[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51963-51980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20726]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD145


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

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to SAExploration, Inc. (SAE) 
to take, by harassment, small numbers of marine mammals incidental to a 
marine 3-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) seismic survey 
program in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, during the 2014 Arctic open-water 
season.

DATES: Effective August 25, 2014, through October 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Inquiry for information on the incidental take authorization 
should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A copy of the 
application containing a list of the references used in this document, 
NMFS' Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI), and the IHA may be obtained by writing to the address 
specified

[[Page 51964]]

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.
    Documents cited in this notice may 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, or Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska Region, 
(907) 271-3023.

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.''
    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

    On December 8, 2013, NMFS received an application from SAE for the 
taking of marine mammals incidental to a 3D OBN seismic survey program 
in the Beaufort Sea. After receiving NMFS comments, SAE made revision 
and updated its IHA application on February 14, 2014, and again on 
April 23, 2014. In addition, NMFS received the marine mammal mitigation 
and monitoring plan from SAE on May 15, 2014. NMFS determined that the 
application was adequate and complete on May 25, 2014.
    Detailed descriptions of SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey program are 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (79 FR 
39914; July 10, 2014). No change has been made in the action described 
in the Federal Register notice. Please refer to that document for 
detailed information about the activities involved in the seismic 
survey program.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to SAE was published in 
the Federal Register on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39914). That notice 
described in detail SAE's activity, the marine mammal species that may 
be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine 
mammals and the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. 
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received only one comment 
letter, which was a comment letter the Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission).
    Any comments specific to SAE's application that address the 
statutory and regulatory requirements or findings NMFS must make to 
issue an IHA are addressed in this section of the Federal Register 
notice.
    Comment 1: The Commission requested that NMFS require that after 
August 25, SAE refrain from initiating or cease seismic activities if 
an aggregation of bowhead whales or gray whales (i.e., 12 or more 
whales of any age/sex class that appear to be engaged in a non-
migratory, significant biological behavior (e.g., feeding, 
socializing)) is observed within the 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa zone.
    Response: NMFS did not propose the suspension of seismic activities 
for an aggregation of bowhead whales or gray whales (12 or more whales 
of any age/sex class) within the Level B harassment zone of 160 dB 
because the size of the zone is very small (2,990 m radius), and it is 
not likely that an aggregation of 12 whales could occur in such a small 
zone. In addition, given that the seismic vessel would be moving at a 
speed of 4-5 knots, and assuming the whales would be relatively 
stationary, such an aggregation of whales would be exposed to received 
levels above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for less than 13 minutes. Nevertheless, 
NMFS has worked with SAE to include in the IHA the Commission's 
recommendation that SAE refrain from initiating or cease seismic 
activities if an aggregation of bowhead or gray whales (12 or more 
whales of any age/sex class that appear to be engaged in a non-
migratory, significant biological behavior) is observed within the 160-
dB re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth.
    Comment 2: The Commission requested that NMFS only authorize an in-
season adjustment in the size of the exclusion and/or disturbance zones 
if the size(s) of the estimated zones are determined to be too small. 
The Commission stated that the purpose of sound source verification 
(SSV) is to ensure protection of marine mammals, and one way to reduce 
risk to marine mammals would be to only allow expansion of the 
exclusion and/or disturbance zones.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission's recommendation. 
While increasing the size of the exclusion zone may seem to be more 
protective, if the effectiveness of visual-based marine mammal 
monitoring remains the same, the actual result may not be an increase 
in protection. Similarly, reducing the size of the exclusion zone, if 
determined to be appropriate, may lead to more effective and protective 
monitoring. For example, if the SSV suggests that the appropriate 
exclusion and/or disturbance zones are smaller than the ones modeled 
and monitoring still focuses on the larger modeled zones, it is likely 
that the effectiveness of marine mammal monitoring could be reduced, as 
the area to be monitored would be larger than necessary. In addition, 
larger than realistic exclusion zones would cause unnecessary power 
down and shutdowns, which could increase the total duration of the 
seismic surveys and cause unnecessary impacts to the marine 
environment.
    Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS verify that SAE 
will conduct passive acoustic monitoring before, during, and after 
seismic activities.
    Response: NMFS worked with SAE on the requirement of PAM. SAE will 
conduct PAM before, during, and after seismic surveys, using 
specialized autonomous passive acoustical recorders. SAE further stated 
that PAM will begin soon after the time that SAE receives the IHA and 
will continue at least 24 hours after source operations have been 
completed. Depending on environmental conditions, PAM data collection 
could last longer.

[[Page 51965]]

    Comment 4: The Commission requested that NMFS require SAE to 
monitor for marine mammals beginning 30 minutes before survey 
operations begin, during survey operations, and for 30 minutes after 
survey operations and other activities have ceased.
    Response: SAE is required to monitor for marine mammals beginning 
30 minutes before survey operations begin, during survey operations, 
and for 30 minutes after survey operations and other activities have 
ceased.
    Comment 5: The Commission recommended that NMFS encourage the 
development of conflict avoidance agreements that reflect the interests 
of all potentially affected communities and co-management organizations 
and account for potential adverse impacts on all marine mammal species 
taken for subsistence.
    Response: SAE signed a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the 
Alaska native bowhead whaling communities, to ensure that there is no 
unmitigable adverse impacts to subsistence whaling activities from its 
3D OBN seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. For marine mammal 
species other than bowhead whales, SAE developed a Plan of Cooperation 
(POC) and engaged with all potentially affected communities and co-
management organizations to ensure that potential effects to 
subsistence activities can be mitigated to the level of being 
negligible. In addition, SAE developed a marine mammal monitoring and 
mitigation plan (4MP) to make sure that there will be no unmitigable 
impacts to subsistence uses of any marine mammal species used by the 
native communities. Finally, NMFS has rigorously reviewed SAE's POC and 
4MP and provided additional recommendations (e.g., passive acoustic 
monitoring) to further reduce any potential adverse effects. NMFS has 
subsequently made a determination that SAE's 2014 open-water 3D OBN 
seismic surveys will not have unmitigable adverse impacts to 
subsistence uses of any marine mammal species. Neither the MMPA nor its 
implementing regulations require an independent legal agreement between 
SAE and any subsistence use representative. SAE has already ensured 
there will be no unmitigable adverse impact to subsistence uses.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The Beaufort Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals. 
Table 1 lists the 12 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction with 
confirmed or possible occurrence in the project area.

[[Page 51966]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02SE14.000

    The highlighted (grayed out) species in Table 1 are so rarely 
sighted in the project area that take is unlikely. Minke whales are 
relatively common in the Bering and southern Chukchi Seas and have 
recently also been sighted in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (Aerts et 
al., 2013; Clarke et al., 2013). Minke whales are rare in the Beaufort 
Sea. They have not been reported in the Beaufort Sea during the Bowhead 
Whale Aerial Survey Project/Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals 
(BWASP/ASAMM) surveys (Clarke et al., 2011, 2012; 2013; Monnet and 
Treacy, 2005), and there was only one observation in 2007 during 
vessel-based surveys in the region (Funk et al., 2010). Humpback whales 
have not generally been found in the Arctic Ocean. However, subsistence 
hunters have spotted humpback whales in low numbers around Barrow, and 
there have been several confirmed sightings of humpback whales in the 
northeastern Chukchi Sea in recent years (Aerts et al., 2013; Clarke et 
al., 2013). The first confirmed sighting of a humpback whale in the 
Beaufort Sea was recorded in August 2007 (Hashagen et al., 2009), when 
a cow and calf were observed 54 mi east of Point Barrow. No additional 
sightings have been documented in the Beaufort Sea. Narwhal are common 
in the waters of northern Canada, west Greenland, and in the European 
Arctic, but rarely occur in the Beaufort Sea (COSEWIC, 2004). Only a 
handful of sightings have occurred in Alaskan waters (Allen and

[[Page 51967]]

Angliss, 2013). These three species are not considered further in this 
IHA notice. Both the walrus and the polar bear could occur in the U.S. 
Beaufort Sea; however, these species are managed by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered further in this IHA 
notice.
    The Beaufort Sea is a main corridor of the bowhead whale migration 
route. The main migration periods occur in spring from April to June 
and in fall from late August/early September through October to early 
November. During the fall migration, several locations in the U.S. 
Beaufort Sea serve as feeding grounds for bowhead whales. Small numbers 
of bowhead whales that remain in the U.S. Arctic Ocean during summer 
also feed in these areas. The U.S. Beaufort Sea is not a main feeding 
or calving area for any other cetacean species. Ringed seals breed and 
pup in the Beaufort Sea; however, this does not occur during the summer 
or early fall. Further information on the biology and local 
distribution of these species can be found in SAE's application (see 
ADDRESSES) and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which 
are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    Operating active acoustic sources such as airgun arrays, 
navigational sonars, and vessel activities have the potential for 
adverse effects on marine mammals. Potential effects from SAE's 3D OBN 
seismic surveys on marine mammals in the U.S. Beaufort Sea are 
discussed in the ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on 
Marine Mammals'' section of the Federal Register notice for the 
proposed IHA (79 FR 39914; July 10, 2014). No changes have been made to 
the discussion contained in this section of the Federal Register notice 
for the proposed IHA.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are 
associated with elevated sound levels produced by airguns and vessels 
and their affects on marine mammal prey species. These potential 
effects from SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey are discussed in the 
``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section of the Federal 
Register notice for the proposed IHA (79 FR 39914; June 14, 2013). No 
changes have been made to the discussion contained in this section of 
the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA.

Mitigation Measures

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under Section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods 
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
    For the SAE open-water 3D OBN seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea, 
NMFS is requiring SAE to implement the following mitigation measures to 
minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project 
vicinity as a result of its survey activities. The primary purpose of 
these mitigation measures is to detect marine mammals within or about 
to enter designated exclusion zones and to initiate immediate shutdown 
or power down of the airgun(s).

(1) Establishing Exclusion and Disturbance Zones

    Under current NMFS guidelines, the ``exclusion zone'' for marine 
mammal exposure to impulse sources is customarily defined as the area 
within which received sound levels are >=180 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa for 
cetaceans and >=190 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa for pinnipeds. These safety 
criteria are based on an assumption that SPL received at levels lower 
than these will not injure these animals or impair their hearing 
abilities, but that at higher 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 zones (Richardson et al. 1995). Currently, NMFS uses 160 dB 
(rms) re 1 [mu]Pa as the threshold for Level B behavioral harassment 
from impulses noise.
    As discussed in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA 
(79 FR 39914; July 10, 2014), the acoustic propagation of the 440-
in\3\, 880-in\3\, and 1,760-in\3\ airgun arrays were predicted using 
JASCO's model provided in Aerts et al. (2008), corrected with the 
measured or manufacturer's source levels. The resulting isopleths 
modeled for the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa exclusion zones 
and zones of influence are listed in Table 2.

           Table 2--Modeled Airgun Array Source Levels and Exclusion Zone and Zones of Influence Radii
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Source level    190 dB radius   180 dB radius   160 dB radius
               Array size  (in\3\)                     (dB)             (m)             (m)             (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
440.............................................          221.08             126             325           1,330
880.............................................          226.86             167             494           1,500
1,760...........................................          236.55             321             842           2,990
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These safety distances will be implemented at the commencement of 
2014 airgun operations to establish marine mammal exclusion zones used 
for mitigation. SAE will conduct sound source measurements of the 
airgun array at the beginning of survey operations in 2014 to verify 
the size of the various marine mammal exclusion zones. The acoustic 
data will be analyzed in the field as quickly as reasonably practicable 
and used to verify and adjust, as necessary, the marine mammal 
exclusion zone distances. The mitigation measures to be implemented at 
the 190 and 180 dB (rms) sound levels will include power downs and 
shutdowns as described below.

(2) Vessel Related Mitigation Measures

    These mitigation measures apply to all vessels that are part of 
SAE's Beaufort Sea seismic survey activities, including supporting 
vessels.
     Avoid concentrations or groups of whales. Operators of 
vessels should, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum 
distance possible from such concentrations or groups of whales.
     If any vessel approaches within 1.6 km (1 mi) of observed 
whales, except when providing emergency assistance to whalers or in 
other emergency situations, the vessel operator will take reasonable 
precautions to avoid potential interaction with the whales by taking 
one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
    [cir] Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 300 yards 
(900 feet or 274 m) of the whale(s);
    [cir] Steering around the whale(s) if possible;

[[Page 51968]]

    [cir] Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating 
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
    [cir] Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make 
multiple changes in direction; and
    [cir] Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to 
ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
     Reduce vessel speed, not to exceed 5 knots, when weather 
conditions require, such as when visibility drops, to avoid the 
likelihood of injury to whales.

(3) Mitigation Measures for Airgun Operations

    The primary requirements for airgun mitigation during the seismic 
surveys are to monitor marine mammals near the airgun array during all 
daylight airgun operations and during any nighttime start-up of the 
airguns and, if any marine mammals are observed, to adjust airgun 
operations, as necessary, according to the mitigation measures 
described below. During the seismic surveys, PSOs will monitor the pre-
established exclusion zones for the presence of marine mammals. When 
marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated 
safety zones, PSOs have the authority to call for immediate power down 
(or shutdown) of airgun operations, as required by the situation. A 
summary of the procedures associated with each mitigation measure is 
provided below.
Ramp Up Procedure
    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 (or ``soft start'') is to ``warn'' cetaceans and pinnipeds 
in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide time for them to leave 
the area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their 
hearing abilities.
    During the open-water survey program, the seismic operator will 
ramp up the airgun arrays slowly. Full ramp ups (i.e., from a cold 
start after a shutdown, when no airguns have been firing) will begin by 
firing a single airgun in the array (i.e., the mitigation airgun). A 
full ramp up, after a shutdown, will not begin until there has been a 
minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the safety zone by PSOs to 
assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire exclusion zone 
must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If the 
entire exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp up from a cold start 
cannot begin. If a marine mammal is sighted within the safety zone 
during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp up, ramp up will be delayed 
until the marine mammal is sighted outside of the exclusion zone or the 
animal is not sighted for at least 15 minutes, for small odontocetes 
(harbor porpoise) and pinnipeds, or 30 minutes, for baleen whales and 
large odontocetes (including beluga and killer whales and narwhal).
Use of a Small-Volume Airgun During Turns and Transits
    Throughout the seismic survey, during turning movements and short 
transits, SAE will employ the use of the smallest-volume airgun (i.e., 
``mitigation airgun'') to deter marine mammals from being within the 
immediate area of the seismic operations. The mitigation airgun will be 
operated at approximately one shot per minute and will not be operated 
for longer than three hours in duration (turns may last two to three 
hours for the project).
    During turns or brief transits (i.e., less than three hours) 
between seismic tracklines, one mitigation airgun will continue 
operating. The ramp up procedures described above will be followed when 
increasing the source levels from the one mitigation airgun to the full 
airgun array. However, keeping one airgun firing during turns and brief 
transits will allow SAE to resume seismic surveys using the full array 
without having to ramp up from a ``cold start,'' which requires a 30-
minute observation period of the full exclusion zone and is prohibited 
during darkness or other periods of poor visibility. PSOs will be on 
duty whenever the airguns are firing during daylight and during the 30-
minute periods prior to ramp-ups from a ``cold start.''
Power Down and Shutdown Procedures
    A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating 
energy sources from all firing to some smaller number (e.g., a single 
mitigation airgun). A shutdown is the immediate cessation of firing of 
all energy sources. The array will 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. If a marine 
mammal is sighted within or about to enter the applicable exclusion 
zone of the single mitigation airgun, the entire array will be shut 
down (i.e., no sources firing). In addition, SAE will implement 
shutdown measures when aggregations of bowhead whales or gray whales 
that appear to be engaged in non-migratory significant biological 
behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing) are observed within the 160-dB 
harassment zone around the seismic operations.
Poor Visibility Conditions
    SAE plans to conduct 24-hour operations. PSOs will not be on duty 
during ongoing seismic operations during darkness, given the very 
limited effectiveness of visual observation at night (there will be no 
periods of darkness in the survey area until mid-August). The 
provisions associated with operations at night or in periods of poor 
visibility include the following:
     If during foggy conditions, heavy snow or rain, or 
darkness (which may be encountered starting in late August), the full 
180 dB exclusion zone is not visible, the airguns cannot commence a 
ramp-up procedure from a full shut-down.
     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.
Mitigation Conclusions
    NMFS has carefully evaluated SAE's mitigation measures and 
considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that 
NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our 
evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the 
following factors in relation to one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measures are 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.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed below:
    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

[[Page 51969]]

    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or 
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received 
levels of seismic airguns, or other activities expected to result in 
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing harassment takes only).
    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to received levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to 
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number 
or number at biologically important time or location) to received 
levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to result in the 
take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that 
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance 
of habitat during a biologically important time.
    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS determined that the 
mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least 
practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance. Measures to ensure availability of such 
species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed 
later in this document (see ``Impact on Availability of Affected 
Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses'' section).

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(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 action area. SAE 
submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA 
application. The plan 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).
    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or 
more of the following general goals:
    1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of 
marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, i.e., presence, 
abundance, distribution, and/or density of species.
    2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or 
context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the 
potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g. sound or visual 
stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following: 
The action itself and its environment (e.g. sound source 
characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected 
species (e.g. life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated 
with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or 
behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal 
(e.g. age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding 
areas).
    3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine 
mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific 
stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where 
possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).
    4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual 
responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of 
stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an 
individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g. through effects 
on annual rates of recruitment or survival).
    5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects 
marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or 
acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term 
contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels 
and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).
    6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on 
marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic 
activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
    7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of 
mitigation and monitoring measures.
    8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals 
(through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within 
the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the 
mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.

Monitoring Measures

    Monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine 
mammals potentially affected by the exploration operations and 
facilitate real-time mitigation to prevent injury of marine mammals by 
industrial sounds or activities. These goals will be accomplished in 
the Beaufort Sea during 2014 by conducting vessel-based monitoring from 
both source vessels and the mitigation vessel and an acoustic 
monitoring program using a bottom-mounted hydrophone array to document 
marine mammal presence and distribution in the vicinity of the survey 
area.
    Visual monitoring by Protected Species Observers (PSOs) during 
seismic survey operations, and periods when these surveys are not 
occurring, will provide information on the numbers of marine mammals 
potentially affected by these activities and facilitate real-time 
mitigation to prevent impacts to marine mammals by industrial sounds or 
operations. Vessel-based PSOs onboard the survey vessels and mitigation 
vessel will record the numbers and species of marine mammals observed 
in the area and any observable reaction of marine mammals to the survey 
activities in the Beaufort Sea.

Visual-Based Protected Species Observers (PSOs)

    The visual-based marine mammal monitoring will be implemented by a 
team of experienced PSOs, including both biologists and Inupiat 
personnel. PSOs will be stationed aboard the survey vessels and 
mitigation vessel through the duration of the project. The vessel-based 
marine mammal monitoring will provide the basis for real-time 
mitigation measures as discussed in the Mitigation Measures section. In 
addition, monitoring results of the vessel-based monitoring program 
will include the estimation of the

[[Page 51970]]

number of ``takes'' as stipulated in the IHA.

(1) Protected Species Observers

    Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals will be done by trained 
PSOs throughout the period of survey activities. The observers will 
monitor the occurrence of marine mammals near the survey vessel during 
all daylight periods during operation, and during most daylight periods 
when operations are not occurring. 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.''
    A sufficient number of PSOs will be required onboard each 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.
    PSO teams will consist of Inupiat observers and experienced field 
biologists. Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to 
supervise the PSO team. The total number of PSOs may decrease later in 
the season as the duration of daylight decreases.

(2) Observer Qualifications and Training

    Crew leaders and most PSOs will be individuals with experience as 
observers during recent seismic, site clearance and shallow hazards, 
and other monitoring projects in Alaska or other offshore areas in 
recent years. New or inexperienced PSOs will be paired with an 
experienced PSO or experienced field biologist so that the quality of 
marine mammal observations and data recording is kept consistent.
    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. 
Resumes for those individuals will be provided to NMFS for review and 
acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers will be 
experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the 
area. All observers will complete a NMFS-approved observer training 
course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data 
collection procedures.
    PSOs will complete a 2-day or 3-day training and refresher session 
on marine mammal monitoring, to be conducted shortly before the 
anticipated start of the 2014 open-water season. Any exceptions will 
have or receive equivalent experience or training. The training 
session(s) will be conducted by qualified marine mammalogists with 
extensive crew-leader experience during previous vessel-based seismic 
monitoring programs.

(3) Marine Mammal Observer Protocol

    Two protected species observers (PSOs) will be stationed on each 
source vessel. An additional 2 or 3 PSOs will be stationed on the 
mitigation vessel, and they will work in concert with the PSOs 
stationed aboard the source vessels, to provide an early warning of the 
approach of any bowhead whale, beluga, or other marine mammal. The 
mitigation vessel plans to conduct zig-zag transects from 2 to 6 km 
ahead of the source vessel (based on water depth and weather 
conditions) to effectively monitor the 160 dB zone of influence and to 
also monitor the edge of the 180 dB isopleth.
    The PSOs will watch for marine mammals during all periods of source 
operations and for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the planned start 
of airgun or pinger operations after an extended shutdown. Marine 
mammal monitoring shall continue throughout airgun operations and last 
for 30 minutes after the finish of airgun firing. SAE vessel crew and 
operations personnel will also watch for marine mammals, as practical, 
to assist and alert the PSOs for the airgun(s) to be shut down if 
marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the exclusion zone.
    The PSOs will watch for marine mammals from the best available 
vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge. The PSOs 
will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle 
binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 and 16-40 x 80) and with the naked eye. Laser 
range finders (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be 
available to assist with distance estimation.
    The observers aboard the survey and mitigation vessels will give 
particular attention to the areas within the marine mammal exclusion 
zones around the source vessels. These zones are the maximum distances 
within which received levels may exceed 180 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) 
for cetaceans, or 190 dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa for pinnipeds.
    When a marine mammal is seen approaching or within the exclusion 
zone applicable to that species, the seismic survey crew will be 
notified immediately so that mitigation measures called for in the 
applicable authorization(s) can be implemented.
    Night-vision equipment (Generation 3 binocular image intensifiers 
or equivalent units) will be available for use if and when needed. Past 
experience with night-vision devices (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).

(4) Field Data-Recording

    The PSOs will record field observation data and information about 
marine mammal sightings that include:
     Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if 
determinable);
     Physical description of features that were observed or 
determined not to be present in the case of unknown or unidentified 
animals;
     Behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, 
heading (if consistent);
     Bearing and distance from observer, apparent reaction to 
activities (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), 
closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
     Time, location, speed, and activity of the source and 
mitigation vessels, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; 
and
     Positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity.

Spotted Seal Haulout Monitoring

    Given that information on seasonal use of haulout sites by spotted 
seals remains elusive, SAE will conduct a monitoring program in 2014 
largely designed to identify where seals haulout in the action area and 
to determine whether some areas would need additional monitoring later 
in 2014 or whether additional mitigation measures would need to be 
imposed on SAE's future schedule and shot layout. The monitoring will 
include a biweekly boat-based survey, with the first survey on August 1 
and the last survey two weeks after the seismic survey is completed for 
the year. The survey will begin at the village of Nuiqsut and will 
initially follow the far west channel of the Colville River, survey all 
the outer islands of the river delta, and then return to Nuiqsut 
following the farthest east river channel. The survey will traverse 
approximately 75 mi and take about a day to complete. All seals will be 
identified to species, and GPS location and whether the animals were 
hauled out or in the water will be noted. Collected data will be 
combined with available traditional knowledge and historical 
information to determine whether there are locations of consistent seal 
haulout use that might be affected

[[Page 51971]]

by seismic surveys. If sites of suspected high use are found, SAE 
should contact NMFS and the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife 
to identify additional mitigation measures to minimize impacts to these 
sites.

Passive Acoustic Monitoring

(1) Sound Source Measurements

    Prior to or at the beginning of the seismic survey, sound levels 
will be measured as a function of distance and direction from the 
seismic source array (full array and reduced to a single mitigation 
airgun). Results of the acoustic characterization and SSV will be used 
to empirically refine the modeled distance estimates of the pre-season 
190 dB, 180 dB, 170 dB, and 160 dB isopleths. The refined SSV exclusion 
zones will be used for the remainder of the seismic survey. Distance 
estimates for the 120 dB isopleth will also be modeled. The results of 
the SSV will be submitted to NMFS within five days after completing the 
measurements, followed by a report to be submitted within 14 days after 
completion of the measurements. A more detailed report will be provided 
to NMFS as part of the required 90-day report following completion of 
the acoustic program.

(2) Passive Acoustic Monitoring Using Bottom-mounted Hydrophones

    SAE will conduct Passive Acoustical Monitoring (PAM) using 
specialized autonomous passive acoustical recorders. These recorders 
will be deployed on the seabed and will record continuously at 64 kHz 
sample rate and 24-bit samples. The recorders will be calibrated using 
piston phone calibrators immediately before and after each deployment. 
These calibrations are accurate to less than 0.5 dB absolute.
    The recorders will be configured with a single channel using a 
sensitive hydrophone and will be configured with an appropriate duty 
cycle to record at 64 kHz for up to 80 days. The recorders will sit 
directly on the seabed and will be attached to a ground line with a 
small weight at its end. Each recorder will be retrieved by using a 
grapple to catch the ground line and recover the unit. This simple 
deployment configuration and retrieval procedure has proven to be very 
effective for deployments in the Beaufort Sea.
PAM Deployment
    Four recorders will be deployed in an arrangement surrounding the 
survey area for the purposes of PAM. The data collected will be used 
for post-season analysis of marine mammal vocalization detections to 
help inform an assessment of potential disturbance effects. The PAM 
data will also provide information about the long-range propagation of 
the airgun noise.
Recorder Arrangement
    The arrangement of recorders will place one recorder to the east of 
the survey region, one to the west, and two in the offshore direction. 
The exact arrangement will be defined based on the specific survey line 
configuration and will encompass the boundaries of the survey area. The 
recorders will be positioned at ranges where the sound levels are 
expected to have decayed to levels at or below 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa, 
to be determined following analysis of the SSV data.
Data Analysis
    PAM recordings will be processed at the end of the season using 
marine mammal detection and classification software capable of 
detecting vocalizations from marine mammals. Particular attention will 
be given to the detection of bowhead whale vocalizations since this is 
a species of particular concern due to its importance for local 
subsistence hunting.
    PAM recordings will also be used to detect and quantify airgun 
pulses from the survey as recorded on the PAM recorders, to provide 
information about the long-range propagation of the survey noise.
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 established an independent peer review panel to review SAE's 
marine mammal monitoring plan. The panel met in March 2014 via video 
and tele-conferencing, and provided comments to NMFS in April. The full 
panel report can be viewed on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.
    NMFS provided the panel with SAE's IHA application and monitoring 
plan and asked the panel to answer the following questions:
    1. Will the applicant's stated objectives effectively further the 
understanding of the impacts of their activities on marine mammals and 
otherwise accomplish the goals stated above? If not, how should the 
objectives be modified to better accomplish the goals above?
    2. Can the applicant achieve the stated objectives based on the 
methods described in the plan?
    3. Are there technical modifications to the proposed monitoring 
techniques and methodologies proposed by the applicant that should be 
considered to better accomplish their stated objectives?
    4. Are there techniques not proposed by the applicant (i.e., 
additional monitoring techniques or methodologies) that should be 
considered for inclusion in the applicant's monitoring program to 
better accomplish their stated objectives?
    5. 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 (i.e., 90-day report and comprehensive 
report)?
    The panel raised particular questions and concerns about four 
aspects of SAE's original proposed monitoring plan. First, SAE proposed 
having one PSO conducting marine mammal monitoring from the survey 
vessel during operations. Citing a 2013 90-day marine mammal monitoring 
report from TGS (Cate et al. 2014), the panel raised concerns that a 
single PSO would not be able to effectively monitor the entire 
exclusion zone. Second, SAE proposed conducting passive acoustic 
monitoring (PAM) as part of its monitoring program. The panel report 
stated that SAE's IHA application and its marine mammal monitoring and 
mitigation plan lacked sufficient detail on the PAM SAE proposed. 
Third, SAE proposed conducting a pinniped aerial monitoring survey. The 
panel report stated that SAE's IHA application and proposed plan also 
lacked sufficient detail on the pinniped aerial survey. The panel 
further stated that an aerial survey is not an effective way to study 
pinnipeds, with the possible exception of spotted seal use of land 
haulouts. In addition, the panel stated that it is nearly impossible to 
use aerial surveys to make inferences into ice seal density or 
abundance during the open-water season, when seals are likely to be in 
the water, because such surveys have extremely high availability bias 
that cannot be reliably estimated. Finally, the panel stated that the 
residents of Nuiqsut, located near the Colville River delta, had 
expressed considerable concerns about the frequency of aerial 
overflights in the area. The panel

[[Page 51972]]

determined that the cultural impacts of excessive aerial surveys in 
this region largely outweighed the value of the ice seal data that 
could be collected using this methodology. Instead, the panel 
recommended SAE conduct surveys of the spotted seal coastal haulouts 
from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which are considerably quieter 
than manned aircraft.
    Other recommendations from the panel included: (1) Requiring a 
minimum of two PSOs to be on watch throughout all daylight hours, 
regardless of whether airguns are firing; (2) documenting marine mammal 
occurrence, density, and behavior during times when airguns are not 
operating; (3) submitting summary reports with an initial summary or 
interpretation of the efficacy, measurements, and observations, rather 
than raw data, fully processed analyses that include a summary of 
timeline and spatial representation (e.g., a map, with latitude and 
longitude clearly shown), or a summary of operations and important 
observations; (4) providing a complete characterization of the acoustic 
footprint resulting from various activity states; (5) providing a 
summary of any and all mitigation measures (e.g., operational shutdowns 
if they occur) and an assessment of the efficacy of the monitoring 
methods; and (6) collaborating with other industrial operators in the 
area to integrate and synthesize monitoring results as much as possible 
(such as submitting ``sightings'' from their monitoring projects to an 
online data archive, such as OBIS-SEAMAP) and archiving and making the 
complete databases available upon request.
    Based on the recommendations provided by the panel, NMFS worked 
with SAE and requested detailed information on the monitoring 
methodology and survey design. On April 25, 2014, SAE provided an 
updated IHA application, and on May 15, 2014, an updated Marine Mammal 
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (4MP).
    In the updated 4MP, SAE provided a detailed description of its plan 
for using a drift buoy equipped with acoustic sensors for sound source 
verification (SSV) and a detailed deployment plan for the bottom-
mounted hydrophone array for passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) during 
the seismic survey. In response to the concerns raised by the panel 
about the pinniped aerial survey, SAE modified the survey protocol to 
replace the aerial survey with a vessel-based visual survey of spotted 
seal haulout instead.
    NMFS provided the panel with the updated 4MP, for an additional 
voluntary review. Two of the panel members provided additional comments 
on SAE's updated 4MP. These panelists again raised concern that the use 
of a single onboard PSO for marine mammal monitoring would not be 
adequate to cover the safety zone monitoring. In addition, the panel 
members raised questions about the use of a drifting buoy for SSV and 
the marine mammal passive acoustic detection and classification, and 
requested NMFS to require SAE to consult with NMFS and North Slope 
Borough Department of Wildlife Management (NSB-DWM) on spotted seal 
haulout usage prior to issuance of the IHA.
    As a result of the independent peer review, NMFS worked with SAE 
and proposed the following mitigation and monitoring measures based on 
the panel's recommendations:
    (1) PSOs shall monitor and document marine mammal occurrence, 
density, and behavior for at least some periods when airguns are not 
operating;
    (2) Summaries that represent an initial level of interpretation of 
the efficacy, measurements, and observations, rather than raw data, 
fully processed analyses, or a summary of operations and important 
observations, shall be given in the final report;
    (3) Summaries of all mitigation measures (e.g., operational 
shutdowns if they occur) and an assessment of the efficacy of the 
monitoring methods shall be provided in the final report;
    (4) A complete characterization of the acoustic footprint resulting 
from various activity states shall be provided in the final report;
    (5) Collaborating with other industrial operators in the area to 
integrate and synthesize monitoring results as much as possible (such 
as submitting ``sightings'' from their monitoring projects to an online 
data archive, such as OBIS-SEAMAP) and archiving and making the 
complete databases available upon request; and
    (6) Spotted Seal Haulout Monitoring: SAE will conduct a biweekly 
boat survey of spotted seals, before, during, and after the seismic 
survey, to identify where seals haulout in the action area. The survey 
will begin at the village of Nuiqsut and follow the far west channel of 
the Colville River, survey all the outer islands of the river delta, 
and then return to Nuiqsut following the farthest eat river channel. 
All seals will be identified to species, and GPS location and whether 
the animals were hauled out or in the water will be noted. Collected 
data will be combined with available traditional knowledge and 
historical information to determine whether there are locations of 
consistent seal haulout use that might be affected by the seismic 
survey. If sites of suspected high use are found, SAE shall contact 
NMFS and the NSB-DWM to identify additional mitigation measures to 
minimize impacts to these sites.
    Regarding the panel's recommendation that NMFS require a minimum of 
two PSOs to be on watch throughout all daylight hours, regardless of 
whether airguns are firing, NMFS discussed the matter with SAE and SAE 
reported that its source vessel is small and cannot support extra PSOs, 
for safety reasons. To address the panel's concerns and to compensate 
for any potential monitoring inadequacy resulting from having only a 
single PSO on the source vessel, SAE revised its monitoring plan, so 
that it will also mobilize a mitigation vessel dedicated to marine 
mammal monitoring. There will be 2-3 PSOs onboard the mitigation 
vessel. At any given time, there will be 1-2 PSOs monitoring from the 
mitigation vessel, in addition to the PSO monitoring from the source 
vessel. The mitigation vessel will be positioned north and east of the 
source vessel, or essentially upstream of the bowhead and beluga 
migration route.
    The panel's concern that monitoring by a single PSO was potentially 
inadequate was based largely on a 90-day monitoring report submitted by 
TGS (Cate et al. 2014), in which a sighting curve was provided showing 
that during dual-PSO effort from an observation height of 6.5 m, using 
unaided eye, Fujinon 7 x 50 reticle binoculars, or 25 x 150 Fujinon 
``Big-eyes,'' the detection probability dropped by 50% within 150 m of 
the ship, meaning there could be whales within the exclusion zone that 
may not be detected. However, the sighting curve developed for that 90-
day report was solely based on observations obtained on a 2D seismic 
survey by TGS in offshore water. SAE plans to survey in relatively 
calmer coastal shallow waters, and therefore, marine mammal detection 
rates should be higher for SAE's survey. In addition, the TGS sighting 
curve does not separate marine mammals by species, but rather combines 
all sightings from large bowhead whales to small pinnipeds and harbor 
porpoises. Therefore, NMFS does not believe the sighting curve provided 
by TGS provides an accurate assessment of species-specific marine 
mammal detection as a function of distance, particularly for large 
mysticetes.
    As one of the ultimate goals of adequate monitoring is to support 
protective measures to prevent marine mammals from being exposed to 
noise levels that could cause injury (Level A harassment) or other 
harmful effects,

[[Page 51973]]

NMFS analyzed the effectiveness of the monitoring protocol proposed by 
SAE to make a determination whether the protocol provides adequate 
measures for protecting marine mammals. One factor that NMFS took into 
consideration is that the airgun array proposed to be used by SAE for 
its survey is much smaller than the one used by TGS. The ensonified 
zones from the SAE seismic survey will be much smaller. In addition, 
marine mammals are known to avoid intense sound and most likely will 
move out of the area as the seismic vessel approaches. SAE also will 
have a separate mitigation vessel with additional PSOs to provide 
additional monitoring of the ensonified zones. Therefore, for this 
seismic survey, NMFS considered the proposed vessel-based marine mammal 
monitoring to be adequate for supporting mitigation.

Reporting Measures

(1) Sound Source Verification Report

    A report on the preliminary results of the sound source 
verification measurements, including the measured 190, 180, 170, and 
160 dB (rms) radii of the airgun sources, will be submitted within 14 
days after collection 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 survey.

(2) Technical Report

    The results of SAE's 2014 vessel-based monitoring, including 
estimates of ``take'' by harassment, will be presented first in a ``90-
day'' draft Technical Report, to be submitted to NMFS within 90 days 
after the end of the seismic survey, and then in a final Technical 
Report, which will address any comments NMFS had on the draft. The 
Technical Report will include:
    (a) Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total 
distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, 
accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and 
detectability of marine mammals);
    (b) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, 
and fog/glare);
    (c) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine 
mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender 
categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
    (d) Data analysis separated into periods when a seismic airgun 
array (or a single mitigation airgun) is operating and when it is not, 
to better assess impacts to marine mammals--the final and comprehensive 
report to NMFS should summarize and plot:
     Data for periods when a seismic array is active and when 
it is not; and
     The respective predicted received sound conditions over 
fairly large areas (tens of km) around operations;
    (e) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and 
without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect 
detectability), such as:
     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;
    (f) Results from all hypothesis tests, including estimates of the 
associated statistical power, when practicable;
    (g) Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with 
uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a 
minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another 
applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the 
sampling method and data available;
    (h) A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual 
estimated takes; and
    (i) The methodology used to estimate marine mammal takes and 
relative abundance from the towed PAM.

(3) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, 
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality 
(e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), SAE would 
immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the 
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office 
of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding 
Coordinators. The report would include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with SAE to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SAE would not be able to 
resume its activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or 
telephone.
    In the event that SAE 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), 
SAE would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 
NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional 
Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the same information 
identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue 
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work 
with SAE to determine whether modifications in the activities are 
appropriate.
    In the event that SAE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, 
and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated 
with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), SAE would report the incident to 
the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email 
to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the 
discovery. SAE would provide photographs or video footage (if 
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. SAE can continue its 
operations under such a case.
Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities
    SAE requested an IHA for a 3D OBN seismic survey in the Beaufort 
Sea in 2013, but the IHA application was withdrawn before an IHA was 
issued.

[[Page 51974]]

Therefore, there are no previous monitoring results from this project.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].
    Only take by Level B behavioral harassment of some species is 
anticipated as a result of SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey. NMFS expects 
marine mammal takes could result from noise propagation from operation 
of seismic airguns. NMFS does not expect marine mammals will be taken 
by collision with seismic and support vessels, because the vessels will 
be moving at low speeds, and PSOs on the survey vessels and the 
mitigation vessel will be monitoring for marine mammals and will be 
able to alert the vessels to avoid any marine mammals in the area.
    For impulse sounds, such as those produced by the airguns to be 
used in SAE's 3D OBN seismic surveys, NMFS uses the 160 dB (rms) re 1 
[mu]Pa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level B harassment. SAE 
provided calculations of the 160-dB isopleths expected to be produced 
by the seismic surveys and then used those isopleths to estimate takes 
by harassment. NMFS used those calculations to make the necessary MMPA 
findings. SAE provided a full description of the methodology used to 
estimate takes by harassment in its IHA application, which is also 
provided in the following sections.

Acoustic Footprint

    The areas ensonified by seismic airgun noise that could cause 
marine mammal takes under MMPA was determined by assuming that the 
entire survey area is ensonified (given that the distance to the 160 dB 
isopleth during seismic survey is greater than the distance between 
seismic source lines), and adding a buffer area around the survey box 
corresponding to the distance to the 160 dB isopleth. The estimated 
distance to the 160 dB isopleth is 3 kilometers (1.86 miles) (Table 2) 
based on a sound source of 236.55 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for the 1,760 
in\3\ seismic array and a spreading model of 18 LogR - 0.0047R 
estimated for similar Beaufort nearshore waters (BP Liberty) by Aerts 
et al. (2008). Placing a 3-kilometer buffer around the 1,882-km\2\ 
(727-mi\2\) seismic source area expands the ensonification (or Zone of 
Influence [ZOI]) area to approximately 2,295 km\2\ (886 mi\2\), and 
represents the ZOI for pinnipeds. (The distance to the 160 dB isopleth 
when operating the 880 in\3\ airgun array is 1.5 km (0.9 mi).)
    Within the 2,295 km\2\ ensonified area, 19% (431 km\2\) falls 
within the 0 to 1.5 m depth range, 14% (326 km\2\) falls within the 1.5 
to 5 m range, 39% (903 km\2\) with the 5 to 15 m range, and 28% (635 
km\2\) within waters greater than 15 m deep (bowhead migration 
corridor). The distribution of these depth ranges is found in Figure 6-
1 of the IHA application.

Marine Mammal Densities

    Density estimates were derived for bowhead whales, beluga whales, 
ringed seals, spotted seals, and bearded seals as described below and 
shown in Table 3. There are no available Beaufort Sea density estimates 
for gray whales or extralimital species, such as killer whales, harbor 
porpoises, humpback whales, narwhals, and ribbon seals. Encountering 
these animals during the seismic program would be unexpected. The 
density derivations for the five species presented in Table 3 are 
provided in the discussion below.


 Table 3--Marine Mammal Densities (#/km\2\) in the Beaufort Sea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                          Summer    Fall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale.........................................   0.0672   0.0910
Beluga whale..........................................   0.0327   0.0175
Ringed seal...........................................   0.3547   0.2510
Spotted seal..........................................   0.0177   0.0125
Bearded seal..........................................   0.0177   0.0125
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bowhead Whale: The summer density estimate for bowhead whales was 
derived from July and August aerial survey data collected in the 
Beaufort Sea during the Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) 
program in 2012 and 2013. During this period, 276 bowhead whales were 
record along 24,560 km of transect line, or 0.0112 whales per km of 
transect line. Applying an effective strip half-width (ESW) of 1.15 
(Ferguson and Clarke 2013), results in an uncorrected density of 
0.0049. Thomas et al.'s (2002) correction factors (g(0)) for 
availability (0.144) and observer (0.505) bias were applied producing 
an estimated density of 0.0672 whales per km\2\. This is a much higher 
density than previous estimates (e.g., Brandon et al. 2011) due to 
relatively high numbers of whales recorded in the Beaufort Sea in 
August 2013. In 2013, 205 whales were recorded along 9,758 km of 
transect line (corrected density = 0.1251), with 78% of the sightings 
(160 whales) recorded in the easternmost blocks, Blocks 4, 5, 6, and 7. 
In contrast, 26 of the 71 whales (37%) recorded on-transect during 
summer 2012 were at or near Barrow Canyon (Block 12), or the western 
extreme of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, while another 26 (37%) were 
recorded at the eastern extreme (Blocks 4, 5, 6, and 7). For both years 
combined, only 8 of the 276 (2.9%) recorded during the summer were 
found in Block 3 where the seismic survey is planned.
    Fall density estimate was determined from September and October 
ASAMM data collected from 2006 to 2013. The Western Arctic stock of 
bowhead whale has grown considerably since the late 1970s; thus, data 
collected prior to 2006 probably does not well represent current whale 
densities. From 2006 to 2013, 1,286 bowhead whales were recorded along 
84,400 km of transect line, or 0.1524 per km. Using an ESW of 1.15 
results in an uncorrected density of 0.0066. Applying the availability 
and observer bias correction factors from Thomas et al. (2002) derives 
a corrected fall density estimate of 0.0910.
    Beluga Whale: There is little information on summer use by beluga 
whales in the Beaufort Sea. Moore et al. (2000) reported that only 9 
beluga whales were recorded in waters less than 50 m deep during 11,985 
km of transect survey effort, or about 0.00057 whales per km. Assuming 
an ESW of 0.614 and a 2.62 (Lloyd and Frost 1995) correction factor for 
whales missed (availability and observer bias of adults) and a 1.18 
(Brodie 1971) correction factor for dark juveniles, both correction 
factors used by NMFS for the annual Alaska Stock Assessment Reports, 
the derived corrected density would be 0.0014 whales per mi\2\. The 
same data showed much higher beluga numbers in deeper waters.
    During the summer aerial surveys conducted during the 2012 ASAMM 
program (Clarke et al. 2013), 5 beluga whales were observed along 1,431 
km of transect in waters less than 20 m deep and between longitudes 
140[deg]W and 154[deg]W (the area within which the seismic survey would 
fall). This equates to 0.0035 whales per km of trackline and an 
uncorrected density of 0.0028, assuming an ESW of 0.614. Applying 
correction factors for animals missed (2.62 for adults and 1.18 for 
juveniles) results in a corrected summer density estimate of 0.0088. 
Summer beluga data was also collected in 2013. This data,

[[Page 51975]]

currently available in posted daily reports, does not parse the data by 
depth or longitude and, therefore, is not yet directly comparable to 
the 2012 data. Fourteen whales were observed along 340 km of survey in 
block 3 in 2013, which is the survey block in which the seismic survey 
area falls. Adding the Block 3 data to the 2012 data results in 23 
whales observed over 1,771 km of transect effort, or 0.0130 whales per 
km and 0.0107 per km\2\. Applying the correction factors described 
above, the summer density estimate would increase to 0.0327. This 
density value is probably inflated due to the limited survey effort in 
2013, but it represents a conservative estimate and is the value used 
in the take estimate.
    Calculated fall beluga densities are approximately twice as high as 
summer densities. Between 2006 and 2012, 2,210 beluga were recorded 
along 79,586 km of transect line flown during September and October, or 
0.0278 beluga per km of transect. Assuming an ESW of 0.614 gives an 
uncorrected density of 0.0226, and a corrected density of 0.0699. 
However, unlike in summer, almost none of the fall migrating belugas 
were recorded in waters less than 20 meters deep. For years where depth 
data is available (2006, 2009-2012), only 11 of 1,605 (1%) recorded 
belugas were found in waters less than 20 m during the fall. To take 
into account this bias in distribution, but to remain conservative, the 
corrected density estimate is reduced to 25%, or 0.0175.
    Ringed Seal: Surveys for ringed seals have been recently conducted 
in the Beaufort Sea by Kingsley (1986), Frost et al. (2002), Moulton 
and Lawson (2002), Green and Negri (2005), and Green et al. (2006, 
2007). The shipboard monitoring surveys by Green and Negri (2005) and 
Green et al. (2006, 2007) were not systematically based, but are useful 
in estimating the general composition of pinnipeds in the Beaufort 
nearshore, including the Colville River Delta. Frost et al.'s aerial 
surveys were conducted during ice coverage and don't fully represent 
the summer and fall conditions under which the Beaufort surveys will 
occur. Moulton and Lawson (2002) conducted summer shipboard-based 
surveys for pinnipeds along the nearshore Beaufort Sea coast and 
developed seasonal average and maximum densities representative of 
SAE's Beaufort summer seismic project, while Kingsley (1986) conducted 
surveys along the ice margin representing fall conditions. Therefore, 
the Moulton and Lawson (2002) and Kingsley (1986) ringed seal densities 
were used as the estimated densities of ringed seals in the survey 
area.
    Spotted Seal: Green and Negri (2005) and Green et al. (2006, 2007) 
recorded pinnipeds during barging activity between West Dock and Cape 
Simpson, and found high numbers of ringed seal in Harrison Bay, and 
peaks in spotted seal numbers off the Colville River Delta where a 
haulout site is located. Approximately 5% of all phocid sightings 
recorded by Green and Negri (2005) and Green et al. (2006, 2007) were 
spotted seals, which provide a suitable estimate of the proportion of 
ringed seals versus spotted seals in the Colville River Delta and 
Harrison Bay. Thus, the estimated densities of spotted seals in the 
seismic survey area were derived by multiplying the ringed seal 
densities from Moulton and Lawson (2002) and Kingsley (1986) by 0.05.
    Bearded Seal: Bearded seals were also recorded in Harrison Bay and 
the Colville River Delta by Green and Negri (2005) and Green et al. 
(2006, 2007), but at lower proportions than spotted seals, when both 
were compared to ringed seals. However, estimating bearded seal 
densities based on the proportion of bearded seals observed during the 
barge-based surveys results in density estimates that appear 
unrealistically low given density estimates from other studies, and 
especially given that nearby Thetis Island is used as a base for 
annually hunting this seal (densities are seasonally high enough for 
focused hunting). To be conservative, the bearded seal density values 
used in this application are derived from Stirling et al.'s (1982) 
observations that the proportion of eastern Beaufort Sea bearded seals 
is 5% that of ringed seals, which is similar to the calculations done 
for spotted seals.

Exposure Calculations

    The estimated potential harassment take of local marine mammals by 
SAE's Beaufort seismic survey project was determined by multiplying the 
animal densities in Table 3 by the area ensonified by seismic airgun 
noise greater than 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) that constitutes habitat 
for each respective species. For pinnipeds, which occupy all water 
depths, this includes the entire seismic survey area, plus the 
additional 3-km (1.86-mi) buffer of noise exceeding 160 dB, or 2,295 
km\2\ (886 mi\2\). The results are further corrected by multiplying the 
summer numbers by 26%, to account for the percentage of the survey that 
was proposed be conducted in the summer season (August 15-31, 16 days), 
and multiplying the fall numbers by 74%, to account for the percentage 
of the survey that was proposed to be conducted in the fall season 
(September 1-October 15, 45 days).
    Although the vast majority of bowhead whales migrate through the 
Beaufort Sea in waters greater than 15 m (50 ft) deep (Miller et al. 
2002), feeding and migrating bowheads have been found in waters as 
shallow as 5 m (16 ft) (Clarke et al. 2011). Thus, the seismic survey 
area potentially inhabitable by bowhead whales is all waters greater 
than 5 m deep. This area, including the 3-km buffer, is 1,538 km\2\ 
(594 mi\2\).
    Beluga whales have been observed inside the barrier islands, where 
they would have to traverse water depths as low as 1.8 m, but these 
whales are unlikely to inhabit the shallowest water (<1.5 m deep) 
inside the barrier islands, where stranding risk can be high. For the 
seismic survey, the area of beluga habitat potentially ensonified (>160 
dB) by the seismic operations is the waters greater than 1.5 m (5 ft) 
deep, plus the 3-km buffer, or approximately 1,864 km\2\ (720 mi\2\). 
The resulting exposure calculations are found in Table 4.

          Table 4--The Average Number of Animals Potentially Exposed to Received Sound Levels > 160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percent
             Species                  Summer           Fall            Total        Population       affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale...................              27             104             131          12,631            1.04
Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea                    16              24              40          39,258            0.10
 stock).........................
Beluga whale (E. Chukchi Sea                  16              24              40           3,710            1.08
 stock).........................
Ringed seal.....................             212             426             638         249,000            0.26
Spotted seal....................              11              21              32         101,568            0.03
Bearded seal....................              11              21              32         155,000            0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 51976]]

    The estimated number of marine mammal exposures was based on the 
average density in the area of summer or fall habitat that could be 
ensonified by SAE's proposed activities. Given that the estimated 
densities are overestimates of the expected densities in Block 3 (based 
on ASAMM survey data), especially for bowhead and beluga whales, no 
adjustments were made to account for variability. Most of the summer 
sightings are well east or west of Block 3, and the great majority of 
the fall sightings are in deeper water than Block 3.
    The take estimates do not account for mitigation measures that will 
be implemented. These mitigation measures include shutting down 
operations during the fall bowhead hunt (thereby avoiding any noise 
exposure during the peak of fall bowhead whale and beluga migration) 
and plans for conducting the seismic survey in August in waters greater 
than 15 m (50 ft) deep (thereby avoiding seismic survey within the 
bowhead whale migration corridor after the fall hunt). These measures, 
coupled with the ramp up procedures for airguns, should reduce the 
estimated take from seismic survey operations.
    The estimated take as a percentage of the marine mammal stock is 
1.08% or less in all cases (Table 4). The highest percent of population 
estimated to be taken is 1.08% for the East Chukchi Sea stock of beluga 
whale. However, that percentage assumes that all 40 beluga whales taken 
are from that population. Similarly, the 0.10% potential take 
percentage for the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whale assumes that all 
40 beluga whales are taken from the Beaufort Sea stock. Most likely, 
some beluga whales would be taken from each stock, meaning fewer than 
40 beluga whales would be taken from either individual stock. 
Therefore, the take of beluga whales as a percentage of populations 
would likely be below 0.10 and 1.08% for the Beaufort Sea and East 
Chukchi Sea stocks, respectively. In addition, the estimated take for 
the East Chukchi Sea stock does not take into account mitigation 
measures, such as curtailing survey activities during the fall bowhead 
whale hunt, shutdowns within the harassment zone for cow/calf pairs, 
and possibly completing the survey of the more offshore waters in the 
summer. These actions would reduce the potential encounters with 
bowhead and beluga whales in the fall.

Analysis and Determinations

Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, 
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact 
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of 
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment, 
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any 
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as 
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, 
the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status 
of the species.
    No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of 
SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey, and none are proposed to be authorized. 
Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing 
impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological effects. 
The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be 
limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment. While pinnipeds 
are likely to be found in the project area more frequently, their 
distribution is dispersed enough that they likely will not be in the 
Level B harassment zone continuously. As mentioned previously in this 
document, pinnipeds appear to be more tolerant of anthropogenic sound 
than mysticetes.
    Most of the bowhead whales encountered will likely show overt 
disturbance (avoidance) only if they receive airgun sounds with levels 
>=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. Odontocete reactions to seismic airgun pulses are 
generally assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun 
than are those of mysticetes, 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). Belugas will likely occur in small 
numbers in the Beaufort Sea during the survey period and few will 
likely be affected by the survey activity.
    As noted, elevated background noise level from the seismic airgun 
reverberant field could cause acoustic masking to marine mammals and 
reduce their communication space. However, even though the decay of the 
signal is extended, the fact that pulses are separated by approximately 
8 to 10 seconds for each individual source vessel (or 4 to 5 seconds 
when taking into account the two separate source vessels stationed 300 
to 335 m (990 to 1,100 ft) apart) means that overall received levels at 
distance are expected to be much lower, thus resulting in less acoustic 
masking.
    Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, 
effects on marine mammals are generally expected to be restricted to 
avoidance of a limited area around SAE's open-water activities and 
short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of 
``Level B harassment.'' The many reported cases of apparent tolerance 
by cetaceans to seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and some other 
human activities show that co-existence is possible. Mitigation 
measures, such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated marine mammal 
observers, non-pursuit, ramp up procedures, 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.
    Of the five marine mammal species likely to occur in the marine 
survey area, bowhead whales and ringed and bearded seals are listed as 
endangered or threatened 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 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 whales. The Alaska stock of bearded seals, part 
of the Beringia distinct population segment (DPS), and the Arctic stock 
of ringed seals have recently been listed by NMFS as threatened under 
the ESA. The only other species that may occur in the project area that 
is listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA is the humpback 
whale, which is also listed as

[[Page 51977]]

depleted under the MMPA, but the occurrence of humpback whales in the 
marine survey area is considered very rare. None of the other species 
that may occur in the project area are listed as threatened or 
endangered under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA.
    Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed 
previously in this document (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat'' 
section). Although some disturbance of food sources of marine mammals 
is possible, any impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to not 
affect rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in the area. 
The marine survey activities would occur in a localized area, and given 
the vast area of the Arctic Ocean where feeding by marine mammals 
occurs, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area 
could be offset by feeding opportunities in other available feeding 
areas.
    In addition, no important feeding or reproductive areas are known 
in the vicinity of SAE's seismic surveys at the time the surveys are to 
take place. No critical habitat of ESA-listed marine mammal species 
occurs in the Beaufort Sea.
    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 monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from SAE's 3D 
OBN seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, will have a negligible 
impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    The requested takes authorized represent less than 1.08% of all 
populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 4 in this 
document). These take 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. The numbers of marine mammals 
estimated to be taken are small proportions of the total populations of 
the affected species or stocks. In addition, the mitigation and 
monitoring measures (described previously in this document) included in 
the IHA are expected to reduce even further any potential disturbance 
to marine mammals.
    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 finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken 
relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

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

Relevant Subsistence Uses

    The seismic activities will occur within the marine subsistence 
area used by the village of Nuiqsut. Nuiqsut was established in 1973 at 
a traditional location on the Colville River providing equal access to 
upland (e.g., caribou, Dall sheep) and marine (e.g., whales, seals, and 
eiders) resources (Brown 1979). Although Nuiqsut is located 40 km (25 
mi) inland, bowhead whales are still a major fall subsistence resource. 
Although bowhead whales have been harvested in the past all along the 
barrier islands, Cross Island is the site currently used as the fall 
whaling base, as it includes cabins and equipment for butchering 
whales. However, whalers must travel about 160 km (100 mi) to annually 
reach the Cross Island whaling camp, which is located in a direct line 
over 110 direct km (70 mi) from Nuiqsut. Whaling activity usually 
begins in late August with the arrival whales migrating from the 
Canadian Beaufort Sea, and may occur as late as early October, 
depending on ice conditions and quota fulfillment. Most whaling occurs 
relatively near (<16 km or <10 mi) the island, largely to prevent meat 
spoilage that can occur with a longer tow back to Cross Island. Since 
1993, Cross Island hunters have harvested one to four whales annually, 
averaging three.
    Cross Island is located 70 km (44 mi) east of the eastern boundary 
of the seismic survey box. (Point Barrow is over 180 km [110 mi] 
outside the potential survey box.) Seismic activities are unlikely to 
affect Barrow or Cross Island based whaling, especially if the seismic 
operations temporarily cease during the fall bowhead whale hunt.
    Although Nuiqsut whalers may incidentally harvest beluga whales 
while hunting bowheads, these whales are rarely seen and are not 
actively pursued. Any harvest that would occur would most likely be in 
association with Cross Island.
    The potential seismic survey area is also used by Nuiqsut villagers 
for hunting seals. All three seal species that are likely to be taken--
ringed, spotted, and bearded--are hunted. Sealing begins in April and 
May when villagers hunt seals at breathing holes in Harrison Bay. In 
early June, hunting is concentrated at the mouth of the Colville River, 
where ice breakup flooding results in the ice thinning and seals 
becoming more visible.
    Once the ice is clear of the Delta (late June), hunters will hunt 
in open boats along the ice edge from Harrison Bay to Thetis Island in 
a route called ``round the world.'' Thetis Island is important as it 
provides a weather refuge and a base for hunting bearded seals. During 
July and August, ringed and spotted seals are hunted in the lower 65 km 
(40 mi) of the Colville River proper.
    In terms of pounds, approximately one-third of the village of 
Nuiqsut's annual subsistence harvest is marine mammals (fish and 
caribou dominate the rest), of which bowhead whales contribute by far 
the most (Fuller and George 1999). Seals contribute only 2 to 3% of 
annual subsistence harvest (Brower and Opie 1997, Brower and Hepa 1998, 
Fuller and George 1999). Fuller and George (1999) estimated that 46 
seals were harvested in 1992. The more common ringed seals appear to 
dominate the harvest, although the larger and thicker-skinned bearded 
seals are probably preferred. Spotted seals occur in the Colville River 
Delta in small numbers, which is reflected in the harvest.
    Available harvest records suggest that most seal harvest occurs in 
the months preceding the proposed August start of the seismic survey, 
when waning ice conditions provide the best opportunity to approach and 
kill hauled out seals. Much of the late summer seal harvest occurs in 
the Colville River as the seals follow fish runs upstream. Still, open-
water seal hunting could occur coincident with the seismic surveys, 
especially bearded seal hunts based from Thetis Island. In general, 
however, given the relatively low contribution of seals to the Nuiqsut 
subsistence, and the greater opportunity to hunt seals earlier in the 
season, any potential impact by the seismic survey on seal hunting is 
likely remote.

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

[[Page 51978]]

the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be 
met.
    Noise and general activity during SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey 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) is avoidance of the ensonified area. In the case 
of bowhead whales, this often means that the animals divert from their 
normal migratory path by several kilometers. Additionally, general 
vessel presence in the vicinity of traditional hunting areas could 
negatively impact a hunt. 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, such as tail-slapping, in the presence of 
seismic activity, which translate to danger for nearby subsistence 
harvesters.
    Responses of seals to seismic airguns are expected to be 
negligible. Bain and Williams (2006) studied the responses of harbor 
seals, California sea lions, and Steller sea lions to seismic airguns 
and found that seals at exposure levels above 170 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (peak-
peak) often showed avoidance behavior, including generally staying at 
the surface and keeping their heads out of the water, but that the 
responses were not overt, and there were no detectable responses at low 
exposure levels.

Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence 
Hunts

    Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for 
activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of 
Cooperation (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.
    SAE prepared a POC, which was developed by identifying and 
evaluating any potential effects the seismic survey might have on 
seasonal abundance that is relied upon for subsistence use. For the 
project, SAE stated that it is working closely with the North Slope 
Borough (NSB) and its partner Kuukpik Corporation, to identify 
subsistence communities and activities that may take place within or 
near the project area.
    SAE adopted a three-stage process to develop its POC:
    Stage 1: SAE attended the AEWC's mini-convention in December 2013, 
in Anchorage, and presented a description of the seismic survey program 
to the AEWC. Collaboration meetings were also held in March and April 
2014 with Kuukpik Corporation leaders. Kuukpik Corporation is SAE's 
joint venture partner in the project and on the North Slope of Alaska.
    In addition, SAE met and consulted with nearby communities, namely 
the NSB planning department and the Fish and Wildlife division. SAE 
also presented its proposed project and discussed planned activities 
during community meetings in the villages of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik. The 
meetings included discussions of SAE's project description, potential 
ways to resolve potential conflicts, and the proposed operational 
timeframe. These meetings helped to identify any subsistence conflicts 
and allowed SAE to understand community concerns, and requests for 
communication or mitigation. The following community and stakeholder 
meetings were conducted:

 December 13, 2013--AEWC
 February 27, 2014--Barrow (NSB)
 February 10, 11, 12, 2014--AEWC
 January 15, 2014--Nuiqsut
 April 22, 2014--Nuqsut (seals)
 May 14, 2014--Kaktovik

    Stage 2: SAE documented results of all meetings and incorporated 
them into the POC, as applicable, to mitigate concerns. SAE will also 
review permit stipulations and develop a permit matrix for the crews. 
SAE will develop appropriate means of communication and a contact list 
to communicate with appropriate stakeholders, and these will be 
incorporated into operations. The use of scientific and Inupiat PSOs/
Communicators on board the vessels will ensure that appropriate 
precautions are taken to avoid harassment of marine mammals, including 
whales, seals, walruses or polar bears. SAE will coordinate the timing 
and location of operations with the Com-Centers in Deadhorse and 
Kaktovik to minimize impact to the subsistence activities or the 
Nuiqsut/Kaktovik bowhead whale hunt.
    Stage 3: If a conflict between project activities and subsistence 
hunting does occur, SAE states that it will immediately contact the 
project manager and the Com-Center. If avoidance is not possible, the 
project manager will initiate communication with a representative from 
the impacted subsistence hunter group(s) to resolve the issue and to 
plan an alternative course of action.
    In addition, SAE and its contractors will work with local villages 
and Kuukpik Cooperation to identify qualified individuals that are 
interested in working on its program and provide employment 
opportunities.
    Finally, SAE has signed a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with 
the Alaska whaling communities to further ensure that its open-water 
seismic survey activities in the Beaufort Sea will not have unmitigable 
impacts to subsistence activities. NMFS has included appropriate 
measures identified in the CAA in the IHA.

Mitigation Measures for Subsistence Activities

    The following mitigation measures will be imposed in order to 
effect the least practicable adverse impact on the availability of 
marine mammal species for subsistence uses:
    (i) Establishment and operations of Communication and Call Centers 
(Com-Center) Program
     For the purposes of reducing or eliminating conflicts 
between subsistence whaling activities and SAE's survey program, SAE 
will participate with other operators in the Com-Center Program. Com-
Centers will be operated to facilitate communication of information 
between SAE and subsistence whalers. The Com-Centers will be operated 
24 hours/day during the 2014 fall subsistence bowhead whale hunt.
     All vessels shall report to the appropriate Com-Center at 
least once every six hours, commencing each day with a call at 
approximately 06:00 hours.
     The appropriate Com-Center shall be notified if there is 
any significant change in plans, such as an unannounced start-up of 
operations or significant deviations from announced course, and that 
Com-Center shall notify all whalers of such changes. The appropriate 
Com-Center also shall be called regarding any unsafe or unanticipated 
ice conditions.
    (ii) SAE shall monitor the positions of all of its vessels and 
exercise due care in avoiding any areas where subsistence activity is 
active.
    (iii) Routing barge and transit vessels:
     Vessels transiting in the Beaufort Sea east of Bullen 
Point to the Canadian border shall remain at least 5 miles offshore 
during transit along the coast, provided ice and sea conditions allow. 
During transit in the Chukchi Sea, vessels shall remain as far offshore 
as weather and ice conditions allow, and at all times at least 5 miles 
offshore.
     From August 31 to October 31, vessels in the Chukchi Sea 
or Beaufort

[[Page 51979]]

Sea shall remain at least 20 miles offshore of the coast of Alaska from 
Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on the east side of Smith Bay 
in the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an emergency that 
threatens the safety of the vessel or crew prevents compliance with 
this requirement. This condition shall not apply to vessels actively 
engaged in transit to or from a coastal community to conduct crew 
changes or logistical support operations.
     Vessels shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no 
physical contact with whales occurs, and to make any other potential 
conflicts with bowheads or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall be 
less than 10 knots in the proximity of feeding whales or whale 
aggregations.
     If any vessel inadvertently approaches within 1.6 
kilometers (1 mile) of observed bowhead whales, except when providing 
emergency assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the 
vessel operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential 
interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the 
following actions, as appropriate:
    [cir] Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet of 
the whale(s);
    [cir] Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
    [cir] Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating 
members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
    [cir] Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make 
multiple changes in direction; and
    [cir] Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to 
ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
    (iv) Limitation on seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea.
     Kaktovik: No seismic survey from the Canadian Border to 
the Canning River from August 25 to close of the fall bowhead whale 
hunt in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. From August 10 to August 25, SAE will 
communicate and collaborate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 
(AEWC) on any planned vessel movement in and around Kaktovik and Cross 
Island to avoid impacts to whale hunting.
     Nuiqsut:
    [cir] Pt. Storkerson to Thetis Island: No seismic survey prior to 
July 25 inside the Barrier Islands. No seismic survey from August 25 to 
close of fall bowhead whale hunting outside the Barrier Island in 
Nuiqsut.
    [cir] Canning River to Pt. Storkerson: No seismic survey from 
August 25 to the close of bowhead whale subsistence hunting in Nuiqsut.
     Barrow: No seismic survey from Pitt Point on the east side 
of Smith Bay to a location about half way between Barrow and Peard Bay 
from September 15 to the close of the fall bowhead whale hunt in 
Barrow.
    (v) SAE shall complete operations in time to allow such vessels to 
complete transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 
degrees North latitude no later than November 15, 2014. Any vessel that 
encounters weather or ice that will prevent compliance with this date 
shall coordinate its transit through the Bering Strait to a point south 
of 59 degrees North latitude with the appropriate Com-Centers. SAE 
vessels shall, weather and ice permitting, transit east of St. Lawrence 
Island and no closer than 10 miles from the shore of St. Lawrence 
Island.
    In addition, SAE is conducting the planned seismic surveys in a 
joint partnership agreement with the Kuukpik Corporation. As a joint 
venture partner with Kuukpik, SAE states that it will be working 
closely with Kuukpik and the communities on the North Slope to plan 
operations that will include measures that are environmentally suitable 
and that do not impact local subsistence use.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    SAE has adopted a spatial and temporal strategy for its 3D OBN 
seismic survey that should minimize impacts to subsistence hunters and 
ensure the sufficient availability of species for hunters to meet 
subsistence needs. SAE will temporarily cease seismic activities during 
the fall bowhead whale hunt, which will allow the hunt to occur without 
any adverse impact from SAE's activities. Although some seal hunting 
co-occurs temporally with SAE's seismic survey, the locations do not 
overlap, so SAE's activities will not impact the hunting areas and will 
not directly displace sealers or place physical barriers between the 
sealers and the seals. In addition, SAE is conducting the seismic 
surveys in a joint partnership agreement with Kuukpik Corporation, 
which allows SAE to work closely with the native communities on the 
North Slope to plan operations that include measures that are 
environmentally suitable and that do not impact local subsistence use, 
and to adjust the operations, if necessary, to minimize any potential 
impacts that might arise. Based on the description of the specified 
activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the 
availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the 
mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will 
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from SAE's 
activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Bowhead whales, ringed seals, and bearded seals are the only marine 
mammal species currently listed as endangered or threatened under the 
ESA that could be impacted by SAE's 3D OBN seismic surveys during the 
2014 Arctic open-water season. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division 
consulted with NMFS' Alaska Regional Office Division of Protected 
Resources under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to SAE 
under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. A Biological 
Opinion was issued on August 8, 2014, which concluded that issuance of 
the IHA is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the ESA-
listed marine mammal species. An Incidental Take Statement was issued 
under this Biological Opinion that contains reasonable and prudent 
measures, with implementing terms and conditions, to minimize the 
effects of takes of listed species.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In 2013, NMFS prepared an EA that included an analysis of potential 
environmental effects associated with NMFS' issuance of an IHA to SAE 
to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a proposed 3D OBN 
seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea during the 2013 open-water season. 
However, due to logistical issues, SAE was not able to conduct the 
survey in 2013 and postponed the survey to the open-water season of 
2014. After analyzing and comparing SAE's 2014 3D seismic survey and 
the survey proposed for 2013, as well as the affected environment in 
the 2014 and proposed 2013 action areas, NMFS concluded that SAE's 2014 
action is essentially the same as the one SAE proposed in 2013, and 
that there are no material changes in the affected environment between 
2013 and 2014. Therefore, NMFS determined that the information and 
analyses in its 2013 EA is still up-to-date and applicable for 
addressing the NEPA analysis related to the issuance of an IHA to SAE 
for the take of marine mammals during SAE's 2014 Arctic open-water 
survey. Based on the EA, NMFS prepared a FONSI for this action. 
Therefore, preparation of an EIS is not necessary.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to SAE 
to take

[[Page 51980]]

marine mammals incidental to SAE's 2014 3D OBN seismic survey in the 
Beaufort Sea, Alaska, and the IHA incorporates the mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this Federal 
Register notice.

    Dated: August 25, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-20726 Filed 8-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P