ~600 m 
(1,969 ft) in the mean sighting distances of bowheads (relative to the 
survey vessel) between periods with and without airgun activity. This, 
along with significantly lower sighting rates of bowhead whales during 
periods of airgun activity, suggests that bowheads still avoided close 
approach to the area of seismic operation (Miller and Davis, 2002). 
Results from vessel-based and aerial monitoring in the Alaskan Beaufort 
Sea during 2006-2008 were similar to those described above (Funk et 
al., 2010). Sighting rates from seismic vessels were significantly 
lower during airgun activity than during non-seismic periods. Support 
vessels reported 12 sightings of bowhead whales in areas where received 
levels from seismic were >=160 dB (Savarese et al., 2010). Aerial 
surveys reported bowhead whales feeding in areas where received levels 
of seismic sounds were up to 160 dB. Bowheads were not observed in 
locations with higher received levels (Christie et al., 2010). Based on 
four direct approach experiments in northern Alaskan waters, Ljungblad 
et al. (1988) reported total avoidance of seismic sounds at received 
sound levels of 152, 165, 178, and 165 dB.
    The available information summarized above suggests that bowhead 
whales are very likely to avoid areas where received levels are >=180 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). Again, making a cautionary assumption that as 
many as 10% of bowheads may not avoid the 180 dB zone around the 
airguns, we calculate that 6 individuals could be exposed to >=180 dB 
(based on the densities described above and the area of water that may 
be ensonified to >=180 dB). During seismic surveys in the Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea in 2007 and 2008, 5 power downs of the full airgun array 
were made due to sightings of bowhead or unidentified mysticete whales 
(8 total individuals) within the >=180 dB exclusion zone. These 
sightings occurred during >8000 km (4,971 mi) of survey effort in good 
conditions plus additional effort in poor conditions (Savarese et al., 
2010), resulting in an estimated 0.625 sightings within the 180 dB 
distance per 1,000 km (620 mi) of seismic activity. Even without 
allowance for the reduced densities likely to be encountered in October 
and especially November, or for the fact that observers will be on duty 
during all daylight hours and will call for mitigation actions if 
whales are sighted within or near the 180 dB distance, this rate would 
suggest that fewer than 8 bowheads may occur within the >=180 dB zone 
during the proposed survey.
    For seals (principally ringed seals), the proportion exhibiting 
avoidance is lower than for cetaceans, and thus the received level at 
which avoidance becomes evident is higher. However, some survey results 
have shown a statistically significant avoidance of the 190 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa (rms) zone, and an assumption that numbers exposed to >=190 dB 
could be calculated from ``non-seismic'' density data is not 
inappropriate. Using similar reasoning as described above for 
cetaceans, we have limited these estimates to ringed seals as the 
presence of other pinniped species is very unlikely during the times 
and locations when exposures to >=190 dB may have an increased 
likelihood of occurrence.
    Monitoring work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 
provided considerable information regarding the behavior of seals 
exposed to seismic pulses (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 
2002). The combined results suggest that some seals avoid the immediate 
area around seismic vessels. In most survey years, ringed seal 
sightings averaged somewhat farther away from the seismic vessel

[[Page 49954]]

when the airguns were operating than when they were not (Moulton and 
Lawson, 2002). Also, seal sighting rates at the water surface were 
lower during airgun array operations than during no-airgun periods in 
each survey year except 1997. However, the avoidance movements were 
relatively small, on the order of 100 m (328 ft) to (at most) a few 
hundreds of meters, and many seals remained within 100-200 m (328-656 
ft) of the trackline as the operating airgun array passed by.
    During more recent seismic surveys in the Arctic (2006-2009), 
Reiser et al. (2009) also reported a tendency for localized avoidance 
of areas immediately around the seismic source vessel along with 
coincident increased sighting rates at support vessels operating 1-2 km 
(0.62-1.2 mi) away. However, pinnipeds were sighted within the 190 dB 
zone around the operating airguns more frequently than were cetaceans 
within the 180 dB zone. Assuming that 25% of the ringed seals 
encountered may not avoid the 190 dB zone as the airguns approach, we 
calculate that ~277 individuals could be exposed to >=190 dB (based on 
the densities described above and the area of water that may be 
ensonified to >=190 dB). As an alternative estimate, during the same 
>8,000 km (4,971 mi) of monitoring effort in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 
reported above regarding bowhead whales, 42 observations of seals 
within the 190 dB zone caused power downs of the airguns. This was 
~5.25 power downs per 1,000 km (620 mi) of seismic survey effort. Even 
without allowance for the reduced densities of seals likely to be 
encountered in October-November or for the fact that observers will be 
on duty during all daylight hours and will call for mitigation actions 
if necessary, this rate would suggest that as many as 38 seals may 
occur within the >=190 dB zone during the proposed survey.
    However, as stated earlier, in most circumstances marine mammals 
would avoid areas where intense noise could cause injury, including 
PTS. Although approximately 23 beluga whales, 8 bowhead whales, and 38 
seals (presumably all ringed seals) could theoretically be exposed to 
received levels above 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (for whales) and 190 dB re 
1 [micro]Pa (for seals), most of them are likely to avoid these areas 
of intense noise and would not incur TTS or PTS (injury). In the 
unlikely case a small number of individuals animals did not avoid the 
intense noise, then TTS or even PTS could occur. Assuming that 10% of 
the individuals that were initially exposed to received levels above 
180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (for beluga and bowhead whales) and 190 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (for ringed seals) do not vacate the area, and subsequent 
exposure leads to some degree of PTS, then approximately 3 beluga 
whales, 1 bowhead whale, and 4 ringed seals could be taken by Level A 
harassment. However, NMFS considers this estimate to be very 
conservative as explained above.

Estimated Take Conclusions

    Cetaceans--Effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be 
restricted to avoidance of an area around the seismic survey and short-
term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level 
B harassment,'' and possibly mild TTS or PTS (which would be considered 
``Level A harassment''), though not very likely.
    Using the 160 dB (for pulse) and 120 dB (for non-pulse) criteria, 
the average estimates of the numbers of individual cetaceans exposed to 
sounds >=160 dB and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) represent varying 
proportions of the populations of each species in the Beaufort Sea and 
adjacent waters. For species listed as ``Endangered'' under the ESA, 
the estimates include approximately 284 bowheads. This number is 
approximately 1.86% of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population of 
>15,233 assuming 3.4% annual population growth from the 2001 estimate 
of >10,545 animals (Zeh and Punt 2005). For other cetaceans that might 
occur in the vicinity of the marine seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea, 
they also represent a very small proportion of their respective 
populations. The average estimates of the number of beluga whales, 
harbor porpoises, gray whales, and minke whales that might be exposed 
to >=160 dB and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) are 5,232, 23, 23, and 23, 
when the secondary alternative for refueling is being considered. These 
numbers represent 13.33%, 0.05%, 0.12%, and 1.87% of these species' 
respective populations in the proposed action area. If ION selects the 
preferred alternative for refueling, the estimated takes for beluga 
would be reduced to 4,888 animals, or 12.45% of the population.
    Seals--A few seal species are likely to be encountered in the study 
area, but ringed seal is by far the most abundant in this area. The 
average estimates of the numbers of individuals exposed to sounds at 
received levels >=160 dB and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) during the 
proposed icebreaking seismic survey are as follows: ringed seals 
(60,574), bearded seals (95), spotted seals (23), and ribbon seals 
(23), when the secondary alternative for refueling is being considered. 
These numbers represent 24.33%, 0.04%, 0.04%, and 0.05% of Alaska 
stocks of ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals. If ION selects 
the preferred alternative for refueling, the estimated takes for 
ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals would drop to 60,477, 89, 
22, and 22, respectively, which in turn represent 24.29%, 0.04%, 0.04%, 
0.04% of Alaska stocks of these species.

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers Analysis and Preliminary 
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.
    Most of the takes from ION's proposed icebreaking seismic surveys 
are expected to be Level B behavioral harassment. It is possible, 
however, that TTS (Level B harassment) and even PTS (Level A 
harassment) could occur if monitoring measures are not effective due to 
extensive ice coverage and prolonged periods of darkness. Although it 
is possible that some individual marine mammals may be exposed to 
sounds from marine survey activities more than once, this is not 
expected to happen extensively since both the animals and the survey 
vessels will be moving constantly in and out of the survey areas. 
Therefore, the degrees of TTS and PTS, if incurred, are expected to be 
minor (low intensity--a few dBs of loss at certain frequencies), and 
the TTS is expected to be brief (minutes to hours) before full 
recovery. No serious injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur 
as a result of the proposed seismic survey, and none are proposed to be 
authorized.
    Of the nine marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed 
marine survey area, only the bowhead whale is listed as endangered 
under the ESA. These species are also designated as ``depleted'' under 
the MMPA. Despite these designations, the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock 
of bowheads has been increasing at a rate of 3.4 percent annually for 
nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 2010). Additionally, during the 
2001 census, 121 calves were counted, which was the highest yet 
recorded. The

[[Page 49955]]

calf count provides corroborating evidence for a healthy and increasing 
population (Allen and Angliss, 2010). There is no critical habitat 
designated in the U.S. Arctic for the bowhead whale. Certain stocks or 
populations of gray and beluga whales and spotted seals are listed as 
endangered or are proposed for listing under the ESA; however, none of 
those stocks or populations occur in the proposed activity area. On 
December 10, 2010, NMFS published a notice of proposed threatened 
status for subspecies of the ringed seal (75 FR 77476) and a notice 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 of these two ice seal species is currently 
considered depleted under the MMPA.

Level B Behavioral Harassment

    Most of the bowhead whales encountered during the summer will 
likely show overt disturbance (avoidance) only if they receive airgun 
sounds with levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms). Odontocete reactions to 
seismic energy pulses are usually assumed to be limited to shorter 
distances from the airgun(s) than are those of mysticetes, probably in 
part because odontocete low-frequency hearing is assumed to be less 
sensitive than that of mysticetes. However, at least when in the 
Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive 
to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 6-12 mi (10-20 km) of 
seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller et al., 2005). Both 
belugas and bowhead whales are expected to occur in much smaller 
numbers in the vicinity of the proposed seismic survey area during the 
proposed survey. In addition, due to the constant moving of the seismic 
survey vessel, the duration of the noise exposure of cetaceans to 
seismic impulses would be brief. For the same reason, it is unlikely 
that any individual animal would be exposed to high received levels 
multiple times.
    Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, 
effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to 
avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term 
changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B 
harassment,'' with only limited potential occurrences of TTS (Level B 
harassment) and PTS (Level A harassment).
    Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially exposed 
to sound levels sufficient to cause appreciable disturbance are small 
percentages of the population sizes in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort 
seas, as described above.
    Finally, as discussed above, since ION is not likely to start its 
proposed in-ice seismic survey until early October when most of the 
cetaceans (especially bowhead whales) have moved out of the area, the 
actual take numbers are expected to be much lower.
    The many reported cases of apparent tolerance by cetaceans of 
seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and some other human activities 
show that co-existence is possible. Mitigation measures such as 
controlled vessel speed, dedicated PSOs, non-pursuit, and shutdowns or 
power downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges will 
further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing 
sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, 
with no lasting biological consequence.
    Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed 
marine surveys more than once during the time frame of the project. 
However, as discussed previously, due to the constant moving of the 
survey vessel, the probability of an individual pinniped being exposed 
multiple times is much lower than if the source is stationary. 
Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the exposure of 
pinnipeds to sounds produced by the proposed marine seismic survey in 
the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is mostly expected to result in no more 
than Level B harassment and is anticipated to have no more than a 
negligible impact on the animals.
    The estimated Level B behavioral takes proposed to be authorized 
represent up to 12.45% of the Beaufort Sea population of approximately 
39,258 beluga whales (Allen and Angliss, 2010), up to 0.04% of Bering 
Sea stock of approximately 48,215 harbor porpoises, 0.12% of the 
Eastern North Pacific stock of approximately 19,126 gray whales, 1.86% 
of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population of 15,233 individuals 
assuming 3.4 percent annual population growth from the 2001 estimate of 
10,545 animals (Zeh and Punt, 2005), and 1.78% of the Alaska stock of 
approximately 1,233 minke whales. The take estimates presented for 
ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals represent up to 24.29, 0.04, 
0.04, and 0.04 percent of U.S. Arctic stocks of each species, 
respectively. These estimates represent the percentage of each species 
or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment if each 
animal is taken only once. It may seem that a large number of ringed 
seal (up to 24.29%) would be taken as a result of the proposed seismic 
survey activity. It is important to note that the population densities 
for marine mammals within the proposed survey area are overestimated 
for the season of the seismic survey due to the lack of realistic data, 
and that the number of ringed seals that would occur in the project 
area during the proposed survey period is expected to be much lower. 
Therefore, far fewer ringed seals are actually expected to be taken as 
a result of ION's proposed icebreaking seismic survey in the Beaufort 
Sea. Furthermore, it is likely that individual animals could be taken 
multiple times and be counted as different individuals, thus inflating 
the percentage of unique individuals that would be affected. Finally, 
as discussed earlier, the effects to marine mammals that would result 
from Level B behavioral harassment are expected to be minor and brief, 
and mostly involve animals temporarily changing their behavior and 
vacating the proximity of the survey area briefly as the survey vessel 
and icebreaker approach. Marine mammals are expected to resume their 
normal activities and reoccupy the area as soon as the vessels move 
away. Additionally, since the proposed icebreaking seismic survey is 
planned outside the time when ice seals are giving birth, no impacts on 
pups are expected. Therefore, although the number of ringed seals that 
could be affected by the proposed seismic survey seems high, these 
effects are not expected to be biologically significant on either the 
individual or population level for this species. In addition, the 
mitigation and monitoring measures (described previously in this 
document) proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued) are expected to 
further reduce any potential disturbance to marine mammals.

Hearing Impairment (TTS, Level B Harassment, or PTS, Level A 
Harassment)

    Most cetaceans (and particularly Arctic cetaceans) show relatively 
high levels of avoidance when received sound pulse levels exceed 160 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms), and it is uncommon to sight Arctic cetaceans within 
the 180 dB radius, especially for prolonged duration. Results from 
monitoring programs associated with seismic activities in the Arctic 
have shown significant responses by cetaceans at levels much lower than 
180 dB. These results have been used by agencies to support monitoring 
requirements within distances where received levels fall below 160 dB 
and even 120 dB. Thus, very few animals would be exposed to sound 
levels of 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)

[[Page 49956]]

regardless of detectability by PSOs. Avoidance varies among individuals 
and depends on their activities or reasons for being in the area, and 
occasionally a few individual arctic cetaceans will tolerate sound 
levels above 160 dB. Tolerance of levels above 180 dB is infrequent, 
regardless of the circumstances. Therefore, a calculation of the number 
of cetaceans potentially exposed to >180 dB that is based simply on 
density would be a gross overestimate of the actual numbers exposed to 
180 dB. Such calculations would be misleading unless avoidance response 
behaviors were taken into account to estimate what fraction of those 
originally present within the soon-to-be ensonified to >180 dB zone (as 
estimated from density) would still be there by the time levels reach 
180 dB.
    It is estimated that up to 1 bowhead whale and 3 beluga whales 
could be exposed to received noise levels above 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(rms), and 4 ringed seals could be exposed to received noise levels 
above 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for durations long enough to cause TTS 
if the animals are not detected in time to have mitigation measures 
implemented (or even PTS if such exposures occurred repeatedly). The 
potential takes of marine mammals by TTS (Level B harassment), or, 
potentially PTS (Level A harassment) if exposed for a long enough time 
or repeatedly represent 0.0068%, 0.0076%, and 0.0016% of bowhead whale, 
beluga whale, and ringed seal populations, respectively. None of the 
other species are expected to be exposed to received sound levels 
anticipated to cause TTS or PTS.
    Marine mammals that are taken by TTS are expected to receive minor 
(in the order of several dBs) and brief (minutes to hours) temporary 
hearing impairment because (1) animals are not likely to remain for 
prolonged periods within high intensity sound fields, and (2) both the 
seismic vessel and the animals are constantly moving, and it is 
unlikely that the animal will be moving along with the vessel during 
the survey. Although repeated experience to TTS could result in PTS 
(injury or Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed above, 
even if marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is expected to 
be mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing threshold. 
Therefore, even if a few marine mammals receive TTS or PTS, the degree 
of these effects are expected to be minor and, in the case of TTS, 
brief, and are not expected to be biologically significant for the 
population or species.

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed 
previously in this document (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat'' 
section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of 
marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to 
not affect rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in the 
area. Based on the vast size of the Arctic Ocean where feeding by 
marine mammals occurs versus the localized area of the marine survey 
activities, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area 
would be minor based on the fact that other feeding areas exist 
elsewhere. For bowhead whales, the majority of the population would 
have migrated past many of the feeding areas of the central Beaufort 
Sea prior to the initiation of activities by ION.
    The effects of icebreaking activity are not expected to result in 
significant modification to marine habitat. Although it is expected 
that the ice coverage would be 8/10th to 10/10th, the ice in the 
proposed project area is loose annual ice during the time of the 
proposed in-ice seismic survey activity. Therefore, ice floes being 
broken and pushed aside from the icebreaker are expected to rejoin 
behind the seismic survey path. In addition, no ice seal lairs are 
expected during the period of ION's proposed in-ice seismic survey in 
the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
    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 mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that ION's proposed 2010 in-ice 
seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas may result in the 
incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level A and 
Level B harassment only, and that the total taking from the seismic 
surveys will have a negligible impact on the affected species or 
stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determination

    NMFS has preliminarily determined that ION's proposed 2010 in-ice 
marine seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks for 
taking for subsistence uses. This preliminary determination is 
supported by information contained in this document and ION's POC. ION 
has adopted a spatial and temporal strategy for its Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas in-ice seismic survey operations that is intended to avoid 
subsistence activities. ION plans to start its seismic survey after the 
fall bowhead harvests have concluded for the communities of Kaktovik 
and Nuiqsut, and its seismic survey is expected to occur far offshore 
from regular ringed seal hunts. Although hunting may still be occurring 
in Barrow, ION has agreed to work in the eastern part of the survey 
area first so as not to overlap with hunting areas used by hunters in 
Barrow. The late November bowhead harvests on St. Lawrence Island 
should not be affected by ION's vessel transits through the Bering 
Strait at the conclusion of the survey in early to mid-December. No 
other subsistence activity is expected to occur during ION's proposed 
seismic survey period.
    Based on the measures described in ION's POC, the proposed 
mitigation and monitoring measures (described earlier in this 
document), and the project design itself, NMFS has determined 
preliminarily that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 
subsistence uses from ION's icebreaking marine seismic survey in the 
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization

    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 
issued).
    1. This Authorization is valid from October 1, 2012, through 
December 15, 2012.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with 
in-ice seismic surveys and related activities in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas, as indicated in Figure 1 of ION's IHA application.
    3. (a) The species authorized for incidental harassment takings, 
Level B harassment only, are:
     Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas);
     Harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena);
     Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus);
     Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus);
     Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata);
     Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus);
     Spotted seals (Phoca largha);
     Ringed seals (P. hispida); and
     Ribbon seals (P. fasciata).
    (b) The species authorized for incidental harassment taking, Level 
A harassment, are:
     One individual of bowhead whale;
     Three individuals of beluga whale; and

[[Page 49957]]

     Four individuals of ringed seal.
    (c) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the 
following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
    (i) 28 Sercel G-gun airguns, of which 26 are active with a total 
discharge volume of 4,450 in\3\.
    (ii) Individual airgun sizes range from 70 to 380 in\3\.
    (d) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under 
this Authorization must be reported within 24 hours of the taking to 
the Alaska Regional Administrator (907-586-7221) or his designee in 
Anchorage (907-271-3023), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and 
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401, or his designee (301-427-8418).
    4. The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 
least 48 hours prior to the start of collecting seismic data (unless 
constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in which case 
notification shall be made as soon as possible).

5. Prohibitions

    (a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the 
species listed under conditions 3(a) and (b) above. The taking by 
serious injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, 
injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and 
may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this 
Authorization.
    (b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the 
required source vessel protected species observers (PSOs), required by 
condition 7(a)(i), are not onboard in conformance with condition 
7(a)(i) of this Authorization.

6. Mitigation

(a) Exclusion Zones
    (i) Establish and monitor with trained Protected Species Observers 
(PSOs) a preliminary exclusion zone for cetaceans and pinnipeds 
surrounding the airgun array on the source vessel where the received 
level would be 180 dB (for cetaceans) and 190 dB (for pinnipeds) re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms), respectively. For purposes of the sound source 
verification test, described in condition 7(d)(i), the modeled 
exclusion zones at areas of different depth are shown in Table 1 below.

             Table 1--Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones for Specific Categories Based on the Water Depth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Exclusion and disturbance zones (meters)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                      rms (dB re. 1 [mu]Pa)                       Less than  100                     More than
                                                                         m        100 m- 1,000 m      1,000 m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
190.............................................................             600             180             180
180.............................................................           2,850             660             580
160.............................................................          27,800          42,200          31,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (ii) Immediately upon completion of data analysis of the sound 
source verification measurements required under condition 7(d)(i) 
below, the new 180-dB and 190-dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) marine mammal 
exclusion zones shall be established based on the sound source 
verification.
(b) Speed or Course Alteration
    (i) If a marine mammal (in water) is detected outside the exclusion 
zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to 
enter the exclusion zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course shall 
be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect on the planned 
objectives when such a maneuver is safe.
    (ii) Avoid concentrations or groups of whales by all vessels in 
transient under the direction of ION. Operators of vessels should, at 
all times, conduct their activities at the maximum distance possible 
from such concentrations of whales.
    (iii) All vessels during transient shall be operated at speeds 
necessary to ensure no physical contact with whales occurs. If any 
barge or transit vessel approaches within 1.6 km (1 mi) of observed 
bowhead whales, the vessel operator shall take reasonable precautions 
to avoid potential interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or 
more of the following actions, as appropriate:
    (A) Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 300 yards 
(900 feet or 274 m) of the whale(s);
    (B) Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
    (C) Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating 
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
    (D) Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make 
multiple changes in direction; and
    (E) Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to 
ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
    (iv) When weather conditions require, such as when visibility 
drops, adjust vessel speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of 
injury to whales.
    (v) In the event that any aircraft (such as helicopters) are used 
to support the planned survey, the mitigation measures below would 
apply:
    (A) Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, shall aircraft 
be operated at an altitude lower than 1,000 feet above sea level (ASL) 
when within 0.3 mile (0.5 km) of groups of whales.
    (B) Helicopters shall not hover or circle above or within 0.3 mile 
(0.5 km) of groups of whales.
    (c) Ramp-up:
    (i) A ramp up, following a cold start, can be applied if the 
exclusion zone has been free of marine mammals for a consecutive 30-
minute period. The entire exclusion zone must have been visible during 
these 30 minutes. If the entire exclusion zone is not visible, then 
ramp up from a cold start cannot begin.
    (ii) Ramp up procedures from a cold start shall be delayed if a 
marine mammal is sighted within the exclusion zone during the 30-minute 
period prior to the ramp up. The delay shall last until the marine 
mammal(s) has been observed to leave the exclusion zone or until the 
animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15 or 30 minutes. The 15 minutes 
applies to small toothed whales and pinnipeds, while a 30 minute 
observation period applies to baleen whales and large toothed whales.
    (iii) A ramp up, following a shutdown, can be applied if the marine 
mammal(s) for which the shutdown occurred has been observed to leave 
the exclusion zone or until the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 
15 minutes (small toothed whales and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (baleen 
whales and large toothed whales).

[[Page 49958]]

    (iv) If, for any reason, electrical power to the airgun array has 
been discontinued for a period of 10 minutes or more, ramp-up 
procedures shall be implemented. Only if the PSO watch has been 
suspended, a 30-minute clearance of the exclusion zone is required 
prior to commencing ramp-up. Discontinuation of airgun activity for 
less than 10 minutes does not require a ramp-up.
    (v) The seismic operator and PSOs shall maintain records of the 
times when ramp-ups start and when the airgun arrays reach full power.
    (d) Power-down/Shutdown:
    (i) The airgun array shall be immediately powered down whenever a 
marine mammal is sighted approaching close to or within the applicable 
exclusion zone of the full array, but is outside the applicable 
exclusion zone of the single mitigation airgun.
    (ii) If a marine mammal is already within the exclusion zone when 
first detected, the airguns shall be powered down immediately.
    (iii) Following a power-down, ramp up to the full airgun array 
shall not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion 
zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the exclusion zone 
if it is visually observed to have left the exclusion zone of the full 
array, or has not been seen within the zone for 15 minutes (pinnipeds 
or small toothed whales) or 30 minutes (baleen whales or large toothed 
whales).
    (iv) If a marine mammal is sighted within or about to enter the 190 
or 180 dB (rms) applicable exclusion zone of the single mitigation 
airgun, the airgun array shall be shutdown.
    (v) If a marine mammal on ice is detected by PSOs within the 
exclusion zones it will be watched carefully in case it enters the 
water. In the event the animal does enter the water and is within an 
applicable exclusion zone of the airguns during seismic operations, a 
power down or other necessary mitigation measures shall immediately be 
implemented.
    (vi) Airgun activity shall not resume until the marine mammal has 
cleared the exclusion zone of the full array. The animal will be 
considered to have cleared the exclusion zone as described above under 
ramp up procedures.
    (e) Poor Visibility Conditions:
    (i) If during foggy conditions, heavy snow or rain, or darkness, 
the full 180 dB exclusion zone is not visible, the airguns cannot 
commence a ramp-up procedure from a full shut-down.
    (ii) If one or more airguns have been operational before nightfall 
or before the onset of poor visibility conditions, they can remain 
operational throughout the night or poor visibility conditions. In this 
case ramp-up procedures can be initiated, even though the exclusion 
zone may not be visible, on the assumption that marine mammals will be 
alerted by the sounds from the single airgun and have moved away.
    (iii) Airguns shall not be fired during long transits when 
exploration activities are not occurring, including the common firing 
of one airgun (also referred to as the ``mitigation gun'' in past 
IHAs). This does not apply to turns when starting a new track line.
    (f) Mitigation Measures for Subsistence Activities:
    (i) ION shall fully implement the following measures, consistent 
with the 2012 Plan of Cooperation (COP), in order to avoid having an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal species 
or stocks for taking for subsistence uses:
    (A) Schedule the seismic survey so that seismic operations in the 
eastern survey area do not begin until October 1, 2012, or the 
completion of Kaktovik bowhead whaling, whichever is later;
    (B) Schedule the seismic survey so that seismic operations in the 
western survey area do not begin until completion of Barrow fall 
bowhead whaling (expected to be approximately November 1, 2012).
    (C) Plan the survey to proceed from the eastern to western U.S. 
Beaufort Sea to avoid, as much as possible, any remaining migratory 
animals and associated subsistence activities.
    (ii) ION shall maintain a Communication Center (Com Center) that is 
staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, during the seismic survey 
operational window.
    (iii) Vessels shall report in to the Com Center a minimum of every 
6 hours and provide information about the vessel's location, speed, and 
direction. The Com Center shall be notified if there is any significant 
change in plans or any potentially unsafe or unanticipated conditions 
(e.g., weather, ice conditions).
    7. Monitoring:
    (a) Daytime Vessel Monitoring:
    (i) Protected Species Observers (PSOs): The holder of this 
Authorization must designate biologically-trained, on-site individuals 
(PSOs) to be onboard the source vessel and icebreaker, who are approved 
in advance by NMFS, to conduct the visual monitoring programs required 
under this Authorization and to record the effects of seismic surveys 
and the resulting noise on marine mammals.
    (A) PSO teams shall consist of Inupiat observers and experienced 
field biologists. An experienced field crew leader will supervise the 
PSO team onboard the survey vessel. New observers shall be paired with 
experienced observers to avoid situations where lack of experience 
impairs the quality of observations.
    (B) Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers in 
2012 will be individuals with experience as observers during recent 
seismic or shallow hazards monitoring projects in Alaska, the Canadian 
Beaufort, or other offshore areas in recent years.
    (C) PSOs shall complete a two or three-day training session on 
marine mammal monitoring, to be conducted shortly before the 
anticipated start of the 2012 open-water season. The training 
session(s) will be conducted by qualified marine mammalogists with 
extensive crew-leader experience during previous vessel-based 
monitoring programs. A marine mammal observers' handbook, adapted for 
the specifics of the planned survey program will be reviewed as part of 
the training.
    (D) If there are Alaska Native PSOs, the PSO training that is 
conducted prior to the start of the survey activities shall be 
conducted with both Alaska Native PSOs and biologist PSOs being trained 
at the same time in the same room. There shall not be separate training 
courses for the different PSOs.
    (E) Crew members should not be used as primary PSOs because they 
have other duties and generally do not have the same level of 
expertise, experience, or training as PSOs, but they could be stationed 
on the fantail of the vessel to observe the near field, especially the 
area around the airgun array and implement a rampdown or shutdown if a 
marine mammal enters the exclusion zone (or exclusion zone).
    (F) If crew members are to be used as PSOs, they shall go through 
some basic training consistent with the functions they will be asked to 
perform. The best approach would be for crew members and PSOs to go 
through the same training together.
    (G) PSOs shall be trained using visual aids (e.g., videos, photos), 
to help them identify the species that they are likely to encounter in 
the conditions under which the animals will likely be seen.
    (H) ION shall train its PSOs to follow a scanning schedule that 
consistently distributes scanning effort according to the purpose and 
need for observations. For example, the schedule might call for 60% of 
scanning effort to be directed toward the near field and 40% at the far 
field. All PSOs should follow the same schedule to ensure consistency 
in their scanning efforts.
    (i) PSOs shall be trained in documenting the behaviors of marine

[[Page 49959]]

mammals. PSOs should simply record the primary behavioral state (i.e., 
traveling, socializing, feeding, resting, approaching or moving away 
from vessels) and relative location of the observed marine mammals.
    (ii) PSOs shall be on duty for four (4) consecutive hours or less, 
although more than one four-hour shift per day is acceptable, with a 
maximum of 12 hours of watch time per PSO.
    (iii) Three PSOs shall be stationed aboard the icebreaker Polar 
Prince to take advantage of this forward operating platform and provide 
advanced notice of marine mammals to the PSOs on the survey vessel. 
Three PSOs shall be stationed aboard the survey vessel Geo Arctic to 
monitor the exclusion zones centered on the airguns and to request 
mitigation actions when necessary.
    (iv) At all times, the crew must be instructed to keep watch for 
marine mammals. If any are sighted, the bridge watch-stander must 
immediately notify the PSO(s) on-watch. If a marine mammal is within or 
closely approaching its designated exclusion zone, the seismic acoustic 
sources must be immediately powered down or shutdown (in accordance 
with condition 6(d) above).
    (v) Observations by the PSOs on marine mammal presence and activity 
shall begin a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the estimated time that 
the seismic source is to be turned on and/or ramped-up.
    (vi) PSO(s) shall watch for marine mammals from the best available 
vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge. The 
observer(s) shall scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7 x 50 
reticle binoculars, supplemented during good visibility conditions with 
20 x 60 image-stabilized Zeiss Binoculars or Fujinon 25 x 150 ``Big-
eye'' binoculars, a thermal imaging (FLIR) camera, and night-vision 
equipment when needed.
    (vii) When marine mammal is sighted, information to be recorded by 
PSOs shall include the following information:
    (A) species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
determinable), bearing and distance from observer, apparent reaction to 
activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, etc.), closest point of 
approach, and pace;
    (B) additional details for any unidentified marine mammal or 
unknown observed;
    (C) time, location, speed, and activity of the vessel, sea state, 
ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
    (D) the positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the 
observer location.
    (viii) The ship's position, speed of the vessel, water depth, sea 
state, ice cover, visibility, airgun status (ramp up, mitigation gun, 
or full array), and sun glare shall be recorded at the start and end of 
each observation watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever 
there is a change in any of those variables.
    (ix) ION shall work with its observers to develop a means for 
recording data that does not reduce observation time significantly.
    (x) PSOs shall attempt to maximize the time spent looking at the 
water and guarding the exclusion radii. They shall avoid the tendency 
to spend too much time evaluating animal behavior or entering data on 
forms, both of which detract from their primary purpose of monitoring 
the exclusion zone.
    (xi) PSOs shall understand the importance of classifying marine 
mammals as ``unknown'' or ``unidentified'' if they cannot identify the 
animals to species with confidence. In those cases, they shall note any 
information that might aid in the identification of the marine mammal 
sighted. For example, for an unidentified mysticete whale, the 
observers should record whether the animal had a dorsal fin.
    (xii) Additional details about unidentified marine mammal 
sightings, such as ``blow only'', mysticete with (or without) a dorsal 
fin, ``seal splash'', etc., shall be recorded.
(b) At Night and Poor Visibility Visual Monitoring
    (i) Night-vision equipment (Generation 3 binocular image 
intensifiers, or equivalent units) shall be available for use at night 
and poor visibility if visual monitoring is conducted.
    (ii) A forward looking thermal imaging (FLIR) camera system mounted 
on a high point near the bow of the icebreaker shall also be available 
to assist with detecting the presence of seals and polar bears on ice 
and in the water ahead of the airgun array.
(iii) FLIR and NVD Monitoring Protocols
     All PSOs shall monitor for marine mammals according to the 
procedures outlined in the Marine Mammal Observer handbook.
     One PSO will be responsible for monitoring the FLIR system 
(IR-PSO) during most darkness and twilight periods. The on-duty IR-PSO 
shall monitor the IR display and alternate between the two search 
methods described below. If a second PSO is on watch, they shall scan 
the same area as the FLIR using the NVDs for comparison. The two PSOs 
shall coordinate what area is currently being scanned.
     The IR-PSO should rotate between the search methods (see 
below) every 30 minutes in the following routine:

    [cir] 00:00-00:30: Method I
    [cir] 00:30-01:00: Method II, Port side
    [cir] 01:00-01:30: Method I
    [cir] 01:30-02:00: Method II, Starboard side
(iv) FLIR and NVD Search Methods
    (A) Method I: Set the horizontal tilt of the camera to an angle 
that provides an adequate view out in front of the vessel and also 
provides good resolution to potential targets. Pan back and forth 
across the forward 180[deg] of the vessels heading at a slow-scanning 
rate of approximately 1-2[deg]/sec, as one would with binoculars.
    (B) Method II: Set the horizontal tilt of the camera to an angle 
that provides an adequate view out in front of the vessel, and then set 
the camera at a fixed position that creates a swath of view off the bow 
and to one side of the vessel.
(c) Field Data-Recording, Verification, Handling, and Security
    (i) PSOs shall record their observations onto datasheets or 
directly into handheld computers. During periods between watches and 
periods when operations are suspended, those data shall be entered into 
a laptop computer running a custom computer database.
    (ii) The accuracy of the data entry shall be verified in the field 
by computerized validity checks as the data are entered, and by 
subsequent manual checking of the database printouts.
    (iii) Quality control of the data shall be facilitated by
    (A) The start-of-season training session,
    (B) Subsequent supervision by the onboard field crew leader, and
    (C) Ongoing data checks during the field season.
    (iv) Data shall be backed up regularly onto CDs and/or USB disks, 
and stored at separate locations on the vessel.
    (v) Observation effort data shall be designed to capture the amount 
of PSO effort itself, environmental conditions that impact an 
observer's ability to detect marine mammals, and the equipment and 
method of monitoring being employed. These data shall be collected 
every 30 minutes or when an effort variable changes (e.g., change in 
the equipment or method being used to monitor, on/off-signing PSO, 
etc.), and shall be linked to sightings data.

[[Page 49960]]

    (vi) Effort and sightings data forms shall also include fields to 
capture information specific to monitoring in darkness and to more 
accurately describe the observation conditions. These fields include 
the following:
    (A) Observation Method: FLIR, NVD, spotlight, eye (naked eye or 
regular binoculars), or multiple methods. This data is collected every 
30 minutes with the Observer Effort form and with every sighting.
    (B) Cloud Cover: Percentage. This can impact lighting conditions 
and reflectivity.
    (C) Precipitation Type: Fog, rain, snow, or none.
    (D) Precipitation Reduced Visibility: Confirms whether or not 
visibility is reduced due to precipitation. This will be compared to 
the visibility distance ( km) to determine when visibility is 
reduced due to lighting conditions versus precipitation.
    (E) Daylight Amount: Daylight, twilight, dark. The addition of the 
twilight field has been included to record observation periods where 
the sun has set and observation distances may be reduced due to lack of 
light.
    (F) Light Intensity: Recorded in footcandles (fc) using an incident 
light meter. This procedure was added to quantify the available light 
during twilight and darkness periods and may allow for light-intensity 
bins to be used during analysis.
(d) Acoustic Monitoring
(i) Sound Source Verification
    (A) ION shall use measurements of the same airgun source taken in 
the Canadian Beaufort Sea in 2010, along with sound velocity 
measurements taken in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea at the start of the 2012 
survey to update the propagation model and estimate new exclusion 
zones.
    (B) Sound source verification shall consist of distances where 
broadside and endfire directions at which broadband received levels 
reach 190, 180, 170, 160, and 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for the airgun 
array(s). The configurations of airgun arrays shall include at least 
the full array and the operation of a single source that will be used 
during power downs.
    (C) The test results shall be reported to NMFS within 5 days of 
completing the test.
    (ii) Seismic Hydrophone Streamer Recordings of Vessel Sounds: ION 
shall use the hydrophones in the seismic streamer to monitor the 
icebreaker noise.
    (A) Once every hour the airguns would not be fired at 2 consecutive 
intervals and instead a period of background sounds would be recorded, 
including the sounds generated by the vessels.
    (B) In order to estimate sound energy over a larger range of 
frequencies, results from previous measurements of icebreakers could be 
generalized and added to the data collected during this project.
(iii) Over-Winter Acoustic Recorders
    (A) ION shall collaborate with other industry operators to deploy 
acoustics recorders in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in fall of 2012, to be 
retrieved during the 2013 open-water season.
    (B) Acoustic data from the over-winter recorders shall be analyzed 
to address the following objectives:
     Characterize the sounds and propagation distances produced 
by Ion's source vessel, icebreaker, and airguns on and to the edge of 
the U.S. Beaufort Sea shelf,
     Characterize ambient sounds and marine mammal calls during 
October and November to assess the relative effect of ION's seismic 
survey on the background conditions, and to characterize marine mammal 
calling behavior, and
     Characterize ambient sound and enumerate marine mammal 
calls through acoustic sampling of the environment form December 2012 
through July 2013, when little or no anthropogenic sounds are expected.
    8. Reporting:
    (a) Sound Source Verification Report: A report on the preliminary 
results of the acoustic verification measurements, including as a 
minimum the measured 190-, 180-, 160-, and 120-dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
radii of the airgun arrays will be submitted within 120 hr after 
collection and analysis of those measurements at the start of the field 
season. This report shall specify the distances of the exclusion zones 
that were adopted for the marine survey activities.
    (b) Field Reports: Throughout the survey program, the observers 
shall prepare a report each day or at such other interval as the IHA 
(if issued), or ION may require summarizing the recent results of the 
monitoring program. The field reports shall summarize the species and 
numbers of marine mammals sighted. These reports shall be provided to 
NMFS and to the survey operators.

Technical Reports

    (c) Technical Report: The Results of the vessel-based monitoring, 
including estimates of ``take by harassment'', shall be presented in 
the 90-day and final technical reports. Reporting will address the 
requirements established by NMFS in the IHA (if issued). The technical 
report will include:
    (i) Summaries of monitoring effort: Total hours, total distances, 
and distribution of marine mammals through the study period accounting 
for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability 
of marine mammals;
    (ii) Methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all 
acoustic characterization work and vessel-based monitoring;
    (iii) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals including sea state, number of 
observers, and fog/glare;
    (iv) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine 
mammal sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender 
categories, group sizes, and ice cover; and
    (v) Analyses of the effects of survey operations:
     Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect 
detectability);
     Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state;
     Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state;
     Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun 
activity state;
     Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun 
activity state;
     Distribution around the survey vessel versus airgun 
activity state; and
     Estimates of ``take by harassment''.
    (vi) To better assess impacts to marine mammals, data analysis 
should be separated into periods when a seismic airgun array (or a 
single airgun) is operating and when it is not. Final and comprehensive 
reports to NMFS should summarize and plot: (A) Data for periods when a 
seismic array is active and when it is not; and (B) The respective 
predicted received sound conditions over fairly large areas (tens of 
km) around operations.
    (vii) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect 
detectability), such as: (A) Initial sighting distances versus airgun 
activity state; (B) closest point of approach versus airgun activity 
state; (C) observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun 
activity state; (D) numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun 
activity state; (E) distribution around the survey vessel versus airgun 
activity state; and (F) estimates of take by harassment.
    (viii) Reported results from all hypothesis tests should include

[[Page 49961]]

estimates of the associated statistical power when practicable.
    (ix) Estimate and report uncertainty in all take estimates. 
Uncertainty could be expressed by the presentation of confidence 
limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, etc.; 
the exact approach would be selected based on the sampling method and 
data available.
    (x) The report should clearly compare authorized takes to the level 
of actual estimated takes.
    (xi) The draft report will be subject to review and comment by 
NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final 
report prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered 
the final report for this activity under this Authorization if NMFS has 
not provided comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of 
the draft report.
9. Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
    (a) In the unanticipated event that survey operations clearly cause 
the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this 
Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury 
or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 
entanglement), ION shall immediately cease survey operations and 
immediately report the incident to the Supervisor of Incidental Take 
Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to 
[email protected] and [email protected] and the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators ([email protected] and 
[email protected]v). The report must include the following 
information:
    (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    (ii) The name and type of vessel involved;
    (iii) The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
    (iv) Description of the incident;
    (v) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    (vi) Water depth;
    (vii) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    (viii) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (ix) Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (x) The fate of the animal(s); and
    (xi) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is 
available).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with ION to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ION may not resume their 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
    (b) In the event that ION 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), 
ION will immediately report the incident to the Supervisor of the 
Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to 
[email protected] and [email protected] and the NMFS Alaska 
Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-7773) and/or by email to the Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinators ([email protected] and 
[email protected]). The report must include the same 
information identified in Condition 10(a) above. Activities may 
continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS 
will work with ION to determine whether modifications in the activities 
are appropriate.
    (c). In the event that ION 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 Condition 3 
of this Authorization (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with 
moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), ION shall 
report the incident to the Supervisor of the Incidental Take Program, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to [email protected] and 
[email protected] and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline (1-877-925-
7773) and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators 
([email protected] and [email protected]v), within 24 hours 
of the discovery. ION shall provide photographs or video footage (if 
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. ION can continue its 
operations under such a case.
    10. Activities related to the monitoring described in this 
Authorization do not require a separate scientific research permit 
issued under section 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
    11. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if 
the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the 
authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the 
species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or 
stocks for subsistence uses.
    12. A copy of this Authorization and the Incidental Take Statement 
must be in the possession of each seismic vessel operator taking marine 
mammals under the authority of this Incidental Harassment 
Authorization.
    13. ION is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the 
Incidental Take Statement corresponding to NMFS' Biological Opinion.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    The bowhead whale is the only marine mammal species currently 
listed as endangered under the ESA that could occur during ION's 
proposed in-ice seismic survey period. The Beringia DPS of the Alaska 
stock of bearded seals and the Arctic stock of ringed seals are 
proposed for listing as threatened under the ESA. Final decisions 
concerning the listing of these species are pending.
    NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation 
with NMFS' Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on 
the issuance of an IHA to ION under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 
for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a 
determination on the issuance of an IHA.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment, pursuant 
to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have a 
significant effect on the human environment. This analysis will be 
completed prior to the issuance or denial of the IHA.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to ION's 2012 in-ice 
seismic survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, provided the 
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
are incorporated.

    Dated: August 13, 2012.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-20173 Filed 8-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P